Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
Legislatoin to Stop the TSA! >

Legislatoin to Stop the TSA!

Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

Legislatoin to Stop the TSA!

Old 11-19-2010, 03:49 AM
  #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: G550 & CL300 PIC
Posts: 369
Default Legislatoin to Stop the TSA!

By Ron Paul:

“It establishes that airport security screeners are not immune from any US law regarding physical contact with another person, making images of another person, or causing physical harm through the use of radiation-emitting machinery on another person. It means they are subject to the same laws as the rest of us.

Write your representative
HERE.


YouTube - Enough Is Enough!

Full Bill

Mods: Can we keep this as a separate thread so it doesn't get buried inside of the "combined TSA: thread?
FlyingNasaForm is offline  
Old 11-19-2010, 05:02 AM
  #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,539
Default

If Ron Paul is for it, i'm against it.

I'm sure there are plenty of others with that view too.
iahflyr is offline  
Old 11-19-2010, 05:11 AM
  #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: ASA FO
Posts: 139
Default

Originally Posted by iahflyr View Post
If Ron Paul is for it, i'm against it.

I'm sure there are plenty of others with that view too.
Yeah, because auditing the fed, ending foreign wars, reducing federal spending and shrinking the federal government back to within it's constitutional mandates are all BAD things, right?

Far better to let the bankers make off with trillions of your children's dollars and government agencies run amok with unlimited power and budgets while we all mouth breathe in front of our televisions and blame the troubles of our country on some fictitious enemy.
johnpeace is offline  
Old 11-19-2010, 05:31 AM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: 320A
Posts: 333
Default

Originally Posted by iahflyr View Post
If Ron Paul is for it, i'm against it.

I'm sure there are plenty of others with that view too.
That's keeping an open mind when making a decision.Is this how you make all your decisions?
tim123 is offline  
Old 11-19-2010, 06:02 AM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Atlas Shrugged's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Position: 747 CA
Posts: 344
Default Letter sent

Give me liberty, or give me death!

I did not go to Afghanistan and Iraq to suffer this humiliation in my own country.

End the gestapo tactics now, and provide us with real security.
Atlas Shrugged is offline  
Old 11-19-2010, 06:13 AM
  #6  
Moderate Moderator
 
UAL T38 Phlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Default Implied Consent

Wonder why the TSA is now using more 'intrusive' measures, including full-body scans and pat-downs?

To hear the whiners, they are doing it for no reason. However, I 'm sure the screeners don't enjoy their new duties, nor would the TSA spend a lot of money on body-scanners when all Federal budgets are strapped.

I would think it is because they have credible intelligence that suggests or confirms that the terrorists are hiding explosives in the areas of their person that were previously 'off-limits.' I think it is also why the Feds are quiet or limited on explanations why this is necessary.

When you go to a doctor, it is understood that he may touch you.

Most states have an implied-consent law for driving, which means if you drive and are pulled over, the police can test your BAC.

No one is forced to go to a doctor, drive a car, or buy an airline ticket. If you choose to fly, you choose to be screened.

I would rather passengers be over-screened than let one more terrorist attack be successful.
UAL T38 Phlyer is offline  
Old 11-19-2010, 06:19 AM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,190
Default

Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer View Post
Wonder why the TSA is now using more 'intrusive' measures, including full-body scans and pat-downs?

To hear the whiners, they are doing it for no reason. However, I 'm sure the screeners don't enjoy their new duties, nor would the TSA spend a lot of money on body-scanners when all Federal budgets are strapped.

I would think it is because they have credible intelligence that suggests or confirms that the terrorists are hiding explosives in the areas of their person that were previously 'off-limits.' I think it is also why the Feds are quiet or limited on explanations why this is necessary.

When you go to a doctor, it is understood that he may touch you.

Most states have an implied-consent law for driving, which means if you drive and are pulled over, the police can test your BAC.

No one is forced to go to a doctor, drive a car, or buy an airline ticket. If you choose to fly, you choose to be screened.

I would rather passengers be over-screened than let one more terrorist attack be successful.
I'd rather die from a terrorist attack in a free country than in a prison because my country went old school Nazi Germany and started making up charges.

Give me Liberty, or Give me Death!

To the poster above, thank you for your service to our country, and this is not how I envisioned our government thanking you for your service... by continually encroaching upon our Constitutional Rights as American citizens.
cencal83406 is online now  
Old 11-19-2010, 06:30 AM
  #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Permanently scarred
Posts: 1,707
Default

Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer View Post
Wonder why the TSA is now using more 'intrusive' measures, including full-body scans and pat-downs?

To hear the whiners, they are doing it for no reason. However, I 'm sure the screeners don't enjoy their new duties, nor would the TSA spend a lot of money on body-scanners when all Federal budgets are strapped.

I would think it is because they have credible intelligence that suggests or confirms that the terrorists are hiding explosives in the areas of their person that were previously 'off-limits.' I think it is also why the Feds are quiet or limited on explanations why this is necessary.

When you go to a doctor, it is understood that he may touch you.

Most states have an implied-consent law for driving, which means if you drive and are pulled over, the police can test your BAC.

No one is forced to go to a doctor, drive a car, or buy an airline ticket. If you choose to fly, you choose to be screened.

I would rather passengers be over-screened than let one more terrorist attack be successful.
Very poor analogy, bud. My doctor isn't going to tell me that by going into his office I've given up my right to not have my junk touched. Well, at least not yet...haven't made it through the thousands of pages of our new health care debacle. But the TSA is telling people they've given up their right to ask not to be felt up when they've entered the line, even if they elect to not take the flight.

"Whiners"? That's what you label people who are concerned about unreasonable searches? Sure, they're looking for something, but the discussion is: are these measures effective?, are they justified?, what is the cost? (in regard to dignity and personal rights), would they actually prevent an act of terrorism? (compared to other methods, e.g. Israel), are there better ways of catching terrorist?, and is the technology safe? to mention a few.

You have the mindset those in power love--don't question; just do what you're told to do.
GunshipGuy is offline  
Old 11-19-2010, 07:06 AM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Jughead's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: ATL717A
Posts: 890
Default

Originally Posted by GunshipGuy View Post
You have the mindset those in power love--don't question; just do what you're told to do.
"I was only following orders."
Jughead is offline  
Old 11-19-2010, 07:15 AM
  #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
DashDriverYV's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: back in the right
Posts: 406
Default

For the vets, here is something to ponder:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"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."

Is it worth it? You swore to defend the Constitution first, and then follow orders. What was it you fought for? To live in a police state or have a free land?
Its like the ol CBA, No waivers No favors, I follow the Constitution!

Last edited by DashDriverYV; 11-19-2010 at 08:30 AM.
DashDriverYV is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Guard Dude
Delta
201720
04-06-2022 06:59 AM
EWRflyr
Hangar Talk
137
11-27-2010 11:04 PM
WatchThis!
Union Talk
11
11-15-2010 04:50 AM
multipilot
Aviation Law
7
05-14-2010 10:08 AM
skippy
GoJet
4
05-11-2009 08:55 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices