dbfreak
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2006
- Posts
- 592
- Likes
- 11
Ain't no such thing as an innocent person.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. |
Originally Posted by aaron313 /img/forum/go_quote.gif You make good points, as always. But here's the thing: I don't see how interrogating everybody before a flight violates civil rights. The first line of defense on an airplane is obviously hiring trustworthy pilots, and then to have a secured cockpit. Plus, searching every bag thoroughly does not violate anyone's rights. If there's a bomb in somebody's bag, I want to know. I read in the WSJ a couple years back that the US has thwarted several similar plane attacks since the initial attack (of course not at the airport). As for civil rights, it's much better to treat everybody with equal suspicion. It makes the US a less desirable place to live when we treat certain groups of people with more suspicion. Talk about breeding racism, which is what we have done in the past seven years. This is what you are referring to, right? I would not mind being searched thoroughly if it protected civil rights of others. |
Originally Posted by aaron313 /img/forum/go_quote.gif You make good points, as always. But here's the thing: I don't see how interrogating everybody before a flight violates civil rights. The first line of defense on an airplane is obviously hiring trustworthy pilots, and then to have a secured cockpit. Plus, searching every bag thoroughly does not violate anyone's rights. If there's a bomb in somebody's bag, I want to know. I read in the WSJ a couple years back that the US has thwarted several similar plane attacks since the initial attack (of course not at the airport). |
Originally Posted by aaron313 /img/forum/go_quote.gif As for civil rights, it's much better to treat everybody with equal suspicion. It makes the US a less desirable place to live when we treat certain groups of people with more suspicion. Talk about breeding racism, which is what we have done in the past seven years. This is what you are referring to, right? I would not mind being searched thoroughly if it protected civil rights of others. |
Originally Posted by aaron313 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Remember how everybody was up in arms about wiretapping without warrants? People said their civil rights were being violated because the government was spying on them. Well, my response to those people was "Are you a terrorist? Do you know any terrorists? No; then you have nothing to hide." This is exactly what Ben Franklin warned against. But from what I understand, we have not "unlawfully" spied on many people, and most of those people have direct ties to terrorists in other countries. If the government were spying on great numbers of people without reason, without a warrant, that would be a large scale violation of civil rights. Consider that the President has the power to make executive orders in dire times (think Lincoln, FDR), and then re-frame your opinion on wire-tapping of terrorist sympathizers. [REST DELETED... too political] |
Originally Posted by aaron313 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I tend to apply your logic in daily life. For example, while my parents are paranoid about keeping the doors locked, I tell them that if somebody wanted to break in, they would regardless. Perhaps all we are doing is making the terrorists more resourceful, but I think it's better to respond in the moment, or else any attack would be seen as a result of lax effort, and would be political suicide for the country. |
Scenario #1 – You forgot your ID at home. You will go through additional screening and be permitted to travel. Scenario #2 – You openly state you are not going to cooperate and show us your ID. You will not be processed through our checkpoint and you will not fly. |
Originally Posted by aaron313 Quote:
Exactly! I would gladly show up three hours early (or more) to be subjected to el Al security before every flight, for the reasons you stated. The el Al team grills every passenger before the flight, and they racial-profile to the extreme. I heard that the predefined risk factors go as follows: Lowest risk - Israeli Jew, non Arab Medium risk - Non Israeli non Arab Highest risk - Arab (automatically interrogated privately) However, it should be noted that every passenger is grilled before the flight, not just Arabs. If it were up to me, every passenger would be interrogated individually, regardless of race or country of origin. As the shoe-bomber reminded us, anybody can become an Al-Qaeda operative, so it's unfair to single out a certain race. I'm suspicious of everybody when I fly. |
You have nothing to hide, it is a flawed arguments, Uncle Erick has provided good reasons for it... Patriot act's goal is to spy for people without reason, without warrants, they claimed it all for security and play common people's fear to justify it. |
Originally Posted by aaron313 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Texas Society of Anesthesiologists? Why would I have beef with them? |
but I think it's better to respond in the moment, or else any attack would be seen as a result of lax effort, and would be political suicide for the country. |
Originally Posted by craiglester /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not a great argument in the defense of the TSA there.. Does anyone think they're doing a good job... anyone? Trouble with the gradual erosion of rights is you never get them back.. one at a time.. that's how they do it... |
Originally Posted by RYCeT /img/forum/go_quote.gif aaron313, your arguments are flawed, you said you believe in privacy but you also said if they are a 'suspected' terrorist sympatizer, well go to hell with their rights. There's no one way or the other. It's not okay whether it happen on small scale or large scale, who determine that line, you, me or the government. |
Originally Posted by RYCeT You will change your opinion when you are the one who are a 'suspected' terrorist, like what happen to the reporter. Your arguments feel when if it's not happen to me, they can do whatever they want, if it happened to me that's when we going to have problems. If this is your attitude, do you really think other people with your same attitude will care if that unfortunately happen to you. |
Originally Posted by RYCeT Never suggested war on liquids, war on shoes, this is your statement Quote:
War on liquids, war on shoes are result of that respond in the moment. |
Originally Posted by RYCeT /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, I think my view of TSA are quite obvious. TSA = Thousands Standing Around. |