# Naked Body Scanners At The Airport



## wisco_pygo (Dec 9, 2009)

What do you think of these machines at the airport that expose you to radiation while giving TSA a naked image of your body? I find them to be a gross violation of the 4th amendment- "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and﻿ seizures, shall not be violated..." You have the choice to opt out of the scan, but you'll get a full body, open-handed groping by a friendly government minion, where they actually grope womens breasts and the genital region of children.

"Those who give up essential liberty for temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" -Benjamin Franklin






[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbIRo0h5AQ[/media]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTp30iLy9ek


----------



## JeanLucPicard (Nov 15, 2010)

Do you have any non-Fox clips to watch?

I am undecided on this.


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

maybe its a violation of rights. when the 4th ammendment was written, i dont think that anyone was worried that some asstard could put a bomb in his shoe, or that things like airplanes would exist. I say, scan whatever as long as its safe to fly, i dont care. Do i wish that it didnt have to come to this... of course. Do i support any security measure aimed at making me safer? Of course.

i voted that it is a violation of rights. But im not opposed to it... and i didnt watch any of the videos (left my headphones at home today)


----------



## WhiteLineRacer (Jul 13, 2004)

Stupid bloody things. Talk about big brother!


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

Supposedly they're faster then the metal detectors they're replacing and more able to spot threats, so if it's faster and better I'm all for it. I really couldn't care less if some fat half asleep security guard (guy or girl) gets a fuzzy glimpse of my shlong.


----------



## wisco_pygo (Dec 9, 2009)

if more and more ppl keep opting out of the scan, they will have to go through the full grope down, which will slow airports down even more.

im not going to trade my liberty for an amount of security. i shouldn't have to have a naked scan of my body taken to get on a plane, and i shouldn't have to be groped if i don't want to be exposed to a naked body scan.


----------



## CLUSTER ONE (Aug 2, 2006)

wisco_pygo said:


> if more and more ppl keep opting out of the scan, they will have to go through the full grope down, which will slow airports down even more.
> 
> im not going to trade my liberty for an amount of security. i shouldn't have to have a naked scan of my body taken to get on a plane, and i shouldn't have to be groped if i don't want to be exposed to a naked body scan.


And my plane shouldnt get blown up with a bomb  that was allowed to walk right onto the plane undetected.

People always say it's their "right" but what is ones "rights"? To me what people consider rights is what past leaders said you can have based on their time. "Rights" an opinion of what is ethical though its hard to keep the same "rights" when society changes. One only seems to claim rights for their benifit. A right to a quick and fair trial doesn't seem to apply to some POW so as im trying to say when a "right" doesn't benifit one or a group it is avoided.

Am I allowed to exercise my freedom of speech to harrass somebody? No becasue my feedom of speech is limited to benifit the greater good as should the right to pirvacy be limited in order to ensure the safty of the masses.


----------



## JeanLucPicard (Nov 15, 2010)

wisco_pygo said:


> if more and more ppl keep opting out of the scan, they will have to go through the full grope down, which will slow airports down even more.
> 
> im not going to trade my liberty for an amount of security. i shouldn't have to have a naked scan of my body taken to get on a plane, and i shouldn't have to be groped if i don't want to be exposed to a naked body scan.


Just another reason for a roadtrip


----------



## CuzIsaidSo (Oct 13, 2009)

Violation of rights...probably but I wouldn't care if they scanned me I don't have nuthin to hide


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

We're having this discussion in my Borders and Security class. I dont have a problem with these at all. I've been through them a couple times at Boston Logan Airport. Then again, I'm not a fat ass, my penis is a decent size, and I dont have tits, so I dont care what outlines of my body show up on the screen.

Anyway, I'll take a violation of rights over some idiot loading his underwear with explosives......


----------



## wisco_pygo (Dec 9, 2009)

CLUSTER ONE said:


> if more and more ppl keep opting out of the scan, they will have to go through the full grope down, which will slow airports down even more.
> 
> im not going to trade my liberty for an amount of security. i shouldn't have to have a naked scan of my body taken to get on a plane, and i shouldn't have to be groped if i don't want to be exposed to a naked body scan.


And my plane shouldnt get blown up with a bomb that was allowed to walk right onto the plane undetected.

People always say it's their "right" but what is ones "rights"? To me what people consider rights is what past leaders said you can have based on their time. "Rights" an opinion of what is ethical though its hard to keep the same "rights" when society changes. One only seems to claim rights for their benifit. A right to a quick and fair trial doesn't seem to apply to some POW so as im trying to say when a "right" doesn't benifit one or a group it is avoided.

Am I allowed to exercise my freedom of speech to harrass somebody? No becasue my feedom of speech is limited to benifit the greater good as should the right to pirvacy be limited in order to ensure the safty of the masses.
[/quote]

airports already have technology that screens all checked luggage for bombs, and they x-ray view carry-on luggage.

life is full of risks- flying on a plane is one of them. however, flying on planes is statistically the safest means of travel, i'll take my chances with the 'terrorist threat' over having to subject myself to unreasonable searches and subvert my liberty. in a free society, one should not have to be subject to a radiation scan, or open handed full body search, that airline pilots refer to as molestation.

governments and police state measures can't keep us safe. we spend $500 billion/year on homeland security and they couldnt catch the underwear bomber, a concerned passenger did. these scans are an illusion of security. they are put there to condition Americans into willfully giving up their rights in the name of 'security.' like Ben Franklin said- when you sacrifice liberty for security, you lose both.

since the patriot act in 2001, we've seen 1st amendment rights go down the drain. your emails, phone conversations, text message are all subject to search with no warrant. if you attempt to peacefully assemble at a G-20 conference, you'll be gassed and thrown in jail. if you form a peaceful group that questions the constitutionality of current government policy, your group will most likely be infiltrated by a government agency. police can now place GPS on your car without a warrant and follow you. now we have to be naked body scanned with radiation or groped just to travel on an airplane? 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 10th amendments are basically just for show now. how many more amendments on the bill of rights have to be crossed out before we realize we're living in a police state?

"If tyranny and opression ever come to this land, it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy" -James Madison


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

that's fine, they can look at my 12" dong all day...i wont be going through them because my family has a history of cancer. i'll be gassing up the wifes corolla for a road trip before i step through one of those fuckers.


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

Our rights are being violated every single day.

I personally can't wait to retire in a 3rd world country and get on with a much simpler way of life.
Unfortunately, gotta "_Jump through society's hoops_" and play the moneygame for a few more years first.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

hey, since there is a remote possibility that a bomb was snuck aboard the plane or that one would be without the scanners, i wonder if they're going to take extra ultra intrusive precautionary measures to make sure that none of the TSA agents or people with access to the images are sexual predators. i wonder what the nimrod who's all for these searches is going to say when some fatass sloppy child molester gropes his 6 year old girls crotch. "you never know..."


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

^^ Crazy-ass world, isn't it?


----------



## BRUNER247 (Jun 2, 2010)

If you don't like it or have something to hide don't fly. No body is twisting your arm to fly. P-man you aren't fooling anyone but yourself if you think it'll be any better south of the border. You're in for a rude awakening come retirement time.


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

r1dermon said:


> hey, since there is a remote possibility that a bomb was snuck aboard the plane or that one would be without the scanners, i wonder if they're going to take extra ultra intrusive precautionary measures to make sure that none of the TSA agents or people with access to the images are sexual predators. i wonder what the nimrod who's all for these searches is going to say when some fatass sloppy child molester gropes his 6 year old girls crotch. "you never know..."


I'm in the TSA hiring process right now and the process is the most investigative I've ever witnessed. I've been in it for 3 months now and am only 1/3 of the way through the process. Then again the position I am going for is LE and not a screener. But if the TSA has a universal hiring process, then I imagine the screeners background is checked very thoroughly also.

Edit: and driving is no better. Your picture is taken "without your approval" everytime you cross a toll. I would say that too is a violation of my personal rights.


----------



## Johnny_Zanni (Nov 8, 2009)

I agree with the one guy about pilots having to do it. The last thing a pilot is going to do is bring a bomb on board. If he wants a big boom. Autopilot/off > Crash plane into hillside > ????? > Profit?


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

BRUNER247 said:


> If you don't like it or have something to hide don't fly. No body is twisting your arm to fly. P-man you aren't fooling anyone but yourself if you think it'll be any better south of the border. You're in for a rude awakening come retirement time.


_"Nobody's twisting my arm to fly?"_









Try explaining that to my 500 distributors worldwide who expect my presence at conventions and such.

Thanks for the "_head's-up_" regarding my "_rude awakening_," but I think I'll be okay.


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

Piranha_man said:


> If you don't like it or have something to hide don't fly. No body is twisting your arm to fly. P-man you aren't fooling anyone but yourself if you think it'll be any better south of the border. You're in for a rude awakening come retirement time.


_"Nobody's twisting my arm to fly?"_









Try explaining that to my 500 distributors worldwide who expect my presence at conventions and such.

Thanks for the "_head's-up_" regarding my "_rude awakening_," but I think I'll be okay.








[/quote]

haha.
p-man, no one is twisting your arm not to live off food stamps.


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

That's true...

Besides, I _have_ always been interested in falconry...


----------



## marilynmonroe (Jan 8, 2009)

I fly every year to Tucson and I guess as long as I get to pick the hot girl thats gonna frisk me I'm ok with it.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

take a picture of my mug...go for it. i could wear something over my face, but i decide not to. i have no expectation of privacy when it comes to my face...i do however wear clothes to cover up what would otherwise excite women for a 2 mile radius. and to prevent that from happening, i keep a tight grasp on my expectation of privacy for my oversized salami. should one of these images be leaked, or fall into the wrong hands, women everywhere will freak out and i will not be able to fly in peace.

looking for bombs? bomb sniffing dogs!

looking for drugs? drug sniffing dogs!

looking for bombs in packages? x-ray the packages!

looking for organic explosives? spectrometer! chromotography!

i am DOWN with a dog sniffing me before i get on a plane...i like dogs...i am NOT down with some strange person, who im paying via taxes, to grope my sh*t up and down...or the alternative, display myself pornographically for these people to see. i will be glad to drive...didn't want to go to hawaii anyway.


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

Here is a question from my Borders and Security class; *WHEN* "terrorists" resort to implanting or hiding explosive materials _inside_ their body through orifices or surgical procedures, then will the public accept full body scanners, being that there wouldnt be any other means of detection?


----------



## Plowboy (Apr 9, 2008)

r1dermon said:


> take a picture of my mug...go for it. i could wear something over my face, but i decide not to. i have no expectation of privacy when it comes to my face...i do however wear clothes to cover up what would otherwise excite women for a 2 mile radius. and to prevent that from happening, i keep a tight grasp on my expectation of privacy for my oversized salami. should one of these images be leaked, or fall into the wrong hands, women everywhere will freak out and i will not be able to fly in peace.
> 
> looking for bombs? bomb sniffing dogs!
> 
> ...


hear hear! BTW im a grower, not a shower. Thus, said opinions may be biased.



> They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety


 Says B. F.


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

haha. giving up rights is for pussies. if i want to practice my "lobbing grenades" technique in the presence of my own neighborhood, who should stop me?


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

All this talk about rights&#8230;.what about my right to not be deprived of my life should some ahole decide to shove a pound of C4 up his ass and blow the plane up? Flying isn't a right&#8230;it is a privilege&#8230;.and if you are unwilling to go through the process required to get on a plan&#8230;then don't&#8230;that is your right.


----------



## matc (Jul 31, 2004)

wisco_pygo said:


> if more and more ppl keep opting out of the scan, they will have to go through the full grope down, which will slow airports down even more.
> 
> im not going to trade my liberty for an amount of security. i shouldn't have to have a naked scan of my body taken to get on a plane, and i shouldn't have to be groped if i don't want to be exposed to a naked body scan.


And my plane shouldnt get blown up with a bomb that was allowed to walk right onto the plane undetected.

People always say it's their "right" but what is ones "rights"? To me what people consider rights is what past leaders said you can have based on their time. "Rights" an opinion of what is ethical though its hard to keep the same "rights" when society changes. One only seems to claim rights for their benifit. A right to a quick and fair trial doesn't seem to apply to some POW so as im trying to say when a "right" doesn't benifit one or a group it is avoided.

Am I allowed to exercise my freedom of speech to harrass somebody? No becasue my feedom of speech is limited to benifit the greater good as should the right to pirvacy be limited in order to ensure the safty of the masses.
[/quote]

airports already have technology that screens all checked luggage for bombs, and they x-ray view carry-on luggage.

*life is full of risks- flying on a plane is one of them. however, flying on planes is statistically the safest means of travel, i'll take my chances with the 'terrorist threat' over having to subject myself to unreasonable searches and subvert my liberty*. in a free society, one should not have to be subject to a radiation scan, or open handed full body search, that airline pilots refer to as molestation.

governments and police state measures can't keep us safe. we spend $500 billion/year on homeland security and they couldnt catch the underwear bomber, a concerned passenger did. these scans are an illusion of security. they are put there to condition Americans into willfully giving up their rights in the name of 'security.' like Ben Franklin said- when you sacrifice liberty for security, you lose both.

since the patriot act in 2001, we've seen 1st amendment rights go down the drain. your emails, phone conversations, text message are all subject to search with no warrant. if you attempt to peacefully assemble at a G-20 conference, you'll be gassed and thrown in jail. if you form a peaceful group that questions the constitutionality of current government policy, your group will most likely be infiltrated by a government agency. police can now place GPS on your car without a warrant and follow you. now we have to be naked body scanned with radiation or groped just to travel on an airplane? 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 10th amendments are basically just for show now. how many more amendments on the bill of rights have to be crossed out before we realize we're living in a police state?

"If tyranny and opression ever come to this land, it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy" -James Madison
[/quote]

I guess you take a plane ride no more than once a year ? So you could say that you're not very exposed to the risk. But what about the crew ? The pilots and waitress spend thousand of hours in those plane each year. They are more at risk that your ass. I'm a pilot and I'm all for this security check. It's not my fault if dumbasses are always findind new ways to sneak a weapon or bomb aboard.


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

I understand that people/things need to be searched... but where ya gonna draw the line?
I don't see how this body scan would do any good if somebody shoved explosives up their ass...
As far as I can tell it only shows the naked body, not what's _inside_ it.

How many terrorist attacks have been done via public air transportation anyway?
So some dumbass held up an entire passenger plane with a box cutter a decade ago.

With an average of 87,000 commercial flights in the United States per day, that's 31,755,000 flights per year, and in the course of 10 years that's 317,550,000 flights in this country per decade.

If my chances of getting blown up are one in three hundred seventeen million, five hundred fifty thousand... I figure I'm pretty safe and don't need the added bullshit of naked scanning.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

My work has violated my rights and wont let me see the video....but the story I just read on these is somewhat interesting:
From CBS News:



> The new backscatter, which will be tried out in Phoenix, is not nearly that graphic. Its software adds privacy filters, and security officials stress the images will not be saved.
> 
> Passengers *CBS News* spoke with on Thursday in Phoenix weren't worried.
> 
> ...


I guess it doesnt show what is inside...but it also has privacy filters....so really...who cares.


----------



## b_ack51 (Feb 11, 2003)

BRUNER247 said:


> If you don't like it or have something to hide don't fly. *No body is twisting your arm to fly*. P-man you aren't fooling anyone but yourself if you think it'll be any better south of the border. You're in for a rude awakening come retirement time.


When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me.

Some people are forced to fly due to work. If you don't fly out to wherever asked, you'll lose your job.

I did have to walk through one of these, I honestly felt it was unnecessary and definately an infringement on the rights of every US citizen.

In response to post above from GG. If its just a body outline, how helpful is that? Naked body, how helpful is that when stuff is inside people like previously mentioned?

If the computer system creates the image, someone will find a way to get images off of it. Chances are the images will be saved for Court cases when needed or when Erin Andrews walks through it.


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

I am forced to be fly at my job. Not in the sense that I need to take a plane and fly, but in the sense that I have to stay fly by wearing brand name clothing and sneakers.


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

GG... I totally see your point, and you're right... "who cares really..."
And besides, even if they could see my 'thingy' I wouldn't give that much of a rat's ass...









I've just watched the airports go from casual, pleasant, quick check-in, doors to the cabin open during flight... to making it seem like you're being checked into a maximum security prison.
I'm just wondering how far they'll end up taking the security issue.
2 years from now... we're gonna be drugged and handcuffed to our seats.









Like I keep saying, hopefully I'll be basking on a beach somewhere by then, retired and the biggest worry is _"Beef or chicken for dinner tonight?"_


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

We had the same discussion at work when they implemented the container scanners on the docks 6-7 years ago. CBP and the gov't said it was completely harmless and wanted us to drive through them. We refused based on other research we found that the machines emit huge amounts of x-rays and are actually harmful. It was a huge fight which we eventually won.

Shortly after that CBP said the safe distance from the machine was 5ft, a year later it went to 10ft, then 25ft, and now it's something around 90ft. I'll bet my paycheck if we agreed to drive through the scanners the gov't would say to this day they were safe.

My point with this story is I'm sure the same information will come out about the body scanners. The difference is it's already in place and will be extremely hard to have them removed.


----------



## b_ack51 (Feb 11, 2003)

Off topic Scrappy, but the information that will come out later will happen when illnesses/diseases are reported and then associated to the equipment.

Just like in 10 years, 3d-TVs will be fucked due to if children use the glasses, it actually harms the way the eyes perceive perception and will be screwed later in life with their eyesight.


----------



## wisco_pygo (Dec 9, 2009)

matc said:


> if more and more ppl keep opting out of the scan, they will have to go through the full grope down, which will slow airports down even more.
> 
> im not going to trade my liberty for an amount of security. i shouldn't have to have a naked scan of my body taken to get on a plane, and i shouldn't have to be groped if i don't want to be exposed to a naked body scan.


And my plane shouldnt get blown up with a bomb that was allowed to walk right onto the plane undetected.

People always say it's their "right" but what is ones "rights"? To me what people consider rights is what past leaders said you can have based on their time. "Rights" an opinion of what is ethical though its hard to keep the same "rights" when society changes. One only seems to claim rights for their benifit. A right to a quick and fair trial doesn't seem to apply to some POW so as im trying to say when a "right" doesn't benifit one or a group it is avoided.

Am I allowed to exercise my freedom of speech to harrass somebody? No becasue my feedom of speech is limited to benifit the greater good as should the right to pirvacy be limited in order to ensure the safty of the masses.
[/quote]

airports already have technology that screens all checked luggage for bombs, and they x-ray view carry-on luggage.

*life is full of risks- flying on a plane is one of them. however, flying on planes is statistically the safest means of travel, i'll take my chances with the 'terrorist threat' over having to subject myself to unreasonable searches and subvert my liberty*. in a free society, one should not have to be subject to a radiation scan, or open handed full body search, that airline pilots refer to as molestation.

governments and police state measures can't keep us safe. we spend $500 billion/year on homeland security and they couldnt catch the underwear bomber, a concerned passenger did. these scans are an illusion of security. they are put there to condition Americans into willfully giving up their rights in the name of 'security.' like Ben Franklin said- when you sacrifice liberty for security, you lose both.

since the patriot act in 2001, we've seen 1st amendment rights go down the drain. your emails, phone conversations, text message are all subject to search with no warrant. if you attempt to peacefully assemble at a G-20 conference, you'll be gassed and thrown in jail. if you form a peaceful group that questions the constitutionality of current government policy, your group will most likely be infiltrated by a government agency. police can now place GPS on your car without a warrant and follow you. now we have to be naked body scanned with radiation or groped just to travel on an airplane? 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 10th amendments are basically just for show now. how many more amendments on the bill of rights have to be crossed out before we realize we're living in a police state?

"If tyranny and opression ever come to this land, it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy" -James Madison
[/quote]

I guess you take a plane ride no more than once a year ? So you could say that you're not very exposed to the risk. But what about the crew ? The pilots and waitress spend thousand of hours in those plane each year. They are more at risk that your ass. I'm a pilot and I'm all for this security check. It's not my fault if dumbasses are always findind new ways to sneak a weapon or bomb aboard.
[/quote]

im not a frequent flyer but i do probably get on a plane 3-4 times a year.

these scanners couldn't detect explosive powders that have been spread out through clothing or inserted into the anal cavity. so really, are we any more safe? no. have we lost 4th amendment rights? yes.

if you watched the video, there are large groups of pilot advocate groups and pilot unions who oppose the scans because of the amount of radiation pilots will be subjected to everytime they pilot an aircraft. you should probably be more concerned about the radiation you'll be exposed to than the 'terrorist threat.' you have about as much chance of your plane being hijacked by a terrorist as i have of winning the lottery and being struck by lightening at the same time.






[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkI14PNQEpM[/media]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfhJJdmRXkQ


----------



## ZOSICK (May 25, 2005)

could care less if some TSA fool wants to see Mr. Snuffleupagus and the old Balloon Knot...Bring it on!


----------



## matc (Jul 31, 2004)

I just don't understand all the fuss about those scanners. It might be overkill but so what ? We've all seen naked men and women in our life so what's the deal with a virtual outline of someone's body ? I won't stop traveling because of this. The only thing I agree with is that we need to draw a line and I think it should be done once every airport have installed a scanner


----------



## wisco_pygo (Dec 9, 2009)

doesn't show private parts??









thats not the end of the story- the government also stores the images. super


----------



## ZOSICK (May 25, 2005)

wisco_pygo said:


> doesn't show private parts??
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Does that mean I should take a warm shower and wear boxers instead of wearing boxer briefs(I like the support)when going to the airport??? I want to look my best!


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

I think a few people have skipped over what GG said and I think it needs to be pointed out again:



> All this talk about rights&#8230;.what about my right to not be deprived of my life should some ahole decide to shove a pound of C4 up his ass and blow the plane up? Flying isn't a right&#8230;it is a privilege&#8230;.and if you are unwilling to go through the process required to get on a plan&#8230;then don't&#8230;that is your right.


----------



## wisco_pygo (Dec 9, 2009)

the point was most likely skipped because its invalid. the scans can't see into the anal cavity or insides of the body. scan or no scan, grope down or no grope down- if someone really wants to, they are going to get the explosives on the plane.









this issue is not about safety. its about conditioning human beings, Americans in particular, to willfully give up their rights. to treat the liberties the founders gave us as a piece of toilet paper- all in the name of "security"

_"the most incredible aspect of all- these totalitarian elements will not be forced upon the people, the people will demand them. for the social manipulation of society through the generation of fear and division, has totally detached humans from their sense of power and reality, a process that has been going on for centuries. religion, patriotism, race, class, wealth, and every other form of arbitrary seperatist identification, has served to create a controlled population, utterly maliable in the hands of the few."_ -Zeitgeist 2007

_"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland"- _Adolf Hitler (when speaking the creation of the Gestapo Secret Police, and fighting the terrorists of the day)


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

wisco_pygo said:


> these scanners couldn't detect explosive powders that have been spread out through clothing or inserted into the anal cavity. so really, are we any more safe? no. have we lost 4th amendment rights? yes.


i dunno, the more i think about it, GG makes a good point... flying isnt a right, its a privilege. Macys can tell me i cant carry a soda around the store... and its my choice to throw my soda away just as much as its the customers choice to not get on the plane, or thereby subject themselves to whatever security the airline decides to implement.

The day that the gubmint uses its black magic machine to see my hammer while im walking down the street, ill agree that rights have been violated.


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

wisco_pygo said:


> the point was most likely skipped because its invalid. the scans can't see into the anal cavity or insides of the body. scan or no scan, grope down or no grope down- if someone really wants to, they are going to get the explosives on the plane.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


that probably all started when roller coasters were invented and midgets and fat people couldnt get on.
or when people get frisked to go into sporting events
or when someone had the idea to make sobriety check points
or when Amtrak customers needed to bring their ID on the train


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

My uncle Ibn Al Sheikh completely agrees with wisco and thinks scanning people boarding airplanes is absolutely a violation of rights.







.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Some people understand my point....human rights are basic entitlements....flying on an airplane is not a right. Entitlement is the largest downfall in society right now. I would bet that most people in the world take 1 or 2 flights in their life...if even that. I could say that my rights were violated when they banned smoking on flights. The reality is my rights were not violated....societies rights were enforced.


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

I could care less, but there's going to have to be some serious management involved of TSA before the American people will be comfortable with this. I mean seriously do you trust most of the TSA officers you've seen with this kind of responsibility? GG made the best point though, if you don't like it then don't fly- it's not a right to fly and you can completely legally be discriminated against based on the fact you're too chicken sh*t to show off your junk. Just give people the option when they purchase the ticket to be scanned or groped. if you choose groped, add $10 to each ticket to compensate for the extra employees doing the gropage and you're now required to show up 2 hours early.


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

I see both sides.

However, it will suck for those who "_have to_" fly regularly to have their bodies x-rayed so often.


----------



## WhiteLineRacer (Jul 13, 2004)

TheWayThingsR said:


> I think a few people have skipped over what GG said and I think it needs to be pointed out again:
> 
> 
> 
> > All this talk about rights&#8230;.what about my right to not be deprived of my life should some ahole decide to shove a pound of C4 up his ass and blow the plane up? Flying isn't a right&#8230;it is a privilege&#8230;.and if you are unwilling to go through the process required to get on a plan&#8230;then don't&#8230;that is your right.


Don't fly then lol. Why should we all roll over and play sheeple just because of your irrational fears. Just because you are happy with it why should everyone else be?


----------



## His Majesty (Apr 5, 2005)

i think they should make it an option.

queue for x-ray scanner, or queue for traditional frisk.


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

You guys are a little confused. Flying isn't a right, but protection from unreasonable search and seizure is, and that's what part of this outrage is about. Whether you're flying or walking down the street is irrelevant.

But with that said, I'm on my way out the door for 3 weeks in Hawaii. Hopefully my junk is long enough that no one chuckles.


----------



## WhiteLineRacer (Jul 13, 2004)

Sweet!!! HAve a great holiday fella


----------



## Ibanez247 (Nov 9, 2006)

Im with GG. Just as driving is a privilage so is flying or any mass transportation. It can be revoked at anyime if you disobey the laws provided to protect the people. If you dont like it then dont fly. Id rather drive myself. I hate being on a plane full of people I dont care about and usually theres a couple on it haking like they have TB or something. I knew the airport part in total recall would happen at some point.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

so i should have my rights violated because you're uncomfortable with flying GG? you would readily give up an essential liberty just for peace of mind?

goddamn...communism is coming back...and it's disguised as "conservative republicanism". faux news has screwed this country over, and handed it to the people who have all the money and pull all the strings. i can't wait until im forced to be sodomised before leaving my house, with some type of tracking device, because we're all safer that way. lmao.


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

^He's saying its not your right to fly. It's public transportation which charges a fee for a service. If you wish to pay that fee for the service they provide, you are subject to their terms and whatever they deem necessary to ensure security. Why is that such a big deal? I'm not trying to be ignorant, nor naive, or even say I'm right above everybody else. I've read every post in this thread and I still dont get why people feel so violated... I forgot who said it, but I understand the argument about the family history of cancer, but in that case and when comparing, I would be more worried about the cell phone constantly in my pocket/against my head or the laptop sitting near my crotch rather than the few times I fly per year.

Plus one great thing about the scanners; you dont have to take anything off! I've been through them at boston logan and ohare and never had to take anything out of my pockets or takes my shoes or jacket off.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Who said I am uncomfortable flying? I fly at least a few times a year and never have a concern. I really don't care either way&#8230;.but if it speeds up the process of going through security then I am all for it. I wish they had the total recall scanner that you just walk though. My point is that flying is not a right. You don't agree with the process then take the bus. 

And the illegal search argument is ignorant&#8230;or made up by people that never get on a plane. They already search all your sh*t. They already make you practically strip down and put all your stuff through the x-ray. If they "randomly" pick your number they already do an extra search on you and your stuff. So please&#8230;by your definition they are already violating your rights&#8230;.so what&#8230;this is the final straw? 



I don't know about you guys&#8230;but if the scanner line is shorter then the metal detector line&#8230;that is where I am heading.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

r1dermon said:


> so i should have my rights violated because you're uncomfortable with flying GG? you would readily give up an essential liberty just for peace of mind?
> 
> goddamn...communism is coming back...and it's disguised as "conservative republicanism". faux news has screwed this country over, *and handed it to the people who have all the money and pull all the strings*. i can't wait until im forced to be sodomised before leaving my house, with some type of tracking device, because we're all safer that way. lmao.


Wake up&#8230;the people with money have always run things. You think the founding fathers of this country were just some poor sharecropper?


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

Grosse Gurke said:


> ^He's saying its not your right to fly.


The above is the point, I think, that people are missing.
The Airlines, regardless of how heavily they are regulated by the government, are private enterprises providing a service. Getting poked, prodded, or otherwised scrutinized before you get on their plane is part of the terms you agree to when you buy your ticket. YOU are AGREEING to let them search you, therefore there is no violation of your civil rights.
Most movie theaters in the US don't allow you to bring in outside beverages or food. Are they violating your civil rights too?


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

Piranha Dan said:


> ^He's saying its not your right to fly.


The above is the point, I think, that people are missing.
The Airlines, regardless of how heavily they are regulated by the government, are private enterprises providing a service. Getting poked, prodded, or otherwised scrutinized before you get on their plane is part of the terms you agree to when you buy your ticket. YOU are AGREEING to let them search you, therefore there is no violation of your civil rights.
Most movie theaters in the US don't allow you to bring in outside beverages or food. Are they violating your civil rights too?








[/quote]

exactly. and the same goes for colleges. A college can write whatever rules they want for their dorms. If you dont like it, dont go. I went to a catholic college briefly and had a buddy who got in trouble cus he got caught nailing a chick IN HIS ROOM. He had to pay a fine. When you enter a place like an airplane, school, store, restaurant etc, you basically give up your rights through adherance to posted signs, or by signing agreements. Flying is no different. The thing is, we have a choice, and by choosing to fly, you are deciding to adhere to whatever security measures that airline deems necessary. By deciding to go to St. Peters college, my friend signed a form and by nailing that broad, he was in defiance of it.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

GG, the fact is, it's not effective. just because they can see your outline, doesn't mean sh*t. as someone said already, stuff a bomb up your ass and poof. i mean, it's ludacris that it has come to this. if someone wants to take down a plane, they're going to find a way to do it. end of story. all the x-rays in the world aren't going to stop it. you have to realize that we're human, and we can only control so much. beyond that, sh*t happens. how many people are going to go through the scanner, get on the plane, fly to their destination, have an awesome, safe flight, then get in a rental car, and get hit by a truck and die? sh*t happens, get over it. the chances are small, you just have to accept the risks of life.

bomb sniffing dogs expose you to zero radiation, they dont fondle your testes, they dont display a nude image of you for all to see, (and then save the image), and they're nearly 100% effective at detecting BOMBS! i wonder how many you could breed and train for the price of ONE scanner.

and as i've said, the radiation is BS. last i checked only a doctor could prescribe an X-ray...it's proven detrimental to your health, and an increased risk of an uncurable disease (cancer). but have fun.


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

About the dogs, I agree they are very effective, but I know of countless times going through Syracuse airport where dogs run the line and not one ever hit on my assault pack, which when I was overseas carried my ammo and a pound of C4. Granted that wasnt in the bag at the time, but I'm sure there was plenty of residue. I havent really trusted those dogs since. I'm sure they hit on a majority of things, but just those few instances threw me off.


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

r1dermon said:


> GG, the fact is, *it's not effective.* just because they can see your outline, doesn't mean sh*t. as someone said already, stuff a bomb up your ass and poof. i mean, it's ludacris that it has come to this. if someone wants to take down a plane, they're going to find a way to do it. end of story. all the x-rays in the world aren't going to stop it. you have to realize that we're human, and we can only control so much. beyond that, sh*t happens. how many people are going to go through the scanner, get on the plane, fly to their destination, have an awesome, safe flight, then get in a rental car, and get hit by a truck and die? sh*t happens, get over it. the chances are small, you just have to accept the risks of life.
> 
> bomb sniffing dogs expose you to zero radiation, they dont fondle your testes, they dont display a nude image of you for all to see, (and then save the image), and they're nearly 100% effective at detecting BOMBS! i wonder how many you could breed and train for the price of ONE scanner.
> 
> and as i've said, the radiation is BS. last i checked only a doctor could prescribe an X-ray...it's proven detrimental to your health, and an increased risk of an uncurable disease (cancer). but have fun.


im not sure about you, but im not a security expert. Do you know that its ineffective through personal experience, research, or has someone u know slipped something through one of these things? Everyone says its ineffective, do they work security? do they have any concrete proof? Ill bet the FAA and airlines alike do a ton of research before spending money on these things... and to get nude pictures of the fat fucks in our country couldnt have been one of them.

And IMO, if this works just once, it has the ability to save a TON of lives.

And yeah, there is always a risk, i dont disagree that if someone wants to do something, they will do it... but i guess the airlines feel that this gives them a good chance of reducing that possibility.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

r1dermon said:


> GG, the fact is, it's not effective. just because they can see your outline, doesn't mean sh*t. as someone said already, stuff a bomb up your ass and poof. i mean, it's ludacris that it has come to this. if someone wants to take down a plane, they're going to find a way to do it. end of story. all the x-rays in the world aren't going to stop it. you have to realize that we're human, and we can only control so much. beyond that, sh*t happens. how many people are going to go through the scanner, get on the plane, fly to their destination, have an awesome, safe flight, then get in a rental car, and get hit by a truck and die? sh*t happens, get over it. the chances are small, you just have to accept the risks of life.
> 
> bomb sniffing dogs expose you to zero radiation, they dont fondle your testes, they dont display a nude image of you for all to see, (and then save the image), and they're nearly 100% effective at detecting BOMBS! i wonder how many you could breed and train for the price of ONE scanner.
> 
> and as i've said, the radiation is BS. last i checked only a doctor could prescribe an X-ray...it's proven detrimental to your health, and an increased risk of an uncurable disease (cancer). but have fun.


Metal detectors wont catch everything, a pat down wont detect everything, an x-ray of my laptop wont catch everything&#8230;..so why do we do anything at all? Every search is a violation of your rights. Hell&#8230;according to many in the country and on this board&#8230;simply asking to see your ID is a violation of your rights&#8230;.and they do that to pass through security.



It amazes me that some people can be so up in arms about their rights being violated when all anyone is trying to do is make air travel safer. Is it overboard&#8230;probably&#8230;.but so is making me x-ray my shoes. I honestly cant believe any of you that are going so crazy over this issue ever fly&#8230;.because the entire process is a violation of your rights.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Nick G said:


> GG, the fact is, *it's not effective.* just because they can see your outline, doesn't mean sh*t. as someone said already, stuff a bomb up your ass and poof. i mean, it's ludacris that it has come to this. if someone wants to take down a plane, they're going to find a way to do it. end of story. all the x-rays in the world aren't going to stop it. you have to realize that we're human, and we can only control so much. beyond that, sh*t happens. how many people are going to go through the scanner, get on the plane, fly to their destination, have an awesome, safe flight, then get in a rental car, and get hit by a truck and die? sh*t happens, get over it. the chances are small, you just have to accept the risks of life.
> 
> bomb sniffing dogs expose you to zero radiation, they dont fondle your testes, they dont display a nude image of you for all to see, (and then save the image), and they're nearly 100% effective at detecting BOMBS! i wonder how many you could breed and train for the price of ONE scanner.
> 
> and as i've said, the radiation is BS. last i checked only a doctor could prescribe an X-ray...it's proven detrimental to your health, and an increased risk of an uncurable disease (cancer). but have fun.


im not sure about you, but im not a security expert. Do you know that its ineffective through personal experience, research, or has someone u know slipped something through one of these things? Everyone says its ineffective, do they work security? do they have any concrete proof? Ill bet the FAA and airlines alike do a ton of research before spending money on these things... and to get nude pictures of the fat fucks in our country couldnt have been one of them.

And IMO, if this works just once, it has the ability to save a TON of lives.

And yeah, there is always a risk, i dont disagree that if someone wants to do something, they will do it... but i guess the airlines feel that this gives them a good chance of reducing that possibility.
[/quote]

come on dude...do you really have to think about this? it's ineffective because nobody who has 2/10ths of a brain cell is going to wear a bomb around their waist when they know they have to walk through a security x-ray. so they'll find a different way of doing it! or...maybe they'll just say f*ck it, and not attack planes anymore...and instead they'll plant bombs in subway stations! way to go! all you do is divert the attack somewhere else. if someone is that hell bent on attacking you, they'll find out how to do it.

water supply anyone? i mean, between food and water, i'd say one of the smallest things to worry about is air travel. if someone wanted to do some legit damage they'd spill some chem into the water supply. think about it.


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> GG, the fact is, *it's not effective.* just because they can see your outline, doesn't mean sh*t. as someone said already, stuff a bomb up your ass and poof. i mean, it's ludacris that it has come to this. if someone wants to take down a plane, they're going to find a way to do it. end of story. all the x-rays in the world aren't going to stop it. you have to realize that we're human, and we can only control so much. beyond that, sh*t happens. how many people are going to go through the scanner, get on the plane, fly to their destination, have an awesome, safe flight, then get in a rental car, and get hit by a truck and die? sh*t happens, get over it. the chances are small, you just have to accept the risks of life.
> 
> bomb sniffing dogs expose you to zero radiation, they dont fondle your testes, they dont display a nude image of you for all to see, (and then save the image), and they're nearly 100% effective at detecting BOMBS! i wonder how many you could breed and train for the price of ONE scanner.
> 
> and as i've said, the radiation is BS. last i checked only a doctor could prescribe an X-ray...it's proven detrimental to your health, and an increased risk of an uncurable disease (cancer). but have fun.


im not sure about you, but im not a security expert. Do you know that its ineffective through personal experience, research, or has someone u know slipped something through one of these things? Everyone says its ineffective, do they work security? do they have any concrete proof? Ill bet the FAA and airlines alike do a ton of research before spending money on these things... and to get nude pictures of the fat fucks in our country couldnt have been one of them.

And IMO, if this works just once, it has the ability to save a TON of lives.

And yeah, there is always a risk, i dont disagree that if someone wants to do something, they will do it... but i guess the airlines feel that this gives them a good chance of reducing that possibility.
[/quote]

come on dude...do you really have to think about this? it's ineffective because nobody who has 2/10ths of a brain cell is going to wear a bomb around their waist when they know they have to walk through a security x-ray. so they'll find a different way of doing it! or...maybe they'll just say f*ck it, and not attack planes anymore...and instead they'll plant bombs in subway stations! way to go! all you do is divert the attack somewhere else. if someone is that hell bent on attacking you, they'll find out how to do it.

water supply anyone? i mean, between food and water, i'd say one of the smallest things to worry about is air travel. if someone wanted to do some legit damage they'd spill some chem into the water supply. think about it.
[/quote]

despite what you may have seen in the Dark Knight, water is actually surprisingly easy to clean up and you'd have to release a butt ton of chemicals in it to really do anything. Maybe even a f*ck ton









I agree about what you're trying to say though. All TSA does is try to prevent threats that have already been attempted. As soon as these scanners come online the terrorists will just escalate it further. The truth is if someone really wants to blow up a plane, no amount of conceivable security measures can stop them. Hell a terrorist could have a bomb implanted inside of him surgically if he really wanted to...

I just feel like we need to focus more on the source of the problem. We're basically letting the companies that make these machines use our ridiculous fears to force the government to make them billions...

TO clarify: as far as being a violation of your rights, that's bullshit. Are they necessary or truly helpful?? not in the least.


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

r1dermon said:


> come on dude...do you really have to think about this? it's ineffective because nobody who has 2/10ths of a brain cell is going to wear a bomb around their waist when they know they have to walk through a security x-ray. so they'll find a different way of doing it! or...maybe they'll just say f*ck it, and not attack planes anymore...and instead they'll plant bombs in subway stations! way to go! all you do is divert the attack somewhere else. if someone is that hell bent on attacking you, they'll find out how to do it.
> 
> water supply anyone? i mean, between food and water, i'd say one of the smallest things to worry about is air travel. if someone wanted to do some legit damage they'd spill some chem into the water supply. think about it.


are we debating the logistics of homeland defense? or the right of a private company to implement security measures?


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

wisco_pygo said:


> doesn't show private parts??
> 
> 
> 
> ...


wisco...check your sources man.

http://justgetthere.us/blog/archives/DISINFORMATION-Inverted-Body-Scanner-Image-Shows-Naked-Body-In-Full-Living-Color.html

this is probably some sort of violation of the TOS since it shows the naked female form, but those pictures are photoshopped from a German photo CD of artistic nude photos. This is the kind of misinformation that is dangerous, because I've seen this stupid picture in emails from my crazy right wing friends

this look familiar?









comes from this:
NSFW...repeat NSFW

http://www.f1online.de/f1online/index.cfm?location=search&colNo=2274&language=1


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

^^ Reported.









j/k


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

*JUST SCANNED THIS FROM MY HOMELAND SECURITY TEXT:*


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

That x-ray radiation can't possibly be good for somebody who flies alot.


----------



## Sanjo Eel (Aug 21, 2008)

Piranha_man said:


> Our rights are being violated every single day.
> 
> I personally can't wait to retire in a 3rd world country and get on with a much simpler way of life.
> Unfortunately, gotta "_Jump through society's hoops_" and play the moneygame for a few more years first.


My thoughts exactly. Maybe we'll see you in Belize sometime in the next 10 years when we get out of here. 
We just gotta finish school and we're gone to white beaches and blue water for good.

These machines are a violation of privacy, but, you have a choice. You could always travel by car or boat. If you want the convenience of flying you just have to do it. 
The root problem of course is the gradual erosion of our freedoms. Nobody does anything about it because everybody wants to be safe and buy more stuff to play with, and it is easier to be possessed by possessions and a slave to the state than be uncomfortable or at risk in any way. 
It will continuously worsen unless there is a major catastrophy that puts the brakes on it.
They can already see into your backyard from space. Hell, I can see your backyard from space. This technology is available to consumers, what type of spy capabilities does government really have? We probably don't want to know how much they can see.
Now we have unmanned drones and robots patrolling the skies, and soon flying bots the size of houseflies with full spy capability. 
And online privacy will be a thing of the past before we know it.....
The US govt is already making plans for an official online ID system, and trying to force software developers to provide them with a decryption solution for encrypted emails.
Most governments the world over are so corrupt and powerful that the people have no power. They may self destruct eventually or all merge to form a new world government that is uncontrollable. 
But f*ck it, at least we are "safe", right? So is a caged monkey.
Unfortunately, I don't think that enough people, at least in the US or Europe, see "losing a few rights here and there" as a negative consequence of living in a "safer" society. 
Guess what? None of us are safe. Ever. Whether it's a plane exploding or a microscopic virus, you _will die_ and that's that. 
In the meantime, have fun....and don't take this living life thing too seriously.


----------



## wisco_pygo (Dec 9, 2009)

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=DRJRR6dIhbs[/media]

[media]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Z3uJgGb4p3U

cui bono- who stands to benefit? Michael Chertoff has been pushing for these machines for years. In the world of political corruption Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security from 2005-2009, and Co-Author of the PATRIOT Act is now the head of the Chertoff group, who is in business with, and gains millions from the largest distributor of body imaging scan machines airports across the country. sounds like a conflict of interest to me. thats stimulus money hard at work for ya









so if these machines can't detect powder explosives spread through-out clothing, or explosives that have been inserted into the anal cavity- are we anymore "safe", the answer is no. essentially the governmnet has achieved the goal of getting Americans to give up their rights, willfully, for no good reason.

unfairly some make the distinction that this is a private business who providing a service, if one does not like the rules of this service they can choose to not purchase the service. the fact of the matter is that airlines are quasi-government controlled, and heavily government regulated. it is the government regulations which say we have to have a nude picture of our body taken, or have our private genital area frisked by a TSA agent. the government, in writing laws or regulations, should not be able to enact rules or laws which violate the 4th amendment.

the ultimate question is- do you believe in the freedom message delivered by the founders, or do you believe in the false sense of security provided by the current government? the ideas of liberty and freedom are new to human history, just a few hundred years old- the idea of tyranny, control, and opression are as old as time. when it comes to liberty i trust the morality and ideas of men like George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson over men like George Bush, Barack Obama, and Bill Clinton. whose ideas are you going to trust, the founders or our current government? im with the founders









TWTR- if those are the pics taken by TSA on a daily basis, why are the images blurred out when shown on televsion? surely if the image you posted was all there is to naked body scan images, when shown on tv, the genital/breast regions wouldn't be blurred out.


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

Piranha_man said:


> That x-ray radiation can't possibly be good for somebody who flies alot.


Lets all give Piranha Man a round of applause for Finally realizing the point all the members have been discussing for the last 4 pages.


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

Thanks man... I appreciate the recognition.


----------



## wisco_pygo (Dec 9, 2009)

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=d-N5adYM7Kw

Ron Paul addresses the floor of Congress this evening(11.17.10) on TSA abuses, and introduces legislation to remove federal immunity of comitting crimes.

*

sexual assault* _n._ Conduct of a sexual or indecent nature toward another person that is accompanied by actual or threatened physical force or that induces fear, shame, or mental suffering.


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

if and when these things are implemented...i will go out and buy the weirdest f*cking undergarments possible and watch the TSA face when he scans me wearing a smily face man thong. It will be painful, but worth it


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

these aren't going to last. further, i think there's going to be an investigation into the homeboy who conveniently started making these things (scanners).

anyway, they've already been implemented in 200 locations, and will be in 500 more in the coming weeks.


----------



## Plowboy (Apr 9, 2008)

Lets all take a couple Viagra and go through airport security in sweat pants!


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

Boobah said:


> if and when these things are implemented...i will go out and buy the weirdest f*cking undergarments possible and watch the TSA face when he scans me wearing a smily face man thong. It will be painful, but worth it


Take a few viagra before you go through.


----------



## His Majesty (Apr 5, 2005)

thought id add this

reading the paper today. was an article in it regarding these scanners. some top researchers have claimed that the chances of you dieing from radiation emmited by these scanners is the same as being blown up by terrorists, roughly 1 in 30 million

make of it what you want. but at the moment there too much scepticism over their safety. maybe more study is needed into its long term effects before it put to use and people are forced to use is


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

right, so there IS a chance...

there is nothing in the constitution that guarantee's your safety, but there IS something that guarantee's your privacy. which are we going to let prevail?


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

http://www.wbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13534628

TSA asks 30 yr flight attendant to remove her prosthetic breast....


----------



## philbert (Mar 8, 2007)

it is NOT a violation of your rights. you want to fly on a plane that is being flown by a PRIVATE company the govt just does the security. they can require anything they want of you. if you don't like it don't fly. you cant invest in a hedge fund without at least $250,000 in cash. is that a violation of your rights? you cant get a loan from a bank with out sufficient credit. private companies can set whatever rules they want if you don't like it dont fly. you do NOT have the RIGHT to fly on a plane.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

so philbert...i've got a really simple question...if i dont fly at all...not once, ever...then should i be expected to pay for the security that that private company requires for it's patrons?


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

Let's say people take your advice and stop flying? Oversimplified don't really require much thought. You guys look at it like a private company can do whatever they want. I look at it like I have the right to do business with a private company without the government as a 3rd party infringing on my rights.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

agreed...it's not the private company feeling you up...it's the government. it's not the government at a sports game (a common analogy), its the private company. the government should not be performing these invasive strategies.


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

is the government actually buying these scanners? I was under the impression that the airports would be buying them.


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

^TSA buys them. I was reading the other day about an airport who is disposing of their contract with the TSA and going with a private security company.


----------



## wisco_pygo (Dec 9, 2009)

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=FZrL5qdnRDI[/media]

[media]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=_FOVFX-qOfc[/media]

[media]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=61yY8tiSaBI


----------



## wisco_pygo (Dec 9, 2009)

Here a man stands his ground against the TSA (domestic terrorists). This man knows his rights, he refuses the scan, says the TSA pat-down would be considered a sexual assault if anyone else did it, and furthermore cites the constitution grants him the protection that he cannot be detained by the government, as a US citizen, without probable cause of committing a crime.






[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JQupF6HsaE[/media]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68MsiW1Fn3c


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

^Did you honestly just call the TSA domestic terrorists? hahaha.


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

there goes that credibility again


----------



## wisco_pygo (Dec 9, 2009)

any person(s), agencies, or organizations who are engaged in destroying civil liberties and the bill of rights, i would consider a domestic terrorist- as they are actively persuing an agenda that is inherently anti-American, anti-constitution. TWTR, didn't you take an oath to uphold the the constitution? against any enemy- foreign or domestic?

excellent arguments though guys, keep up the good work of supporting whatever your government tells you to do. ill be here defending the constitution


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

YOU deem them an enemy. Lets see whose side your on when/if they quit pat downs and screening right before your family is on a vacation to maui and end up raining from the sky in a mist of debris.


----------



## wisco_pygo (Dec 9, 2009)

if the TSA is violating the 4th amendment to the constitution, and you have sworn an oath to uphold the constitution, what gives?







just as you cant be 'kind of' pregnant, nor can you 'kind of' uphold the constitution. you either stand for the principles or you don't.

i have a more likely chance of being struck by lightening, than being killed by a terrorists when im in cancun a month from now, so ill take that chance of being blown to pieces over empowering the government to destroy my liberty and the constitution.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

ehh, what if a terrorist plants a bomb in my toiletseat inside my house?

"yeah government guy, why dont you come right in...wanna screw my wife while you're at it? lock me up and throw away the key for no reason. no probable cause, just because you CAN...the constitution? wtf is that...isn't that something that people "hide" behind these days?"

if you have a problem with the constitution, beat it, because if a war does arise, im not on your side.


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

.


----------

