The Hidden Mission Forum

Full Version: We won't fly!
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Well, there goes another simple joy-

No more flying for me.

I will not be subject either to ogling or groping
Both of these are de facto molestation

Let me kick our asses with some reality

[Image: TSA-Scanner-Images.png]
or this
[Image: ralg_tsa_grab.jpg]

so fuck you TSA.
and shame on all you other simple sons of bitches that will allow yourselves to be molested.

When does it stop?
Next thing you know we will have to be molested to go to any public event, to the movies, the grocery store,
pretty soon they'll be breaking down your doors to grope you naked in your own homes because they figure you might be doing something you're not allowed to be doing.

I don't know about y'all, but I'm an American, and this must end- by any and all means.

"Don't touch my junk or I'll have you arrested"

How about "Touch my privates and I'll kick your monkey ass, law be damned?"

They hardly search you like that when you're taken to jail!

We can now officially say the terrorists have won.


Quote:Much of America is giggling about the TSA groping and body-scanning. Well, we need a good laugh right about now, and it always helps us to laugh at ourselves. But out there, somewhere, Osama Bin Laden is laughing -- and he's not laughing with us over this, he's laughing at us. Closing in on ten years after 9/11, he has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams in moving America toward chaos. Grope-gate is proof of his progress.
At very low cost to him - the loss of a couple of would-be martyrs and some fancy underpants - Bin Laden has pushed the U.S. to eviscerate its civil liberties, formerly the envy of freedom-loving people everywhere. The right to be protected against unreasonable searches, the right to free speech, the right to a speedy trial, the right to be secure in one's home, all guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, were temporarily put aside in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001; but nine-plus years later, not only haven't these rights been restored by a supposedly-liberal Obama Administration, they seem to be even further away from being reinstituted. What a side-splitter for Bin Laden! Whatever weakens Americans' trust in their government, and their feeling of freedom, is good news for him. He loves to watch on his satellite TV ordinary Americans being prodded, pushed, peeked at, and having their mail, e-mail, tweets, and library loans examined by their government. Fear is wonderfully contagious.
Bin Laden cannot help but be positively giddy over the growing anti-Muslim fervor in the United States. He must be praising Allah for it, knowing, as he surely does, that when the country that he labeled the Great Satan gallops closer to a Holy War against Muslims, he wins. For several decades he has tried to heat up that war. Right after 9/11, the possibility of such a war receded to the point that even Iran helped in the hunt for him as mastermind of the attacks. But the good will between the U.S. and the Muslim world has since deteriorated, shredded by the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of a Muslim country, Iraq. Bin Laden must realize, deep down, that the best way to eliminate him and Al Qaeda as threats is through an alliance between the Western democracies and the world's non-radical Muslims: once middle-of-the-road Muslims get the idea that it is to their benefit to deny him safety, succor, funds, and information, his days will be numbered. But that's not going to happen if anti-Muslim activities in the West accelerate and force moderate Muslims to be on the defensive and to reject cooperation with the West.
These nine-plus years have also seen a marked change in the U.S distribution of wealth, a change likely to be of comfort to Bin Laden because of its potential for disrupting America. A generation ago, the trend toward the rich becoming much richer and the middle class slipping down the ladder had begun; but it has since been exacerbated by the disproportionate tax cuts and tax breaks for the wealthy, and by the draining of the Treasury for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Any enemy that seeks the destruction of the United States would be heartened to have this country's income distribution scale come to resemble that of a banana republic, with the top few percent of the population controlling most of the country's wealth and the majority just a paycheck or two from financial desperation. That sort of disparity is a prescription for social disaster and for the promulgating of new repressive measures to protect the wealthy from the anger of those struggling to stay afloat in an economy unable to produce new middle class jobs. Further destabilization will make us more vulnerable.
Fixing our economy is a lot more central to our security as a nation than the full-body scans and pat-downs at domestic airports that, most experts agree, will not protect us from a future terrorist action.

[Image: smiling-bin-laden.jpg]

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/nonono.gif" alt="Nonono" title="nonono" />
and while I'm at it,

HANG TSA director John Pistole.

that's right, hang him.

Find a tall tree and a long rope, let him swing
someone with a clue!

National Review: The Trouble With TSA

by Andrew C. McCarthy

Quote:November 24, 2010

Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, is the author, most recently, of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.

More years ago than I care to remember, I prosecuted some violent drug dealers. During the trial, we got some reliable information that their associates were transferring contraband to them in prison, and they were smuggling some of it into the courtroom. Federal marshals were rightly concerned that some items could be used as weapons.

We tailored a response to the circumstances. As any reasonable person would appreciate, that meant weighing the danger involved, the adequacy of various protective steps to counter the danger, the rights of people who would be affected, and the fact that our main concern was security — not collecting evidence in anticipation of bringing charges.

I agreed that the indicted defendants should be subjected to daily strip searches upon leaving and returning to prison — including cavity searches, since body cavities are notorious repositories of makeshift weapons and narcotics. This was appropriate not only because of the threat involved but because of that threat coupled with significant facts about the people involved. The indicted defendants had violent histories that included threats to kill witnesses and an attempt to murder an undercover police officer. They were in custody despite not yet having been convicted, because a judge had denied bail based on evidence that they posed a danger to the community. We had now caught them with items they were not supposed to have in the courtroom.

People in prison are subject to highly intrusive searches; they have no expectation of privacy. To be sure, the government is given more latitude — relieved of the need to show probable cause for the search — because it is promoting safety, not trying to develop a prosecutable case. But what makes the search appropriate is the record of the people involved, not the abstract possibility of violence. A savage act is always possible. If that is all it took to justify gross infringements of liberty, such infringements would always and everywhere be justified. An intrusive search is reasonable, or not, based on what the people involved have done to prompt it, not simply because life is fraught with peril.

The remaining people coming to the courtroom each day presented circumstances very different from the defendants. There were the defendants' family members and associates, other trial participants (jurors, court reporters, the judge, and the lawyers for each side), some members of the press, and spectators (ordinary people who would come by to watch trials).

The family members and associates were neither charged nor in custody, though some were suspected of collusion in the drug dealers' activities. Like all members of the public, they had had to pass through cursory courthouse screening upon entering the building. This included the presentation of identification and passing through a magnetometer — which, while far from perfect in ferreting out weapons, does detect guns, knives, and other metal objects. So we opted against any further physical searches absent some new indication that one of these folks possessed an item that could be used as a weapon. Still, the marshals were instructed to watch them carefully in the courtroom and keep them physically separated from the defendants — if contact was sought for some reason, defense lawyers could ask the judge for permission and the judge could then work with the marshals to set the ground rules.

As for the remaining trial attendees, all of whom had also gone through the screening process, there was no reason for added concern. Of course the threat situation dictated that the marshals remain on their toes. But a pro can easily do that without hassling everyone in sight. And that's exactly how these pros handled it: smoothly, realistically balancing the risk of something terrible being attempted against the huge unlikelihood of its being attempted by the vast majority of the people in the courtroom.

Imagine, though, if the marshals had said: "Let's just cavity-search everyone — after all, you never know."

In essence, that is exactly what the Transportation Safety Administration is doing with its perverse — in every sense of the word — security procedures. At a number of the nation's most heavily trafficked airports, in the midst of the Thanksgiving holiday, when people routinely fly in order to be with faraway loved ones, the TSA is saying: Let's suspect everyone of being a terrorist, no matter how groundless the suspicion, and move immediately to the most intrusive search procedures in our toolkit.

This is a rank violation of the Fourth Amendment. In my long-ago trial, it would have been thought obscene to make violent drug traffickers the measure of every person's privacy rights. There would have to be something more — some concrete basis for suspicion, particular to the person. Yet, the TSA is making the savage jihadist its lodestar for navigating the threat it audaciously presumes to be posed by every American.

At its website, the TSA cheerily informs us that its unnerving electro-strip searches, and the alternative you get to choose — having TSA officials grope the breasts, buttocks, and genitalia of yourself, your spouse, your children, your elderly parents, etc. — pass constitutional muster as "administrative searches." Under this line of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, the agency insists, a warrantless search "is valid…if it is 'no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives'" — a proposition for which it quotes a Ninth Circuit case from 37 years ago (United States v. Davis). If you don't like it, the TSA concludes, you "may avoid the search by electing not to fly." How very reasonable!

Speaking of reasonableness, the Supreme Court reaffirmed in the 2001 Knights case that it is "the touchstone of the Fourth Amendment." Determining whether a search is reasonable requires an assessment of "all the circumstances" — not just the potential threat to public safety and the state of modern technology, but the intrusiveness of the proposed search, its likely effectiveness, and the degree of privacy Americans may reasonably expect from their government under the circumstances.

The threat to public safety from the terrorist use of aircraft is obviously great, but no greater than countless other scenarios. We don't unleash the government to commit what would otherwise be sexual assault and the infliction of emotional distress on nothing more than an abstract threat. The threat of terrorism is ubiquitous. On the other side of the equation, the search tactics at issue would scarcely be more of a privacy invasion if agents were stripping passengers and performing cavity searches.

Worse, the tactics are ineffective. TSA chief John Pistole admits that he intentionally delayed notifying the public about the new procedures because he didn't want to tip off the terrorists. Of course, tipping them off would be irrelevant if the procedures were an ironclad protection, but they are easily evaded — by those with an interest in evading them — through choosing airports where they are not in place, using explosive components they cannot detect, and hiding components in body cavities against which the procedures are ineffective.

Most significant, the government is ignoring the most material element: discrimination, based on characteristics known to be associated with the threat. Discrimination has been turned into a dirty word, but we want our law-enforcement, intelligence, and security services to employ it sensibly. If everyone is a suspect, then no one is a suspect — meaning the real threats get no real attention.

What justified the different gradations of Fourth Amendment treatment in my courtroom years ago were the very different circumstances of each category of person. To be sure, everyone would have been safer from being attacked by a weapon if everyone had been cavity-searched. But what sense would it make if, to get to this purportedly optimal safety level, everyone had been attacked by the authorities — forcibly subjected to a humiliating search without having done a blessed thing to provoke suspicion? And is it really an answer to say, "Well, if you don't want to endure it, stay out of the public's courthouses"?

Whether it's the case of the Christmas bomber, the Fort Hood bomber, or the World Trade Center bombers from 17 years ago, our government, again and again, has consciously avoided the common denominators of Islamist ideology and anti-American animus that should have raised caution signs. We have knowingly granted entry into our country, and often into our institutions, to people who have meant us harm. The officials whose job it is to protect us have decided to protect Muslim sensibilities by treating every American as a suspected mass-murderer. To feel better about themselves, to inoculate themselves from bogus charges of racism and Islamophobia, they have decided to mortify everyone.

Many things may be said about this approach, but reasonable is not one of them. I'd start with unconstitutional.

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/applause.gif" alt="Applause" title="applause" />
TSA employees push back on full-body scanners and pat-downs: 'We're not perverts'

BY Aliyah Shahid

Quote: Airport pat-downs may be uncomfortable for holiday travelers, but they're no picnic for Transportation Security Administration employees either.

"We just want the public to understand that we're not perverts," said screener Ricky D. McCoy who's in charge of a local TSA union for Illinois and Wisconsin.

Just before the busiest travel weekend of the year, the TSA has been facing a hailstorm of criticism from travelers arguing the new airport pat-downs and full-body screeners are too invasive.

But some TSA employees say the atmosphere has grown hostile in the past few weeks with reported cases of passengers calling the agents molesters, threatening violence and in one case telling a TSA agent to not touch "my junk."

McCoy said just last week a passenger got angry when McCoy explained that he'd have to do a pat-down.

"The guy looked me straight in the face and said ‘I don't know what I might do to you if you touch me,'" McCoy said, who added the search eventually went smoothly and his wife came back to apologize

The uproar has been fueled by an Internet-based campaign encouraging travelers to boycott the use of the full-body scanners on Wednesday—claiming they're virtual strip searches because they produce invasive, intimate images of passengers.

Reports of a TSA agent who asked a North Carolina woman who survived breast cancer to remove a prosthetic from inside her bra, and a bladder cancer survivor from Michigan who said he was soaked in his own urine when his urostomy bag burst after a TSA pat-down, haven't helped.

John Gage, president of a union that represents TSA employees, said the agency needs to do more to educate passengers so transportation security officers are protected.

"This absence of information has resulted in a backlash against the character and professionalism of TSOs," said Gage, according to ABC News. "TSA must act now — before the Thanksgiving rush — to ensure that TSOs are not being left to fend for themselves."

McCoy agreed. "We have major problems because basically TSA never educated the public on what was going on," he said. "Our agency pretty much just threw the new search techniques out there."

TSA chief John Pistole said the agency is reviewing its method to see if there is a way to make the pat-downs less invasive but just as thorough.

Devil Devil <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/rofl.gif" alt="Rofl" title="rofl" />

I hate to break it to the TSA employees, who are just 'doing your job', we understand-
but your 'job' is either to grope our privates, or gaze our naked bodies attentively
What the hell are we supposed to think?

When your children or family ask you what you do all day do you say
"Keep America safe by feeling up grandmas and looking up people's asses"

That's the truth of it.

I refuse, I hope you will too
I quit flying years ago
no buck knife on plane
no Wook..............
Little by little Americans are loosing your liberties, 2 years ago I warned you all about Obama and many spoke against me calling me a nutcase, well seems like life has the way to proof I was not that far away from the truth, welcome to the Socialist States of America with Our Great Leader, Barack Hussein OSAMA, the biggest fraud and usurper ever in the history of the once great nation the dying United States of America. Soon all these machines are going to be placed in schools, libraries, stadiums, buss, train, and any other way of transportation, in military installations, government buildings, etc, wherever the hell the goverment wants, there will be a machine violating you and when the time comes to take the "mark of the beast" these machines will act as a detector for those who dont take the mark. Prepare America, Gay, lesbians and abortionists are taking over and now communists are in charge.
It is more than Obummer (and once Nixon)
lots of players in these games
Obama or not.
Interesting to see these things unfolding, but still I catch myself asking
"How did it come to this?"

I got a feeling that in a very few short years, I will look back on this time and think, if only we could go back!

I guess I'm in a pessimistic frame of mind.

Howdy Mayito! Hi
yeah right Mayito,
all of this and all the steps leading to it for decades are directly Obama's fault.

by golly, if there'd been no Obama there wouldn't have been any need to end the bible with Revelations
Only you could turn righteous indignation for TSA molesting folks into a slamobama hate fest up to and including the mark of the beast,

I guess Obama invented that too?
Quote:Interesting to see these things unfolding, but still I catch myself asking
"How did it come to this?"

When "Washington Rules" did 911 in concert with Carlyisle Group, Vandebar Bush n piglets, Cheney n piglets, CIA's unchecked hubris, MOSSAD and 5 dancing israelis, Zionist Wall Street Bankers making phoney martgages without PAPERWORK, Chernof who has LARGE stock holdings in Scanner Manufacturer AND rigged the bid so THEY would get contract ... and NO

Meanstream Media Sheep

Did absolutley fucking NOTHING to stop the mad rush over the cliff ...

Our Democratic Republcic has been GONE .. phhfffttt since the early 20th century when the FED started... Yak soulwise sometimes I can't stand it Wall Wall

Bob... <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/reefer.gif" alt=":uni:" title="reefer" />
This is some sick shit on many levels. TSA whores need to grow some balls and refuse to molest people. The people need to grow some balls and refuse this molestation and that TSA fucker who got punched.. yea right I will shed a tear for you.

Fake security for the sheep and make work welfare for TSA Macdonald's rejects and big money for freaks like Chertoff and the corps. Nothing to do with safety or security. As a parent if one of these fuckers attempted to touch my kids groin I am not sure I could hold back and am even less sure if I should.

'We hate obese passengers and people with personal hygiene issues:' Now 'abused' TSA staff vent their anger at patdown searches

Read more: ... z16EsCtZwY
what cracks me up is that in the mean time-there are thousands upon thousands of private planes flying around up there with the big birds-if anyone wanted to, I can't think of a better weapon to bring a big bird down than all those little private birds flying around at whim and will.

Amazing that any 'civilians' are still allowed to fly their private planes or be on private planes... with the psychopaths in charge and the 80% psychopathic masspeople eager to work for them and/or accept this abuse in return for SAFETY... oh yes, the safety... I am really surprised anyone can just go to any airport and fly their planes in the skies.

Which the elite do and have always done and always will be able to do. The last time I flew the Delta plane was so dirty it was like 3rd worlding it. No telling how much they slack with the maintenance of the planes.
<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/hi.gif" alt="Hi" title="hi" /> Gard, long time no talky, I think to address your point a couple .50 cal would easily take down the big planes, cheaper easier and much less fuss. I would guess the so called terrorists got that too. You can load up a little plane with all kinds of goodies to smash into whatever as well.
It is political. Normal Muslim people have no more interest in killing whitey then normal whitey has in killing whitey.

Back to the original point the TSA should get its ass kicked as well as anyone that supports these sick fucks.
I just got finished watching a Netflix - the pilot for The Lone Gunmen series. Short-lived, spin-off from the X-Files.

It was a jaw-dropper for me. It aired in the Spring of 2001 - just a few short months before 911. Anybody know the plot?

A faction inside our government executed a plot to take over control of a commercial airliner taking off from Boston by remote control and fly it into the World Trade Center to start a series of wars to enrich the arms dealers. In the show, it was foiled at the last minute and the plane pulled up instead of crashing. It was kinda eerie watching the airliner head directly for the WTC from the cockpit.

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/nonono.gif" alt="Nonono" title="nonono" />
I think it's too late. I have been sounding the alarm for a very long time, but i used to believe in the system and think we could stop it from within. we can't.

It's over, freedom in Amerika is dead. The totalitarian government will live on, feeding on us no matter that we like it or not.

The only option is to flee the country, most of us won't, just like they didn't flee the nazis in the 30s.

It's too late here, far too late.
If you run from troubles they grow exponentially and chase you.

I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees personally

and this is my home, land of my fathers for more than 300 years

So no, I'll not leave.
[Image: AADD017.jpg]
Quote:If you run from troubles they grow exponentially and chase you.

I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees personally

and this is my home, land of my fathers for more than 300 years

So no, I'll not leave.

I respect it and support you on it Keith, but i'm realistic.

We're going to die with our boots on, it's too late to win this thing, freedom is dead in the USA has been since before I was born.

We are spreading our version of fascism across the world, we do not want other countries free, we want to force them to be like us.

That's why we started and perpetuated the cold war, forced nuclear proliferation to the absurd levels it reached and have slaughtered MILLIONS of innocent peasants in such diverse places as Korea and Iraq, not in the name of freedom, but to force them to be like us.

If we so believe in freedom, why don't we respect other's right to be free to live as they wish?

History proves we don't.


btw that disgusting, repulsive document "the constitution" is a huge part of the problem. Take off the rose colored glasses and see that rag for what it is, over rated toilet paper that led us to this hell.


The thing that amazes me are the comments on all the TSA articles. I wonder if they're paid stooges or do we really have so many people in this country that don't care to be free as long as they are "safe" and are so foolish as to believe they will get either on this path.

Every single article has comments, if any are allowed, that never consider it as a value judgment.

I am sorry, my children's lives DO NOT HAVE MEANING unless they have freedom and dignity. Some of us understand that life is risk, and are willing to make a risk assessment, besides it's more likely a plane will crash than be bothered by a terrorist plot, historically speaking.
Apathy is a Killer.
I would submit to you, Morbius, that it is our economic system that has brought us to ruin. And has, in your words, “led us to this hell”. It is a system without conscience and based upon one thing, greed. Greed for money, greed for power, greed for domination. We’ve just seen how an unregulated free market banking system can be so beneficial to the public.

Big business has become so entrenched within our Government that it is hard to distinguish the two sometimes. We do nothing anymore based upon being a “Good Christian Nation”, even if the hype is otherwise with the Cross held high for another crusade and the Flag waving proudly as we go to battle. It’s all based upon profit. Profit is the bottom line. Profit from the sale of arms, profit from the sale of munitions, profit for tanks, aircraft, missiles, etc. etc. etc. War IS big business, and many businesses are able to milk the government’s coffers during a time of War, undeclared or not.

Our wars have rarely been started based upon moral issues. They mostly have been started over some business needing access to someone else’s resources. Afghanistan, is only the most recent. That’s over an oil pipeline running from north to south.

As far as your comment: “btw that disgusting, repulsive document "the constitution" is a huge part of the problem. Take off the rose colored glasses and see that rag for what it is, over rated toilet paper that led us to this hell “, you couldn’t be farther from the truth if you tried. It’s not a rag.

That document, and others, puts into words the basic essence that we have rights endowed by our creator, not granted by any earthly government, and not subject to any whim or authority on its part to deny those rights. For if we have reached that point, then surely your

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards...”,

which you have borrowed from ”The Declaration of Independence” (another rag?), must be the response.

It is never too late. No government no matter how strong, including our own, can exist without the consent of its governed.

Some years ago I took this oath, as has every commissioned officer serving in the Armed Services of the United States. The oath is for life.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States.

The Constitution exists apart form the Government and is our covenant and authority to change things if we wish to do so.

Fourth 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, 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.

Show me a warrant or let me pass.

Class action suit, violation of Fourth Amendment rights, where the hell is the ACLU? Absent either?

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

People do not exist for the Government, Government exists for the People
well said Alemos!
Alemos study the history and content of the constitution, their authors are very different.

In fact I am a HUGE Jefferson fan, but the imperialist Hamilton had a great influence over the constitution which is worthless i will contend forever.

I find it comical that you quote from an amendment, written by Jefferson as the bill of rights was. In fact the bill of rights was added specifically because the people would not ratify the constitution without Jefferson and by extension Virginia's support, they tried and failed to ram it through as was.

The fatal flaw which cannot be fixed in the constitution is that it leaves the Judicial branch totally undefined in power and scope. While it does comment on money, it's not our economic system but the structure of the currency itself that is the problem, it left one branch powerful enough to change the constitution without actually amending it.

Those little gods in black robes approved the Federal Reserve, despite of the fact that your beloved rag does specify what money is, and it sure as hell is not Fiat currency issued by a privately owned central bank.

The Constitution is worthless to even protecting our rights without it's amendments, consider that.

In it's original form it does little or nothing to protect our rights, liberty and freedom.

So what is it then, in it's original form?

The foundation document of an EMPIRE, it was always intended to be that by Madison and Hamilton, though Madison was much more of a moderate.

I'm sorry if it insults you, i have the disgrace on my record of having served in this empires storm troopers as well, but I would much rather live in a Federated Republic than a National Empire, unfortunately the USA is a National Empire.

EDIT: Spelling and to add this: Read the Articles of Confederation that preceded the Constitution with an open mind and you will find we replaced a superior form of Governance with an inferior one.
Then I take it you too swore the oath?
Yes Keith I did. (Edit: I'm a vet of desert shield and storm, i served a long time ago)

I also once believed in our government, I thought we lived in the "Land of the Free, and Home of the Brave", then I learned the truth.

I cannot in good conscience support that oath any longer, or those currently upholding it.

Simply put I could not in clear conscience today serve in the military, we are currently murdering on a grotesque scale, peasants who are of no danger to us at all, simply to feed the war machine.

I was naive when i swore that oath, 17 years old, a wiser and educated version of me never would have been so foolish.

Want to swear an oath of value?

Simply promise every day to be the best person you can, be kind to your fellows and inflict no harm.

In that you could make the world a better place and at the same time be as 180 degrees opposite what our military and government are today, under that same Constitution, as imaginable.

EDIT: one note:

I am consistent, even in my signature. The time has come to over throw this government and as my signature says provide new guards. This time I hope we embrace liberty and freedom a bit more than we did when we allowed the most evil man in history, Lincoln to establish such horrors as total warfare and the national empire state.
Morbius, what makes you think that meer mortals could possibly create a perfect document in the beginning? It was a starting point, whatever the founder’s intentions.

Initially most of these documents sought to guarantee the rights of white, male property owners. But their words have since been (based upon pressure from the governed) interpreted to encompass all citizens, not just what they originally intended.

So yes, it wasn’t perfect and is still being improved.

You said:

“In it's original form it does little or nothing to protect our rights, liberty and freedom.”

Nor does it have the power to do so, but the words it contains are powerful none-the-less. It is up to US, based upon those words contained within, to protect our own rights, our own liberty and our own freedom. We have all been lulled into a false sense of security whereby we expect the Government to take care of us. Major case in point was Katrina or any other disaster that strikes be it natural or man made. Instead of getting off our asses and doing something for ourselves, we wait for FEMA.

People do not realize how tenuous their survival is in reality. We used to grow our own food (and I believe our health was better also). My grand parents had a stockpile of food that would last for months if there were any problems. Now it’s “just in time” restocking of our grocery store shelves. God help us if the highway system is ever compromised. People would starve to death because they don’t know how to take care of themselves anymore.

I’m sorry that you feel disgraced having served in the military. That’s a personal thing for you. So that is not an insult. I was proud to serve (as did my father who fought in WW2, and GG Grandfather who fought in the Civil war) and to protect this country and its people, in whatever way was necessary. It was a good experience for me, although it was frequently demanding, taxing on the family, and exhausting at times. But it provided an opportunity for more personal growth than I ever thought possible. The extreme advanced planning I learned in the military has been a curse when trying to accomplish anything in a civilian sector that continually crisis manages. It also provided me a group of “Brothers in Arms” who are life long friends, each of which would sacrifice their lives for one other.

I do take issue with your “storm troopers” comment, however. How dare you equate the military with NAZI Germany. Yes, there have been departures from the moral ground (Abu Ghraib). But some of these indiscretions were perpetrated by the CIA, but mostly and more specifically, it was the likes of Haliburton and Blackwater “security forces”. Again big business trying to turn a large profit. Those people are your storm troopers.

The Government has deniability by using these entities since they are civilians, not military and thus they do not come under the rules of engagement for the military, or the laws governing warfare. The only individuals who can prosecute them are within the government of the occupied country. But of course, after the government of that country is destroyed, who is left to prosecute? So they have virtual free rein to do absolutely anything. Personally, I find that to be morally reprehensible. As I did the time honored code of not attacking another unless attacked.

The only thing I can say to you is that if you feel that strongly, and hate this country that much, perhaps the best thing for you to do is to find another home. That probably sounds like “Love it or leave it” but I know that even with imperfections, those imperfections can be corrected. You under estimate the power of the American People. They will take only so much, then they WILL take matters into their own hands.
wow, well I hope you realize you are part of the problem not the solution.

I never said I hate this country, I said this government and its type need to be abolished, wiped out once and for all.

I do not believe in democracy, it is nothing more than mob rule, but has been enshrined as quasi-religion in this country.

How dare I equate the two?

Hmm, lets see. We invade and subjegate people as readily as the nazi did, we aer as proud to do so as any nation in history.

Don't you understand the indiscretion is being there in the first place?!?!?!?!?!?! not some minor crime by the CIA.


we have to speculate on the number we murdered in Iraq, we didn't bother to count, some estimates are as low as 50k and some as high as 500k but what's the difference right? they had it commin right? after all they were dehumanized and labeled the enemy.

No those you name are not the stormtroopers, they are the commanders, the imperial guard, the foot soldiers they aren't.

Lets address the War Against Southern Independence, it was not a civil war, that would imply that the south was trying to gain control of the central government, and that would be a lie.

Exactly how do you justify that one?

The states joined the union voluntarily and tried to leave peacefully only to be invaded, pillaged, plundered and subjugated to maintain the central imperial government.

Is there anything in that you can factually disagree with? Anything you can morally justify?

I can't.

I am sorry you can't see that having occupying armies in over 100 countries and 700 bases around the world does nothing to protect us.

They are OCCUPIERS, engaged in an aggressive war to expand our power, not a defensive force - that would imply they were at our boarders stopping an enemy from invading or attacking us.

(EDIT: A ridiculous notion if ever there was one, the USA is surrounded by 3 sides by ocean and has the second largest nuclear arsenal on earth. No nation would even attempt to invade us.)

If you believe we've been actually attacked by anyone in the last 50 years, then you believe it was private individuals acting privately as terrorists.

I am not sure i believe that (we have absolute proof of at least 1 false flag operation on record by our government: the explosion of the battleship Maine at Havana, Cuba 1898) but lets assume its true.

Can you really tell me that the acts of 19 individual criminals justify the invasion of other countries and the murder of uncounted tens of thousands?


I recently had a discussion like this with a friend of mine who somehow thought that the beheading of one reporter in a far off country was somehow an equally immoral act as dropping atomic weapons on women and children. We did the later and while I certainly agree with how horrible beheading someone is there is no way to equate the slaughter of 1 person with the slaughter of over 100000 innocent civilians.....but i forgot they had it commin too didn't they?

I never said I hate my country, I hate my government.

What part of this do you have trouble understanding, I will help you if i can:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute DESPOTISM, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government"

EDIT: Can't you see invading and killing anyone, anywhere is wrong? that peacefully supporting their right to be free, denying trade with nations that aren't, and setting an honest moral example is the only path to Liberty? We can't invade and give it to them, the minute we try we pollute the idea and it fails.

I digressed from the Constitution a bit, another of it's fatal flaws is it's first 3 words "We The People".

The reason this is a mistake is because the highest authority in all creation becomes this mass of people, who make decisions as cattle through mob rule.

Not God, not Natural Law, not moral conscience, no the highest possible authority is man. We answer to no one.

Imagine a world without standing armies poised to invade.

Imagine a world without a 60% tax rate and depreciating currency that makes us little better than slaves charged with our own upkeep. (for now at least we can pick our vocation)

Imagine a world where people are allowed to cooperate, that is their natural state after all.

The barbarians aren't at the gate being held at bay by our saviors in government, the barbarians already got through the gate and are the overlords of the government.

One thing that needs to happen, good people -especially soldiers- who would love their country need to make it stop, not cheer it on.

we almost had such a world, at the end of the longest period of unequaled prosperity in history 1830-1860 people honestly believed nation states would cease to exist......until the criminal Lincoln, who never freed a single slave, re-introduced the notions of totalitarianism and total war, notions of absolute barbarism if there ever was such a thing.
Quote:we have to speculate on the number we murdered in Iraq, we didn't bother to count, some estimates are as low as 50k and some as high as 500k but what's the difference right? they had it commin right? after all they were dehumanized and labeled the enemy.

Actually the military did bother to count(and keep detailed reports), it was released in one of wikileak's leaks. The number is around 100000 I beleive, forget the exact one.
Invading Iraq WAS a mistake, no one here will agree otherwise I think.

but did it make us no better than the Nazis?

I hardly think so. The Nazis didn't invade eastern Europe in the hopes that they'd become democracies,
They did it for 'Lebensraum'
Quote:Alemos study the history and content of the constitution, their authors are very different.

The federalist and anti federalist papers can be helpful as well.

When the TSA gets a free pass to violate the 4th can it be anything less than a tyrannical empire while senators and reps do nothing? With the Constitution allegedly the highest law of the land what does this say? I agree with Morbius the constitution is deeply flawed but I would prefer it and the upholding of it, with strict accountability for all in any form of public service to what we have now.

We do not have a democratic republic anymore, nor even a mob based democracy and we are certainly not free. Governments that value freedom do not occupy other countries, nor do they preemptively attack others, nor do they provides "rights" that we already have and then forgo the individuals rights for the fake benefit of the many. Tyrannical empires do this. Empires have "homelands" just as it is disgustingly called here with occupying government subsidized police forces just as they are in the homeland.

I am ex mil as well. What I did was nothing less then be a mercenary. Think about it. I provided my services for pay. Was I making America safe? Did I prevent some boogyman terrorist from harming someone here? Did I actually prevent any harm whatsoever to anyone here? I do not think so.

The military has become the enforcement arm of a corrupt and sold out government that does the bidding of their corporate and bankster bosses. Name me one war other than the the war of Independence and even that can be questioned as well, that was not based on a bunch of lies.
Quote:Invading Iraq WAS a mistake, no one here will agree otherwise I think.

but did it make us no better than the Nazis?

I hardly think so. The Nazis didn't invade eastern Europe in the hopes that they'd become democracies,
They did it for 'Lebensraum'

quite frankly keith we didn't invade Iraq in the hope it would become a democracy.

we invaded it to subjugate it's population and steal their resources.

in reality we are probably worse than the nazis, they were more honest about it.

our propaganda clearly has people believing that the Iraqis are to somehow benefit from the wanton destruction of their cities and homeland as well as the slaughter of their families.

in result we are definitely better, or at least much more efficient both at propaganda and at killing than the nazis.

what if the people in Iraq don't want democracy? what if they want a king?

do they not deserve to be free to make their own choices?

are we their parents then to decide what's good for them, like it or not?

I have serious problems with all of this.

the only thing missing is death camps, of course the nazis kept those a secret that only came out after they'd lost the war, what dark secrets will creep out in time about us?

we are more efficient than they were, morally we are no better.
quite frankly this thread is about fighting such abuses within as you rail on, not Iraq, which is covered extensively elsewhere
but steal their resources?
or steal OUR resources.


I personally think both were stolen, a lot of lives in collateral,
and that their self determination is exactly what it's now about, minus the military machine for dominance they once were.

now back to the subject at hand

Why the TSA pat-downs and body scans are unconstitutional

Quote:The protest on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving was called National Opt-Out Day, and its organizers urged air travelers to refuse the Transportation Security Administration's full-body scanning machines.

But many appeared to have opted out of opting out. The TSA reported that few of the 2 million people flying Wednesday chose pat-downs over the scanners, with few resulting delays.

There have been high-profile acts of civil disobedience in response to the two controversial procedures recently deployed by the TSA for primary screening - the body-scanning machines and the intrusive full-body pat-downs - including software programmer John Tyner's unforgettable warning to a TSA official: "If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested." But the public seems less opposed to the scanners than civil libertarians had hoped. In a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, only 32 percent of respondents said they objected to the full-body scans, although 50 percent were opposed to the pat-downs offered as an alternative.

That means opponents of the new measures will have to shift their efforts from the airports to the courts. One advocacy group, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, has already filed a lawsuit, calling the body scanners unconstitutional. Could this challenge succeed?

Courts evaluating airport-screening technology tend to give great deference to the government's national security interest in preventing terrorist attacks. But in this case, there's a strong argument that the TSA's measures violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

Although the Supreme Court hasn't evaluated airport screening technology, lower courts have emphasized, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in 2007, that "a particular airport security screening search is constitutionally reasonable provided that it 'is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives.' "

In a 2006 opinion for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, then-Judge Samuel Alito stressed that screening procedures must be both "minimally intrusive" and "effective" - in other words, they must be "well-tailored to protect personal privacy," and they must deliver on their promise of discovering serious threats. Alito upheld the practices at an airport checkpoint where passengers were first screened with walk-through magnetometers and then, if they set off an alarm, with hand-held wands. He wrote that airport searches are reasonable if they escalate "in invasiveness only after a lower level of screening disclose[s] a reason to conduct a more probing search."

As currently used in U.S. airports, the new full-body scanners fail all of Alito's tests. First, as European regulators have recognized, they could be much less intrusive without sacrificing effectiveness. For example, Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport, the European airport that employs body-scanning machines most extensively, has incorporated crucial privacy and safety protections. Rejecting the "backscatter" machines used in the United States, which produce revealing images of the body and have raised concerns about radiation, the Dutch use scanners known as ProVision ATD, which employ radio waves with far lower frequencies than those used in common hand-held devices. If the software detects contraband or suspicious material under a passenger's clothing, it projects an outline of that area of the body onto a gender-neutral, blob-like human image, instead of generating a virtually naked image of the passenger. The passenger can then be taken aside for secondary screening.

TSA Administrator John Pistole acknowledged in recent testimony that these "blob" machines, as opposed to the "naked" machines, are the "next generation" of screening technology. His concern, he said, is that "there are currently a high rate of false positives on that technology, so we're working through that."

But courts might hold that, even with false positives, "blob" imaging technology that leads to a secondary pat-down is less invasive and more effective than imposing a choice between "naked" machines and intrusive pat-downs as primary screening for all passengers.

In the Netherlands, there's another crucial privacy protection: Images captured by the body scanners are neither stored nor transmitted. Unfortunately, the TSA required that the machines deployed in U.S. airports be capable of recording, storing and transmitting images when in "test" mode. The agency promised, after this capability was revealed by a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, that the test mode isn't being used in airports. But other agencies have abused the storage capability of the machines. The U.S. Marshals Service admitted in August that it had saved more than 35,000 images from body scanners at the Orlando federal courthouse.

In evaluating the constitutionality of these scanners, U.S. courts might hold that the machines can't be considered "minimally invasive" as long as images can be stored and recorded.

In January, the European Commission's information commissioner criticized the scanners' "privacy-invasive potential" and their unproven effectiveness. And tests have shown that the machines are not good at detecting low-density powder explosives: A member of Britain's Parliament who evaluated the scanners in his former capacity as a defense technology company director concluded that they wouldn't have stopped the bomber who concealed the chemical powder PETN in his underwear last Christmas.

So there's good reason to believe that the machines are not effective in detecting the weapons they're purportedly designed to identify. For U.S. courts, that's yet another consideration that could make them constitutionally unreasonable.

Broadly, U.S. courts have held that "routine" searches of all travelers can be conducted at airports as long as they don't threaten serious invasions of privacy. By contrast, "non-routine" searches, such as strip-searches or body-cavity searches, require some individualized suspicion - that is, some cause to suspect a particular traveler of wrongdoing. Neither virtual strip-searches nor intrusive pat-downs should be considered "routine," and therefore courts should rule that neither can be used for primary screening.

Will the Supreme Court recognize the unconstitutionality of body-scanning machines? It might have ruled against them five years ago, when the balance of power was controlled by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

O'Connor was an eloquent opponent of intrusive group searches that threatened privacy without increasing security. In a 1983 opinion upholding searches by drug-sniffing dogs, she recognized that a search is most likely to be considered constitutionally reasonable if it is very effective at discovering contraband without revealing innocent but embarrassing information. The backscatter machines seem, in O'Connor's view, to be the antithesis of a reasonable search: They reveal a great deal of innocent but embarrassing information and are remarkably ineffective at revealing low-density contraband.

The Supreme Court might not view the matter differently today, now that O'Connor has been replaced by Alito, who wrote the lower-court opinion insisting that screening technologies had to be both effective and "minimally intrusive." Last year, the court struck down strip-searches in schools by a vote of 8 to 1.

In many cases, furthermore, Supreme Court justices are influenced by public opinion, consciously or unconsciously, and some polls suggest that opposition to these screening measures has grown in recent months. That reflects a basic truth of the politics of privacy: People are most likely to be outraged over a particular privacy invasion when their own privacy has actually been violated.

By Sunday evening, a projected 24 million U.S. travelers will have flown over the Thanksgiving holiday, and although less than 3 percent of them will have received intrusive pat-downs, many more will have gone through the scanners, holding their hands up in surrender as detailed images of their bodies flashed across a government screen.

It's possible, of course, that the TSA will respond to the backlash by rethinking its screening policies or that Congress will step in with regulations. But if not, the Supreme Court may be asked to hear a constitutional challenge to the body scanners before long. If the justices take the case, they should strike down the use of "naked" machines and intrusive pat-downs as an unreasonable search and a violation of what Justice Louis Brandeis called "the most comprehensive of rights" - namely, "the right to be let alone."

Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University, is the author of "The Naked Crowd: Reclaiming Security and Freedom in an Anxious Age." ... 04510.html
Quote:Officials feel furor of airport pat-downs
Clinton hopes to 'avoid' scan

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton acknowledged Sunday that she considers tighter airport security uncomfortably intrusive, while the head of the Transportation Security Administration backed away some from his earlier hard-line defense of pat-downs and full body scans.

When asked in an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation" whether she would submit to a body scan, Mrs. Clinton said, "not if I could avoid it. No. I mean, who would?" She also said the Obama administration must find a way to "limit the number of people put through surveillance."

TSA Administrator John Pistole said Sunday that the added security checks will continue despite public outcry and defended their use at roughly 70 U.S. airports.

"No, we're not changing the policies," Mr. Pistole said on CNN's "State of the Union."

But later in the day, he released a statement saying the agency would try to make screening "as minimally invasive as possible," though he did not elaborate on any imminent or specific changes. He had acknowledged in his CNN interview that "we're looking for ways to diminish the impact."

The Web-based uproar over the searches has crested in the past week after a series of embarrassing searches, including ones on children and passengers with health problems or disabilities. Several were captured on cell-phone cameras and posted at and other video-sharing websites.
cont. ... ns/?page=1
Pages: 1 2 3