You keep harping on 9/11 but ignore the fact that the attack vector used by the 9/11 hijackers was foreclosed with something as simple as a locked cockpit door.
I'd hardly call a body scan or frisk at an airport "taking away civil liberties"
Stop being such a sheep. Being compelled to strip naked (in the virtual sense) while an agent of the government examines your junk is the very definition of "unreasonable search".
and need to inject a bit of pragmatism.
You want a pragmatic outlook? Here it is: The most dangerous part of flying is the drive to the airport. Tens of thousands of people die on the roadways every year whereas the 9/11 hijackers managed to kill 3,000 people. Even under the pre 9/11 security regime hijackings and bombings were statistically insignificant events. You literally have a greater chance of being struck by lightning than you do of dying in an airborne terrorist attack.
Now, mind telling me why I should have to let some TSA employee feel me up or look at a grayscale image of my penis before I can board the aircraft?
I would disagree with you wholeheartedly that the Second Amendment doesn't work.
Excuse me, but I didn't say it doesn't work. I'm one of the staunchest 2nd amendment advocate you'll find on/.
All I said was that it doesn't work on an individual level. Mr. Weaver would have done much better if he had surrendered at the outset and taken his chances with the jury. It wouldn't have brought his son back but his wife would still be alive.
Regarding Mr. McVeigh, the mistake that he made was reaching for the bomb before reaching for the megaphone. The Founding Fathers didn't pick up the musket at the outset. They tried the quill first. The proper order is soap box, ballot box, jury box and then ammo box. Mr. McVeigh skipped items 1, 2 and 3 and went straight for #4. You don't get to do that. It's both ineffective and immoral. Ineffective in that you need popular support to win a rebellion. Immoral in that you don't get to kill people without first exhausting all other options.
It's not inconceivable that the government would be able to put down a significant resistance movement in this country
It already has. A little conflict that occurred between 1861 and 1865.
but the United States is probably one of the hardest places in the world to try it if they had to.
This I agree with. You'd have a hard time getting a majority of the military to go along with an oppressive government in this country. No doubt there would be officers and men that would go along with it but I would certainly hope that they'd be in the minority.
So what? The fact remains that driving to the airport is the most dangerous part of flying, even with the pre 9/11 security protocols. Are so worried about low probability events that you are willing to give up your dignity and rights?
Of course nobody has actually managed to kill hundreds of people in a gruesome manner by doing this but don't let reality get in the way of your rush to surrender your dignity.
Citizens arrest is still legal in most states and if you resist a proper one you are guilty of resisting arrest. Here's the relevant laws from my state:
S 140.30 Arrest without a warrant; by any person; when and where authorized.
1. Subject to the provisions of subdivision two, any person may arrest another person (a) for a felony when the latter has in fact committed such felony, and (b) for any offense when the latter has in fact committed such offense in his presence.
2. Such an arrest, if for a felony, may be made anywhere in the state. If he arrest is for an offense other than a felony, it may be made only in the county in which such offense was committed.
S 140.35 Arrest without a warrant; by person acting other than as a police officer or a peace officer; when and how made.
1. A person may arrest another person for an offense pursuant to
section 140.30 at any hour of any day or night.
2. Such person must inform the person whom he is arresting of the
reason for such arrest unless he encounters physical resistance, flight
or other factors rendering such procedure impractical.
3. In order to effect such an arrest, such person may use such
physical force as is justifiable pursuant to subdivision four of section
35.30 of the penal law.
I can't wait to see the fights over securing the right of way for such a train. The high speed rail people really have no idea how reality operates, do they?
I see nothing wrong with requiring an ID to board a flight.
That's because you are a sheep. The question is how does requiring ID prevent terrorism. The answer is that it doesn't. The 9/11 hijackers all had valid IDs. The ID check did nothing to deter or even slow them down.
it is however useful in notifying next of kin that the person was on the plane rather than skipping town
It's not the Government's job to worry about my next of kin. That's my job.
There was never any suggestion that TWA was brought down by something on board (other than the fuel tanks)
Yes there was. Terrorism was not ruled out until the NTSB was able to raise and examine the wreckage. Everybody thought it was terrorism when it first happened.
It's interesting that people here are bashing the TSA for saving body scan images, but in articles about Google "accidentally" saving emails, passwords, and other personal information, people spend their time defending Google.
I don't have to do business with Google if I don't want to. I do have to do business with the Federal Government. Google can't send armed goons into my house if I don't comply with their rules. The Federal Government can.
The buck stops at BHO, he is ultimately responsible for whatever decisions the people he appoints make. He could end this policy tomorrow if he was inclined to do so. Do you think he'd be as willing to tolerate it if Michele and his daughters had to submit to being groped before boarding Air Force One?
The ability to do great harm with easily-concealed weapons has grown.
Daggers have been around for thousands of years. Handguns have been around for hundreds of years. Repeating handguns have been around for over a hundred years. Nothing new has happened on this front that justifies the surrender of our right to privacy and dignity.
Actually it just requires that the state have a BIGGER gun and that some portion of the population is willing to go along with the state.
The 2nd amendment doesn't work when the individual stands up to the Government, even when the Government is completely in the wrong (see Ruby Ridge). It only works when the Government commits acts that are so far over the line that a sizable portion of the population is willing to take up arms.
Antimatter isn't an energy source, even with Star Trek levels of technology. It's just an energy storage system. You have to create the antimatter and that will always take more energy than you get out of combining it with normal matter.
I was referring to Obama himself, since he appointed her and is ultimately responsible for whatever decisions she makes. It was a Democrat that said "The buck stops here" I believe....
Its not like all these restrictions started under the GOP/Bush government, right?
Actually some of them started under Clinton. Before Clinton came into office you could actually get on an airplane without ID. Imagine that. His administration imposed the ID requirement after TWA Flight 800, even though that air disaster had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism.
Come off your high horse and admit that the Democrats suck as much as the GOP does with regards to this issue.
I love you lying Republic fucktards and how easily you conveniently forget the truth (AKA lie).
The truth is that the security theater has been embraced by both parties. Obama's Homeland Security secretary is currently the biggest cheerleader for this technology. He is every bit as guilty as GWB of infringing on our civil liberties. The only question is what are you going to do about it?
If someone is going to invade my privacy for pointless security theater, I might as well make it as uncomfortable and inconvenient for them as possible. In airports, I always opt for frisking instead backscatter. No pictures to save then, either.
How about opt out of flying altogether? If enough people did this the policy would change. Your idea is that we should submit to a physical sexual assault instead of a non-physical one -- that hardly seems like a game-changer to me. If anything the Government will eventually take away the ability to opt-out of the scanning technology, as our cousins across the pond have already done.
I will not be forced to choose between being physically assaulted or virtually strip searched to exercise my right to travel.
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” -Sir Winston Churchill
I thought that too -- always knew that I would disagree with BHO on most domestic issues but I had anticipated that he would restore some respect for civil liberties into the Federal Government. Instead we've learned that the Democrats are just as happy as the GOP to embrace security theater.
Slashdot Mirror
You keep harping on 9/11 but ignore the fact that the attack vector used by the 9/11 hijackers was foreclosed with something as simple as a locked cockpit door.
Don't blame yourself, the guy that people think would have been better than GWB couldn't even manage to win his home state.....
I'd hardly call a body scan or frisk at an airport "taking away civil liberties"
Stop being such a sheep. Being compelled to strip naked (in the virtual sense) while an agent of the government examines your junk is the very definition of "unreasonable search".
and need to inject a bit of pragmatism.
You want a pragmatic outlook? Here it is: The most dangerous part of flying is the drive to the airport. Tens of thousands of people die on the roadways every year whereas the 9/11 hijackers managed to kill 3,000 people. Even under the pre 9/11 security regime hijackings and bombings were statistically insignificant events. You literally have a greater chance of being struck by lightning than you do of dying in an airborne terrorist attack.
Now, mind telling me why I should have to let some TSA employee feel me up or look at a grayscale image of my penis before I can board the aircraft?
I would disagree with you wholeheartedly that the Second Amendment doesn't work.
Excuse me, but I didn't say it doesn't work. I'm one of the staunchest 2nd amendment advocate you'll find on /.
All I said was that it doesn't work on an individual level. Mr. Weaver would have done much better if he had surrendered at the outset and taken his chances with the jury. It wouldn't have brought his son back but his wife would still be alive.
Regarding Mr. McVeigh, the mistake that he made was reaching for the bomb before reaching for the megaphone. The Founding Fathers didn't pick up the musket at the outset. They tried the quill first. The proper order is soap box, ballot box, jury box and then ammo box. Mr. McVeigh skipped items 1, 2 and 3 and went straight for #4. You don't get to do that. It's both ineffective and immoral. Ineffective in that you need popular support to win a rebellion. Immoral in that you don't get to kill people without first exhausting all other options.
It's not inconceivable that the government would be able to put down a significant resistance movement in this country
It already has. A little conflict that occurred between 1861 and 1865.
but the United States is probably one of the hardest places in the world to try it if they had to.
This I agree with. You'd have a hard time getting a majority of the military to go along with an oppressive government in this country. No doubt there would be officers and men that would go along with it but I would certainly hope that they'd be in the minority.
So what? The fact remains that driving to the airport is the most dangerous part of flying, even with the pre 9/11 security protocols. Are so worried about low probability events that you are willing to give up your dignity and rights?
by setting his shoes or his underwear on fire?
Of course nobody has actually managed to kill hundreds of people in a gruesome manner by doing this but don't let reality get in the way of your rush to surrender your dignity.
Citizens arrest is still legal in most states and if you resist a proper one you are guilty of resisting arrest. Here's the relevant laws from my state:
S 140.30 Arrest without a warrant; by any person; when and where authorized.
1. Subject to the provisions of subdivision two, any person may arrest another person (a) for a felony when the latter has in fact committed such felony, and (b) for any offense when the latter has in fact committed such offense in his presence.
2. Such an arrest, if for a felony, may be made anywhere in the state. If he arrest is for an offense other than a felony, it may be made only in the county in which such offense was committed.
S 140.35 Arrest without a warrant; by person acting other than as a police officer or a peace officer; when and how made.
1. A person may arrest another person for an offense pursuant to section 140.30 at any hour of any day or night.
2. Such person must inform the person whom he is arresting of the reason for such arrest unless he encounters physical resistance, flight or other factors rendering such procedure impractical.
3. In order to effect such an arrest, such person may use such physical force as is justifiable pursuant to subdivision four of section 35.30 of the penal law.
I can't wait to see the fights over securing the right of way for such a train. The high speed rail people really have no idea how reality operates, do they?
Our Founding Fathers put their lives on the line to secure our liberties and you aren't even willing to put your money on the line? Pathetic.
I see nothing wrong with requiring an ID to board a flight.
That's because you are a sheep. The question is how does requiring ID prevent terrorism. The answer is that it doesn't. The 9/11 hijackers all had valid IDs. The ID check did nothing to deter or even slow them down.
it is however useful in notifying next of kin that the person was on the plane rather than skipping town
It's not the Government's job to worry about my next of kin. That's my job.
There was never any suggestion that TWA was brought down by something on board (other than the fuel tanks)
Yes there was. Terrorism was not ruled out until the NTSB was able to raise and examine the wreckage. Everybody thought it was terrorism when it first happened.
It's interesting that people here are bashing the TSA for saving body scan images, but in articles about Google "accidentally" saving emails, passwords, and other personal information, people spend their time defending Google.
I don't have to do business with Google if I don't want to. I do have to do business with the Federal Government. Google can't send armed goons into my house if I don't comply with their rules. The Federal Government can.
See the difference?
The buck stops at BHO, he is ultimately responsible for whatever decisions the people he appoints make. He could end this policy tomorrow if he was inclined to do so. Do you think he'd be as willing to tolerate it if Michele and his daughters had to submit to being groped before boarding Air Force One?
The ability to do great harm with easily-concealed weapons has grown.
Daggers have been around for thousands of years. Handguns have been around for hundreds of years. Repeating handguns have been around for over a hundred years. Nothing new has happened on this front that justifies the surrender of our right to privacy and dignity.
Actually it just requires that the state have a BIGGER gun and that some portion of the population is willing to go along with the state.
The 2nd amendment doesn't work when the individual stands up to the Government, even when the Government is completely in the wrong (see Ruby Ridge). It only works when the Government commits acts that are so far over the line that a sizable portion of the population is willing to take up arms.
Free Energy(Cheap Nuclear Fusion, Antimatter, whatever)
Antimatter isn't an energy source, even with Star Trek levels of technology. It's just an energy storage system. You have to create the antimatter and that will always take more energy than you get out of combining it with normal matter.
I was referring to Obama himself, since he appointed her and is ultimately responsible for whatever decisions she makes. It was a Democrat that said "The buck stops here" I believe....
Its not like all these restrictions started under the GOP/Bush government, right?
Actually some of them started under Clinton. Before Clinton came into office you could actually get on an airplane without ID. Imagine that. His administration imposed the ID requirement after TWA Flight 800, even though that air disaster had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism.
Come off your high horse and admit that the Democrats suck as much as the GOP does with regards to this issue.
I love you lying Republic fucktards and how easily you conveniently forget the truth (AKA lie).
The truth is that the security theater has been embraced by both parties. Obama's Homeland Security secretary is currently the biggest cheerleader for this technology. He is every bit as guilty as GWB of infringing on our civil liberties. The only question is what are you going to do about it?
We lost a million soldiers in WW II.
The number was closer to 400k than one million.....
If someone is going to invade my privacy for pointless security theater, I might as well make it as uncomfortable and inconvenient for them as possible. In airports, I always opt for frisking instead backscatter. No pictures to save then, either.
How about opt out of flying altogether? If enough people did this the policy would change. Your idea is that we should submit to a physical sexual assault instead of a non-physical one -- that hardly seems like a game-changer to me. If anything the Government will eventually take away the ability to opt-out of the scanning technology, as our cousins across the pond have already done.
I will not be forced to choose between being physically assaulted or virtually strip searched to exercise my right to travel.
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” -Sir Winston Churchill
Require cavity searches for anyone wishing to enter a fast food restaurant
Have you ever seen the people that enter fast food restaurants? You'd have a lot more than the standard number of cavities to search.....
I thought that too -- always knew that I would disagree with BHO on most domestic issues but I had anticipated that he would restore some respect for civil liberties into the Federal Government. Instead we've learned that the Democrats are just as happy as the GOP to embrace security theater.
if we start having a sniper problem then we would need to take some steps to address the problem.
You address the problem by capturing or killing the people that seek to kill us. You don't address it by taking away civil liberties.