Korean Job Discussion Forums

[bacasper]

Get Naked to Defeat Terrorists

Highlights:

"We were very lucky this time," quavers Joe Lieberman, the supposedly independent senator from Connecticut dedicated to defeating Israel's enemies with American lives and money. "But we may not be so lucky next time. . .why isn't whole body scanning technology that can detect explosives in wider use?"

Well, for starters, because it's completely, indubitably, diametrically unconstitutional.
...
Still, the Constitution isn't the only treasure these X-rated X-rays assault. Dignity and modesty also sustain knock-out blows. The ACLU is hardly a bastion of bashfulness, yet it denounces whole-body imaging as "a significant -- and for some people humiliating -- assault on the essential dignity of passengers that citizens in a free nation should not have to tolerate." Meanwhile, the Electronic Privacy Information Center compared such scans "to a 'virtual strip search' . . . The level of detail uncovered [is] akin to a disrobing in public: the images reveal the outlines of nipples and genitalia."
...
The tale of the TSA's whole-body imaging is as sordid as it is cynical. Though the agency pretends these smutty scanners are a recent, revolutionary weapon in the War on Terror, it's actually been trying to push us into them since 2002.
�
the Encyclopedia of Espionage, Intelligence and Security advises, "X raying of passengers... has...been out of the question due to the negative health effects..
�
Then the TSA helpfully and hilariously lists "Domestic locations" for "Other Advanced Imaging Technology deployments." These include the "Department of Corrections facility (PA)[,]. . . Montana State Prison, Utah State Correctional Facility." Now you know why you feel like a prisoner at the airport.
�
The power whole-body imaging gives jailers over inmates explains why the TSA loves this dangerous and invasive technology as much as passengers loathe it. The TSA has never been about security: screeners routinely miss weapons in tests -- and, as the Briefs-Bomber proved, in real life. Instead, they prey on passengers, robbing and beating them; one man has even died at the TSA's hands. Were our rulers genuinely trying to protect us, they would abolish the agency. But they prize the TSA because it boosts their power -- the raw, physical power of a police state.
�
The State reaps another enormous benefit: the humiliation of a search horrifies so deeply that folks seldom protest anything authorities do. Instead, they cower. They try never to draw attention or stand out from the crowd. Fear keeps them compliant and accepting regardless of the other abuses their government dishes out. Exhibit A: the downcast eyes and subservience to screeners' orders, however ridiculous or immoral, in checkpoint lines.

full article at link

[Fox]

I'm not sure it is unconsitutional. There's a difference between demanding someone submit to unreasonable search and seizure, and requesting someone submit to it, and using a refusal as basis for denying entry to an aircraft. I think the Constitutions protects with regards to the former, but not the latter.

Don't get me wrong, I think our airport security has gone too far, I think it wastes our national resources, harms our dignity, and worst of all is implemented in response to what is realistically a minor threat at best. I'm just not sure it's actually unconstitutional.

[pkang0202]

If they are going to have these fancy full body xray scanners, then they should give fliers back the privileges they took away.

If these scanners work as well as they say it does, then take out the restrictions they put into place after 9-11.

If the scanners can detect bombs, then it should be alright for me to bring my lighter on the plane. I should be able to bring liquids on the plane again. Etc...

[bacasper]

[Fox]

I'm not sure we have any legal right to travel by air, and I'm almost positive we don't have a legal right to travel by public airline. As such, that might be a difficult approach to take from a legal persective, which is ultimately what an appeal to the Constitution is.

I think those of us who oppose ever increasing airline security are pretty much stuck trying to vote measures like this out, both with our vote for our representatives, and by voting with our dollars by avoiding flight where reasonably possible.

[bacasper]

The right to travel is a human right. To be free from unreasonable search is a Constitutional right and the one I'd hope a court would find is violated by these scanners.

[kotakji]

Traveling might be a right, but, as Fox alluded, traveling by a means involving another persons property or infrastructure certainly isn't one. Its analogous to driving a car outside of your property being a privilege not a right.

[lizlemon]

[Reggie]

I see bacasper's point. Even though Americans die in drunk driving and cell phone related wrecks every day, you don't see cops searching everyone's cars before allowing them to drive on whatever highway. Wouldn't they have to have a search warrant or probable cause?

That being said, the bodyscans at airports are going to continue and the government will probably think of new search procedures as time goes on. It's a combination of some people in power looking for new ways to pocket taxpayer money and an American public that has become brainwashed to the point that they're afraid of cartoons. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G-D0F4Q9yk

[Emark]

Using the airlines can be a free legal common law right to travel. INSIDE the country that you call home would be the easiest place to begin to exercise one's free legal common law right right to travel.

Everything is contact and contract is everything. To begin understanding the laws, simply replace the word law with the word contract. Laws only have power when you consent to them. They are just contracts.
Maintaining your rights, means limiting the contracts that apply and adhere to you. The more contracts that you "submit', "apply", and register" for the less and less liberty, freedom and "rights" you have.
Every person is so tightly wrapped up in adhesion contracts that they cannot actually flex their rights. When you purchase a ticket to fly on whatever airline, you have consented to an adhesion contract, thus surrendering many of your rights, freedoms, and liberty. Your D.L is a good example of an adhesion contract. Bu agreeing and signing to the license, you agree to do follow everything in the legislated laws. ... with out ever reading such laws. Hahaha! They gotcha! Purchasing the airplane ticket is much the same way. Unless you know how to stand up and demand that you will be retaining your rights and liberty while simply exercising your common law right to travel, you will be forced to adhere to the adhesion contract you made and be strip searched and raped if those are the rules.

99% of people in the countries of Canada, Austrailia, N.Z., G.B., America and others, do not understand their countries laws, or their rights, and especially how to make these things work and do what they want them to.
For more information, I challenge you to search out and listen to these people:
George Gordon (dot org)
Brandon Adams & Gordon Hall (creditors in commerce)
Robert Menard (thinkfree dot ca)

For a good read, d/l the book by Mary Elisabeth Croft : "How I Clobbered Every Cash Confiscatory .... Know To Man"

[Fox]

[Fox]

[Reggie]

[Manner of Speaking]

The problem with these scanners - in light of the attempt by the Detroit bomber - is that they highlight a common fallacy in the bureaucratic security industry mindset: the idea that a technological fix is the quick solution to a security problem, whatever its effect on civil rights.

The air security agencies (read: bureaucracies) had all the information they needed to know this guy was a bomb threat and to catch him well before he ever got on a plane. But they just didn't have their act together. Obama himself has pointed this out.

So why go for the technological quick-fix? So bureaucracies don't have to change. To prevent Congress or Parliament or the general public from shining a very bright light up their orifice to see what they are doing wrong.

[ytuque]