What is disingenuous is pretending that being required to pass through airline security is a violation of your 4th amendment rights. It is not. And I am not making an assumption. The TSA is being assaulted by the Liberty Cult simply because it is there to be assaulted. If it wasn't there would be something else to focus that anger on.
Actually, no. It is not disingenuous at all. When someone purchases a ticket, is a warrant to search their person and effects automatically issued? Is the act of purchasing a ticket something that automatically makes one a criminal? All people who purchase tickets can automatically be assumed to want to take a plane down?
The requirement to pass through a government checkpoint and have your person and effects seized and searched before you can fly is an undue search and seizure of persons who are travelling. It is directly counter to the protection outlined in the 4th amendment:
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.
You can pretend it is not all you want, but the language is there and it is contrary to your description.
Furthermore, if your goal is to try to be as close to 100% safe as possible, I would suggest you not fly at all, or drive. Planes malfunction, cars can be involved in wrecks. To increase the chance that you are as close to 100% safe as possible, you must not engage in those activities.
What is disingenuous is pretending that being required to pass through airline security is a violation of your 4th amendment rights. It is not. And I am not making an assumption. The TSA is being assaulted by the Liberty Cult simply because it is there to be assaulted. If it wasn't there would be something else to focus that anger on.
Actually, no. It is not disingenuous at all. When someone purchases a ticket, is a warrant to search their person and effects automatically issued? Is the act of purchasing a ticket something that automatically makes one a criminal? All people who purchase tickets can automatically be assumed to want to take a plane down?
The requirement to pass through a government checkpoint and have your person and effects seized and searched before you can fly is an undue search and seizure of persons who are travelling. It is directly counter to the protection outlined in the 4th amendment:
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.
You can pretend it is not all you want, but the language is there and it is contrary to your description.
Furthermore, if your goal is to try to be as close to 100% safe as possible, I would suggest you not fly at all, or drive. Planes malfunction, cars can be involved in wrecks. To increase the chance that you are as close to 100% safe as possible, you must not engage in those activities.
If these demon checkpoints were eliminated, who would you blame for an attack? I mean, beyond the terrorists. Wouldn't the end result of your logic be that the constitution itself was to blame? I'm sorry, I refuse to believe any language was intended to be taken so rigidly that it would allow for American civilians to be slaughtered by foreign hostiles. Or domestic hostiles. Or anyone anywhere.
Again...this argument you are defending is not one put forth by the "good guys".
If these demon checkpoints were eliminated, who would you blame for an attack? I mean, beyond the terrorists. Wouldn't the end result of your logic be that the constitution itself was to blame? I'm sorry, I refuse to believe any language was intended to be taken so rigidly that it would allow for American civilians to be slaughtered by foreign hostiles. Or domestic hostiles. Or anyone anywhere.
Again...this argument you are defending is not one put forth by the "good guys".
Why would you blame someone other than those that actually did the wrong?
Aside from that, the terrorist attacks that did happen did not occur because of a lack of airport security. These individuals should have been apprehended prior to even setting foot in an airport. Ultimately, they succeeded in their attacks because our own government didn't do it's job and follow up with the multiple warnings that it was given by its own agents. How many people were fired or even reprimanded in the government for not doing their job?
Go ahead, refuse to understand or believe the facts and logic that surround the 4th amendment and its creation. Enjoy your false sense of security.
If these demon checkpoints were eliminated, who would you blame for an attack? I mean, beyond the terrorists. Wouldn't the end result of your logic be that the constitution itself was to blame? I'm sorry, I refuse to believe any language was intended to be taken so rigidly that it would allow for American civilians to be slaughtered by foreign hostiles. Or domestic hostiles. Or anyone anywhere.
Again...this argument you are defending is not one put forth by the "good guys".
Why would you blame someone other than those that actually did the wrong?
Aside from that, the terrorist attacks that did happen did not occur because of a lack of airport security. These individuals should have been apprehended prior to even setting foot in an airport. Ultimately, they succeeded in their attacks because our own government didn't do it's job and follow up with the multiple warnings that it was given by its own agents. How many people were fired or even reprimanded in the government for not doing their job?
Ah yes, the blame the government card.
The question wasn't about 9/11 or any other attack in the past. The question was about the next one. And when/if that next one comes part of the blame for it will fall squarely on anyone who tried to undermine security initiatives intended to keep Americans safe. I understand that to many "good guys" rights matter far more than responsibility does. That is why their ideology is not only flawed, it is incredibly naive.
The question wasn't about 9/11 or any other attack in the past. The question was about the next one. And when/if that next one comes part of the blame for it will fall squarely on anyone who tried to undermine security initiatives intended to keep Americans safe. I understand that to many "good guys" rights matter far more than responsibility does. That is why their ideology is not only flawed, it is incredibly naive.
Weren't you the one looking for others to blame aside from those who actually initiated the attacks? Wouldn't it be prudent to analyze where the breakdown occurred to see where the actual failings happened? Then, take that information and correct those failings?
No, I suppose that would be too rational. It doesn't seem to have the sensational flair that a heavy handed one-size fits all approach does. Better we just ignore history and create something that will make people feel safe regardless of whether or not it actually makes them safe.
One approach on what to do about the next one is for the people who are in charge of preventing these individuals from doing these attacks to do their job and stop them before they get to the airport instead of just leaving it up to the last stop possible.
Yes, you are the only one who understands the 4th amendment. :roll:
Not what I said at all. You indicated you "refuse to believe". So, go ahead, refuse to believe.
Going back to your post before this one, I would also like to add that it is a huge leap in logic to take a protection from undue search and seizure and then blame that on an attack.
The question wasn't about 9/11 or any other attack in the past. The question was about the next one. And when/if that next one comes part of the blame for it will fall squarely on anyone who tried to undermine security initiatives intended to keep Americans safe. I understand that to many "good guys" rights matter far more than responsibility does. That is why their ideology is not only flawed, it is incredibly naive.
Weren't you the one looking for others to blame aside from those who actually initiated the attacks? Wouldn't it be prudent to analyze where the breakdown occurred to see where the actual failings happened? Then, take that information and correct those failings?
No, I suppose that would be too rational. It doesn't seem to have the sensational flair that a heavy handed one-size fits all approach does. Better we just ignore history and create something that will make people feel safe regardless of whether or not it actually makes them safe.
One approach on what to do about the next one is for the people who are in charge of preventing these individuals from doing these attacks to do their job and stop them before they get to the airport instead of just leaving it up to the last stop possible.
Yes, you are the only one who understands the 4th amendment. :roll:
Not what I said at all. You indicated you "refuse to believe". So, go ahead, refuse to believe.
Going back to your post before this one, I would also like to add that it is a huge leap in logic to take a protection from undue search and seizure and then blame that on an attack.
Um, nowhere have I stated or implied that we should not analyze past security and intelligence. Not once. I understand this would be easier for you if I did.
As I believe we have both said at different times, you can never be 100% safe. So why would anyone argue that we should remove what you refer to as "the last stop"? What sense does that make? Since no one has ever argued that any of the stops before should be removed, why should that one?
The obvious answer is that it shouldn't.
And I will state this clearly just so you are clear:
I am not refusing to believe anything about the 4th amendment. I am refusing to accept your interpretation of that amendment. There is a big difference between the two.
The question wasn't about 9/11 or any other attack in the past. The question was about the next one. And when/if that next one comes part of the blame for it will fall squarely on anyone who tried to undermine security initiatives intended to keep Americans safe. I understand that to many "good guys" rights matter far more than responsibility does. That is why their ideology is not only flawed, it is incredibly naive.
Weren't you the one looking for others to blame aside from those who actually initiated the attacks? Wouldn't it be prudent to analyze where the breakdown occurred to see where the actual failings happened? Then, take that information and correct those failings?
No, I suppose that would be too rational. It doesn't seem to have the sensational flair that a heavy handed one-size fits all approach does. Better we just ignore history and create something that will make people feel safe regardless of whether or not it actually makes them safe.
One approach on what to do about the next one is for the people who are in charge of preventing these individuals from doing these attacks to do their job and stop them before they get to the airport instead of just leaving it up to the last stop possible.
Yes, you are the only one who understands the 4th amendment. :roll:
Not what I said at all. You indicated you "refuse to believe". So, go ahead, refuse to believe.
Going back to your post before this one, I would also like to add that it is a huge leap in logic to take a protection from undue search and seizure and then blame that on an attack.
Um, nowhere have I stated or implied that we should not analyze past security and intelligence. Not once. I understand this would be easier for you if I did.
As I believe we have both said at different times, you can never be 100% safe. So why would anyone argue that we should remove what you refer to as "the last stop"? What sense does that make? Since no one has ever argued that any of the stops before should be removed, why should that one?
The obvious answer is that it shouldn't.
And I will state this clearly just so you are clear:
I am not refusing to believe anything about the 4th amendment. I am refusing to accept your interpretation of that amendment. There is a big difference between the two.
Perhaps I misinterpreted your intent with your "oh, another blame goverment" statement. I took that to mean that you didn't view them accountable in their dropping the ball on the attacks. My mistake.
It's clear to me that you have a very twisted view of what the 4th amendment means when it is compared to the actual language of the 4th amendment and the papers that were written regarding its creation. We might as well just leave the conversation as it is because we obviously won't be convincing each other otherwise.
Comments
Actually, no. It is not disingenuous at all. When someone purchases a ticket, is a warrant to search their person and effects automatically issued? Is the act of purchasing a ticket something that automatically makes one a criminal? All people who purchase tickets can automatically be assumed to want to take a plane down?
The requirement to pass through a government checkpoint and have your person and effects seized and searched before you can fly is an undue search and seizure of persons who are travelling. It is directly counter to the protection outlined in the 4th amendment:
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.
You can pretend it is not all you want, but the language is there and it is contrary to your description.
Furthermore, if your goal is to try to be as close to 100% safe as possible, I would suggest you not fly at all, or drive. Planes malfunction, cars can be involved in wrecks. To increase the chance that you are as close to 100% safe as possible, you must not engage in those activities.
If these demon checkpoints were eliminated, who would you blame for an attack? I mean, beyond the terrorists. Wouldn't the end result of your logic be that the constitution itself was to blame? I'm sorry, I refuse to believe any language was intended to be taken so rigidly that it would allow for American civilians to be slaughtered by foreign hostiles. Or domestic hostiles. Or anyone anywhere.
Again...this argument you are defending is not one put forth by the "good guys".
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Why would you blame someone other than those that actually did the wrong?
Aside from that, the terrorist attacks that did happen did not occur because of a lack of airport security. These individuals should have been apprehended prior to even setting foot in an airport. Ultimately, they succeeded in their attacks because our own government didn't do it's job and follow up with the multiple warnings that it was given by its own agents. How many people were fired or even reprimanded in the government for not doing their job?
Go ahead, refuse to understand or believe the facts and logic that surround the 4th amendment and its creation. Enjoy your false sense of security.
Ah yes, the blame the government card.
The question wasn't about 9/11 or any other attack in the past. The question was about the next one. And when/if that next one comes part of the blame for it will fall squarely on anyone who tried to undermine security initiatives intended to keep Americans safe. I understand that to many "good guys" rights matter far more than responsibility does. That is why their ideology is not only flawed, it is incredibly naive.
Yes, you are the only one who understands the 4th amendment. :roll:
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Weren't you the one looking for others to blame aside from those who actually initiated the attacks? Wouldn't it be prudent to analyze where the breakdown occurred to see where the actual failings happened? Then, take that information and correct those failings?
No, I suppose that would be too rational. It doesn't seem to have the sensational flair that a heavy handed one-size fits all approach does. Better we just ignore history and create something that will make people feel safe regardless of whether or not it actually makes them safe.
One approach on what to do about the next one is for the people who are in charge of preventing these individuals from doing these attacks to do their job and stop them before they get to the airport instead of just leaving it up to the last stop possible.
Not what I said at all. You indicated you "refuse to believe". So, go ahead, refuse to believe.
Going back to your post before this one, I would also like to add that it is a huge leap in logic to take a protection from undue search and seizure and then blame that on an attack.
Um, nowhere have I stated or implied that we should not analyze past security and intelligence. Not once. I understand this would be easier for you if I did.
As I believe we have both said at different times, you can never be 100% safe. So why would anyone argue that we should remove what you refer to as "the last stop"? What sense does that make? Since no one has ever argued that any of the stops before should be removed, why should that one?
The obvious answer is that it shouldn't.
And I will state this clearly just so you are clear:
I am not refusing to believe anything about the 4th amendment. I am refusing to accept your interpretation of that amendment. There is a big difference between the two.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Hail, Hail!!!
i'd leave it, the flight attendants will swoon to you. :corn:
Perhaps I misinterpreted your intent with your "oh, another blame goverment" statement. I took that to mean that you didn't view them accountable in their dropping the ball on the attacks. My mistake.
It's clear to me that you have a very twisted view of what the 4th amendment means when it is compared to the actual language of the 4th amendment and the papers that were written regarding its creation. We might as well just leave the conversation as it is because we obviously won't be convincing each other otherwise.
Maybe we can finish the argument over a beer in Chicago.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Lol, now that is something I would not mind.