Lets tallk.....BODY SCANNERS

The founding fathers also didn't have to deal with the breast implant bomb and a group of people whose only intent is to take human lives in large numbers.

I've seen a lot of "freedom is worth more than the cost of a human life." This is true. But if someone isn't willing to lose their job by not flying to demonstrate against oppression and for their freedom, they sure as hell aren't willing to die for it. That makes anyone who uses the quote a hypocrite.

It's easy to say freedom is worth loss when its not your loss.

 

Just pointing out one thing, at some point in the last two pages of the thread someone commented on the airlines being the people suffering the most from this...
Let them suffer; a man gets sued for $800,000 for illegally downloading a movie and at the same time some bull**** airline ( a major one) paid $24,000 to the families of each of the passengers who died in a plane crash.
$24,000.
It's nice to see a movie is worth more than a human life. Way to go world, proud to be here

 

No. I understand the importance of the founding fathers. I have taken several American history and American politics courses in college, and I have traveled the country and have seen many of the important national landmarks. I have specifically traveled to historical places because I believe they are important and significant. I understand why the founding fathers are important, I understand what they did for the constitution. I think they are important people.

With that said, again, look at the previous Ben Franklin quote I posted. Tell me, taken in the most literal sense, that that quote applies directly to the airline industry. Do you really believe it does?

Did Ben Franklin, at the time of making that quote, understand what airplanes were? Did he understand terrorism? Did he understand al-Queda, and how they were going to use airplanes to do nasty stuff? His quote is still significant, but it applied to a different set of worries. I am not sure the worries of terrorism can at all be connected to worries of security amongst colonial America.

Look at the example of the NFL stadium I posted. If you take Ben Franklin's quote literally, I would say the outcome of that example is very counter-intuitive. Do you agree?

As I have said multiple times in this thread, I don't live in fear. I believe in the honest good of people. I am an optimist, and I live an overall positive life. I don't care that someone wants to see an xray of my body, provided that the xray provides some significant security advantage.

I agree, we shouldn't just hand over our right to privacy in every or even in most cases. However, at an airport is one of those places where I think it would be okay. Letting the TSA scan our bodies with an xray at an airport is, in my opinion, not going to lead to an overall police state in the United States.

Let me ask you this, if all of a sudden there were hundreds of terrorist attacks a year on airplanes, would you then feel like the x-ray system was still an invasion of privacy? I know this isn't the case, so don't go off saying something how this just isn't how it works. Just answer the question. Hypothetical situation: IF this were the case, would it THEN be a problem? If you think it would not be a problem, explain how Ben Franklin's quote applies to the situation now. If you think it would be a problem, why? If safety on an airplane not important?

 

There are much worse terrorist groups than al-Qaeda that are now internationally recognized political parties

 

hey thats what i was trying to say. :nerd:

 

Merton, I actually do not agree with Ben Franklins quote. You'll note that I've never used it in this thread or any other (eta: I think, at least I'm pretty sure I haven't used it in the last 2 years)

A drunk driver doesn't deserve to die for drinking before getting into a car, an idiot playing around a power line doesn't deserve to get fried, nor does a girl seeking attention deserve to die by OD'ng on ibuprofin. Bottom line is the natural consequence of all of these actions is death, not that it's deserved but that it comes as a result. The natural result of sacrificing your freedoms is tyranny, the natural result of tyranny is destruction. Ergo Mr Franklins thinking applies to any situation in which freedom is lost.


The constitution was not written with mere colonial america in mind, it was written with human nature, kingdoms and institutions in mind. Understanding natural law and natural consequence is what drives the relevancy of what those men said, not a mere display of technological superiority.

As for terrorism, Mr Franklin et al had to deal with the french Indian wars. Wars in which men would raid isolated farmsteads scalping, raping, & torturing women & children. They did not have the benefit of 24/7 satellite surveillance a hostile party could show up almost anywhere at any time. Even while not in wartime they had to deal with constant tension & skirmishes.


If there were hundreds of attacks on airplanes a year, I would support a different measure than body scanners. The exact measure would depend on the form the situation takes and the information at hand. The critical thing is that those who support the attackers, and the attackers themselves would bear the brunt. I would not purposefully target innocents as we currently do.


As for humans being basically Good, I'm not willing to risk the well being of my countrymen on such a naive assumption.


ETA: also Mr Franklin was a bit of a hypocrite, he would open other peoples mail and spy on them lol.

 

So are two word replies.

 

I think it's high time people stop quoting political figures based on the naive assumption that they were, for the most part, inherently good and interested in the well-being of mankind.

 

Since you're playing on my words I'll assume that was directed at me.

I have never made that assumption, nor have I quoted any political figure so far (but it's been a long thread, I could be mistaken). I have read some what those men wrote, and what they were doing was attempting to review past histories to discern why kingdoms rise and fall. According to Ron Chernow Alexander Hamilton dreamed of creating a great history of the rise and falls of every empire in history. The result of their studies was a democracy within a republic, the combined genius of Greece and Rome (whom I might add, they did not dismiss as inferior due to their superior arms).

Some may have professed to be interested in the furtherance of mankind, but for the most part they simply wanted to secure their own self governance and prevent the rule of a tyrant king or rule by mob.

But by all means keep spouting straw men, they make great kindling.

 

Wasn't directed at you. I wasn't playing with words. I'm being serious. This thread will never reach a conclusion, but it's being derailed from its path to failure by people arguing about who said what and why

 

Okay sorry then

 

Yes I would still feel it would be a violation of my 4th Amendment Right.

With govt meddling and usurping Constitutional Rights, and WE the People being complacent in our Rights being usurp has had an unintended consequence. Take for instant the usurpation of the 2nd Amendment, if it was not for BS laws that unarmed millions of Law Abiding Citizens, all because 'safety' was the supposed intent, that intent also meant more people would become victims. If that course of action was NOT taken, armed citizens would have stopped those POS terrorists and / or killed them. This is why Ben's quote "They that give up essential Liberty for temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" remains valid. The protection of enumerated Constitutional Rights must remain a top priority, and the govt has failed the People by allowing the continual usurpation of Constitutional Rights, that it has been charged to protect and enforce.

 

Obviously no one will ever reach a ultimatum. I wonder how many more arguments people will put forth with a "my opinion must be superior" mentality.

Certainly you guys can make to page twenty with your temper still intact. Or not.

 

Come on guys, if the government can just ignore the Constitution there is nothing stopping them from doing anything it wants to you. Freedom and Liberty are important because they are the antithesis of slavery. There really isn't a lot of gray area with freedom and liberty, either you have it or you don't. Stop buying into the feudal lords claims they are just doing what is in "your best interest".

 

Let's just suppose something. All unconstitutional security measures at airports are removed. An attack occurs due to the leniency. What happens next?

 

It depends on the character of the people. If they lack character they will assume it's due to the leniency without factual attribution. Perhaps they'll even succumb to a false dichotomy .

Lets turn it around, what happens if there's an attack in spite of the security? More security? fewer liberties?

What happens if there's never another attack? are you ever going to get your liberties back? Will we always be at war with Eurasia...


Honestly, my opinion is that folks lack character and will attempt to pin the blame on somebody. I'll keep my head down for a little bit after the attack (being in front of a mob is no fun), but it won't change my opinion one iota.

 

The issues with the "pat down" is the simple fact that they directly violate most sexual abuse and child molestation laws. It was recently made public knowledge that children as young as 12 years old get to experience the same "pat down" as any adult. This method causes would be child molesters to apply for jobs as TSA Airport security officers. By most state and even federal laws (in the US), this method is in fact sexual abuse when it involves a minor. If you support these "pat down" procedures, you're no better than the child molesters that this process was intended to excite...

As a father, if my son were to be forced to experience this "pat down" procedure, I'd be forced to file criminal charges for child molestation against any and ALL involved TSA employees.

 

So if there were hundreds of terrorist attacks each year via airplane, you would not increase security at airports and try new methods if these methods in some way-shape-or-form violated your privacy?

The point of airport security is to make it so you cannot hide a weapon or bomb. Checking for a weapon or bomb = checking places you would hide a weapon or bomb = checking private places.

Can you explain to me how x-raying my luggage is okay, but searching my body (in a reasonable way) is not okay? You do know that airports x-ray your bags, right?

 

I am even against luggage being x-rayed, there are many other devices that can be used to mettle out the uses of explosives, without being intrusive. If a piece of luggage was to be suspect, then a warrant could be issued to search it.

And even if attacks increased I would still be against the encroachment of Constitutional Rights.

Another to consider with this recent increased security, has it been made aware that because of this, it has also increased the amount of people in long lines waiting to be checked? What a perfect scenario for a would be bomber, whether he would be a suicide bomber or a package drop, a well placed bomb with 100's of people standing around, and the terrorist would not have had the trouble of trying to get through security and plant it on a jet. As I have said before all of this safety while in theory may seem well intentioned, it is also its own undoing.

 

Where in the Constitution does it say it is the job of the Federal government to make sure no single person ever dies, whether it be from smoking, terrorism, overeating, poor hygiene, or whatever the reason? It isn't. It also is doing these things which it isn't allowed to do, WHILE violating its very charter.

Your safety and security is YOUR responsibility. It is the responsibility of the Airlines as private companies to do what they feel is necessary, not the Federal government.

(note this is not the same as safety regulations for operating airlines as that falls under business operations and the commerce clause)