Someone needs to sue the TSA

All the time to research? All I did was watch your stupid video!

And since my layoff in 2008?

Who do you think you are talking to? I've never been layed off. What are you smoking?

I have no idea the circumstances involving that guy getting on the plane. Hundreds of thousands of people board planes every day. I am sure that there are mistakes made all the time and they ARENT ALL TIED to a conspiracy plot.

Chertoff ties have been exposed and its not the first time that a government official has used his/her position to make money and it wont be the last. You probably believe the the World Trade Centers were blown up with the soul purpose or attacking Iraq.

Did you even watch your videos? Why would you post a video that doesnt work? Let's not forget the video outtakes played at the beginning that are all exerpts from god knows where and you have no idea what the question was... but they try to paint a conspiracy picture.

Why would you post a video claiming all the plane involved in 9-11 fell under a Israeli owned security company when that couldnt be further from the truth?

You should research claims that you make before you make them...

and saying "Im not a conspiracy theorist" before posting dribble like you did is like saying "I'm not a racist. I just go to the KKK meetings because they have good hors d'ouvres".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by african1

Since your layoff in 2008, you're the one with enough time to research all these facts.
Nevertheless, you seem to focus on just a small fact in the video and ignore the main one: how come in an after-9/11 environment, they just allow a Nigerian guy (on the terrorist watchlist) to board an International Flight with NO Passport.
Fact 2, don't ignore Chertoff's big gamble (or win) in this venture. Have you seen how he's pushing for its mainstream usage in all aspects of life!!!

The video is not supposed to be a fait accompli, rather I was more interested in the rare news broadcasts accompanying it.

---

Im a pussy and you're complaing about walking though a scanner? Google scanner images and you can see how little detail there is... your the f-ing pussy!!!!!

Literally jamming a finger up your ass? It's not a cavity search you dickhead.

Standard travel arrangements that have existed for 100 years? Really? The first commericial airline flight was in 1914 and mainly consisted of mail and package flights. Passenger flights werent frequent until the 1920's. It's 2010. For starters...What's 2010-1914? Not 100 years yet is it?

But besides that... were they using standards that were even remotely similar to what was being used last year? 10 years ago? How about 30 or 40 years ago?

I dont think so...

You could smoke on an airplane 10 years ago too... how come not now? It's been a standard for 100 years right?

You get patted down walking into a rock concert and sporting event... do you cry about that and claim you're rights are being violated?

The Constitution... if you are refering to the 4th Amendmant refers to unreasonable search and seizure. If peop;e are making C-4 Fruit of the Looms... then a body scanner IS REASONABLE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scroller

Man, what a fucking pussy you are. You're at the point where people are literally photographing you naked and jamming their finger up your ass for standard travel arrangements that have existed for 100 years, and you actually defend it. Amazing.

It's not "convenience", it's a right to privacy, and it's supposed to be Constitutionally protected. In fact, it's supposed to be the whole point of the USA. Land of the free and home of the brave and all that -- and in what way do you qualify for those?

---

Bella, have you seen the images the scanner puts out? If you put out those quality images here or on your website, you'd be out of business. People look like aliens.

I'd love to know what YOUR SOLUTION is to enable us to have safe(r) air travel?

You and the others have failed to explain WHY you feel you should be able to just board the plane fancy free.

Years ago, they didnt even scan bags...do you think people thought scanning bags was an invasion of privacy when they started doing that?

You dont have to worry about anyone violating your right to privacy on a train, boat or car.

What do you do when you go to a concert or sporting event? Do you piss and moan about your right being violated when they pat you down?

You're the type of person who loves the freedom to complain about things but loves to complain about how that freedom is provided to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BellaBellucci

Exactly. That's what I was trying to say, but yet I see DaveInBoston has completely missed the point. Hopefully you've articulated it for him better than I did.



Fucking awesome! :Bowdown::Bowdown::Bowdown::Bowdown::Bowdown:

~BB~

PS: Not only do I get paid to do porn as opposed to paying someone else for the privilege, it's really not my issue here. My issue is that our rights are being constantly eroded in the name of anti-terror while the best anti-terror protection we have does not, I repeat, NOT come from the TSA, but the FBI, CIA, NSA (against which I have a similar set of issues), etc.

---

......if only!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LAGent4ts

SUBJECT: ISRAELI AIRPORT SECURITY
The Israelis have developed and are putting the finishing touches on an airport security device that eliminates the privacy concerns that come with full-body scanners at the airports.
It's an armored booth you step into with your baggage that will not X-ray you, but will detonate any explosive device, including chemicals or powders that might be used in combination to create an explosive device, it detects on your person or in your bags.
After detonation, all residue and debris is sucked into a specially designed Hazmat bag and the chamber is sanitized. The entire process takes 30 seconds if no detonation occurs and just over a minute if a detonation takes place.
Israel sees this as a win-win situation for everyone, with none of this crap about racial profiling. It will also eliminate the costs of a long and expensive trial.
You're in the airport terminal and you hear a muffled explosion. Shortly thereafter, an announcement: "Attention standby passengers - we now have a seat available on flight 6709. Shalom!"

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeym75ld

Where the hell did you learn about the Constitution? Show me where in the Constitution that is says you have the "right to privacy" pertaining to travel provided by a private institution. Everyone considers themselves Constitutional experts, but have likely never even read the document (probably too busy playing with your Barbies and trying on mommy's panties instead of doing your homework).

What a self-entitled, selfish, little prick you are.

Grow up, and learn that everything is not all about you and your instant gratification.

---

The word privacy is not there, it's only been interpreted as being inferred, and applied via the non-enumerated rights protected by the 9th Amendment. I'd say it's a fairly reasonable interpretation considering the whole "right... to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" sounds an awful lot like privacy. I've read the document and I've studied the case law. So unless you're running around with a Phd on the subject don't come acting like some expert either.

PS- The airline is private, but the security policy is forced on you by the government, not the airline. So try again superstar.

I had to look up the 9th Amendmant. I hated Constitutional Law. Oddly enough, I can see how you are trying to apply it but I dont agree.

Prior to 9-11, airlines employed private agencies for security purposes.
I worked for Argenbright prior to 9-11... doing plain clothes store security. The uniformed people they sent out to stand at the doors were terrible. It was like babysitting an 8 year old. Many weren't fluent in English and constantly walked away from their post. Personally I wouldnt have hired them to work as movie theater ushers. I can see how the 9-11 terrorists didnt have any problems boarding!

The airline is private and security is run by a government agency with the intent on stardards that can applied throughout the United States.
Do you know one private security agency that would be able to staff every airport in the country or even have an infrastucture to do so?????

You want to see lobbyists come out of the woodwork looking for that bid?And then every 5 years or so when the contract runs out and they get outbid... another security agency comes in and tries to assimilate or make new guidelines?

Wow! Can you see the nightmare with that one building????????????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYBURBS

The word privacy is not there, it's only been interpreted as being inferred, and applied via the non-enumerated rights protected by the 9th Amendment. I'd say it's a fairly reasonable interpretation considering the whole "right... to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" sounds an awful lot like privacy. I've read the document and I've studied the case law. So unless you're running around with a Phd on the subject don't come acting like some expert either.

PS- The airline is private, but the security policy is forced on you by the government, not the airline. So try again superstar.

---

this is why i want a kitty kat :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveinBoston

You and the others have failed to explain WHY you feel you should be able to just board the plane fancy free.

---

I touched on this in a previous post - it's the anti-terror operations that occur before ANYONE arrives at the airport that protect us, certainly not the peons of the TSA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveinBoston

What do you do when you go to a concert or sporting event? Do you piss and moan about your right being violated when they pat you down?

---

Again, they don't force me into a machine the irradiates my body for the sake of a virtual strip search, force me to submit to a pat-down that is even more *ahem* personal and public which is simply rationalized against the similar abilities of a machine, and/or threaten me with a $10,000 civil lawsuit if I refuse to comply, even if I leave. Again, it's not only about the scanners, but about the lengths to which they go to force people to use them. That level of intimidation and abuse of authority will always indicate that there is something wrong with the 'requests' that are being made. It just makes them all look guilty.

The same goes for the rabid defense some people here seem to have of the policy. It's one thing to say you don't mind, but quite another to think you can bully the rest of us into your paranoia under the guise of safety. It does seem to sound a lot like 'you're either with us or the terrorists,' doesn't it? I think most people these days know that the issue is much more nuanced than Bush 43 would have us believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveinBoston

You're the type of person who loves the freedom to complain about things but loves to complain about how that freedom is provided to you.

---

You mean how people think it's provided. I have a problem with rationalizing the formerly unthinkable destruction of our individual liberties by exploiting <insert threat of the day here> when, AGAIN, you are 25 times more likely to be struck by lightning than be a victim of a terror attack. Did you even watch the Colbert video?

And the 4th Amendment does in fact guarantee our right against unreasonable search and seizure. Let's not even go into the case law. Trust me, if Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, et al had forseen the advent of the nudie machines, alien outlines or not, they would have prohibited them specifically and dismissed them as demonic tools of the scared and paranoid... which they are. I mean, GODS, even the pilots union is against them and they're the most vulnerable of all of us! That's GOT to tell you something.

People blow themselves up cooking meth all the time for instance, and probably more often than they die in terror attacks (although I'd have to look that up). It's already illegal, but people do it. So do we outlaw fire now? They die in car accidents. So what? We ban cars? They die from smoking cigarettes. Do we... oh, right. I for one reject the 'need' for a nanny state to 'protect me' from myself or a few hundred guys in Afghanistan, among 6.5 billion people on the planet, who have explosive devices that a lot of times don't even work.

http://theblacksentinel.files.wordpr...eple.gif?w=500

... because the government, much like your parents (when you were 5), can do no wrong.

~BB~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveinBoston

The airline is private and security is run by a government agency with the intent on stardards that can applied throughout the United States.
Do you know one private security agency that would be able to staff every airport in the country or even have an infrastucture to do so?????

---

It's about government policy, so even if the security were private there would still be an issue about the government mandating these procedures. It doesn't really matter to me who actually employs the agents, it's the laws and policies that matter.

Don't know if anyone posted a picture of it or not.