I’ve crossed over to the Dark Side.
I agree with the ACLU.
What was it that Master Yoda said? Something about starting down the dark path…
The Dark Side (Farrah)
30 Responses to “The Dark Side (Farrah)”
RSS feed for comments on this post.
I’ve crossed over to the Dark Side.
I agree with the ACLU.
What was it that Master Yoda said? Something about starting down the dark path…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Cam Edwards is a talk show host heard nationally on NRAnews.com and Sirius Satellite Radio. » Read More
It’s too bad the ACLU has such a bass ackwards read on the Second Amendment. They could be of some value if they acted on law instead of agenda. Don’t forget, they are nothing more than lawyers that have made a recognizeable name for their group. Now, they need to work on their reputation.
Woody
I know Farrah disagrees with me, but bomb vs. full body pat, pat is always going to win.
Will there be a few occcurances of jackasses getting frisky? Of course. But we lost a lot of Sept. 11. Our ability to get on a plane easily was one of them.
The more I think about this, the TSA, 9/11, and the freedoms we have subordinated to “security”, the more I am convinced any and all law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry weapons aboard airliners. That is the only way to get our freedom back and provide for our safety at the same time.
Woody
“The Right of the People to move about freely in a secure manner shall not be infringed. Any manner of self defense shall not be restricted, regardless of the mode of travel or where you stop along the way, as it is the right so enumerated at both the beginning and end of any journey.” B.E.Wood
Jake, where would you draw the line between personal freedoms and security? Would you submit a DNA sample to the government if you thought you’d be safer? Or is that drawing the line?
Farrah, I do think that there’s a line.
But I also think that I can say that I agree with something without saying that I agree with every possible interation of extension of that same thing.
I can say that I agree with two constenting adults getting married, for instance, without also having to agree that pedophilia, multiple wives, marrying dogs, or any other other “slippery slope” is legit.
In this case, I agree with the TSA that there sometimes needs to be pat downs. I also agree with you and others that said pat down should be done professionally.
To your question… where should the line be…
That’s a good question. In many ways, if you take a strict “Constitutional” approach, the very idea that we even have drivers licenses is probably something “anti-framer”. So it’s hard to say where the line “should” be since we are going to constantly be changing that line depending on what society is comfortable with.
Today, the line for me is whatever ends when I step away from security. DNA or other record keeping bothers me. But the idea of doing a short term, non-trackable pat down (no video tape, for instance) is well clear of the line because it ends the moment I walk away from the security area.
Inappropriate pat downs are just that - inappropriate. This issue is simliar to gun control to me… some rules are good, but just because people CAN do bad things doesn’t mean we should ban the use for everyone.
So let me turn this question around… where’s the line for you? You don’t seem to agree that physical searches should be allowed, so are you willing to accept the consequences of banning them? Even if that included more plane hijackings?
Not to be crude, but how would you men feel if male TSA security agents (possibly of unknown sexual orientation) decided that you needed to remove your pants so that they could search, and pat down, your perineum area (the area behind your scrotum) for a bomb or bomb materials, possibly even a ‘bend over and spread em’ scenario like in the prisons? (btw as a juvenile detention facility guard I had to do that sometimes, pretty gross)
Don’t think it’s not going to happen because that places is just as likely a home for bombs and bomb materials as are the areas around a woman’s breasts.
I’m a really gassy guy. Any such exam of those areas on me must be conducted at the examiners own risk. I think I would have to put a caution stencil across the seat of my undies.
Woody
Homer, I agree that we might not like it, but if terrorists start carrying bombs in their undies, well, we have to search. Would I like it? More than death.
But then the terrorists will have won…
*snickers at the David Cross reference*
Where do we draw the line? Hmmm.
This thread truly represents one of the greatest things about this country, whether that was the intentions of the posters or not.
On one side, you’ve got people arguing a right of privacy. Even more specifically, it’s essentially a Fourth Amendment argument - “The right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures . . . .” (emphasis added).
On the other side, some people argue the security interest of the country as a whole. This is essentially arguing the “Welfare Clause” of the Constitution, which gives the federal government (more specifically, the Congress) the power to provide for the general defense and welfare of the people (seeArticle 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution).
These analyses illustrate the balancing test that must occur any time there is a conflict between individual rights and governmental power. The symbolism of Lady Justice and her balancing scales, or the more common “scales of justice” fits perfectly into this thread.
The truth is, everybody that has posted on this issue is right to a degree. Where do we draw the line? We draw the line where the scales even out.
So they can only look under one boob, but not the other one?
*snicker*
Jake in response to the question - I draw the line at the invasiveness of these searches.
An agent of the government is allowed to place their hands on/in the most private areas of my body in the name of “security”. I need not be charged with a crime. My permission is not requested, nor required. No alternative method of searching is offered. The only choice I have is to allow this.
The most basic civil (and human for that matter) right we have is ownership of our own bodies. It is MY body. I say who has the right to put their hands on it, not the government.
Allowing TSA agents to feel around in between my hooters won’t prevent a hijacking. Terrorists who want to hijack a plane will find a way around it. The two women who brought down the planes in Russia over the summer bribed their way past security with $34. (see - www.mosnews.com/news/2004/09/15/ustinov.shtml
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30042-2004Sep17.html )
All these regulations do is take away civil rights from law abiding citizens.
I have to believe that there is technology available, or there could be if somebody wanted to make some money, to adequately perform security checks without invasive body searches.
Nerk - Agreed.
Absolutely. The technology is (or soon will be) available, albeit at a considerable cost. If it’s a funding issue, why not fire half the nincompoops at the TSA and use that money to fund more technologically advanced equipment and training for the remainder of the agents? Unfortunately, once a governmental bureaucracy as large as the TSA is in place, it’s hard to trim the fat.
Justin
Hey, All;
Why draw a line when all that is need is to draw a pistol at the appropriate time?
Give me a few seconds to duck before you start throwing keyboards at me!
Woody
Well, I think it’s gotten too far now…
www.wjla.com/news/stories/1104/190100.html
I agree, J.
Won’t be long before they make you wear chastity belts so you can’t put anything in or take anything out.
A reliable .380 with frangible ammo in the hands of a few law-abiding passengers would cure the whole situation.
Woody
Guns are the answer for everything eh Woody?
Humm…the possibilites are limitless
Gee, I don’t know J. You’d have to define “everthing” for me. But, it would sure take care of this problem!
Woody
Woody, we’ve argued this one before, but…
You’re saying that a gun would solve any and all problems associated with anything that someone is able to smuggle onboard?
Riiiiight.
- A terrorist was able to sneak something on the plane for the purpose of doing something bad
- Our new enemy doesn’t care about negotiation, only death
- The likelyhood of any sort of warning is not that big
So what are you advocating? To stop screen and just arm the cabin?
But hey, no sense arguing about this again…we’ve already had the conversation and you’ve already admitted that you’re taking the hard right position as an advocate for that side. Fair enough.
Jake,
I don’t advocate the stopping of all screening. All luggage/baggage/carry-on should be screened. Everyone should go through a metal detector. Only law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry weapons aboard. I’m all for bomb sniffers. I am aginst this frisking by a bunch of potential perverts.
Woody
what about RPG’s on board?
btw, anyone notice something about this thread that makes it different than alot of the others here on Cam’s board? And I’m not talking about how it’s still civil and on point…
Sorry, J, you are gonna have to check your RPGs with your luggage. They won’t fit in the overhead bins or under the seat in front of you. A small version, you know, one that you could tuck under your shirt and didn’t explode on contact would be OK. Oh wait, we already have such a thing. Its called a pistol!
Woody
Woody, so then why screen “law-abiding” citizens at all? And what makes someone law-abiding? How are you going to test for law-abiding without doing screening?
And Woody, surely you must see the irony in YOU, of all people, making this point-
“I am aginst this frisking by a bunch of potential perverts.”
Just like some people aren’t down with people owning potentially murderous guns??
;)
Jake,
I have never met a potentially murderous gun. As far as I know, all guns are inanimate objects. They amout to nothing more than paperweights without human input.
What makes gun owners perverts? What is perverted about owning guns?
Woody
Woody, you entirely missed my point. I’m not saying gun owners are perverted, or in any way trying to link the screeners with gun owners.
I just think it’s funny that you defend guns because bad people do bad things, but then turn around and say that the screening process has the “potential” to be bad. If I say that guns have the “potential” to be bad, you’d say that it’s not the guns.
The point I’m making is that your line of reasoning should carry to more than guns to be taken seriously. I found it amusing that you’re willing to change the screening process because of potential, but you’re not willing to change gun laws because of potential.
Hope I’m making sense.
Jake,
No, you’re not making sense. Those screeners have all sorts of potential. Given the opportunity, the perverts will come out of the woodwork. They came out of the cloth at the Catholic Church, didn’t they. I have heard of no such activity at any armory. Everything in my gun safe behaves. We have an apples and oranges duel here.
Woody
Woody,
For what it is worth, I see your point and agree wholeheartedly with you.
Now, you must excuse me, I must go prepare for heinous personal attacks from the usual suspects on this site.