Where is the Amendment to the Constitution that permits groping and scanning?

[howaboutme]

The TSA and politicians, and I include Bush and Obama, and others have ZERO prerogative to take our rights away. It isn't at their discretion.

We are a Constitutional republic and democracy that demands that our basic rights can only be changed through Amendments to our Constitution. We must demand either a change to our Constitution or a change in policies. The President by saying we require scanning and groping doesn't make it so. That is only an opinion.

An item of great concern is if the USA heads towards a Constitutional crisis that the puppet media won't keep the issue front and center. They'll bury it.

[jaxx]

1. It's probably the 2nd amendment.

Isn't that one supposed to solve anything?

[howaboutme]

4. Anything or everything?

Not sure your intent on the 2nd Amendment. It is in the Constitution and like all the others in the Bill of Rights it is our right.

In the end the colonialists in the 1770s could have taken the easy way out as the conservative Tories preferred and remained as passive loyalists to the King. Instead they took the issue of liberty and Independence a big step further and had the guts to put everything on the line. Had the Tories (aka conservatives / Republicans / loyalist to the establishment of today) been in charge we'd still be saying "hail to the king". Never forget to remind them of that fact.

The American Revolution has historically been portrayed as a valiant effort by individualists fighting for liberty against accepting the status quo of domination. Any guesses as to how long our controlled public/private partnership media will portray independence and individualism as a virtue....just asking?

[jaxx]

6. It's been 230+ years so far and I'm sure it will be a lot longer for

those virtues to be recognized. However, paranoia that everything is bad and is going wrong and it'll all be in hell tomorrow really does no one any good.

[howaboutme]

8. Cynicism or naivete

I agree that individuals can go too far in either direction. On the other hand too much naivete in the end hurts us, while too much cynicism hurts them. Them = establishment.

[avaistheone1]

10. Does anyone notice anything going terribly wrong?

Nope not me. Move along.
:sarcasm:




k&r

[PurityOfEssence]

26. The American Revolution was really not a revolution, it was a war of independence

The rich led the way to throw off the shackles of the mother country. There was no real change in the social structure and certainly not in the financial one. In many ways, the founding fathers were rather akin to the right, and remember: the original party was the Federalist Party, and our early decades were struggles by the underclasses to get some toehold in the process. The characterization of the loyalists as simply the local ruling class is simply incorrect. Some were, but many of the most rich were for the cause; they didn't like taxes...

Quite simply, it wasn't a revolution.

The immediate form of government reflected this class preference, and I'm not even delving into the obvious subject of slavery; one couldn't even vote unless one owned property.

Much of the appeal to many of the wealthy was that they could halt payment on or even cancel their debts to English creditors for the duration. It was, in many ways, the classic evocation of some of the darker parts of our national character: the desire to get away with something. England payed mightily to defeat the French and Native Tribes, and they wanted the colonists to actually pay the bill for services rendered. Boy, did they not understand the American character. Yes, they were imperious with their unwillingness to let us have representation, but there's plenty of avarice on both sides.

[readmoreoften]

32. It was a real revolution, one of the bourgeois revolutions.

But not an "ultimate" revolution. Probably not even a "major" one in the historical long view (as in thousands of years...)

[TheKentuckian]

2. Thats what I'm saying. Passive detection is one thing but virtual strip searches and groping

are horses of a different color than a metal detector (and I feel they are pushing the envelope).

This stuff is a systemic violation of our fundamental law, I don't get it with most people.
Like 80% are onboard with virtual strip searches when if such technology existed when our Bill of Rights was written they would be specifically forbidden without a warrant for a specific allegation against a specific person or organization. Confined to a specific area and duration.

Modern distortion of search and seizure is criminal and insane.

[Matariki]

15. Let it be proven that 80% are for it. Don't believe that one for a minute.

[ProSense]

3. Here's an idea. Let's

abolish the TSA and go back to the way it was before:

The TSA was created by the federal government in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Prior to its creation, security screening was operated by private companies that had contracts with either an airline or a consortium contracted by multiple airlines that used a given terminal facility.

With the arrival of the TSA, private screening did not disappear completely. Private security firms were approved by the TSA to provide security, but under the authority of the TSA.<2> Under the TSA's Screening Partnership Program (SPP), privately operated checkpoints exist in the following airports: San Francisco International Airport; Kansas City International Airport; Greater Rochester International Airport; Tupelo Regional Airport; Key West International Airport; and Jackson Hole Airport.<3><4>

link

[howaboutme]

36. Does anyone believe replacing TSA with Blackwater would improve things?

Privatizing the TSA is not the answer, unless we believe that Blackwater employees would be more respectful of we the people than government employees that are still subject to political forces.

The only long term solution with terrorism against the USA, just as our leaders repeatedly stated about terrorism in Iraq, will be a negotiated political solution that somehow addresses and satisfies all interests. The discussion about why they hate us needs to begin.

[Mika]

5. Patriot Act ruled constitutional by SCOTUS.

Airports are Homeland Security Zones, which means you have no constitutional rights. Capisce?

---

[howaboutme]

7. CABAL might be appropriate here

because officials regardless of political Party are chipping away at our rights under the pretense that security is a concept that should usurp the Constitution. Security for what is the question? Their security or our security or security for our democracy?

The only protection we have against a government intent on usurping our rights is a Supreme Court that says no, and then no one in power has the balls to challenge it. If they say yes we've had it. I don't trust either the court and nor the elitist recent appointments.

[jberryhill]

9. Same one that apparently permitted the metal detectors and bag xray

Which are also searches under the 4th Amendment.

The question is about line drawing under the administrative search doctrine, and the cases which define it.

It's not as if there was no "search" before.

It's not a binary proposition.

[defendandprotect]

11. The Patriot Act ... and Homeland Security .... the lie of "national security".... obedience ....

[spanone]

12. that search and seizure thingy is so yesterday

[PurityOfEssence]

13. I'd say the Ninth is a good place to start...

I think one has a reasonable right to be sure of his/her physical safety when confined together in a projectile at a dangerous altitude.

People need to accept the dangers of modern life and stop holding their own personal rights sacred in instances that conflict with the rights of others. I hereby claim that I have the right to know that everyone sealed up with me 30,000 feet above the earth at 600 miles per hour isn't an explosive device him/herself, so my rights are in conflict with pissy, infantile, egocentric so-and-sos who can't accept the tiresome demands of coexistence.

One of the great glues of civilization is the mutual fear of death. Idiotic supernatural-believing extremists have shown us all that we're at risk, and modernity necessitates some compromises. Therefore, I think it's a VERY fair demand that anyone entering an airplane should conclusively prove that he/she is not a destructive device. If anyone doesn't like the modern convenience of flying enough to eschew a brief compromise of modesty, then that person should BE A FUCKING DECENT HUMAN BEING AND NOT BURDEN THE REST OF US WITH SUCH SELFISH PRUDERY.

One is not guaranteed the right to fly in the constitution.

One is not guaranteed access to any particular mode of transportation.

This is also akin to implied consent when driving: the government has the right to determine if one is physically capable of driving, as tested by many courts, and I'd say that similar rights can be inferred here.

Get scanned, get felt up, or don't fly. If modesty, embarrassment or religion compel one to not comply then they should go snivel with other selfish fucks who hold themselves so superior to the rest of us peasants and take a personal vehicle, because I'd extend this searching to buses and ship.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

14. The concept is called "Implied Consent"

and it isn't unconstitutional.

Implied consent is based upon the concept that you impliedly consent to certain things by exercising privileges (as opposed to rights). There is no constitutional right, for instance, to fly on an aircraft. Flying on an aircraft is a privilege predicated upon (a) the availability of a flight going where you want to go, (b) your ability to purchase a ticket, and (c) your willingness to comply with rules and regulations pertaining to air travel as may be promulgated from time to time. By purchasing your ticket, going to the airport and getting in line, you impliedly consent to be searched for explosives, drugs, dangerous potential weapons, etc.

Much of airport security is obnoxious, invasive and some of it may be morally or ethically wrong. I despise this latest round of invasions. We should not, however, make ourselves look as silly as the TeaBaggers by arguing about constitutional "rights" that don't exist. Bad policies are never defeated by weak arguments, and arguing the constitutionality of these screenings is, as far as I can tell, pretty weak.

[wickerwoman]

17. Implied consent is the weak argument to me.

And the fourth amendment is supposed to protect us against unreasonable search and seizure. Where is the probable cause in frisking an eight year old kid before he can get on a plane? The fourth amendment should supercede my "implied consent" to give up that right under certain circumstances. I don't imply consent to give up my right to free speech or assembly when I step on an airplane. Why should I give up my right not to be searched without cause or a warrent?

And the airways are public property. Airlines should be nationalized as essential infrastructure as they are in most civilized countries. The fact that they are heavily subsidized by the government should come with a corresponding responsibility to respect the rights and dignity of citizens.

According to the ninth amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Just because something isn't in the Bill of Rights doesn't mean that it's not a right. And the right to privacy and the right to travel are important human rights which should not be casually dismissed.

[PurityOfEssence]

18. A bunch of points

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is a classic case where one's freedom of speech is limited, and one can be subject to prosecution doing so. Once someone has tried to blow up a flight, a human being of any sort is a potential explosive device.

Who knows if the eight year-old hasn't been strapped by some psycho religious fanatic parent--and lest we forget, ALL suicide bombers that we've seen so far DO believe in an afterlife--either with the kid's knowledge or without.

Religions are consistent in their desire to inculcate belief as young as possible, and some very young people are REALLY sold on the concept.

I have a reasonable right to know that I'm not exposed to such danger in a contained environment, especially one that's a form of commerce.

One has no "right" to travel on specific modes. One has certain rights of movement within and between countries, but those are all VERY subject to limitations of all sorts of laws.

It goes both ways. Being a rational sort who doesn't believe in an afterlife, I say that the default position should be that ALL METHODS NECESSARY to prove the non-combustibility of my fellow passengers is my right. We should make all efforts to make it as discreet, polite and non-invasive, but the point is to KNOW FOR CERTAIN.

[wickerwoman]

33. Well,

the UN Declaration of Human Rights recognizes the right to travel in Article 13:

"(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."

Freedom of movement (with the exception of restricted areas) was established in the US in Corfield v. Coryell. The right to travel includes the right to travel by the vehicle of one's choice.

There are also substantial moral and social equity issues raised by saying "just travel some other way". People who can't afford to travel another way, because they don't have a car or can't afford to take two weeks off work for a trans-Atlantic cruise, are not being treated equally.

Nothing will ensure the non-combustibility of your fellow passengers. You're actually allowed to bring matches on planes again because the tobacco industry went ballistic. If we were really serious about security (as opposed to looking like we're serious about security) don't you think we would start there and not with groping kids and grannies?

You are more likely to be killed by a lightning strike than a terrorist bringing down your airplane. Does that mean the government has a responsibility to build a lightning-proof dome over the entire US to protect your right to feel safe (against an extremely unlikely threat) regardless of the rights of other citizens to see the sky?

[Tsiyu]

39. Great post

where's my lightning Dome dammit!

[BzaDem]

46. "The right to travel includes the right to travel by the vehicle of one's choice."

Where do you get that idea from?

[wickerwoman]

48. Swift v City of Topeka

"One early case clearly enunciating the right to travel by the vehicle of one's choice (including by automobile) was Swift v. City of Topeka, an 1890 Kansas Supreme Court decision. Swift involved a bicyclist who was arrested and fined one dollar for pedaling across a Topeka bridge in violation of a city ordinance. The ordinance forbade any person "to ride on any bicycle or velocipede upon any sidewalk in the city of Topeka or across the Kansas river bridge." The ordinance represented bold-faced discrimination against bicyclists, because horse-driven vehicles and wagons were allowed to cross the bridge without legal impediment. W.E. Swift argued he had a right to cross the bridge using the vehicle of his choice without governmental interference. The Kansas Supreme Court struck down the Topeka ordinance and reversed Swift's conviction, declaring that citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the "law of the road.""

"The constitutional right to travel became increasingly interpreted not as a right to locomotion by the means of one's choice, but as a mere right to emigrate between states. As Gregory B. Hatch pointed out in a recent law review article, this narrow interpretation of the right to travel came about more from judicial neglect than from any clear doctrinal justification."

http://piratenews-tv.blogspot.com/2009/03/constitutional-right-to-travel-without.html

So it's arguable that applying one set of regulations to air travel but not to other modes of transportation is a form of discrimination. If I'm making the same trip from Boston to New York by train, bus or plane, I am only required to submit myself to a full body scan using one of those modes. It's discriminatory that the most convenient mode is only made available to those who are willing to give up their right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

[Fleshdancer]

53. very interesting. Thanks for posting this. n/t

[laughingliberal]

24. +1000 nt

[Tsiyu]

19. A child cannot give "implied consent"

This came up at the bonfire tonight and I did draw my line about this new Groping and Stripping.

We either have a fourth amendment or we don't.

Either say we have no Constitution or uphold it for FSM sake.

To treat every single person as a potential terrorist in a nation of 300 million is absolutely absurd and as unconstitutional as it gets. There is no way around this, even for adults who supposedly give up every right they have just to sit in an airplane seat due to "implied consent." This is a most slippery slope, in so many ways....

As for children, DCS takes custody of children from parents who do what these TSA agents are doing with their invasive genital searches. There is no such consent from a child, so an adult must consent, and any adult who would allow a child's privates to be groped by anyone but a medical professional for a medical reason, would be convicted of abuse and/or negligence. In the case of law enforcement, there would have to be probable cause to so invasively search a child. Merely wanting to fly to granny's is not probable cause.

This is a ridiculous ploy by the obscenely wealthy to make the already rich richer, the already downtrodden more downtrodden and the sick, elderly and young among us their fun playthings. After all, so many babies and elderly people and disabled folks have blown up planes lately, right?

The retired Sheriff's Deputy who asked me what i thought got an earful, but she thinks it's not a bad idea. "You won't believe what people stuff up themselves."

"Except the machines don't catch that stuff," I said.

"Oh."

She did listen to me and we're still friends...just hope I made her think about it when i said, "The terrorists fucking won, Baby. They're laughing their asses off at our 'freedom.'"

[PurityOfEssence]

20. It says "unreasonable search and seizure", and I say this is, by definition, quite reasonable

Please don't play the victimized vox populi angle here, presuming that this is all a scam from the evil scanner monopolies, coming up with an angle for profitable exploitation. I see no evidence at all that this is coming from "the extremely wealthy", and this smacks of shrill shut-down speech to tar any opponents as reactionaries, toadies to the aristocrats and presumably pedophile enablers.

Take the damned sleigh and go over the river and through the woods jingling all the way, or rent a car or hop a freight, but my wanting to survive and have my fellow citizens survive should trump junior's parents' need to have more time with Nana.

What do you propose as an alternative to treating all of us as potential self-propelled bombs? Do you suggest racial profiling, religious profiling or something like that? Once again, many children are warped out of any sanity by industrial-strength religion at an early age, and this is preferred by most religions as a way of keeping the faith alive. Children are unformed minds and personalities, lacking in experience and perspective, and although many are much more honorable and sentient than many adults, we have laws of majority specifically for this purpose.

The attempt at ridicule of your opponents by asking for examples of elderly, disabled or young suicide bombers who've blown up planes smacks of some weird quasi-libertarianism; must we wait until there is serious death to see the problem? We've definitely seen suicide bomber in aircraft. We've definitely seen suicide bombers in other environments who were of many categories: men, women, old, young, children, and I'll bet we can find some disabled ones in there, too. This is crap.

As for explosives inserted in people, these are much less of a problem, since the body is an exceptional absorption device; explosives need to blow out. They'd certainly make a mess, and the expanding gas may mess with the seals of the plane or even bring it down but it's not as dangerous as the detectable external explosives. If we institute these controls and some wild-eyed zealot psycho does the internal job on some airliner, then maybe we'll have to even take it a step further.

Attempting to get on an airplane is probable cause.

This is what civilization is about: laws and agreements to co-exist. Laws are designed to protect us from each other; we are the enemy, and recognizing and codifying this allowed us to advance beyond hunter-gatherers.

Civilization is a trade-off, and it's on a fairly sliding scale in many ways: if one doesn't want this kind of intrusion, don't fly.

Yes, there's a danger of precedent chipping away more and more at our privacy and freedoms, but the knee-jerk reaction of drawing a hard line is idiotic. Life is an evolving thing, and we will never reach some kind of stasis where we never have to address new habits and issues; trying to freeze history is a Luddite kind of mindset, and it simply doesn't work.

I do not consider this the least bit "unreasonable", and it's CERTAINLY not against the spirit of the Fourth Amendment. The SPIRIT of the law is that people should be relatively certain that they won't be blindsided by surprise intrusion and unanticipated events. This is completely different: one is walking into a situation where one absolutely knows that this is going to happen.

As for privacy, that's bilge water; commercial air travel should be thought of as a supremely public act.

It's sad that we've been brought to this as a species, but just blame the real culprit: religion.

[Tsiyu]

27. Religion has nothing whatsoever to do with it

It's ALL about the money, and the paranoia of certain Americans who think every other American is ready and willing to blow them up at the slightest provocation.

That's a sad, sick way to live.

And it is against both the spirit and the letter of the Fourth Amendment.

Most certainly.

[PurityOfEssence]

28. Name one suicide bomber who wasn't a member of a religion and didn't do it for the religion

It's not just Muslims, although they certainly seem to have a corner on the market.

Hey, even if we ARE being scared unduly, there IS some threat there, and I'd like it to be as close to zero as possible.

No, the spirit and letter of the Fourth Amendment are both about "unreasonable" action, and the inference on top of that is of an unexpected nature of the intrusions. It's a global kind of world now, and there are plenty of suicide bombings on a pretty much daily basis, even if they aren't in the United States. There's nothing the least bit unexpected about something like this: you try to get on a plane and you get a choice of triple-x-ray or faith and grope. There's no sandbagging about it at all.

You may think it's "unreasonable", but I and many others don't, and there's no definition in the Constitution about what's reasonable or not. It's most tiresome to hear people refer to things that are by definition subjective as flat out fact. This is not the case. Your particular opinion is precisely that, and it's not more important than mine; I personally feel that it's an ugly intrusion on my peace of mind to have to have even the whiff of possibility in my mind that someone's about to explode nearby. I accept and admit the subjective nature of what is "unreasonable" and what isn't, and seriously contend that those who don't are putting themselves in a position of self-appointed privilege, claiming some kind of prescience that others should obey.

[Tsiyu]

35. Projection is always a nice touch.

"I personally feel that it's an ugly intrusion on my peace of mind to have to have even the whiff of possibility in my mind that . I accept and admit the subjective nature of what is "unreasonable" and what isn't, and seriously contend that those who don't are putting themselves in a position of self-appointed privilege, claiming some kind of prescience that others should obey"


We should all abandon ourselves to your inordinate fear that someone is going to blow you up?

I see...you have been more than insulting in this thread, without cause, The sleigh comment was nice. But i am now beginning to believe it may just be all about "you." And I suppose that is AllAmerican.

But here's where I stand. I care about more than only myself. Rare, and uncommon i admit, but it does happen. Even in America among the highly paranoid!


I personally feel it's an ugly intrusion on my peace of mind to have even the whiff of possibility in my mind that children, people with medical conditions and implants and elderly must be subjected to having their gentials groped, their colostomy and urostomy bags clumsily ripped off their stomas. Their prosthesis removed and fondled, etc etc etc.

But you win. Your fear trumps all of our rights. yay for you! And Chertoff. One fucking billion dollars the guy managed to suck up! For you!

[howaboutme]

44. AGree - It has been a total ploy used upon Americans

just like "trickle down" was a ploy.

Americans are a gullible lot when the government/media partnership consistently pumps out propaganda and falsehoods they eventually get vaccinated with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

My belief is that religion has nothing to do with this, except that this group was probably targeted deliberately some decades ago to become the new pariah and axis of evil and to create a rationale for profitable war industry with huge negative impact on average Americans. Once the Commies were gone we needed a villain. Their were countries and others willing to orchestrate this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9599384&mesg_id=9603243

[antigone382]

29. What prevents someone from inserting a device and removing it in the plane?

This is the obvious next step and they have no way currently to protect us from it. These searches are not going to make us any safer. Explosive sniffing dogs would be more effective.

Besides that, I repeat a point brought up during the Bush years, when Tony Blair tried to make the case that freedom from fear of terrorism was the most important freedom of all. Know which country (at least at that time) had the most "freedom" from terrorism? It was North Korea. Free and open societies are risky.

Now, you can say that these scanners and pat-downs are a far cry from the type of oppression and intrusion that occurs in a country like North Korea; but the fact remains that they invite abuse, have the potential to seriously complicate medical issues, and at the end of the day, aren't that effective at protecting us from an imaginative and determined terrorist.

Something which severely invades my privacy but does little to really protect me strikes me as highly unreasonable, though I suppose that's just my opinion.

[LisaL]

30. How is it reasonable?

What reasonable suspicion can there be that a 7 year old, for instance, has bomb in his underpants?
And somebody who inserted explosives into his body can get into airplane bathroom and get it out, so you argument that the body will absorb the blast doesn't hold water.

[PurityOfEssence]

50. Because of the risk, and because of simple coexistence

Civilization asks concessions of us in return for the benefits of communal coexistence. Sadly, some ruin the fun for the rest of us, but it behooves each of us to prove our lack of combustibility.

Nothing that can be done on a large scale can ever be perfect, but this seems quite reasonable to me at the moment: terrorism is based on the idea of ruining everybody's peace of mind so constantly that the grievance is addressed. They WILL try to do something on an airliner, if for no other reason than that they've been thwarted the last couple of times.

Yes, you've found an obvious flaw in my plan with the internal explosives, but we can certainly lessen the occurrences by doing this. If some mad killer crapper takes down an airliner, maybe we have to address that next.

I have an admittedly dim view of the extreme religious mindset, and can easily see some zealot convincing a young child to go to see god and be held in the loving arms of the big daddy figure all safe and warm forever by doing what he wants and getting rid of the bad guys. Never underestimate the what extreme fantasist thinking can bring people to do, and sadly, there seems to be plenty of extreme fundamentalist supernatural insanity to go around.

[wickerwoman]

31. "Attempting to get on an airplane is probable cause."

No it isn't. Unless you also think that driving a car is sufficient probable cause to be pulled over and strip searched. There has to be specific, demonstrable behavior which raises suspicion (or there has to be prior knowledge of the driver's condition) to justify stopping and searching someone.

Illinois v. Gates lowered the threshold for probable cause to a "substantial chance".

But there is not a "substantial chance" that an eight year old has been strapped to an explosive device. There is an extremely slim chance. And the law as it stands today does not recognize an extremely slim chance as a good justification for abrogating the rights of citizens.

[howaboutme]

41. Religion? I see the terror based more upon ethno centrism and politics

Simply stated the problem is not rooted in religion, but instead it is based on the immortal conflict that arises when our policies result in more for some and less for others. Those with less are pissed.

I don't see us securing our way out of this by the increasing use of technology, intelligence, or loss of our liberties and privacy, or more war. Every TRILLION we spend they'll come with an opposing action that costs mere thousands that the incompetent fools in our government will claim they never thought of, all so that profiteers can make even more profits and manipulate more people. Instead of being put on trial for incompetence or dereliction, it will be covered up so American schmucks won't be too informed, or ask too many common sense questions about what came down.

The only solution to this downward slide into an absolutely fascist bankrupt state will be to answer the question "Why do they hate us?". Our own officials told us in Iraq that the only answer to their terrorist problem was a political solution. Why aren't we talking about a political solution in the USA?

There have been many articles written on this subject, yet the question is shuffled aside because no one wants to address the root problem. Why? If not to ourselves we owe it to our posterity.

http://www.google.com/search?q=why+do+they+hate+us&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[PurityOfEssence]

49. Without a belief in an afterlife, suicide bombers don't really exist

Politics, religion and culture are intermingled, and singling one out is problematic. Still, whatever the motives behind those spurring on the idiots who blow themselves up, those idiots are manipulated by religion. It's the motor of the madness, whether it's the madness itself or not.

The concept that it's the downtrodden of the world getting back at us for our wicked, wicked ways doesn't hold that much water when you look at the background of the 9-11 hijackers: many were rather middle-class and educated, hardly the misbegotten peasants of life.

They hate us because we kill their children. They hate us because we support Israel and the plight of the Palestinians is used very cynically by the Muslim world. The whole Israel situation has been horribly dealt with by all parties since the emigrations of the late 19th century, and certainly since Allenby took Jerusalem.

There's a bigger problem, though, and because we're supposed to "respect" religion, it doesn't really get voiced: Islam is an intolerant, conquering mindset that makes Christianity (of which I'm no fan) look like some kind of welcome wagon. Built into the religion are plenty of passages that can be easily used to justify the total subjugation of mankind, and the outrage brought forth at "others" is intrinsic.

Yes, we should address why we're so hated, but although much of it is due to our peculiar habit of economic colonialism and intervention, even if we cleaned up our act, Islam would STILL be a danger. We absolutely MUST find some solution to the Israel issue, but the sad reality with Islam is that NO SOLUTION WILL SATISFY THEM. Yes, I use a rather bigoted "them", but when dealing with a mindset that demands the arrogant privilege of unquestioned superiority and god-given dominance, my equanimity tends to take a back seat.

Noblesse Oblige should propel us to clean up our act anyway, regardless of the expectations of a payoff, and perhaps that would take some of the wind out of the sails of the jihadists, but reason dictates that we deal aggressively with the current symptoms.

I'm no fan of fascistic intrusion to our lives, but entering a ballistic projectile and locking ourselves in with others in an environment where disruption of the projectile will kill us all necessitates some concessions: WE OWE IT TO OUR FELLOW HUMANS TO HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT WE ARE SAFE TO THEM.

It's a bummer that it's come to this, but I think it has. Those who can't bear the intrusion should plan a few extra days and take a different mode of transportation. If it becomes necessary to screen people on trains and busses, then we'll have to address that, too.

[MindPilot]

52. Sorry but that's unreasonable on its face

The premise that boarding an airplane constitutes probable cause would presuppose that the average passenger wants to die in a fiery crash accompanied by as many fellow travelers as possible. Fails the "reasonable man" test.

[StarsInHerHair]

16. ask the Constitutional lawyer president

*

[PurityOfEssence]

22. Unlike the Faith-Based abuse, he actually got it right on this one

Well said, too...

[Warren DeMontague]

21. Where is the Amendment that permits throwing people in prison for smoking a plant in their own home?

I'll wait.

[Gravel Democrat]

34. Don't pull that thread- the sweater might come undone

Americans of the early 1900's knew that the Government couldn't just do what the majority wanted at any given time. That is why the 18th amendment was required to prohibit Alcohol, and was, unfortunately passed. There was no power granted to the Feds in the constitution to do such a thing.

But it's interesting to note that the New Law did not include consumption, so no Americans could be arrested for consuming alcohol.

The first (relevant) part of the amendment:

"Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Our present "leaders" (cough) see no need to amend the constitution to prohibit naturally growing plants, or anything like that. The present drug laws are rationalized via the Commerce Clause. They don't give a fuck about what powers the Constitution grants or doesn't grant. And they surely don't even recognize the following:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
That spells it out, even to those with marginal reading comprehension.

The Health Insurance Reform (sic) that mandates citizens to purchase a faulty "product" from rip off artists is also rationalized under the Commerce Clause. At least that's what Nancy Pelosi says, other Democratic "leaders" cite other authorization.

"...(CNSNews.com) – When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance--a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill--Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55971

"...(CNSNews.com) -- House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) said the “good and welfare clause” gives Congress the authority to require individuals to buy health insurance as mandated in the health care bill. However, there is no “good and welfare clause” in the U.S. Constitution..."
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/63182

It's called a slippery slope, but like always, there are many more suckers than non-suckers.

Progress is cool.

[BzaDem]

47. The problem with posts of this nature is that the Constitution grants plenary power to the states

and broad power to the Federal government in a set of policy areas. There usually does not need to be any amendment authorizing anyone to do anything. We don't need an amendment to pass healthcare, pass financial regulation, pass the stimulus, or pass most anything else. An amendment would usually only be required if an existing amendment or part of the Constitution banned such a law.

[laughingliberal]

23. Big K & R nt

[TransitJohn]

25. This has nothing to do with security.

This is all about making Americans even less willing to go investigate that big, wide, confusing world out there. TPTB far prefer lazy, apathetic, sedentary slaves/consumers.

[mmonk]

37. Right next to torture and the Patriot Act.

[Nikia]

38. Just wait until we have a suicide bomber in a public place

Like they've had in some other countries. This opens the door to invasive random searches wherever we go. Something is seriously wrong in this country.

[LisaL]

40. Exactly. Why people think this is only going to happen

in order to allow someone on a plane is beyond my understanding. Just wait until someone goes to a mall or a supermarket or even a public street. One day, those scanners and pat down stations could be on every corner.

[PBS Poll-435]

42. What Amendment requires you to fly? nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. It's in the X-rated part that only politicians are allowed to read.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. The Republic died on December 12, 2000

Ain't that the truth?

[laylah]

51. Give Scalia, Roberts, and the

Republicans time...they will find it. :puke:

Jenn