Thread: Woman arrested at ABIA after refusing enhanced pat down

Originally Posted by Ratbstard

I believe all these actions are merely conditioning the unaware to accept a police state.

IT SCARES THE FECES OUT OF ME HOW MANY ARE SO ACCEPTING!

Yes, and I believe if this had occurred 20-30 years ago the public would not tolerate it.

The borders are not secured and American citizens are treated like potential terrorists at airports. So much is upside down and inside out nowadays.

Bowman wrote,

By the way there are no "constitutional rights", the Constitution does not give us rights, God does, the Constitution prohibits the government from taking those God given rights away.

Great point Bowman, That needs to be said more often til it sinks in.

Originally Posted by Bowman

Originally Posted by Syanis

I find it ridiculous how many don't know the Constitition yet claim their constitutional rights have been violated because of one little line being all she knows.
.

What about the Constitutionally protected rights of individuals against unreasonable search, and innocent until proven guilty?

By the way there are no "constitutional rights", the Constitution does not give us rights, God does, the Constitution prohibits the government from taking those God given rights away. At least in theory, in practice seems they can do whatever they want.

Who's saying someone is guilty by simply checking everyone? Whats so unreasonable when it comes to someones ability to use a public service having to be checked? This isn't stopping innocent victims on the street. Its stopping those who wish to use a public service that is funded publically (airports are generally while the planes are private companies). If they don't wish to use it there are other alternatives. Yes they may be an inconvenience but which is greater? Apparently people think this inconvenience far less then driving across the country.

So lets give in, stop the pat downs, get rid of the scanners. Go back to the magic wands and metal detectors which were argued also invades someoens privacy as someone beeps they will check. Now what do we say the next time a 9/11 type incident happens? Do we just shrug it off and say "to bad, you chose personal privacy and freedom vs security"? Sure those who aren't directly effected may not care about it, but what if its your family member, your children, your wife?

One has to admit that some reasonable protections need to be made. In some way they will violate some personal civil rights and liberties for the greater civil rights and liberties. Where do you draw the line? I agree one can't go to far but some things need to be accepted.

Of course if we allowed racial profiling by statistics I'd be more supporting but as we can't do that either well... what do we do?

Originally Posted by roundabout

Bowman wrote,

By the way there are no "constitutional rights", the Constitution does not give us rights, God does, the Constitution prohibits the government from taking those God given rights away.

Great point Bowman, That needs to be said more often til it sinks in.

What happens to those of different religions or no religion? Do they get a different set of rights?

Now I'm not knocking any religion.

However statistics which are quite hard to come by on religion shows roughly:

40% Christian
25% Catholic
9% Pagan
3% Muslim
18% Atheist or Agnostic (yes they are different but statistics tend to not seperate them well)
The remaining 5% unknown.

Statistics also shown the largest falsely reported religions are Christian (false believers who just claim they are to avoid controversy).

Now this is NOT to knock on any religion or or to say God does not exist. Just showing the large religious divsersity we have and much of this is Citizens of the US. The 2 highest immigrant groups are Muslim and Catholic (as most Latinos claim Catholic beliefs).

So my question is how do we in a country founded clearly on freedom of religion when we are a highly diverse religious country even without the immigration and illegal immigration issues.

Syanis wrote,

Who's saying someone is guilty by simply checking everyone? Whats so unreasonable when it comes to someones ability to use a public service having to be checked? This isn't stopping innocent victims on the street. Its stopping those who wish to use a public service that is funded publically

I am not a lawyer but try and learn as I go. In the public sphere are we not supposed to be secure in our person and possessions from unwarranted searches and seizures from our government or its officials? It is on private property that we are subjected to the wishes and whims of the proprietor or owner.

Another person here at ALIPAC has pointed out, and I agree with her, that, the TSA should not be in charge of the security when boarding a plane but that the airlines should control their own security.

then the extremist anti western groups we were fighting against.

Borders are wide open, and they do nothing about that...
where is the protection? Doesn't make sense to me...

The question all comes down to how you prove unwarranted search. Thats the legality of it as it all depends on how you define it. In a very base view it would be unwarranted as no reason to suspect the person. However in a more in depth view it could be argued safety is warranted.

I'd agree though that security should actually be the issue of the airline. But then also how do you sue and get reimbursement if an airline fails to do any security and terrorists take out a plane and friends, family, loved ones die? Also what do you do if an airline or a plane is owned by the terrorist group?

So many questions and in truth its an impossible job. Now I will say I do think TSA has gone a bit to far but I'd hate to be the one to explain to peoples families why something else happened.

Its a very slipperly slope and I'd have to be the one to deside. On one end you are hung for doing this and if you don't and something happens your hung for not doing it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Syanis wrote,

What happens to those of different religions or no religion? Do they get a different set of rights?

No. If they do not like the Constitution or its protections they are free to leave and go elsewhere, or they can convene a Constitutional Convention and change the Constitution............Heaven forbid.

Imagine men conferring their God given rights to men. Pure tyranny could only be the result. Only the strong would survive. A law of the jungle would return.

An atheist in our country is protected by the Constitution, as are other religions. (Christian charity) Ever wonder why other peoples of other religions continue to try and come to this country with its God inspired Constitution?

Ahh but many of these religions and lack of religious beleifs were there when the constitution was founded. The ones that are newer would only be Muslim, Buddhisism, and Hinduism.

I do agree with these other religions or lack there of should not try and change the country. It was founded under a certain set of beliefs and ideals and should remain that. Only thing I agree with with them is seperation of church and state which sadly many now are taking way to far.

Only thing I agree with with them is seperation of church and state which sadly many now are taking way to far.

Separation of church and state has been twisted completely out of context. The only separation that was ever intended was the separation of the FEDERAL government from establishing and providing funds for the establishment of a particular Christian faith at the FEDERAL level.

The states were left to their own desires though tensions warranted the abolishment of state sponsored religions with Massachusetts being the last state to have an established church and that ended around 1835 if memory is correct.