OT: What the ....??

[Laughing Cow]

Heard this yet:

Leave bags unlocked. (http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/19/tsa.screening/index.html)

Looks like the US goverment can now do anything to it's travellers.
I thought that they were considered private property and opening them would be the same to walking into your house to do a search.

What will be next: open envelopes & Parcels??

Just my 0.2 cents worth of thought.

[joedoe]

Surely that violates the much vaunted US Bill of Rights or something doesn't it?

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by joedoe
Surely that violates the much vaunted US Bill of Rights or something doesn't it?

I think it falls under "War of Terrorism" and we know that in war times anything goes.

:( :(

[Serpent]

Originally posted by joedoe
Surely that violates the much vaunted US Bill of Rights or something doesn't it?

You should know by now that the Bill of Rights, Constitution, etc. is only important when it suits.

American civil liberties are vanishing at a furious rate of knots, yet they seem to do nothing about it.

:(

[dezhen2001]

:(:mad:

[eulerfan]

Well, look at what happens on this board. In one thread, I said that it was important for the U.S. to recognize the mistakes we make, to take some modicom of responsibility and was accused of siding with the terrorists.

My people are mad with grief and rage.

[Laughing Cow]

With all the new rules and regulations by the INS and now this I think more and more overseas Tourists will think twice before travelling to the states.

My fellow colleagues are already crumbling about the hassles of going over for a bussines trip over there.

Things like this will hurt the economy and the arleady ailing air-lines.

Last time I saw similar measures was when I traveled to some East-block countries.
:(


Just my 0.2 cents worth of thought.

[dezhen2001]

d@mn... must have missed that one eulerfan :(
im just wondering what the heck has happened to people these days? :eek:

dawood

[joedoe]

It was said somewhat tongue in cheek eulerfan. It's just that whenever there is an argument that may cover fundamental philosophies (like the Constitution & Bill of Rights) the people arguing on the US side try to rub it in our faces as if the US constitution or Bill of Rights makes US citizens more free or something.

Having said all that, this latest thing does open the door for violation of privacy if inspectors are allowed to simply inspect people's luggage without the owner being there. Also seems to me like it could present some temptations to people who might be less than ethical.

[Serpent]

It's the start of the inevitable collapse.

[eulerfan]

Holy Roman Empire

[Serpent]

Originally posted by eulerfan
Holy Roman Empire

You said it, BatGirl.

[Sharky]

What's so bad about it? If you've got nothing to hide?

[eulerfan]

Originally posted by Serpent


You said it, BatGirl.

Okay, so then some dark ages, that'll suck. But then an age of enlightenment, right? That'll be cool.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by eulerfan


Okay, so then some dark ages, that'll suck. But then an age of enlightenment, right? That'll be cool.

Every cloud, eh!

[Serpent]

Originally posted by Sharky
What's so bad about it? If you've got nothing to hide?

That's beside the point. It's an invasion of privacy and a lack of trust. It's basically guilty until proven innocent, which is very wrong. What if I came round your house and said I wanted to look through all your stuff? After all, what's wrong with that if you've got nothing to hide?

Not to mention the possibility for corruption, set-ups, frames, etc.

[eulerfan]

In that cartoon 'Saddle Rash' there's this scene where two oulaws are riding through the wild west. One says, "I mean, it's like with a 'Wanted: Dead or Alive' poster. You can't just look at the 'Wanted: Dead' part. You have to look at the 'or alive', too."

[Sharky]

What is this 'trust' you speak of? Most people don't trust THEMSELVES, let alone the lives of countless people just because it'd be nice not to have someone look in your bags.

it's a **** AEROPLANE afterall - with it's fuel on board it's basically a huge human guided missile - i personally can't believe how easy it would have been for me to smuggle things on a plane when i went to amsterdam a few months ago (but that's another thread, ahem).

they aren't doing it for fun, y'know. also, they were only asking - they didn't force anyone to do anything.

[Serpent]

They check baggage through x-ray machines in the airport. They can do that with all luggage with the owners present.

There's a lot more to this than security.

Security is the latest way of saying "All Your Rights Are Belong To Us!"

[dezhen2001]

"All Your Rights Are Belong To Us!"

maybe there needs to bea grammar police too :eek:
lol :D but agree with what u say

dawood

[Laughing Cow]

Sharky.

It might be ok for you.

But imagine how a woman would feel opening up her luggage at the Hotel and see those stickers and know that someone been riffling through her frillies and personal belongings.

:( :(

[Sharky]

I guess so.

But would you rather have your plance crash into a building, or some fat sweaty guy checkin out your calvin kleins?

[Laughing Cow]

Sharky.

I see your point, but it is the attitude and the way it is being done.

Like the place in the article where they mentioned that if you don't leave the case unlocked they will break it open and won't be responsible for any damage that they are doing.
Even though you might be a few metres away with the keys.

Or where they say in case of missing contents they will deal with it on a case by case basis.
I.e. wait forever to get heard and even longer to get re-imbursed ONCE their fault has been established.

Now this to me sounds like some vague excuses and reasons to do what they want to do.

Same with their much vaunted "Face recognition System" in tests it failed 5 out of 100 times in a controlled environment.
How many people will need to be rechecked a day across the country, maybe miss their flights, etc.
A few dozen, a few hundred??

Like with many things they are a bit too heavy-handed in trying to do good.
And it will hurt them more in the long run than prevent anything.

Just my 0.2 cents worth of thought.

[joedoe]

I agree that security cannot be compromised, however there is no reason why they cannot do the search with you present and without having to potentially damage your property.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by dezhen2001


maybe there needs to bea grammar police too :eek:
lol :D but agree with what u say

dawood

LOL. That was a reference to a bizarre Japanese online animation.

Do a search for "All Your Base Are Belong To Us" and you'll see what I mean! ;)

[Laughing Cow]

To add to what Joedoe said.

Plus, if they search the luggage with the owner in hand, they could arrest him immediately rather than giving him a chance to slip away.

Weren't the cases/bombs on the Lockerbie flight unattendet??

Sorry, it sounds like a standard bueaucratic(sic) quick decision made solely to meet a deadline.

Unfortuantely we got too many of those across the globe.

[dezhen2001]

lol serpent :D

dawood

[Stacey]

I agree 100% about the civil liberties, but those baggage handlers have been rooting through our stuff for years and years.

They have been doing this to high school students for years as well. Go into their locker, search their stuff, crack open a safe. Doesn't matter. They can see inside your computor, which is only important if you have kiddie porn, which worries me because I have come accross it by accident on the net, shut off the computor and wonder if its on there somehow.

Anyways, I care about civil liberties, but not enough to start a petition. My forfathers took up arms and I won't even take up a petition form. Its my fault.

[red5angel]

LC, I am going to make a respectful request for you to stop. You don't live in the US and while you may travel here atleast you know your plane won't explode because someone managed to get a bomb into some luggage.
Listen to Sharky, what do you have to hide? You are going to the airport, you know the rules, why put something in there you are going to be embarrassed about?
Instead of trying to play up the things that bother you why don't you get over it and take a look at it from a wider point of view for once. You accused MP of being narrow minded but look at your posts. look at them very carefully. Your points are weak, and opinion although you have a habit of stating them as fact. Frankly I am tired of hearing form you on this because you are uninformed at best. You are everything you claim to hate about pro-US people, don't believe me? I could break it down for you and cut and paste enough to show you your posts are no different.
This war is going to happen, whether you like it or not. You don't fly two planes into 3000 US citizens and not expect us to respond, sorry it's not in our blood. We didn't like being under the reign of the British Monarchy, so we fought for our freedom. We didn't like being terrorized by the Japanese fleet and so we fought to make sure it was no longer a threat. Russia tried to hold us under an umbrella of fear and we stepped up to the plate ready to take action.
It doesn't matter if you like the reasons and it doesn't matter who started what. 3000 civillians were killed in a dispicable act and now it's time to pay the price.
I suggest you follow your own advice, hang out in your own corner of the world and not worry about it because we have it all under control ;) and we are going to do what needs to be done.

Serpent - "That's beside the point. It's an invasion of privacy and a lack of trust. It's basically guilty until proven innocent, which is very wrong"

Really? So having security guards at airports and malls is an accusation of guilt before innocents? Having cameras in strategic locations is also a breech of privacy?
Well what do you suggest? Should we forget about security guards? If they are there then obviously we are all doing something wrong right? Maybe like sharky pointed out, we should fill up these jets, remove all the security from our airports and see what happens when you get no law, no foresight and no security. As a matter of fact, why have cops? We are a free country right? I mean hell, if I want to beat someone to death for looking different to me, that's my right and my freedom right? Maybe the guy next door who has more money then me deserves to give up some of it to me when I break into hit house, while I don't have a fear of reprisal because that would be violating my civil rights.

hmmmmm, or maybe, there is no such thing as total freedom and so comes a balance between freedom and security. Maybe, because of the sensitivity and possible threat an airplane can represent, as violently illustrated to us on 9/11 (regardless of reason LC) things have to be tightened for our own safety. YOu don't have to fly, drive, take a boat, walk for all I care, but don't make a stupid decision that allows someone who doesn't quite agree with my religion, my governments foreign policy, or my lifestyle to turn their ride into a missile and kill my wife and children, and the wives, husbands, sons, daughters families of others.
It's a trade off my friend. What do you want?

[eulerfan]

red,
you can go the slippery slope route in both directions on this one. so, do we let cops barge in and search a house without cause. cops can just walk into your house when you are not there and go through all your stuff and, if something turns up missing, they'll see what they can do about it? A cop can just pull you over for no reason and search your car?

It doesn't matter. We're talking about baggage right now.

Is it really necessary to be able to search a bag without the owner present? Is the owner ever going to be THAT far from their baggage that they can't find him/her? Is there a significant difference that you are not there to witness the search, see how they treat your property, make sure all are lawful and respectful in the search? That is YOUR STUFF. You should be allowed to watch over it while a stranger lays hands on it, shouldn't you? It seems to me that it would just cause a delay if you had to be present for a search. Such delays would do what? Lose money for the airlines, right?

hmmmmmm

I don't really know how all that works. Smells funny, though.

I agree about the having something embarassing in your suitcase. It'll be much more embarassing if you are present. I've had my bag searched at an airport with the guy there. If I had had a ******** in it, I think I'd rather not be there when he finds it.

[Merryprankster]

KEEEEE-RIST what a bunch of gloom-and-doomers. The pendulum'll swing one way, then come back. Nice thing about living in a republic. It's reasonably self-correcting.

[red5angel]

Eulerfan, I agree, and that was my point, a middle ground has ot be reached. All I saw so far were people complaining about the fact it happens period, no body was asking why, no one was bothering to question if it really is necessary.
Is it necessary to go through a bag without the owner there, well, probably not. I can't think of any good excuse for not doing it in front of the owenr other then for speed purposes, you can process people and baggage seperately, and that may very well be an issue.
Like I said, I am not totally disagrreing, I used the other extreme to prove a point, there has to be balance. It seems reasonable to me to have tight security at airports because of the ability for damage that can be caused with an airplane, I shouldn't have to site any examples....

[eulerfan]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
KEEEEE-RIST what a bunch of gloom-and-doomers. The pendulum'll swing one way, then come back. Nice thing about living in a republic. It's reasonably self-correcting.

I was teasing a bit earlier. I don't really think history is completely circular, so much so that we can expect another age of enlightenment. Nor do I think it's entirely absurd to believe that the first law of thermodynamics might apply to our little pendulum just as is applies to every other pendulum.

I mean, you're not the least bit worried?

[red5angel]

"I mean, you're not the least bit worried?"

I wouldn't be too worried, Americans are too used to having their freedom, I have faith enough to believe that if it starts to get too bad we will take notice and things will change.
Nice with the thermodynamics on the pendulum thing, I was just going to make a statement along those same lines.....


MP sez - "Nice thing about living in a republic. It's reasonably self-correcting."

Tell that to the Romans...... ;)

[Merryprankster]

Yeah, I'm a little bit worried. But only a little bit. After all, we managed to flush the HUAC, and Joe McCarthy, no longer blackball hollywood artists, etc. We got some civil rights legislation passed in there somewhere and developed a healthy distrust of government after Watergate.

I think we'll be alright, long term, and maybe a bit inconvenienced short term. There will be HUNDREDS of legal challenges that will force the courts to define and redefine "right to privacy." You have to remember that it really isn't very well defined. We think it is, but it's not really that well defined, legally.

I find it odd that people talk about the "bill of rights," when discussing the right to privacy, when no such right, per se, exists in the constitution. I believe the landmark case was Griswold vs. Connecticut. It's really more about where when and how the Government can regulate activity.

What I think we're actually talking about is unreasonable searches and seizures, for the most part. Not en toto, of course, but for the most part. 4th amendment, yes?

The Roman republic was overthrown by what was essentially a military coup. I don't really think that environment exists here.

[red5angel]

Alright MP, is there anything you don't know anything about?! Let's see kicking butt in the martial arts, has a huge brain apparently, I bet your well built, well hung and would put Brad Pitt to shame in the looks department......:mad:
It's guys like you that give normal guys a bad name! ;)

[Merryprankster]

Well built? I dunno. You can seem my picture somewhere on the NAGA site.

Well hung? Umm. No, average according to unscientific polls and magazine research.

Put Brad Pitt to shame? Decidedly not. I look something like a bald Cro-Magnon.

And I know ****-all about art.

[red5angel]

modest and a wise guy too huh.... ;) I bet you got straight A's through grade and high school....

Do they have any pictures of you doing your thing on NAGA?

[eulerfan]

MP,

When I hear the Holy Roman Empire analogy made, I never think it's supposed to be one-to-one. To me it's just communicating the idea that even a great, seemingly indestructable beast can be felled.

[KC Elbows]

I wish I could remember who stated that all republics end in tyranny.

[FatherDog]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Yeah, I'm a little bit worried. But only a little bit. After all, we managed to flush the HUAC, and Joe McCarthy, no longer blackball hollywood artists, etc. We got some civil rights legislation passed in there somewhere and developed a healthy distrust of government after Watergate.

Yes, but before we managed to flush HUAC and McCarthy, a lot of folks got their lives and livelihoods ruined. In the long term, I think you're right; the pendulum will swing back towards civil liberties, as it always has. I just worry a bit about who's getting it in the neck in the short term.

[ZIM]

The Holy Roman Empire is the one that set up Charlemagne in 800ad and was not Holy nor Roman nor an Empire.

You're refering to the Roman Empire, which neither was built nor fell in a day. :)

My history profs used to say:"history does repeat itself, but the second time 'round is farce."

SSs nassty hobbittses...it quotes us:
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."- George Washington

"The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience." -Albert Camus

[chingei]

Originally posted by red5angel
""Nice thing about living in a republic. It's reasonably self-correcting."

Tell that to the Romans...... ;)

A tired line...

That's like saying "The strongest man in the world, who lived a remarkably long life and created countless amazing things must have had some serious diet problems. Let's not repeat his mistakes"

Nothing lasts forever, but nothing......

hardly a reasonable criteria

[Sharky]

Can you say 'crusades'?

[Merryprankster]

eulerfan,

I wasn't suggesting that our history needs a one to one map in order for the analogy to be valid. I was suggesting that the way in which our system is set up, plus the values re:government that U.S. citizens overwhelmingly believe in, would make something like a military coup--or even transference of power to a demogogue, unlikely for the foreseeable future. It would take severe extremis of a sort that I don't think I'm capable of imagining or understanding to create the sort of environment necessary to change our republic into a type of government that is not mostly self-correcting w/regards to civil rights or a host of other issues.

The analogy certainly holds, if we are just discussing the rise and fall of powerful states. I am quite certain we will not be at the top forever. I am also quite certain that the day we fall from our little tippy-top is rather long in coming.

[logic]

HEY LAUGHING COW

I didn't read any of the replies only your first post.

Do you know anything about Martial Arts or do you just come here to spread your Propaganda.

Yeah, The world sucks and your gonna die.I got it already.

Why don't you get your SCARED OR THE WORLD,SISSY, GIRLY, WEEK,A$$, Off this site and go do something about it.

Instead of comming here and beotchin like a winey little kid saying
No fair, No fair, he got more on his plate than i did.

[ZIM]

Funny, thats the same parallel that OBL draws from.

Re:the US republic- technically, the US is a federal republic, and even then, its only called that because of a translation problem. We're more of a 'limited-term oligarchy', by early Greek reckoning.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by logic
Do you know anything about Martial Arts or do you just come here to spread your Propaganda.

Big words. Obviously you don't read much on this Board, otherwise you would know which MA I do and what I have talked to others about it.

Let's take a toll of what your goverment has so far achieved in it's "War on Terrorism":
1.) Bombed Afghanistan and gotten rid of the Taliban.
2.) Got rid of a few ALQaeda Camps and arrested a few people.

And what it hasn't achieved:
1.) Caught Bin Laden
2.) Managed to hurt Al Qaeda by freezing some of it's assets
3.) Stipped Al Qaeda or it's activities.

Right now there are NEW training camps in Afghanistan with NEW recruits showing up to join the fight and bringing NEW funds.
More and more Terrorist groups worldwide are aligning themselves with Al Qaeda.

Why is that? Because you cannot fight Terrorism, you need to get rid of what caused the Terrorism.
Terrorism is not as simple as it being a group or a person.
Terrorist cels are designed to work by themselves without anyone higher up giving orders.
So getting rid of Bin Laden WON'T cause AlQaeda to roll over and give up.
Tht is one of the reason why so far NOBODY has successful fought Terrorism.

They more you hit and hurt them, the more reasons you give them for fighting you harder and hate you more.
Added, to that is that more people will join their cause for a variety of reasons.

Terrorism by it's definition will ALWAYS hurt you where it hurts when and where you expect it the least, regardless of how many preventative actions and pecautions you take.

Have fun and keep looking out there are People that are out to get YOU.

[logic]

I like the Idol threats that you just errased more then the propaganda you replaced it with:D

But it was unnecessary of me to spout off in the first place.

I just won't read the political and religious threads.

I did read this, and it's pretty good.
I agree with being right there while they search your bags.

[Merryprankster]

logic,

Laughing cow threatened me too. It was kinda cute. I find it pretty interesting that it's ok to physically threaten people for saying/doing things you disagree with, but it's not ok to physically threaten nation-states or NGO's for the same thing.

[rogue]

":Why is that? Because you cannot fight Terrorism, you need to get rid of what caused the Terrorism." And what would that be? Corrupt marxist gov'ts? Theocratic despots? Nationalistic dictators?

"Terrorism is not as simple as it being a group or a person.
Terrorist cels are designed to work by themselves without anyone higher up giving orders." Wrong, cells need money, resources and guidence. al Qeda is very good at financing their people. 9/11 was well planned and well executed and well financed.

"So getting rid of Bin Laden WON'T cause AlQaeda to roll over and give up. Tht is one of the reason why so far NOBODY has successful fought Terrorism." Well terrorism has effectively been fought in the past. But then everyone jumped all over the Isrealis for doing it. There are rumours that the US and UK have effectively curtailed the activities of terrorists in the past, but under Clinton the budgets for those activities were cut. But that's just a rumour.

I feel bad that I wasn't physically threatened.:(