The Bad guy have won.........
 

I have been reading here for just over a year now and all the histeria has only brought us one thing..... a curbing of rights all around the world. The result is that the fanatics have won! They have reached what they wanted - to disrupt the lives of those who believe differently.

The readers from the US may not like what I have to say but.... it is your everyday life now. In the passed your gov. allowed you to believe that within certain parameters you were free to do as you please - the land of the free - that was also the image projected to the rest of the world. Those days are over with!!! Guess what we are all letting them get away with it. There is no such thing as absolute safety because there will always be some b**** out there who wants more power, more wealth, more & more & more. If our only answer is to curb the rights of lawabiding Citzens well then folks THEY WIN!!!

Amen

It isn't just the terrorists who've won. People with authoritarian personality types have too. What is an authoritarian? Simply someone who feels powerless. To feel more powerful, they get a job where they are able to exercise power. The power feeds their ego, and to the extent that they can convince themselves that they have to do what they do, they side with powers above them against the populace, people who they consider naive because they aren't as concerned. At a certain point, resentment kicks in. They resent the people they protect. It's how every police state develops.

Authoritarians lie in wait for events like 9/11. They are their ticket to some faux self-esteem.

ummm
 

Care to give some examples?

I'm personally unaware of having lost any rights that I had four years ago. Are you possibly confusing your "rights" with things that you preferred to do in a different way, but were not protected acts?

Rights are far more than "protected acts." We've gotten into this frame of mind that only actions that are explicitly granted by the government are rights, but that is wrong. Rights include all of your basic freedoms of mobility and action.

There's also the fourth amendment - the right to be secure in your person and personal effects. i.e. the right to privacy. What we're seeing continuously these days are more and more unreasonable incursions on that right.

While I agree the 4th is under attack (for want of a better word), it does not grant the right of privacy. Unless you only take some of the wording out of context. viz:

:rolleyes:

Doppy, Doppy, Doppy, you naive boy. Don't you know that flying isn't mentioned in the US Constitution? I've never heard of a constitutionally protected right to fly. :mad:

;) :) :D

For a start I travel to the US at least once or twice a year and that for the last 10 years. Since 9/11 the US gov. wants to know details that are actually private and not even my own gov is allowed to store such info but the US wants to know what religion I am and certain bank infos - they won't however say how they are storing such info , for how long or what they are actually doing with this info. Apparently they also track credit card movements during my stay.

If I want to come to the US after Oct this year they require me either to have a passport with Biometric details (which by the way a lot of institutions are strongly opposing because they are so unsafe as far a protecting indivuals from ID theft goes - some even go so far as to say that these passport will be even easier to counterfeit than those currently in operation or I will have to apply for a visa which already takes weeks now. Imaging how long it will take to process an additional 1.000 passengers a day)

Now some of you are going to say so what if it protects me I don't care but I don't like being treated like a criminal especially when I have done no wrong gee I haven't even had a park or speeding ticket in the US in 10 years!!! and I have always left the country on the date specified on entry and never over drawn the 90 days!!

The shoe carousel - picked up some nasty foot germ last year in Atlanta. It cost me 500 USD in treatment at a hospital in Fort Lauderdale the next day. Hygiene seem to be the last worry.

The list could go on & on in the end it is just a very uncomfortable feeling.

I do admit right after 9/11 and I flew transat 3 weeks afterwards it was ok to be a little more careful and up the checks but now 3 years l see that we have something of an over kill on acts & laws that are rashly made and not thought thru completly..

Have a good travel day

Do you people ever stop?! Please whine to your Congressperson, Senator, or President, but not to this board.

Who actually won the "Cold War"? The old government of the USSR would be proud of some of the measures that are now in place in North America.

My problem is not so much that there are security measures. Where there is a threat these are necessary precautions. Something the Israelis have come to terms with long ago. But what does aggravate me is that in many cases these measures are cosmetic and the people carrying them out have no idea what they are doing. I had a first hand experience this morning flying NW out of Manila to Narita. My carry-on baggage was searched and a big production was made out of it, but the search itself was pathetic and an insult. If you are going to inconvenience me in such a way, then at least make it worth my while and do your job properly!

Yo - Randy, Is that a new moniker? :rolleyes:

I'll whine here about government expansion until Randy or the moderators tell me to stop.

I also frequently contact my idiot Senators and representative to express my displeasure with the loss of civil liberties in this ill-defined war on terror.

NWA_5479, respectfully, the purpose of an Internet BB, among other things, is to disseminate helpful information, discuss current issues, socialize with folks who share your interests and to "vent" frustrations and whine every so often.
As long as there is no bloodshed and/or overt personal attacks in this Forum, this is pretty much a place to express your opinions.
We may not agree with everybody's position on an issue but, IMO, that's what makes this place interesting.

MNL-NRT!! :rolleyes:

Cholula,
Your right. Part of this board is to vent frustrations, and God knows have plenty of them about the state of the air travel security in the US! When I posted that comment, I had just finished reading about 9 different threads about this exact same topic, and sometimes it gets a little old. I do love the idea about a league of travellers fighting for rights of travellers, but at times get fed up with the fruitless whining here in the Travel Safety/Security Board.

Lets see here. You were entering America from a foriegn country and were:

A. Asked about yourself
B. Told that you may have to bring I.D. in the future
C. Contracted "toe-jam"

Yeah, I can see how this country is trampling your rights. You should be able to fly in any time you like, give the finger to anyone in uniform and walk around barefooted without fear of getting cooties (which I'm sure the CIA placed at every airport). Everyone knows that there is a three week cap on all security measures. Try the ACLU, they should be able to help.

Hey hilton
If it were only my ID I wouldn't *****ing but I am being fingerprinted , I am having to tell god knows who all sorts of personal data YOU wouldn't dream of telling some stranger and I am having to have some stranger track my banking & credit details without me know exactly who is doing what with those details even if I am only coming on vacation.

In a nutshell my control over who gets what information & who does what with it (legel or illegal) has been taken away!! And THAT is what I am *****ing about. No I was not *****ing - I was stating that those who were out to distroy our way of life the way we knew it - have succeeded!! and that is the greatest tragedy there is - they have won over the freedom & demoracy that we have known. Now that makes me ANGRY!!!

Actually, they don't. "Rights" are specifically guaranteed in the Constitution, and they can only be suspended under the most compelling of circumstances. If you can cite an authority (not just an opinion) that says different, I'd like to see it.

As an off-topic example, for most of my life I have been hearing about people that claim that they have a "right" to smoke marijuana, as it harms no one, it occurs naturally, and and it brings them enjoyment (there's usually a reference here to "the pursuit of happiness," which is not in the Constitution, but rather the Declaration of Independence). But there is no such right, and the use of marijuana is unlawful nearly everywhere. You may believe that your rights include "all of your basic freedoms of mobility and action," but that phrase is so vague and open to interpretation that I don't think it would survive as an argument in any court.
You make an assumption that the Fourth Amendment guarantees a right to privacy. It does not. The Fourth Amendment provides the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, and even that right can be limited when there is a compelling governmental interest. This citation from Graham v. Connor is not precisely on point, as it addresses a use of force, rather than a less obtrusive search, but it illustrates my argument: “Determining whether the force used to effect a particular seizure is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake.”

At this point in time, the law is on the side of the government, in that there is a "countervailing governmental interest" in insuring the safety and security of the traveling public, and that information can be collected, baggage can be searched, and travelers can be screened, or, in the alternative, they can find some other way of getting from point A to point B than by flying on a commercial carrier. That could change tomorrow, but this is today, and insisting that you have rights because you think you should have them is not going to bring that change on any more quickly.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!

The U.S. Constitution does not guarantee rights. We Americans have a host of rights that pre-date the Constitution and exist independent of the Constitution. The Constitution limits the powers of the national government. As for a source, refer to The Federalist Papers. The Bill of Rights was basically an inducement to people skittish about a written document conveying many duties to a central government so they would agree to ratify the Constitution. We should be very clear about the issue of rights and their origins, so that the current administration's actions are seen in the proper context.

What is so aggravating about the governments actions are that these rules, regulations, and policies will almost certainly not stop a determined terrorist. The simple, non-intrusive method of fortifying cockpit doors makes another 9/11 attack practically impossible. Forcing Americans to remove their shoes, get frisked and wanded like common criminals, and supplying names and birthdates to fly will not stop a determined terrorist. These policies are fighting the last war and are likely as effective as the Maginot Line was in World War II.

What would the government do if explosives in unscreened cargo destroyed (a) (some) airliner(s)? How about the possibility of shoulder-mounted surface-to-air missiles? A bombing of an airport, say the Southwest Airlines terminal at LAX or McCarran in Las Vegas? Maybe our goverment could take one step that would keep us safer in many different ways, securing our borders. By the way, that is one duty mandated by the Constitution.

Wrong, Wrong Wrong?
 

I disagree. The Federalist Papers are a series of essays written by the framers of the Constitution. They are helpful in understanding the thinking that went into this document, but they have no legal impact on the document itself. The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the Constitution, and thus part of the Constitution itself. I posit that this is where rights are described and delineated.

To illustrate, let's say for the sake of argument that there are rights, as you say, "that pre-date the Constitution and exist independent of the Constitution." What are these rights, specifically? Has anyone ever claimed any of these extra-Constitutional rights to have been violated? If so, what court heard the claim, and what was the basis for its ruling? And, just to bring this back on track, how do these so far unnamed rights impact on the topic of this discussion, that "the bad guys have won?"

Let me paraphrase: No document grants people rights. We obtain them by natural law because we're human. Then we make a government after that, and the government can only do what we collectively say it can do. There is even an example of a specific right into which we are all born - to alter or abolish the government and institute new Government - that predates the Constitution.

Beyond that, there are many rights which have been recognized by court decisions although the rights aren't explicitly mentioned in the constitution. Among these are: (lifted from the excellent site www.usconstitution.net)

Things that are not in the U.S. Constitution:

Innocent until proven guilty

The concept of the presumption of innocence is one of the most basic in our system of justice. However, in so many words, it is not codified in the text of the Constitution. This basic right comes to us, like many things, from English jurisprudence, and has been a part of that system for so long, that it is considered common law. The concept is embodied in several provisions of the Constitution, however, such as the right to remain silent and the right to a jury.

The right to privacy

The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. The right to privacy has come to the public's attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v. Wade case). In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self- incrimination limit.

The Right to Travel

As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel. The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thomson, Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
Thanks to Marko Liias for the idea.
--------------

And how have the bad guys won? Specifically, the rights I've lost are the presumption of innocence (I get treated like a criminal at the airport no matter what I've done or haven't done) and the right to privacy (since when do strangers have the gall to handle my breasts and call it security? or take down people's names if they get SSSS or require a bag check?) The nonsensical airport invasions of our personal privacy have gone beyond what's necessary, and the new style of airport screening has yet to be tested in court. The courts have specifically stated that metal detectors are fine, but have also specifically stated that strip searches without cause are impermissible. Since the new-style airport screening means just about everything imaginable is in bounds except strip searches, I think screening is ripe for a new court challenge.

While it's true that the courts have said the fourth amendment doesn't protect us from warrantless searches at the airport which would be "unreasonable" anywhere else, those same courts also at one time enabled slavery and the separate but equal doctrine. Someday, we will be free of these unwarranted intrusions, even in an airport. And until that day, I'll take Amtrak, and keep writing to my representatives and senators and local paper.