Gravitymaster 0 #76 July 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteI have a better idea. Search EVERYONE. No free passes. No one has an easier opportunity than anyone else to sneak a weapon on a plane. Or are you just worried that you might be inconvenienced by the sort of security you propose to force on others? If it was gonna be a reall attempt at screening and security I'd be allover it. I'll submit just for the added saftey. But what we have today is a joke. We harrass little old ladies, and take their nail files, but I don't think too many people realize how easy it is to smuggle something truley dangerous on board an comercial airliner. I'll give an example..... a liter of gasoline. Think about it. We have to search little old ladies. If we don't al Qaeda will start recruiting them. Didn't you know al Qaeda can recruit anybody of any age, nationality, race, sex, religion etc.. I hear they are trying to recruit 2 year old females from Fiji. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #77 July 20, 2004 QuoteAny and all laws should and will be broken to protect the national security of our country. Period. Article [II.] 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. Article [IV.] 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. I've always been a supporter of the 2nd Amendment too. But if we're going to screw the 4th, I think we should take a good hard look at #2 as well.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #78 July 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteEvery one travels naked without carry-ons and with a pre-boarding cavity search. Now that's terrorism. Have you seen the average American? Would you really want to spend hours naked next to them? I think not. as i pointed out to a european friend in a restaurant this week (counted the number of over weight people in a large italian restaurant).. most non-americans have a rather distorted veiw of what an 'average' american looks like... dont believe everything you see on tv...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #79 July 20, 2004 QuoteI'd rather live with risk than give away my freedoms or anyone else's. Being willing to give up your life for your country isn't always about joining the military. Sometimes it's also about being a civilian and being willing to give up your life to defend the principles of your society. As a reaction to the contents of the linked article, what does your response have to do with it? We already know that we DO concede certain "freedoms" when we board airliners. (I myself am pissed off that I can't bring a simple Spyderco or Swiss Army knife on board, since I carry one all day long normally.) But suspicious and possibly dangerous activity is suspicious and possibly dangerous activity. These men should have been accosted and their activities accounted for. This is not specifically or even necessarily at all to do with their ethnicity. If 14 white guys were doing the same stuff, I'd be (almost as) nervous, and justifiably so. What rights are you saying the author is advocating giving away? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #80 July 20, 2004 >I thought you wanted them to search everyone. Yes I do. No "profiling" nonsense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #81 July 20, 2004 Quote>I thought you wanted them to search everyone. Yes I do. No "profiling" nonsense. But what if al Qaeda starts recruiting women with large vagina's and these women smuggle in parts of a weapon that once assembled in the airplane bathroom, could be used to kill passengers and then take over the plane? They could insert parts made from plastic that wouldn't trigger the metal detector. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #82 July 20, 2004 QuoteTo all of you who think that asking questions and looking in baggage is such a "Violation" of right's.... Tough shit, you are not going to change my mind. "Profiling works!!!" Chile says sayanara... To all those who spurn profiling as unfair (or worse, ineffective, which it is most certainly not) -- why does the FBI use psychological profiling when trying to catch criminals of all sorts? One thing we know is that serial killers are most frequently white males. If we want to be fair, the next time we discover a serial killer is active in an area, we should round up equal numbers of whites, asians, blacks, hispanics... That'll be a wonderful use of resources. I mean, it's only fair to all the ethnic groups that no one of them should be under more suspicion than the others, even if the activity of which they're suspected is committed overwhelmingly by a particular group. Political correctness goes against every sound logical principle there is, and it ties the hands of agencies that are responsible for protecting us. Beyond that, it wastes our tax money by making the agencies jump through stupid pointless hoops. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #83 July 20, 2004 I spent a year in the US. I've never seen such a bunch of fat people in my life. Skydivers are not "average" though. There are few obese skydivers, but wander through a Walmart in Kansas and you'll know what I mean... tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #84 July 20, 2004 QuoteWe have to search little old ladies. If we don't al Qaeda will start recruiting them. Didn't you know al Qaeda can recruit anybody of any age, nationality, race, sex, religion etc.. I hear they are trying to recruit 2 year old females from Fiji. Was watching the History channel and a guy at the fall of Saigon was talking about searching the people they were evacuating. He ordered someone to search a baby, the soldier he ordered said that's ridiculous to search a baby. He ordered him to again. In the middle of the baby's dirty diaper was a grenade. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #85 July 20, 2004 Quotewhy does the FBI use psychological profiling when trying to catch criminals of all sorts? Different process, one is after the fact, the other is before there even is a fact.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #86 July 20, 2004 QuoteWhat rights are you saying the author is advocating giving away? I'd like to see the laws / rules applied equally and fairly, that's all. The author thinks profiling might be a good idea. I disagree. I would not condone letting the police enter someone's house and search it because the residents fit a certain prolife. I also can't condone searching someone at an airport because they fit a certain profile. If one person can't carry a knife aboard a flight, no one should. It would be silly to just make knives illegal for some people based on profile. I think it's just as wrong to search someone based on how they look. I'm okay with weapons restrictions on planes for everyone, and okay with being searched. We should be searching everyone or searching randomly, not basing inspection on ethnicity, skin color, gender, or nationality. That's both pointless and a violation of rights.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #87 July 20, 2004 Actually, I'd like to see a nation wide handgun concealed carry AND a special permit within that system for people who fly to get more training and carry (concealed) on domestic flights. This would involve extensive background checks (like most of the state permits do) and specific and intensive training for the flight CCW holders. Require a specific course at a place like Thunder Ranch, Front Site, etc.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #88 July 20, 2004 QuoteHow many of your "profiling works" folks think it's unfair that men under the age of 25 have to pay more for car insurance? Or that people have preconceptions based on the way you dress? How many of you think it's unfair that some companies seem to hire people based on whether they seem to fit into the working environment (especially when it's not someone who looks like you?). Wendy W. I happen to beleive this is all alright!!! Sorry, but profiling does work. Under 25 you pay more in insurance. Why???? Because statistics show you are more likely to cost the insurance company money. Insurance companies are not into loosing money. Everyone judges people by how they Dress, or speak. It is human nature. Don't tell me you don't. A good deal of it is subconscience. As far as hiring people is concerned.... I will hire someone who is average, but a good fit in the work environment vs. excellent worker, but an introvert or arrogant SOB. That is life. Flying in planes is not a right. It is a privledge. So is driving. If they want to search people 10 times they should be able to do it. It is the price you pay for the privledge. Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #89 July 20, 2004 Quote Flying in planes is not a right. It is a privledge. So is driving. If they want to search people 10 times they should be able to do it. It is the price you pay for the privledge. Chris I often wonder if either of these actually mean anything at all: Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #90 July 20, 2004 QuoteQuote Political correctness goes against every sound logical principle there is, and it ties the hands of agencies that are responsible for protecting us. Beyond that, it wastes our tax money by making the agencies jump through stupid pointless hoops. - Jeffrey...excellent words, excellent! I hate to make this post, because I swore of arguing on this forum a year or two ago. But I passed this story on to a number of people the other day, because I found it really disturbing. So, I will share a few words, in case anyone appreciates them. After this story came out, a handful of 'sceptics' have been really nitpicking the ability to recount detail in the manner that Jacobsen did. I think this is foolish as she is a paid writer, she has better than average command of details. However, I feel the real issue has nothing to do with her account of detail. If her story were 90% embellishment, the question remains: How are we prepared to react in a perceived threat? I am very glad this turned out with everyone safe, but was the reaction sufficient to stop a different outcome? Obviously the air marshalls are unofficially using racial profiling to put higher numbers on flights like the one in question. However, they are not authorized to take action, until a significant action triggers it. Furthermore, the tidbit about airlines being unable to put more than 2 middle eastern passengers through secondary screening on a flight without facing fines seems abhorrent to me. I read a great deal of material last night on this story, and I am left with a few conclusions: Based on accounts from people in the airline industry, the system is being tested, and frequently. Jacobsen's story is not unique We are confusing profiling with racism: almost all enforcement agencies in the world use profiling as an effective tool. There is a huge difference between using a profile to initiate a further verification of an individual's actions and taking indiscriminate action based on a stereotype. In the end, every person must be vigilant for their own protection and blow a whistle if something seems amiss. A citizen who is offended is still alive Most citizens that I associate with, of any ethnicity, would gladly be profiled and then verified if that was the result of a vigilant system. The bottom line seems blatantly obvious to me: Many people are more immediately concerned with a lawsuit of politically correct racial behavior than the possibility of catastrophic events. It seems like 2 years later, the 2,752 deaths are not an immediate reminder. I fear complacency will be a major factor in the next attack. People have mentioned the second amendment. It says probable cause. We could debate that for a long long time. I think we have probable cause. Secondly, do anyone of you know the classification that Syria has as a nation state with the US? Do a bit of research and find out. After you do, evaluate how we should consider passports from that nation state status. Thirdly, as I mentioned above briefly, I think the larger question is our response. Everyone is drawing the conclusion that the 'appropriate' action stopped things. I think that is false logic. Just because nothing happened does not mean we caused that. I believe nothing was intended to happen. Someone wanted to know, "If we act really blatant and test the system, more so than we ever would in an attack, what will they do?" Know thy enemy... It is a no lose situation...nothing happens and you know you are successful. Or you get accosted, have no record, and sue to make money to feed your cause." Unlikely? You do know the James Woods story? http://prisonplanet.com/transcript_actor_james_woods.html It has been confirmed. You are also aware that foreign parties made money on inside trading before the events of 9/11 directly related to that disaster? I truly think the system is being probed. Ask any in law enforcement or military about probing a target. Just because the first probe is not an attack hardly means everything is secure. It is often the opposite. Ask a few people in the industry, see what they say. Research this for a day or two...there are a lot of pilot and flight attendent organzanizations corroborating this type of behavior even if not this particular story. An intriguing question, who has the rights described in the constitution? Citizens of Syria? These were not American citizen's folks. As I mentioned above, research the status of Syria as a nation state with the government. Post what you find.-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites labrys 0 #91 July 20, 2004 QuoteFlying in planes is not a right. It is a privledge. So is driving. If they want to search people 10 times they should be able to do it. It is the price you pay for the privledge. The original topic had nothing to do with flying being a "right" or if searching someone was "wrong". Almost everyone agrees that flying is a privledge and that it's ok to search people. The discussion is about profiling.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #92 July 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteFlying in planes is not a right. It is a privledge. So is driving. If they want to search people 10 times they should be able to do it. It is the price you pay for the privledge. The original topic had nothing to do with flying being a "right" or if searching someone was "wrong". Almost everyone agrees that flying is a privledge and that it's ok to search people. The discussion is about profiling. Who makes the determination of which activities are covered by the 9th and 10th Amendments? Has ANY activity ever been deemed a right covered by these?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites flyingferret 0 #93 July 20, 2004 I believe the point he was trying to make was in relation to your commenting about death rather then sacrifice a right. I believe is point was, and I agree, that boarding an airplane undeterred is not a right. Think about the procedure upon arrival at a new dropzone. Then think about the procedure upon arrival if you are foreign and have no USPA license. A bit more scrutiny, perhaps? I think his point was that you have no right to undeterred boarding. No more right than you do to jump without presentation of papers and full inspection of gear.-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites labrys 0 #94 July 20, 2004 QuoteI believe the point he was trying to make was in relation to your commenting about death rather then sacrifice a right. I get his point. What makes you assume I don't? Do you think I don't get it because don't agree with it? No, I just disagree. And the comment about death rather than sacrificing rights is complete nonsense. I didn't say anything like that. I said that I would rather face risks than condone violating people rights. The right I was talking about was the right of SOMEONE ELSE not to be subjected to an illegal search. I don't care when, where, or why. It has nothing at all to do with flying. FORGET about flying. The question is When is it okay to violate someone's rights so that someone else is more secure?Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites storm1977 0 #95 July 20, 2004 Quote The question is When is it okay to violate someone's rights so that someone else is more secure? When is OK to lie? ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites flyingferret 0 #96 July 20, 2004 Actually, I dont think I said a single thing about you. I voiced my opinions in response to your comment about rights not being involved in the original post. It's all about me...the member of a the collective we. After all I am a conservative republican.-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites labrys 0 #97 July 20, 2004 I was responding to the ferret guy, not you.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #98 August 6, 2004 true? that's funny... Snopes says its false. http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/skyterror.asp Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jdhill 0 #99 August 6, 2004 Actually, it says it happened pretty much as reported, just contradicts her conclusions... JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AndyMan 7 #100 August 6, 2004 Another really good rebuttal to the conclusions this lunatic came up with is Pilot and Salon columnist Patrick Smith. See his column "The Hysterical Skies". http://dir.salon.com/topics/ask_the_pilot/index.html. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
labrys 0 #91 July 20, 2004 QuoteFlying in planes is not a right. It is a privledge. So is driving. If they want to search people 10 times they should be able to do it. It is the price you pay for the privledge. The original topic had nothing to do with flying being a "right" or if searching someone was "wrong". Almost everyone agrees that flying is a privledge and that it's ok to search people. The discussion is about profiling.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #92 July 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteFlying in planes is not a right. It is a privledge. So is driving. If they want to search people 10 times they should be able to do it. It is the price you pay for the privledge. The original topic had nothing to do with flying being a "right" or if searching someone was "wrong". Almost everyone agrees that flying is a privledge and that it's ok to search people. The discussion is about profiling. Who makes the determination of which activities are covered by the 9th and 10th Amendments? Has ANY activity ever been deemed a right covered by these?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #93 July 20, 2004 I believe the point he was trying to make was in relation to your commenting about death rather then sacrifice a right. I believe is point was, and I agree, that boarding an airplane undeterred is not a right. Think about the procedure upon arrival at a new dropzone. Then think about the procedure upon arrival if you are foreign and have no USPA license. A bit more scrutiny, perhaps? I think his point was that you have no right to undeterred boarding. No more right than you do to jump without presentation of papers and full inspection of gear.-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #94 July 20, 2004 QuoteI believe the point he was trying to make was in relation to your commenting about death rather then sacrifice a right. I get his point. What makes you assume I don't? Do you think I don't get it because don't agree with it? No, I just disagree. And the comment about death rather than sacrificing rights is complete nonsense. I didn't say anything like that. I said that I would rather face risks than condone violating people rights. The right I was talking about was the right of SOMEONE ELSE not to be subjected to an illegal search. I don't care when, where, or why. It has nothing at all to do with flying. FORGET about flying. The question is When is it okay to violate someone's rights so that someone else is more secure?Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #95 July 20, 2004 Quote The question is When is it okay to violate someone's rights so that someone else is more secure? When is OK to lie? ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #96 July 20, 2004 Actually, I dont think I said a single thing about you. I voiced my opinions in response to your comment about rights not being involved in the original post. It's all about me...the member of a the collective we. After all I am a conservative republican.-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #97 July 20, 2004 I was responding to the ferret guy, not you.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #98 August 6, 2004 true? that's funny... Snopes says its false. http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/skyterror.asp Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #99 August 6, 2004 Actually, it says it happened pretty much as reported, just contradicts her conclusions... JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #100 August 6, 2004 Another really good rebuttal to the conclusions this lunatic came up with is Pilot and Salon columnist Patrick Smith. See his column "The Hysterical Skies". http://dir.salon.com/topics/ask_the_pilot/index.html. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
