- #106
Al68
At least there's a silver lining here: http://www.examiner.com/pop-culture...-woman-bikini-at-lax-and-man-underwear-at-ny"
Last edited by a moderator:
Proton Soup said:no, you only have an illusion of control.
jarednjames said:Ah, so I can't leave the train station anytime I want? I can't move from one end of the platform to the other? I can't move away from the suspicious bloke looking rather nervous?
In a public place such as a train station, I have an element of control over what happens. On an aircraft, I can do none of the above.
Jasongreat said:...Once we rent a seat on the airplane, isn't it our perogative to protect our life while in that seat as well? In the US, we don't have a right to be protected by law enforcement, why should we then be forced to rely on law enforcement for out protection?
jarednjames said:Ah, so I can't leave the train station anytime I want? I can't move from one end of the platform to the other? I can't move away from the suspicious bloke looking rather nervous?
In a public place such as a train station, I have an element of control over what happens. On an aircraft, I can do none of the above.
FlexGunship said:Yes, this is a very stark an un-pragmatic way to look at it, but this is the core of the issue. Before terrorist intervention interstate travel (and re-entering the country) didn't require these things. Because of terrorism, we have become a society of _______________. Fill in the blank; I can't decide what to put there.
xxChrisxx said:For all those people moaning about their rights. As mentioned above flights are conditional. They agree to let you on, after you agree to jump through whatever hoops they want.
Like I said before, you can buy your own plane and not have the hassle of searches before boarding.
So your rights aren't in anyway touched by this. Noones forcing you to be searched becuase you don't have to board a charter or plublic flight, and noones stopping you flying becuase there is always the option of going private with your own lovely jet.
jarednjames said:No one can force you to fly. If you choose to have a job that requires you to fly to visit employers / customers than you accept the fact you are going to have to submit to security checks to do so.
If you don't like it, don't have a job that requires you to fly.
It's a service being provided for a fee with conditions. If you don't like those conditions, then you can complain about them all you want but it certainly doesn't violate your rights as there is an alternative available.BobG said:I don't buy the argument that modern travel is a privilege, not a right.
It's hardly random if you've consented to security measures when you buy a ticket. Small print is lovely isn't it.BobG said:Whether you're talking about metal detectors, baggage X-ray machines, backscatter imagers, or pat downs, you're infringing on people's rights to be free of random searches.
Buy a private jet, no security checks for boarding them.The security checks are mandatory for all commercial air transport
Proton Soup said:you mean like buildings? the trade towers were specifically targeted initially (unsuccessfully) on the ground. the 9-11 hijackings were simply a means to an end to destroy the towers. hijackings seem unlikely now, given the new cockpit doors. if anything, they should frisk pilots instead of passengers.
the targets seem to be high profile items. the trade towers were an international symbol of american empire. blowing up planes may be a bit passe now. even the recent toner cartridges were addressed to synagogues.
WhoWee said:An airplane doesn't need to target a building to cause mass casualties. The Christmas bomber last year intended to explode the airliner over a populated section of Detroit. We can't re-locate airports to remote locations away from population centers - or even re-route air traffic away from people in general.
I'm also concerned about the vulnerability of large crowds - remember the Olympic bombing in Atlanta and the recent plot in Oregon? I shudder to think how many fuel trucks are on the highway at any given time. They are both portable and lethal in the wrong hands.
Hopefully airliners aren't permitted to fly over stadiums?
Proton Soup said:i think you overestimate the targeting capability of a guy sitting in coach. the chance of hitting a target as small as a stadium would be ridiculously low.
airliners drop out of the sky often enough, and the only time i can remember one taking out large numbers of people on the ground is 9-11 with hijackers actually steering the plane.
This is false. The "conditions" being imposed are not part of any service agreement, they are not imposed as a condition by either party to the agreement. The "conditions" are interference by a third party (government).xxChrisxx said:It's a service being provided for a fee with conditions.
Exactly, and in the case of those rental agreements, one could not logically justify such "restrictions/conditions" on the basis that they were voluntarily and mutually chosen by the parties to the contract.jarednjames said:The conditions are there regardless of who puts them there and if signed they become binding.
On rental agreements (at least in the UK), the government imposes certain restrictions/conditions which must be in the terms of the contract - they are to protect lanlords / renters in various situations.
On signing the contract, both parties agree to adhere to these conditions, even though neither party put them there.
You agree to them under duress imposed by a third party. The duress imposed by the third party cannot be justified by the subsequent agreement to the terms imposed by the duress. That's just faulty logic.jarednjames said:You still agree to them. If you don't like them you don't have to sign.
I wasn't referring to conditions agreed to by the parties. I was referring to restrictions imposed by government.You are agreeing with the airline to submit to security checks. I don't see why who performs them is relevant.
Exactly. And if those security checks were mandated by government, they would have to be justified by government.You go to a nightclub and they require security checks on entrance, you agree to submit to these checks to get in. The security checks are performed by security officers working for an outside agency, not the club. They are simply there to perform the checks.
Al68 said:There is no reason to pretend to not understand the difference between private agreements and the government using force to imposed their will against citizens.
xxChrisxx said:'Force' and 'duress' imply there is simply no other option, when in fact you have two options a: go on a private plane not a commercial flight b: don't fly. It's not anyones fault including the US govt that you can't afford the hassle free alternative.
Poor? Sorry you'll have to jump through hoops. Don't like it, become rich. simples.
Office_Shredder said:I completely forgot about the rule that requires TSA agents to stand there and listen to you until you finish giving instructions on how your search should be performed
FlexGunship said:Actually, they can't touch you without permission. So, yes, they are forced to listen to you. There is an excellent precedent for this. (Citation: http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter )
Until you explicitly give them permission to touch your genitals, it's still considered sexual assault. You are allowed to specify the gender of the person performing the pat down and you are allowed to request it be done in private.
What's the alternative? The police can only arrest you at the direction of the TSA.
Office_Shredder said:I completely forgot about the rule that requires TSA agents to stand there and listen to you until you finish giving instructions on how your search should be performed
Think before you speak. Belligerent behavior, inappropriate jokes and threats will not be tolerated. They will result in delays and possibly missing your flight. Local law enforcement may be called as necessary.
FlexGunship said:Actually, they can't touch you without permission. So, yes, they are forced to listen to you. There is an excellent precedent for this. (Citation: http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter )
Until you explicitly give them permission to touch your genitals, it's still considered sexual assault. You are allowed to specify the gender of the person performing the pat down and you are allowed to request it be done in private.
What's the alternative? The police can only arrest you at the direction of the TSA.
BobG said:In other words, his was a problem of how to get from the departure gate to the airport exit without going through the general boarding area. In his case, security officers gave him a personal escort through the boarding area to the 'outside' part of the airport. It also might be worth noting that it took him 2.5 hours to get from the airplane's gate to the outside of the airport. That might seem a good trade-off to some.
No they don't. They mean that force or duress is being used to limit choices.xxChrisxx said:'Force' and 'duress' imply there is simply no other option...
In this case presumably cock-up rather than conspiracy, but it does raise an interesting point. What do you do with a US citizen, on US soil, trying to enter his own country who refuses to go through the check - send him back to where he came from ?BobG said:In other words, his was a problem of how to get from the departure gate to the airport exit without going through the general boarding area.
In the sense that it would have been quicker for Rosa Parks to just sit at the back of the bus, or Gandhi to have stayed as a rich lawyer.It also might be worth noting that it took him 2.5 hours to get from the airplane's gate to the outside of the airport. That might seem a good trade-off to some.
Lack of reasonable alternative (but to accept the other party's terms). If there is an available legal remedy, an available market substitute (in the form of funds, goods, or services), or any other sources of funds this element is not met.
NobodySpecial said:In this case presumably cock-up rather than conspiracy, but it does raise an interesting point. What do you do with a US citizen, on US soil, trying to enter his own country who refuses to go through the check - send him back to where he came from ?
NobodySpecial said:In this case presumably cock-up rather than conspiracy, but it does raise an interesting point. What do you do with a US citizen, on US soil, trying to enter his own country who refuses to go through the check - send him back to where he came from ?
In the sense that it would have been quicker for Rosa Parks to just sit at the back of the bus, or Gandhi to have stayed as a rich lawyer.
WhoWee said:Seems a little dramatic - aren't passengers expected to arrive 2 hours early...some might consider it reasonable to spend as much time leaving?
That definition does not even remotely apply here. I wasn't referring to anyone accepting the "terms of the other party to a contract". We were talking about "terms" imposed by force by a third party (government).jarednjames said:Under the definition of duress within contract law, this is the only section I feel applies here:...
However, it depends what you consider reasonable. To me, driving is a reasonable alternative for shorter trips, but anything over 500 miles and it's not reasonable.