Homeland Security Wants More 'Naked Scanners'

[njalterio]

Perhaps the U.S. should just leave the Arabs alone, stop supporting Israel, and stop meddling in the affairs of Middle Eastern countries. Then the security at airports everyone seems to hate will be unnecessary, and U.S. taxpayers save a ton of money.

 

[bamslang]

Assuming these scanners are fast, I'd rather have these than random searches they do now. The random profiling they do now is completely stupid and pointless. Back when I was a teenager around Sept 11 I was a long haired skater kid. Every single time I went to fly (about 8 times a year) I would get patted down because I was preselected for a random search. Now that I'm graduated from college and have a cleaner cut look, I never get those searches. Must have been "random" bad luck.

Anyway, as others have said, flying is a privilege, not a right. Comparing this to putting a camera in someone’s home is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard on these forums, and that’s saying a lot! When you go out and use a public or private service, you are subject to the terms in which they are provided. I just don’t see how people could be so insecure that they would have a problem with these searches.

@Princeofdreams – You say that 0 terrorists have been captured or thwarted due to increased security. I’m wondering if you have any substantial evidence backing this claim or if you’re simply making this up as you go.

Also, one final thought. The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

So please show me, where in the constitution it says you have a “Right” to “privacy” with regards to being image scanned when using a private or public service.

 

[bamslang]

[citation][nom]plinkoblinko[/nom]Everything is getting out of hand now...not only would we be losing our freedom but some idiot is going to come up with another unique way to sneak a weapon on.I would rather not sacrifice my freedom if these things will just continue to happen.And I firmly believe that the majority of passengers, air marshal and average joe alike, would help in a desperate situation such as their lives and others being put into danger.[/citation]

Please tell me how anyone is goign to do anything if someone has a bomb on them and detonates it thousands of feet above the ground.

 

[npaladin2000]

[citation][nom]bamslang[/nom]So please show me, where in the constitution it says you have a “Right” to “privacy” with regards to being image scanned when using a private or public service.[/citation]

I'll be happy to

[nom]bamslang[/nom] privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment),

Right there.

 

[ryanjm]

I would be happier if we started with Step 1:
Detailed search of anyone with Arab name, headdress, robes, etc...Some may call it illegal profiling, but I would call it "identifying the enemy."

 

[njalterio]

[citation][nom]bamslang[/nom]Also, one final thought. The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy....privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment)....So please show me, where in the constitution it says you have a “Right” to “privacy” with regards to being image scanned when using a private or public service.[/citation]

Not that I don't agree with some of your other points, but I think you answered your own question!

 

[matt87_50]

"Homeland Security Wants More 'Naked Scanners'"

oh god! my eyes, they burn!! all I can Imagine is those security guards with the hand-held metal detectors not wearing any cloths!

 

[njalterio]

[citation][nom]ryanjm[/nom]I would be happier if we started with Step 1😀etailed search of anyone with Arab name, headdress, robes, etc...Some may call it illegal profiling, but I would call it "identifying the enemy."[/citation]

And historians call it "Nazism"

 

[doc70]

[citation][nom]technogiant[/nom]I have no objections to this level of intrusuion I mean really have you looked at those pictures?On the other hand though the line has to be drawn somewhere unless we intend to eventually subject all passengers to an intimate body cavity search[/citation]
I believe we are already subjected to a sort of body cavity search... or at least some penetration by all these stupid rules.

 

[Regulas]

Next step, anal probes.

 

[johnnyho]

The Dutch are now making these scans mandatory for any flights to the United States (from Amsterdam).

Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport will begin using body scanners on all passengers taking flights to the United State

 

[npaladin2000]

[citation][nom]ryanjm[/nom]I would be happier if we started with Step 1😀etailed search of anyone with Arab name, headdress, robes, etc...Some may call it illegal profiling, but I would call it "identifying the enemy."[/citation]

Oh yeah, that absolutely would have stopped a Nigerian with explosives in his drawers. Especially one who got on in Nigeria (where security = "Is this your name? Ok, get on board"), stopped in Europe (where they have security...but he'd already been through it so it didn't get used) and never made it to the TSA in Detroit before setting his drawers on fire.

And before someone says we should have revoked his visa, yeah, that would have absolutely made sure he didn't get into the country...once he landed in Detroit and tried to go through customs!

Everyone needs to face facts: the only ones who had any chance at all of stopping this guy were in Nigeria. The TSA would never have been able to. The State Department wouldn't have been able to (if he was never issued a visa he'd have found another way on board anyway). All of the body cavity searches that we can perform on the ground in the US is not going to prevent some guy in some banana republic dictatorship or similar garden spot with no airport security from getting on a plane bound for the US and blowing it up before it lands here. Which means this is just a scam to sell taxpayers really expensive bang-zoom electronic strip-search equipment.

All we can do to stop this sort of thing is take over the rest of the world. And that's just too expensive.

 

[njalterio]

[citation][nom]npaladin2000[/nom]All we can do to stop this sort of thing is take over the rest of the world. And that's just too expensive.[/citation]

LOL

Oh god don't give them any ideas! Our politicians don't understand the concept of too expensive!

 

[randerson]

I seriously doubt that a court would rule against body scanners due to anyone's constitutional rights. You would have to prove that this is an unreasonable search. They will say its a requirement since most airports are government property. With all the Fear mongering and stupid color threat codes going on I dont see a judge striking this down.

 

[bamslang]

[citation][nom]npaladin2000[/nom]I'll be happy toRight there.[/citation]

Perhaps I'm in the minority with my opinion, but IMO, unreasonable =/= a noninvasive search that is intended to prevent the loss of American citizens. As a person who fly’s quite regularly, I would much rather have these done instead of the rub down the currently give as “random searches”.

 

[njalterio]

[citation][nom]bamslang[/nom]Perhaps I'm in the minority with my opinion, but IMO, unreasonable =/= a noninvasive search that is intended to prevent the loss of American citizens. As a person who fly’s quite regularly, I would much rather have these done instead of the rub down the currently give as “random searches”.[/citation]

I guess we would need a judge to decide that one...

 

[bamslang]

[citation][nom]njalterio[/nom]And historians call it "Nazism"[/citation]

I don't agree with the person you're quoting, but have to throw it out there.

See Godwin's Law please.

 

[npaladin2000]

[citation][nom]randerson[/nom]I seriously doubt that a court would rule against body scanners due to anyone's constitutional rights. You would have to prove that this is an unreasonable search. They will say its a requirement since most airports are government property. With all the Fear mongering and stupid color threat codes going on I dont see a judge striking this down.[/citation]

It's unreasonable search especially when connecting it to the right to cross state lines. You see, a plane is the only real way to get to Hawaii, which is a state. You can't prevent someone from crossing state lines. If they refuse to be strip-scanned, they still have to be allowed to fly, otherwise the TSA is violating the Constitution.

Which means not only are we shelling out for scanning machines that won't help, they won't even be USED once the courts get done.

 

[njalterio]

[citation][nom]bamslang[/nom]I don't agree with the person you're quoting, but have to throw it out there.See Godwin's Law please.[/citation]

ROTFL!

I forgot about that! Good one...

 

[bamslang]

[citation][nom]npaladin2000[/nom]It's unreasonable search especially when connecting it to the right to cross state lines. You see, a plane is the only real way to get to Hawaii, which is a state. You can't prevent someone from crossing state lines. If they refuse to be strip-scanned, they still have to be allowed to fly, otherwise the TSA is violating the Constitution. Which means not only are we shelling out for scanning machines that won't help, they won't even be USED once the courts get done.[/citation]

I guess a boat is a fake/imaginary way then...

I guess I'm not as well versed on contitutional rights as others, but could you site for me where it says we have the right to cross state lines in the constitution. Not saying you're wrong, I just didn't see anything with a quick google search (didn't look too hard, just skimmed).