Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 7/2/2002 1:07:27 PM EST
[URL]http://www.securityedition.com/[/URL] "You need to get used to offering up the bill of rights for inspection and government workers need to get used to deciding if you'll be allowed to keep the Bill of Rights with you when you travel." Pretty cool actually.
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 1:16:49 PM EST
yeah, i'd LOVE to see how far that would get you. don't like it, DON'T FUCKING FLY. i'm tired of people like you bitching about "how they're hassling me at the airport" you watch too much MTV. move to afghanistan, they let you fly with ANYTHING there.
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 1:29:47 PM EST
Pretty bs, actually. Right of flight is not guaranteed by the founding fathers. Suggest you go in with that attitude on an El Al trip. -hanko
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 1:30:12 PM EST
How is it an infringement of your rights to get searched at the airport? A person consents to their terms when he or she buys a ticket? I guess I don't understand.
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 1:45:40 PM EST
if you don't like the rules get your own plane. you can get one that flies 150mph for about $12,000
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 1:52:14 PM EST
Originally Posted By Xero: [URL]http://www.securityedition.com/[/URL] "You need to get used to offering up the bill of rights for inspection and government workers need to get used to deciding if you'll be allowed to keep the Bill of Rights with you when you travel." Pretty cool actually.
View Quote
Xero, I guess these clowns don't get it. Its very unfortunate that these gun owners don't know they have a right against search and seizure. I bet these guys would have no problem with the "infrared car" driving around looking inside their homes for drug harvesting. I'll leave you with some info to better educate yourselves that your rights are violated every time they search you without cause. [b]Fourth Amendment – Search and Seizure In order to be valid under the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must, inter alia, "particularly describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." U.S. Const. Amend. IV. The purpose of this particularity requirement is to avoid "a general, exploratory rummaging in a person's belongings." Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 480, 49 L. Ed. 2d 627, 96 S. Ct. 2737 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted); see generally Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476, 481-85, 13 L. Ed. 2d 431, 85 S. Ct. 506 (1965) (describing history and purpose of particularity requirement). A sufficiently particular warrant describes the items to be seized in such a manner that it leaves nothing to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant. See Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 196, 72 L. Ed. 231, 48 S. Ct. 74 (1927). Although we ordinarily would begin our review of the decision of the district court by determining whether it erred in concluding the warrant failed to adequately particularize the ite to be seized, we need not address that question here because even if the warrant was invalid, the evidence obtained during the search nevertheless was admissible pursuant to the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 913, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677, 104 S. Ct. 3405 (1984). [/b] [b]Article the sixth [Amendment IV] 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. [/b] As neccessary as arbitrary searches may seem to be, they are illegal. In effect, not allowing them to search you equates to them blackmailing you into an illegal search. I'm surprised no court has found that these searches are illegal since consumers cannot find a better alternate means of travel and that the balance of power is squewed towards the airlines/gov in that they can do as the please without fear of loss of revenue from consumer backlash. The sheeple have spoken, they believe the government's arbitrary searches are redeeming! [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 1:56:14 PM EST
Originally Posted By Defcon: How is it an infringement of your rights to get searched at the airport? A person consents to their terms when he or she buys a ticket? I guess I don't understand.
View Quote
You only consent to their terms because you have no choice. Do you have a better or equal means of travel outside of the airlines? Would you WILLINGLY consent to random checks that only lead to confiscation of tweezers and toothpicks? I'm surprised at the response of this board. I thought more of you people would be upset at the loss of your rights! Next, they will be patting people down on buses, subways and trains, are you comfortable with that?
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 1:57:09 PM EST
I agree with the point ref unreasonable search but the search warning is there when you buy the ticket. Our rights are being eroded
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 2:15:31 PM EST
Balzac, So you are willing to bend your beliefs and morals just because you "have no choice"? I believe you do have a choice. To fly or not. Yes I do have alternatives. Hire my own jet, drive, ect. If you are the kind of person that disagrees with their business practices and still flies, then remember, belief without sacrifice isn't much of a belief. If you disagree, don't fly. It is private industry. These aren't "random" checks. You aren't walking down the street and someone just pulls you over and pats you down. You consented to the terms upon purchase! I am upset at the loss of our rights. However when you consent to something you can't have it both ways. You consent when you buy. You support them when you give them your visa #. You allow them to continue when you give them your $$$. If you want to talk about gun ownership and our rights being eroded there, we could probably agree on quite a bit.
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 2:56:53 PM EST
My last few flights on modern airliners left me quite unimpressed anyway. I'm not what one would call a frequent flyer, so when I noticed the cattle car-like way passengers are crammed into a plane these days, I sort of decided to wait for the return of the Zeppelin before I become airborne again ;)
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 3:05:51 PM EST
I can agree with it being optional, BUT what bothers me is what happens if you buy a ticket start the proccess realize there going to be pricks and say to the hell with this I am driving. Every time I have heard of this they evacuate the terminal and arrest the person just because they refused the search. Even though it says you can refuse but if you do you can't fly. BTW I do give credit where its do Kudos to the Security checker who turned in the two drunk pilots yesterday.
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 3:10:44 PM EST
What part of "privately owned" don't you understand? If you want to fly on a plane, you consent to a search. If you want to post at ar15.com, you consent to follow the rules for posting. legrue (I-hate-junior-constitutional-lawyer-wannabes)
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 3:19:37 PM EST
This is the reason that I do not typically fly. I say 'typically' because I flew for the first time in 10 years at the end of May and back the beginning of June. What I found interesting is that at SFO, the security people projected an "air" of rank incompetence, and were incomprehensible when they spoke. I put my glasses in the basket with everyting else, and they told me they had to be scanned? Huh? Wire frames, polyacrylate lenses - is there a new explosive that is optically correct that I haven't heard about? Short answer - he didn't TELL me they were getting scanned, I just felt thru the basket and didn't find them. Man, was I pissed! Flying out of IND, it was much better. He had me turn my laptop on and off, had me remove the battery to examine it, didn't hide my specs when I went looking for them, was easy to understand, courteous, and competent. Not only that, but it took almost an hour to clear security at SFO, and only 10 minutes at IND - with nearly the same size lines! Why did I fly? I had already driven cross-country twice in May and just didn't have it in me to do again. Not without getting some decent pay out of it! I am still not impressed with airport security as a whole, but in the Midwest it seems to be a bit better. I simply wish that the airlines would quit hiring trained apes - the ones that have learned to wear shoes and not make messes in the house - and get some people that I could UNDERSTAND and who can be TRAINED. Recently, there was an Op-Ed in the SJMN about how the "citizenship" requirement would cost SFO/SJC/OAK their "experienced screeners," like it was a bad things. These people are, in the main, incompetent - and in dire need of replacement! FWIW - Things I left at home for the trip... Pocketknife (Benchmade/Emerson CQC7B, LH) Lockpick set (Stainless. Yes, I AM a locksmith!) Lighter Duct tape (Yes, I carry 10' or so in my pocket. Comes in handy.) Most of my "trade" licenses (I don't feel like explaining my banger's card or my pyro card to someone who flat don't speak English.) CCW cards (wouldn't THOSE be fun. "Yes I have permits. No, I don't have any firearms on me, ya damn fool.) Keys (didn't need them anyhow, and one less thing to set off the detector. Still gave me the hairy eyeball for not having keys - even with a round-trip ticket.) There are more, but I do not recall them at this time. Security at airports is a joke. FFZ
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 3:32:28 PM EST
What really pisses me off is the study the other day where 25% of concealed weapons (fake knives, guns, bombs carried by federal agents) made it past security. If the current pull-down-your-pants-and-reach-up-your-ass level of security only buys a 75% success rate, then what are we going to have to put up with to achieve 90% success? 99%??? Another thing - if you look down at the last paragraph of the USA today article regarding the experiment, you'll notice that the agents purposely did NOT try hard to conceal the weapons - they just threw them casually into their bags. I don't see the point of this anyway. My old karate teacher could break a large rock in half with his bare hands. Just wait till some assholes hijack a plane with muscle power - then they'll talk about not letting physically fit people fly anymore...
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 3:54:11 PM EST
Boy, you all sure get your panties bunched up over a product that reminds others of their expectations of treatment to others who work for the government. For what it's worth, I choose not to fly. Haven't since before 9/11 and even previous to that didn't like to fly civilian airlines. Something about trusting my life to someone I don't know, can't see, and might just be a drunk as I am when I fly :-). The rudeness and searches have just put me off of flying even more. Didn't mind in the Marines as the pilot was a brother of sorts, but not in the civilian world. I just thought it would be a nice gentle reminder to those a-holes at the airport who like to feel up women that we are supposed to have some dignity during our search. For the rest of you who love searches, I hope some Big Hilda with huge hands does a full cavity search on you.
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 6:17:13 PM EST
Air moves between the states, and therefore under the constitution congress can pass laws relating to it. If you choose to breath, then you must consent to simple inspections and searches of your body and home. If you don't want to consent to the search you can simply live by some other means than breathing.
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 6:46:30 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/2/2002 6:48:26 PM EST by mattja]
Some of you guys forget that many jobs require travel these days and don't give you enough lead time to take the train. And not all employers list travel in the job description, but it's still expected that you'll go when called. Sure you can quit, but that's not really an option for a lot of people. The real solution is to get these airport screeners to pull their heads out of their asses. If they don't speak English, give them 60 days to learn or out the door. Those screeners lacking in people skills should be shown the door as well. It's still a customer service job, you know. And racial profiling should be the norm, not the exception, especially if the traveller has an accent. Sorry for not being PC.
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 6:54:04 PM EST
The People have no rights. There's a big coverup going on to keep them unaware of this fact. The main tool is television.
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 7:24:08 PM EST
Originally Posted By Xero: Boy, you all sure get your panties bunched up over a product that reminds others of their expectations of treatment to others who work for the government. For what it's worth, I choose not to fly. Haven't since before 9/11 and even previous to that didn't like to fly civilian airlines. Something about trusting my life to someone I don't know, can't see, and might just be a drunk as I am when I fly :-). The rudeness and searches have just put me off of flying even more. Didn't mind in the Marines as the pilot was a brother of sorts, but not in the civilian world. I just thought it would be a nice gentle reminder to those a-holes at the airport who like to feel up women that we are supposed to have some dignity during our search. For the rest of you who love searches, I hope some Big Hilda with huge hands does a full cavity search on you.
View Quote
I have flown several times since September 11th. I have not seen a rude screener or a screener groping women. I have seen several rude people being screened and screeners that don't seem to know what they are doing.
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 9:03:04 PM EST
Originally Posted By legrue: What part of "privately owned" don't you understand? If you want to fly on a plane, you consent to a search. If you want to post at ar15.com, you consent to follow the rules for posting. legrue (I-hate-junior-constitutional-lawyer-wannabes)
View Quote
What part of AIRPORT SECURITY PERSONELL ARE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES don't YOU understand?
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 10:22:01 PM EST
Originally Posted By Imbroglio:
Originally Posted By legrue: What part of "privately owned" don't you understand? If you want to fly on a plane, you consent to a search. If you want to post at ar15.com, you consent to follow the rules for posting. legrue (I-hate-junior-constitutional-lawyer-wannabes)
View Quote
What part of AIRPORT SECURITY PERSONELL ARE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES don't YOU understand?
View Quote
Are you saying that is the basis of your arguement? They are federal employees? First, they were not federal employees until just recently. They were contracted employees hired by airlines. Second, most are STILL not federal employees. The government has simply taken over their contract and oversees the operation. The fact is that airlines are private operations and can set the rules they like. If you don't like it, don't fly. -legrue
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 10:36:37 PM EST
Originally Posted By legrue: The fact is that airlines are private operations and can set the rules they like. If you don't like it, don't fly. -legrue
View Quote
If say, VPC (a private organization) contracts the feds to kick your door in and sieze your guns, that is just fine too? I have no problem with PRIVATE entities enforcing the policies for consumers to take part in PRIVATE services. When government gets involved then I have a problem with it.
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 11:15:33 PM EST
What I found interesting is that at SFO, the security people projected an "air" of rank incompetence, and were incomprehensible when they spoke.
View Quote
Strange, I found them pleasant and easy to understand. I didn't see any that looked like they spoke spanish natively. All that I remember seeing were black. I've flown out of SFO three times in the past year for work. The strange thing was that the past two times I went through their "security," they weren't allowing anyone to carry any ferric metal past the checkpoint. If a magnet stuck to it, it was verboten. Many people in front of me had to even check their keys. I ended-up having to throw away three safe keys (large and metal), a cheap pair of reading glasses, a pen with a metal case, a flashlight, a metal chalk holder, and a pointer (looked like an extendable car antenna). While they were providing plastic bags to put your ferric objects in so you could carry them to the check-in counter to check as luggage, I didn't have time to go through all of the hassle again. The problem I saw wasn't the employees, their verbal skills, or their attitudes. It was the ridiculous policies.z
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 1:12:25 AM EST
I think the majority of screeners at SFO, and even Oakland, were Filipino. I think some lost their jobs following the changes that took place over there.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 2:37:11 AM EST
Originally Posted By JIMBEAM: I have flown several times since September 11th. I have not seen a rude screener or a screener groping women. I have seen several rude people being screened and screeners that don't seem to know what they are doing.
View Quote
I have flown three times since Sept. 11th, and I've seen the same totally incompetent, rude, arrogant morons doing the screening that were there before Sept. 11th. The only difference is that now they've been empowered to be even more rude, arrogant, and stupid.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 3:58:41 AM EST
Originally Posted By 71-Hour_Achmed:
Originally Posted By JIMBEAM: I have flown several times since September 11th. I have not seen a rude screener or a screener groping women. I have seen several rude people being screened and screeners that don't seem to know what they are doing.
View Quote
I have flown three times since Sept. 11th, and I've seen the same totally incompetent, rude, arrogant morons doing the screening that were there before Sept. 11th. The only difference is that now they've been empowered to be even more rude, arrogant, and stupid.
View Quote
Again, I haven't seen a screener being rude but I have seen several people being rude to them.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 5:59:08 AM EST
Originally Posted By Imbroglio:
Originally Posted By legrue: The fact is that airlines are private operations and can set the rules they like. If you don't like it, don't fly. -legrue
View Quote
If say, VPC (a private organization) contracts the feds to kick your door in and sieze your guns, that is just fine too?
View Quote
Not analogous. My home is my property. The plane is their property.
I have no problem with PRIVATE entities enforcing the policies for consumers to take part in PRIVATE services. When government gets involved then I have a problem with it.
View Quote
I would agree from the perspective that the government subsidizes air travel in this and several other ways, which gives airlines an unfair advantage over say, Amtrak. Unfortunately, I do not see this changing anytime soon. -legrue
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 6:29:03 AM EST
You guys that are screaming bloody murder about (now) federal employees conducting warrantless searches keep forgetting one very, very important thing. While the 4th generally protects against unreasonable S&S, one can give their CONSENT to be searched. Like it or not, you do in fact give consent when you buy your ticket. It's no different than this situation: Your speeding. Friendly state trooper pulls you over and cites you. Then FST asks, "may I search your vehicle?" You answer, "why of course! I was hoping you'd ask me that!" FST may then search your vehicle and it's all kosher under the Const.
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 7:28:54 AM EST
Originally Posted By Defcon: Balzac, So you are willing to bend your beliefs and morals just because you "have no choice"? I believe you do have a choice. To fly or not. Yes I do have alternatives. Hire my own jet, drive, ect. If you are the kind of person that disagrees with their business practices and still flies, then remember, belief without sacrifice isn't much of a belief. If you disagree, don't fly. It is private industry. These aren't "random" checks. You aren't walking down the street and someone just pulls you over and pats you down. You consented to the terms upon purchase! I am upset at the loss of our rights. However when you consent to something you can't have it both ways. You consent when you buy. You support them when you give them your visa #. You allow them to continue when you give them your $$$. If you want to talk about gun ownership and our rights being eroded there, we could probably agree on quite a bit.
View Quote
WHEN YOU HAVE NO CHOICE TO NOT CONSENT, IT IS NO LONGER CHOICE! There is something called bargaining power in the legal system. When consumers do not have any power to say no and the alternative choices are not good, then that is when the courts have stepped in and said that the consumer is not CHOSING to allow random searches. And yes they are random in terms of walking down the runway to the plane and some glorified security guard asks you to open your bags and "consent" to ANOTHER search. Keep in mind, you've already gone through security and have been x-rayed. Now, lets get into a legal debate here, I'd love to see what grounds you have to stand on in terms of legality of multiple searches WITHOUT cause. Please don't come up with some lame ass, "you bought a ticket, so that's enough causation" argument. It doesn't "fly!" As consumers, we have no say anymore in what happens to us as we step out of our cars and into the airport. If bombers started using "anal" bombs, do you think it would be legal for them to then search everyone for anal bombs? Do you believe in reasonable suspicion when it comes to searches or are we to one day assume that walking down a street which is privately owned, amounts to consent to search? On Constitutional grounds, you've already crossed the line and you've allowed the gov a right that they should not be allowed to "bargain" away through contract. On a side note, I believe that bomb dogs, x-ray machines and profiling (unconstitutional, but more and more neccessary)are smart, but the random searches that I've encountered in 4 major airports are unacceptable and illegal.
Top Top