Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Do I have the right to refuse this search? (Page 6)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Do I have the right to refuse this search?
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Pete at Home said:
Dave, you think cruise-bombing a pharmaceutical plant and letting Osama Bin Laden go when the Sudan offered to turn him over to us were appropriate responses to terrorism?

I didn't say that. I said that President Clinton did not treat terrorism as being no big deal. I didn't agree with his viewpoint of things, but he did have a viewpoint and he acted based on it.

[ November 24, 2010, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Dave at Work ]

Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave at Work:
quote:
Pete at Home said:
Dave, you think cruise-bombing a pharmaceutical plant and letting Osama Bin Laden go when the Sudan offered to turn him over to us were appropriate responses to terrorism?

I didn't say that. I said that President Clinton did not treat terrorism as being no big deal. I didn't agree with his viewpoint of things, but he did have a viewpoint and he acted based on it.
While there are a number of things about Clinton's presidency that I did like, I think that the above two incidents suggest that he did not take foreign terrorism seriously. Home-grown terrorism, I think he took too seriously, to the point where Oklahoma City was largely a response to his admin's ham-fisted handling of Waco and Ruby Ridge. He played hard where soft would have yielded better results, and soft where hard would have yielded better results. And the cruise missile strike seemed more like a distraction from his sexual escapades rather than a legitimate response to terror.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cb
Member
Member # 6179

 - posted      Profile for cb   Email cb       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes Pete. Clinton was too busy keeping his finger to the wind of public opinion to do anything powerful that even smacked of true leadership. There are many things about Bush II that drive me crazy, but his resolutions were strong and they kept this country safe from another 9/11 for 8 years.
Posts: 347 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I honestly think that if Clinton had been prez during 9/11 we would have seen mass roundups of Muslims on a scale not seen in America since WWII. Bush faced down the wave of public anger; Clinton would have body-surfed in it.

I'm curious if you'd admit that Obama, for all his other flaws, is more like Bush II in this regard -- following his own resolutions rather than holding his finger to the wind?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lack of attacks does not mean we're safer. We are decidedly less safe. The old hyperbole "they hate us for our freedoms and our religion" is such BS, but we certainly are helping "them" hate us more with our imperialism and mission creep.

Question: if we went into Afghanistan to retaliate against AQ, and AQ, according to the latest reports, is less than 50 people in Afghanistan and, if you hold to the official lines these days, is reduced from a huge 9/11 attack to sending lone idiots who can't pull off an attack, what are we still doing in Afghanistan?

-----------------

All that aside, something you're bound not to hear from the bobbleheads in the MSM: the reason why there were no issues last Wednesday - they simply turned the scanners off!
http://www.naturalnews.com/030509_TSA_opt_out_day.html
quote:
Anticipating a nationwide grassroots surge of protests against naked body scanners and aggressive pat-downs, the TSA simply turned off its naked body scanners on Wednesday and let air travelers walk right through security checkpoints without being X-rayed or molested.

All across the country, air travelers are reporting that the TSA simply deactivated the naked body scanners and let people go right through without a scan. "Backscatter scanners are off. No scan. No patdown." reported a traveler from the Seattle airport. "Backscatter machines aren't being used at LAX," reported another traveler. "They're all roped off."

Much the same story is being reported all across the country.

This action tells us all sorts of fascinating things about the TSA and its fabricated security excuses. Perhaps most importantly, it proves that the naked body scanners are not needed for air travel security in the first place. When it wants to, the TSA can just turn the machines off and resort to baggage X-rays and metal detectors. That's worked for years, and it apparently worked today, too.

And yet, up until today, the TSA has insisted that the naked body scanners are absolutely essential to detecting hidden bombs, and that "travelers won't be safe" unless they use the naked body scanners. So all of a sudden today it's okay for the TSA to put air travelers at risk of being blown up?

The TSA can't have it both ways. Either the naked body scanners are vital for air security and they need to be running 24/7 to keep everybody safe, or they're just another security con game being played out for the financial benefit of Chertoff and others who profit from the sale of such machines.

How can the TSA -- with a straight face -- say that naked body scanners are vital for air security but not on the busiest air travel day of the year?

As you can see, there are some serious holes in the TSA's mythology, and interestingly, this National Opt-Out Day indirectly exposed them by getting the TSA to turn off the naked body scanners. This is effectively an admission that they aren't important to air security...

Additionally, traffic was a nightmare yesterday. Definitely a crap-load more folks driving last weekend than is normal. Charleston SC - Charlotte took 1hr longer than normal with no wrecks. Never seen it that congested even on Labor day, 4th of July and Memorial day weekends. I hear the same from a friend about Columbus – Cincinnati in Ohio.

Will be interesting to see if AAA puts out the data and people put 1-and-1 together.

[ November 29, 2010, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Colin JM0397 ]

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Colin JM0397:
Lack of attacks does not mean we're safer. We are decidedly less safe. The old hyperbole "they hate us for our freedoms and our religion" is such BS, but we certainly are helping "them" hate us more with our imperialism and mission creep.

Question: if we went into Afghanistan to retaliate against AQ, and AQ, according to the latest reports, is less than 50 people in Afghanistan and, if you hold to the official lines these days, is reduced from a huge 9/11 attack to sending lone idiots who can't pull off an attack, what are we still doing in Afghanistan?

Trying to stabilize Af to the point that it isn't a hole where AQ can just move back in the second our troops move out.

We didn't "retaliate" against AQ clinton-style, i.e. just to retaliate for the sake of retaliation. The point was to make us safer. If we move out, and AQ just moves back in and re-trenches, we're back where we started, obviously.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Colin JM0397:
All that aside, something you're bound not to hear from the bobbleheads in the MSM: the reason why there were no issues last Wednesday - they simply turned the scanners off!

un****ingbelievable
[DOH] [Exploding]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's not unbelievable. It's entirely predictable. TSA is completely reactionary. So they tend to bounce around and take the path of least resistance.

Their own checks prove their security isn't working so they tighten up. There is a ground swell at the poor implementation, so they turn off the scanners. The reactions by themselves aren't really bad, it's that their implementations seem so chaotic and bureaucratic.

A thoughtful implementation of the body scanner's with a modicum of decent presentation and attempts to meet privacy concerns would probably have gotten met with grumbling consent. The heavy handed, arbitrary approach pissed off everybody.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
Yes, it has everything to do with the point. Quit playing with your plums for a moment and think.

The TSA can and does force you to be searched. Use Google and do a search beyond the limited personal perceptions you're applying to this. You might want to see what's happening out in the real world, it ain't what you suppose is happening.

Show me one case where it's grabbed a person at random and searched them or otherwise has not limited its activity to people trying to pass a security checkpoint and I'll fully agree that they've passed from simply being wrong into outright illegal activity.
quote:
A team of federal agents has been stopping tractor-trailers on Interstate 20 just west of Atlanta, inspecting each truck as it passed through a weigh station, and Channel 2 has learned its part of a counter-terrorism operation.

Channel 2's Linda Stouffer reported a flashing sign on the interstate directed the trucks to pull into a state-owned inspection station near Lee Road in Douglas County at the height of the evening commute.

Channel 2 Action News confirmed that agents from several federal agencies, including Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation, and the Transportation Security Administration were involved. The Douglas County Sheriff’s Office was assisting in the exercise.

and about the same incident:
quote:
"This is a live operation intent on deterring would-be terrorists or criminal activity," Nelson Minerly, spokesman for the federal agency, told the AJC.

The operation created a big distraction to motorists heading eastbound on I-20 in rush hour, and many motorists let the AJC and the WSB traffic center hear about it.

But the operation, which also involves the Transportation Security Administration, is top-secret before it happens, Minerly said.

“We don’t advertise when they’re going to happen or when they’re going to be," Minerly said.

Mostly trucks were being checked, Minerly said. Shortly before 6 p.m., nothing had been recovered in the operation, he said.

"There's no specific threat," Jon Allen, regional spokesman for the TSA, told the AJC.


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cb
Member
Member # 6179

 - posted      Profile for cb   Email cb       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I honestly think that if Clinton had been prez during 9/11 we would have seen mass roundups of Muslims on a scale not seen in America since WWII. Bush faced down the wave of public anger; Clinton would have body-surfed in it.

I'm curious if you'd admit that Obama, for all his other flaws, is more like Bush II in this regard -- following his own resolutions rather than holding his finger to the wind?

That both didn't allow the winds of opinion to deter them, yes I will admit that. But, Obama is by far a stronger ideologue than was Bush.

If Bush had stuck to his conservative guns as strongly as Obama is sticking to his collectivist guns Bush would have used his little red veto pen much more often, would have used his clout to sell the privatizing of SS instead of the No Child Left Behind fiasco which increased the size of the useless bureaucratic nightmare of the Department of Education by 70%, and Bush would have been on the side of those who were calling for a full audit of the Federal Reserve.

If Bush were half the ideologue Obama is it would have helped to avoid the economic Tsunami of 2008 that gave us the biggest presidential progressive since Roosevelt and Wilson.

Posts: 347 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Setting aside the question of whether Bush was an idealogue, the fact that he wasn't a *conservative* (or liberal) does not mean that he was not an idealogue.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
A team of federal agents has been stopping tractor-trailers on Interstate 20 just west of Atlanta, inspecting each truck as it passed through a weigh station, and Channel 2 has learned its part of a counter-terrorism operation.
I'm not sure how "Trucks at a weigh station" is equivalent to "People at random". Trucks carrying commercial shipments aren't private citizens.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
cb, what do you think Obama has done that is "collectivist," as opposed to oligarchic?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's a great man bites dog story:

Elderly female passenger gropes TSA agent
quote:
Phoenix police say 61-year-old Yukari Mihamae is accused of grabbing the left breast of the unidentified TSA agent Thursday at an airport checkpoint.

TSA spokesperson Kawika Riley confirmed the altercation to msnbc.com in a statement: "On July 14 at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, local law enforcement arrested a passenger for assaulting a TSA officer during the screening process."

TSA staff say Mihamae refused to be go through passenger screening and became argumentative before she squeezed and twisted the agent's breast with both hands.


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
A team of federal agents has been stopping tractor-trailers on Interstate 20 just west of Atlanta, inspecting each truck as it passed through a weigh station, and Channel 2 has learned its part of a counter-terrorism operation.
I'm not sure how "Trucks at a weigh station" is equivalent to "People at random". Trucks carrying commercial shipments aren't private citizens.
Some recent stories came across my news feed that reminded me of this. Let's see what's happened since Pyrtolin came up with the idea that truckers aren't private citizens entitled to 4th amendment protections:
quote:
... during the summer of 2011, TSA announced again its plans to search innocent Americans at train stations, bus stops, and truck stops.

<snip>

Just a few months after that, the National Football League (NFL) announced that it would be implementing TSA VIPR checkpoints at all 32 NFL stadiums across the country. The procedures at these checkpoints subjected football fans to full-body pat downs similar to what air travelers face at US airports

and

quote:
In October Tennessee became the first state to conduct a statewide Department of Homeland Security Visible Intermodal Prevention andResponse (VIPR) team operation which randomly inspected Tennessee truck drivers and cars.

VIPR teams which count TSOs among their ranks, conduct searches and screenings at train stations, subways, ferry terminals and every other mass transit location around the country. In fact, as the Los Angeles Times has detailed, VIPR teams conducted 9,300 unannounced checkpoints and other search operations in the last year alone.

Yeah.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Developments:
quote:
Rochester, N.Y. -- She says she had no warning that someone was going to search her car after she left to catch her flight. So the woman contacted News10NBC.

We found out it happened to her because she valet parked her car. Those are the only cars that get inspected.

So if security feels it is necessary to search some cars in the name of safety, why not search all of them?

Laurie Iacuzza walked to her waiting car at the Greater Rochester International Airport after returning from a trip and that's when she found it -- a notice saying her car was inspected after she left for her flight. She said, “I was furious. They never mentioned it to me when I booked the valet or when I picked up the car or when I dropped it off.”

Iacuzza's car was inspected by valet attendants on orders from the TSA. But why only valet parked cars? That's what News10NBC wanted to ask the TSA director about. We reached him by phone.

Berkeley Brean asked, “Are the cars in the short term lots and long term lots getting searched as well?”

John McCaffery, TSA, said, “No, those vehicles that are in the garage, short term long term parking, even if they carry pretty large amounts of explosives, they would not cause damage to the front of the airport. But for those who use the valet, the car could be there for a half hour or an hour so there is a vulnerability.”

News10NBC went to the valet parking and one of the attendants showed us the notice they put in the cars.

We asked, “You're required, they tell you, you have to search the car?” Valet Parking Attendant Frank Dettorre said, “I have to do it.”

highly trained and professional car parkers rifling your car. Sounds legit.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1