Maybe when U.S. History courses stop being a requirement for graduating from high school. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Actually, my point was that I hope people who believe in these systems, like you seem to, get arrested, so that people like me who don't believe in them can work to get you out.

If the people who believe in freedom and privacy get locked up who's going to work to get them out and re-establish our rights?

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

d

I am thinking Wonder Woman, or perhaps Superman. Maybe Batman is looking for some side work.

There are a couple very interesting letters on page 22A of today's USAToday. Seems that perhaps the 'mainstream' isn't too pleased with how the TSA is doing things either.

That kind of backpeddling will probably qualify you for a spot on a NFL roster as a defensive back.

But you still seem to be making this out to be a hell of a lot more than it is. What will happen if they do flag you as a security risk? You will subject to more screening. You won't be put in jail. So that's not what we are talking about here anyway.

First they came for the frequent flyers,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a frequent flyer.

Then they came for the privacy advocates,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a privacy advocate.

Then they came for the "security risks",
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a "security risk".

Then they came for me,
and by then there was no one left to stop the insanity. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

That little ditty which you paraphrased is the worst piece of garbage I've seen penned in my life. Britney Spears' crap is better than that nonsense! The slippery slope argument just makes no sense.

And it definitely doesn't apply to the current situation. There, they were talking about locking people up in concentration camps. Here, all that will happen is that you will be subject to more intense screening.

Methinks you are the one who doesn't get it. "All that will happen..." At least you admit that we're starting down the slope. What's next? How about fingerprinting all passengers "for their own protection." Following that maybe they'll match the fingerprints against the FBI database and arrest "wanted" folks at the airport because it's convenient. Sure it sounds far fetched, but the slippery slope has to start somewhere and once you're on it it's rather hard to get off.

I disagree completely. Onthe surface, sure it sounds a little out there but look at it a little closer and the possibilities are not pretty.

Once everyone is comfortable with or accepts random searchs then it becomes easier to require mandatory searchs of everyone, because hey, if we can find all this contraband in random searchs think of what we could find if we search everyone and by the way, its for their own safety.

Then once we are all comfortable with mandatory searchs it becomes even easier for them to institute even more "safety" measures such as random finger printing, then mandatory finger printing.

I do not find this scenario to be that far fetched.

rawbert

Let me just say this about the whole, oh, it's a tiny thing, but then they will be doing this, that, and the other.

Believe it or not, enhanced screening isn't a concentration camp, or burning books, or trashing the houses and businesses of certain religions.

You could use that argument the other way. When we started giving criminals Miranda warnings, we started moving down the path where no criminal would be convicted. If you're not willing to make that argument and use the same flawed slippery slope "logic" for that issue, then please don't insult my intelligence by using it for screening.

Certainly at BRS and I believe LGW at least, now digitally photograph all passengers at the security check. This is done by a video camera fixed on a mounting, when you board your flight the boarding card scanner throws your picture up on a computer screen. I assumed at first it was a secondary check to make sure the person that went through security actually was the person getting on the flight. Now however I'm leaning towards the thought that the picture is fed into a central computer system and checked against a list of known suspects.

Nigel

Oh please. Miranda is about giving people basic rights and protections not taking them away. Now who's insulting who's intelligence.

rawbert

Well, how about this one. They ARE protecting, or trying to, protect people's basic rights with the screening. As in protecting their right to the first thing mentioned in the "unalienable rights," which would be "life."

Furthermore, you continue to assert wrongly that these methods of screening violate your rights. According to the rule of law, they do not. Get the rule of law changed if you don't like it. Good luck.

Well, I could fill up pages on this board with historical examples of slopes that turned out to be slippery, but rather than head down that slippery slope, let me respond with a thought:

If my paraphrased ditty is a piece of garbage because it presents the slippery slope argument, then do the Federalist Papers also hold no literary merit?

It's OK if the answer is yes, but I'd be interested to hear either way. One could also turn this into an essay question of the type we all hated in high school and college:

If so, discuss how the Federalist Papers have detrimentally impacted the course of United States history.

The Founding Fathers were careful to avoid slippery slopes; perhaps we should take heed.

Factotum,

Tony is the guy who criticized me for bringing up governmental abuses during the '60s and '70s. He asked when we could forget about such long-ago events. Thus, by his standards, the Founding Fathers were practically prehistoric.

Ah, the comfort in being so young! I'd love to be around to meet Tony when he's 50 or so. We'll see if his views have changed by then.

Bruce