I just don't see a need for implementing an Israeli style system for domestic flights. It's crazy relative to the risk.
Where did the flights that the shoe bomber and britches bomber were on originate?
Listening to your overseas phone calls?- WRONG! Fondling your balls?- OKAY!
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
I just don't see a need for implementing an Israeli style system for domestic flights. It's crazy relative to the risk.
Where did the flights that the shoe bomber and britches bomber were on originate?
apple0154
MEOW
There is an expression for what the guy did: "Carpe Diem"
Where did the flights on 9/11 originate? (Yes, that is a rhetorical question.)
The only successful attacks from airplanes that I know of originated Domestically.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well, I can go pull your posts up and show where you've changed your tune, if you want to deny that. It seems kind of childish to me. Yesterday, you were talking about fixing the machines, not getting rid of TSA, you didn't seem to think that was even possible. You're still using "magical" to describe the common sense measures we could and should be demanding Congress to take, as if Congress does it's own thing, impervious to what we want. And you can notate that profiling is illegal every time you post it, so was groping and making nude photos of you without your permission, until the government started doing it. So the fact that you perceive something to be illegal, doesn't mean it can't be done.
Well, the insane procedures in place are designed to prevent people from blowing up their shoes, mixing liquids to create a bomb in flight and smuggling explosives in their under britches for use in flight. If a terrorist has a bomb in his show in the United States, he can do a hell of a lot of damage by blowing up said bomb waiting in the security line at the airport rather than trying to smuggle the thing on board and blowing up the plane in flight.
There are lots of common sense procedures developed since 9/11 but before the shoe bomber and the liquid mixers and the britches bomber that made sense and were designed to prevent another 9/11. Taking off your shoes, stopping people from carrying too much liquid and the latest groping or gawking are just stupid.
Shorter Dixie: It's OK to violate the 4th Amendment as long as it doesn't affect people like me.
Again, IMO the cost will be too high, for the reasons I've given; I then spoke to the fact that Congress would have to pass a law that make profiling by activity legal because it really is currently illegal. I call that "magical", because I have yet to see common sense in any action taken by any Congress in my lifetime. In fact, I can't believe that they don't do a cost analysis, give bad numbers to CBO, pass some laws and implement something even more expensive just to spend more money in some worthless gesture that makes somebody who makes voting machines rich and creates an on ramp in a canyon somewhere for a highway that doesn't exist...
You put too much faith in representatives of both parties, such new laws must (because of how the Houses are divided) be bipartisan and I find it unlikely that they will even attempt to change these laws. Current democratic sound bytes are "Profiling Isn't American"... It stands to reason that somebody is going to be filibustering...
SmarterthanYou
rebel
but they were given that power, by law, through congress. so the question remains...........
Actually, Congress did not authorize torture. The President asserted the unilateral authority to disregard laws passed by Congress on the grounds that such laws unconstitutionally infringed the president's commander in chief powers and defined torture so as to exclude all but the most egregious forms of torture to fall within the statutory prohibitions.
Edit: Relatedly, the president was authorized by Congress to spy on American citizens after the fact and did retroactively immunized prior illegal spying.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
You've not given any reasons, only speculations based on assumptions you have made along the way. Again, if the Israelis do it cost effectively, then why can't we? The only difference is scale, and scale doesn't logically dictate cost would be higher per passenger.
Profiling is only illegal when a specific group is being singled out on the basis of race, sex, or religion. Security measures would apply to everyone equally, because it is possible a radical Islamic could be a white European male, a black African, an elderly Russian lady... no one would be given a pass. How is that profiling based on race, sex, or religion?
As for government, no arguments from me. You make a very valid point as to why we shouldn't be leaving this task up to government!
Well I can guarantee you this, the current policy is not sitting well with the American public, and what we are seeing is an arrogant and defiant Department of Homeland Security and White House, who seems to be oblivious to the sentiment of the general public. Congress is our representative branch, and they will most certainly listen to the will of the people, or they will find themselves looking for a job very soon.
As I said, lost in the minutiae. I've given reasons, you just reject them out of hand and say they are non-existent because we have "more" travelers. It's all good. You get Congress to pass those laws and we'll all work towards that goal, until then if you have to use the current laws (which we do) then make it less intrusive, fix the machines.
We can pretend that your magical ability to "get things done" and "will not be expensive because we have more travelers" exists and at some point "common sense" will appear among members of Congress.
And you are wrong, profiling as we've been speaking about in this thread is illegal, TSA has been forbidden from implementing such practices because of that fact. Originally, the TSA employees were to receive a portion of this training, but that stopped when they were told "no" by our wonderful Congress. In that long ago land in farawayville when Rs ruled the House and Senate.
And "sitting well" or not, parties will instead try to use it to be a divisive issue in 2 years.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
does congress have the authority and power to impeach the president if he disregards the laws?
They have the power to impeach him for picking his nose.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
then by not doing so, they have implicitly acknowledged and approved of his illegal actions.
Not necessarily, they may simply be acknowledging the fact that they had no ability to get his own party to vote for conviction or even impeachment. Many may have been willing to impeach (in fact wasn't it presented several times?), but could not due to the political climate.
Let's say I was willing to stop a crime from being committed but unable to because of proximity, does that mean I am responsible for the crime or that I implied apathy or even approval?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
So if you go to a night club and secutiry sticks a finger up your ass, it's not an assault; because it's about security!!
A Police Officer has a legal right to DETAIN you;but he does not have a legal right to frisk you, unless you give consent, or he has probable cause.
AND: If he does frisk you without cause or consent, it's illegal.
They also can't coerce you into consenting, or else it's illegal also.
The TSA are coercing people into "CONSENTING", by telling them that unless they comply then they can't fly.
If you want to work for Obama, you should tell us; because I know I would give you a recommendation, seeing as how you "lock step" really nice.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
complete logical fallacy. your 'proximity' to a crime and not having the political backbone are two different things entirely. In siding with party over the law, congress (all of them) became as unlawful as the president.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, I've read everything you've posted regarding cost, and it all centers around how much more it would cost to hire specially trained "college grads" to replace the current incompetent government boobs who we're paying union salaries to do a sub-par job. You continue to ignore the facts, we already pay a hefty price for TSA security, the bulk of the 'cost' for a new system would be training, and we can avoid that cost if the TSA is gone and this is left to private security companies, who've already covered that cost. If you're still having trouble trying to rationalize the cost aspects, take a look at how Israel did it, because their system has been in place since 1969, and apparently, it can indeed be done cost effectively.
As for Congress, no "law" needs to be passed, the TSA can simply be de-funded! The whole program can be eliminated, and it could be done in short order, so don't give me this crap about how we can't do this because Congress would have to "pass a law!" That's kind of what Congress does, Damo! What kind of lame-ass excuse is that for not doing something?
Well Damo, I don't know what you think is "magical" about the fact that more customers equals more revenues. We have more airline passengers in the US than Israel, it's not magical, it's just a fact of life. I've already admitted it would be expensive, but it's not exactly "cheap" funding the TSA! The PER CUSTOMER cost in the US, would be not much different than the PER CUSTOMER cost in Israel... I don't know how that is "magical" to you, it's pretty basic business economics.
Well here you are defending the status quot and the TSA again... They are "forbidden" because they are a government agency, run by government, controlled by the administration in power. I loved the quote from the security secretary of Israel... "Profiling is a political word created by people who don't want to abide by the rules of security!"
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
I've got the solution.
Buy lie detectors, train the technitions, and just make everyone submit to questions like:
Do you have any explosives on you?
Are you intending to highjack the plane?
Are you intending to cause the plane to crash?
Are you a member of a terrorist organization?
Do you love Obama?
etc.
Buy lie detectors, train the technitions, and just make everyone submit to questions like:
Do you have any explosives on you?
Are you intending to highjack the plane?
Are you intending to cause the plane to crash?
Are you a member of a terrorist organization?
Do you love Obama?
etc.
Defunding it certainly would make your magical scenario where "more" travelers (hence more necessary high-paid screeners to ask each and every one of them questions) far more likely! You're a genius Dix! Just "defund" it and everything will be dandy! (Ignoring the fact that there are no private companies with enough employees to even take over the current tasks of the TSA and that this would effectively shut down airports.) Thank Gawd for Dix! /sarcasm.
That's just funny Dix, a real hoot! Nor would it change what the poor jerks at TSA who are left over after your silly defunding fiasco are required by law to do. It just makes it more funny. That wouldn't fix anything, it just would bring the airports to a standstill.
As for "magical" I was speaking of the possibility of getting the laws to make profiling this way legal while in the middle of split government. The Rs may be able to "shut down" the government for a bit (they always still get paid for sitting at home during the 'shut down') but they aren't defunding the airport screeners, seriously let's remain firmly planted in reality.
It's inane to purposefully "misunderstand" like this (I hope it is purposefully). I described to you exactly what I was saying when I said "magical" and you come up with some nonsense about "more funding" again? Just flat dumb.
Nobody is defending anything, you are just being deliberately disingenuous and assigning meaning to what I say that doesn't exist.
As I said, you attempt to lost the discussion in minutiae and fallacy.