Coffee,Tea,or Should We Feel Your Pregnant Wifes Breasts Before Throwing You in a Cell attheAirport?

lewrockwell.com ^ | 12/18/2002 | Nicholas Monahan

[dcwusmc]

You are so full of it, your eyes must be brown (or maybe green if it's started to turn rancid). A RIGHT can only be what you yourself can do BY yourself. I, for example, have a RIGHT to offer my services to whomever wants to pay me for them. I do not have a "right" to a job or a right to FORCE someone to hire me. I have a RIGHT to life. I have a RIGHT to do what ever I must (justly) to support and protect my life. This does NOT grant me the "right" to forcibly live at someone else's expense. I have a RIGHT to hang out with whomever I please that will welcome my company. I do not have a "right" to force my company on an unwilling individual or group of individuals. The Ninth Amendment is not dead. It is ignored by simpletons like you and by gooberment power-grabbers. Perhaps ALSO like you.

[dcwusmc]

I will hold off on addressing the second part of your argument. However, the travel-by-air option argument holds water ONLY if it is a condition made by the carrier and you have other choices. It being made by FedGov means that it MUST COMPLY WITH THE FOURTH and FIFTH AMENDMENTS, PERIOD. Further, the rule about not carrying weapons is ALSO FedGov-mandated and a violation of the SECOND amendment. Sorry, you're way out of line here, Constitutionally.

[HairOfTheDog]

The FedGov mandated searches are because national security demands it, so it is tied to the second argument. It doesn't change the fact that you are not forced to travel by air, it is a choice, and a contract.

The Fed gov has a national security issue, and two ways to go here. Let everyone be armed, which is probably what you prefer, or disarm everyone when on a plane. They do have that authority where national security is concerned. And they chose the latter. Your right to be armed doesn't include a lot of places... courthouses, some other government buildings, airports, airplanes. You can wish they chose the other route, and even argue for that, but you are bound by their decision, and I do not believe you have a bona fide constitutionality concern. Searches have been in place for years now, I am sure not un-noticed by constitutional scholars.

[eastforker]

Wow,what an elitist you are.Just cuz you are some no count reporter in some court room with a degree in journalism you think you know more than some guy with a high school diploma that has worked in the real world all his life.Let me tell you bub,there are many blue collar workers that have been self educated and have not had to depend on liberal professors to dictate to them what is the right way to think. People like you realy are pathetic.

[inquest]

Why go easier on weapons in general? While I think the premises and conclusions are rather questionable, you can at least make an argument that armed passengers could prevent a takeover of the airplane. But that presumes that this is necessarily the goal of the suspect - if Richard Reid had his s*** together, instead of trying to light his shoes with a pack of matches, it's difficult to see how his fellow passengers could have prevented him from blowing up the plane, armed or no. In that case, the best solution would seem to be to prevent him from boarding in the first place.

I don't believe I said that an armed passengery (yes, I just made that word up) would provide absolute safety against terrorists. I said it would provide additional safety. I agree that it would be best to keep him from boarding in the first place. But two things should be kept in mind: 1. Our "professional, federalized" airport security service failed to catch him - maybe because they were focusing their efforts in all the wrong places? and 2. It was the passengers who stopped him. So my overall strategy I think would be to further empower the latter, and to reform the former. It may not provide perfect protection, but then I don't think anything realistically can. It will, I think, provide better protection, as well as less hassle all around, even for the people who are profiled.

[TaZ]

Actually, I don't have a degree in journalism as you espouse (take a look at the grammatical mistakes in my last post...lol).

This is my second career; my first was as an Engineer in the Aerospace community from 1980 until 1996.

I do have a Masters of Science in Engineering if that is any consolation.

For the record, I moved to NY back in 1996 with my wife, who wanted to attend NYU to finish her Masters in Psychology...

The career in Journalism all came about because of a business opportunity that was presented to me by a friend in California, who wanted me to become his partner on the East Coast.

Specifically, I publish a daily newsletter to a closed loop of subscribers (most large to middle size law firms in Manhattan, as well as several major publications), in which I summarize civil and white-collar criminal litigation complaints for that day.

I also sell breaking-news stories to local television/radio news entities and a few miscellaneous periodicals.

Additionally, I have also been a guest on some patriot short-wave programs concerning Class action securities litigation and 9-11...so you see I'm really not the "elitist" you make me out to be.

I'm just another concerned American patriot.

[general_re]

It was "essentially" a pro-3rd party argument. Now I'm sure the many libertarians on this forum would be flattered to know that you consider the Libertarian Party the only third party that could ever be worthy of consideration, but it really isn't.

I think it went beyond that to bear a striking resemblance to a libertarian argument, but I am willing to drop the point ;)

I don't think anyone on this thread believes that the Almighty Constitution (perhaps in conjunction with Univ*) will rise up and smite down any heathen government officials that don't abide by its Commandments. What I'm interested in knowing is if it matters to you whether their actions violate the Constitution.

It matters to me, but that's almost irrelevant. If the rest of the nation feels that some official action or program doesn't violate the Constitution, I have little choice but to abide by that while working to change their minds, or to vote with my feet and leave. It's not enough for you and I to want change, if we're the only ones.

Recent events have conspired to put conservatives in the driver's seat momentarily, although some here are clearly unsatisfied with the caliber of conservatives that are gipping the wheel. Even so, that's merely a temporary correction, and one subject to being destroyed as soon as the wheels of government start turning in the opposite direction. The Constitution can't end searches in airports, or abortions, or drug seizures, or government listening to your phone calls. Only we can do that. And the only way we can do that is to change the culture; else, we're simply imposing solutions on a people that don't really believe in them. And even if you ram through some change, ending some thing or starting another because you believe it is unconstitutional or constitutional, it will last precisely as long as it takes the left to regain the levers of power, because the people don't believe in what you are doing.

Congress and the courts and the President can implement every single piece of a conservative agenda now - they have the power. But unless the people believe those changes are the right thing to do, it will never last, and they will strike back tenfold in revenge. Government cannot lead the people anywhere they don't already want to go, whether it's to good things or bad. It's up to the people to lead government to where we want them to go.

You cannot change the state, and expect to change the culture by so doing. You must change the culture, and thereby change the state. The left understands this - this is precisely why they control the schools and the media. Perhaps someday we'll fully understand that too...

[eastforker]

Then do not demonize hard working blue collar workers that keep your ass in gas at the local refinery fixin the $hit you engineers devised in the first place.I bet you have no idea what a dutchman,two hole,hand hold or what a Victor wrench is or what it implies.My point,knock of dissin the blue collar worker.

[general_re]

1. Our "professional, federalized" airport security service failed to catch him - maybe because they were focusing their efforts in all the wrong places?

Perhaps. Since federal jurisdiction so far fails to extend to Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris, where Reid boarded his flight, I think this point is not quite as strong as you might think at first blush ;)

2. It was the passengers who stopped him.

It was. But that was, let's face it, in large part because he was incompetent. Pan Am 103 was brought down by a slightly modified clock-radio - unless attention is paid to preventing weapons on board airplanes, profiling alone is too coarse a sieve to be effective. It seems to me that the best course is a combination of all available methods - screening for weapons and suspicious passengers.

As for an armed passengery - I like that word ;) - I merely suggest that the Wild West days of shootouts in saloons and on sidewalks came to an end for one simple reason - most folks simply won't stand for it. It's easy to romanticize that kind of thing from a distance, but whether you're right or wrong about the efficacy of armed passengers, I really doubt that there is a realistic chance of persuading people that it's a good idea. But you can certainly try ;)

[TaZ]

Actually, my point was directed towards a veteran who is getting a little hot under the collar about the toadies, sycophants and lackeys that find it their political mission to defend the unconstitutional actions of the current regime.

I'm personally not willing to surrender my rights for an illusion of security...I'm also unwilling to support the two-party system that has brought our country to the brink of social, fiscal, economic and moral collapse.

It's time to return to the Republic that was established by the founding fathers, but before that can happen we have a lot of housecleaning to do...

[general_re]

...before that can happen we have a lot of housecleaning to do...

Do tell.

[RGSpincich]

Do tell.

Donald Matthews tried to do some of that cleaning but ended up getting dusted himself.

[general_re]

"Housecleaning" always has rather ominous overtones in this kind of context. It would be rather regrettable if the forces of "freedom" turned out to be more hazardous to my health and safety than the federales ever have been.

I dislike having to defend the current system for no other reason than because the alternatives I am presented with are so much worse. Whoops, wait a minute - that would imply that I have rationally weighed the alternatives and found one to be deficient when compared to the others. And everyone knows that's plainly impossible - I must be a government-loving statist. That's the ticket....

[TaZ]

"Do tell."

Well, we could start by securing our borders and respecting the rights of American citizens...such as being gracious towards 64 year old grandmothers or women in their 8th month of pregnancy when they appear at airport security checkpoints.

We could also require American citizens to be responsible for their behavior, so that we all don't have to forfeit our rights because of those who have chosen to be criminal in their behavior...

[general_re]

Thank you for the clarification. As I said above, "housecleaning" sometimes has ominous overtones, intentionally or unintentionally.

[RGSpincich]

You have a more workable concept of "housecleaning" than some. I regret having made my wisea$$ comment.

[TaZ]

"You have a more workable concept of "housecleaning" than some. I regret having made my wisea$$ comment."

No offense taken. It appears the moderator assumed the same thing and deleted one of my posts.

Maybe I need to elaborate upon my core beliefs...

I believe in a strict adherence to the Constitution and an absolute respect for the rights of every responsible American citizen.

I also believe that law creation, enforcement and adjudication is best left in the hands of the "People" and not crafty careerists, who have no vested interest in keeping the size, scope and power of gov't. at a minimum.

We need to return to the spirit of the citizen militia...ready to defend, in a minute, each other's homes, family and the country at large, as it was in the beginning.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"OK, you're a macho guy. Now tell us all what level of security you think we need at airports and how it would be carried out. "

When the illegal aliens are no longer allowed to be employed at airports and can simply walk on every aircraft out there, maybe, just maybe, screening American passengers might actually accomplish something.

You are the ultimate sheep if you think frisking passengers is actually a security measure.