Britain Figures It Out
- 08-16-2006, 02:34 AM
Britain Figures It Out
BRITAIN FIGURES IT OUT
By Neil Boortz
Finally...after foiling a terrorist attack that would have killed hundreds of people, the folks running things on the other side of the pond have gotten wise. They get it. The government of Great Britain is working with airports to implement new security protocols. And what exactly are those new rules being put in place going to do?
Will they intensify the strip-searching of little old ladies? Nope. Are they going to foolishly confiscate every passenger's hair gel, nail clippers and anything else that might remotely be used as a weapon? That doesn't appear to be part of the new protocol. No..the plan is to look for people that behave suspiciously, have unusual travel plans or are of a certain religion or ethnicity.
In other words, they're going to start profiling!!!!
Can you imagine that!
A specific group of people is trying to kill innocent British citizens, and now the Brits are actually going to concentrate their preventative efforts on that specific group of people? In another era this would have made perfect sense to everyone ... but this is the era of political correctness!
The British version of the TSA, something called the Department for Transport, has decided that putting people in long lines at the airport for random searches is a waste of time. And they're right, it is. Would the police randomly search people on the street if they had a report that an Arab male had just robbed a bank? No, they would not. Do authorities stop white people and ask for ID when they are in pursuit of a black carjacker? They do not. This isn't racism. It isn't bigotry. It's simply common sense. You receive a threat from members of an identifiable group -- and you concentrate your response on the members of that identifiable group.
It's not racial profiling. It's not religious profiling. It's terrorist profiling. No ... not all Muslims are terrorists. But with only a very few -- and long ago --- isolated incidents, all terrorists are Muslims. Just about every terrorist that has hijacked a plane in the last 30 years has fit one, single description: Arab Muslim. That is the description of the suspect. The terrorists who blew up nightclubs in Bali, the terrorists who wanted to lop off the head of the Canadian prime minister ... Muslims. Every one. Every terrorist that planned to blow up airplanes over the Atlantic last week was an Muslim who, if not from the Middle East, was of Middle East decent. This isn't rocket surgery. So ... get ready for the howls of protest from the Islamic community in Britain. If the Brits stick to their guns on this one perhaps it will evolve into one more reason for Muslims who truly want to live their lives in peace ... to be left alone and to leave alone ... to rebel against those of their religion who have brought this upon them.
- 08-16-2006, 02:37 AM
08-16-2006, 10:51 AM
finally some sensibility.
Racial profiling or call it whatever the you want will save lives and save hours of waiting in line at airport check-ins.
Israel has been racial profiling Arab Muslim males in the age range of 17-45 since El Al first started offering flights in the Late 60's. And make no mistake about it, El Al (the only israeli airline) has had by far the most hijacking/sabotaging attempts of any airline by muslim terrorist, yet there has only been one successfull hijacking which was more than 30 years ago. Israeli Airport security agents are actually trained on how to properlly profile, and can sniff out a terrorist like a coonhound.
It is simple insanity to do the same check on a elderly women in a wheeler chair as you would do to a 25 year old saudi muslim.
America has to come to grips that profiling is neccessary if we aim to win this "war on terror"
the founding fathers in no way could have envisioned what we are going through now and we are simply taking a far too strict interpertation of the constitution. If we still require "probable cause" rather than "reseaonable suspicion" as a prerequisite to take action we are in for a world of hurt.
08-16-2006, 10:58 AM
08-16-2006, 11:08 AM
I dunno, I kind of like seeing them pull Al Gore and little old ladies out of line and searching them. Waste of resources? Of course. Stupid and not likely to prevent a future attack? Absolutely. But I like it for two reasons. One, it pisses people off. Two, it makes it pretty clear, once people take their blinders off, who the government really thinks is a threat: its own citizens.Originally Posted by OmarJackson
Last edited by CDB; 09-08-2006 at 01:29 PM.
08-16-2006, 11:25 AM
I disagree. Do you know how many people in this country, let alone travelers, APPEAR to be of Arab-descent, but are actually Italian, Hispanic, Indian? Or how about the thousands of arabs that live in the US that are citizens, peaceful, trying to live an American way of life. We are a FREE country. To take the rights away from a group of people (such as Invasion of Privacy) based on physical appearence is just rediculous and goes against what this country stands for: FREEDOM. You might as well give your guns away and put cameras in your house, because the constitution is just a snot rag if we started doing that. Just my .02. If we went by that logic, than every male ages 15-55 in every Arab country would be suspect. The very effort we are putting to 'modernize' and 'liberate' these countries would be a waste of time.Originally Posted by OmarJackson
08-16-2006, 11:44 AM
Correct, they are suspect.Originally Posted by RenegadeRows
This is the smartest thing I've heard yet. Will the US start doing this and announce it? Probably not, why? Because of the Libtards in this world that need a bomb to drop in their lap before they finally figure it out.
For once I'd also like to see the Leaders of the Muslim Religous Groups or Arab Nations speak out against it's own people creating these attrocites rather than spewing their b.s. and whining about how they are being profiled. Now you are being profiled, live with it, do something about it, (as heard on the radio yesterday, if need be "eat your own").
08-16-2006, 11:48 AM
LONDON, England -- Despite a high level of alert at British airports, a 12-year-old boy managed to board a plane at Gatwick without a passport, ticket or boarding pass.
Tuesday's incident has raised concerns over security procedures in the wake of an alleged plot to blow up planes on trans-Atlantic flight.
The boy was detected by member of the Monarch Airlines cabin crew only after he was seated and had been given a drink and a snack.
He was removed from the plane by police officers before the flight took off.
"The boy had passed through a full security screening process and we are confident there was no threat to passengers, staff or the aircraft at any time," said Stewart McDonald, a spokesman for BAA, which operates Gatwick, Heathrow and five other major UK airports.
BAA has launched an investigation into the incident, McDonald said Wednesday.
The boy had run away from a care home in northwest England and boarded a plane for Lisbon at 6 a.m. on Monday before the other passengers, the UK's Press Association reported.
08-16-2006, 11:54 AM
i completly and wholeheartedly disagree, and guess what? I'm a 23 year old biracial male, I could easily be percieved as an arab/muslim terrorist. I would not care if i was stopped and searched in line at the airport, in fact i would be dissapointed if i were not.Originally Posted by RenegadeRows
There is no such thing as invasion of privacy when you are going onto a commercial airplane along with 200-300 other passengers. In such a situation your privacy does not exist. If invasion of privacy is a legitamite arguement, then we might as well take away the airport security's power to x-ray our bags and have passengers walk through metal detecters, after all these things are private, right?
This is not a 4th amendment issue, it is a simple perversion of what your forefathers set forth taking their words to extremes far beyond they would have ever imagined.
08-16-2006, 12:06 PM
Airports is one thing. But it's going to get worse before it gets better. Where do we draw the line, with protecting our rights and being safe from terrorists? It seems like an excuse to break certain personal freedoms this country takes for granted. I prefer not to debate these types of things on the internet, but I spoke my peice: I just don't beleive that racial profiling is neseccary, and I think it can lead to bad things. Take WW2, rounding up Japanese people and putting them in camps and jails! I'm afraid that our state of freedom is slowly turning into something else.Originally Posted by OmarJackson
08-16-2006, 12:54 PM
That's the crucial point, and one I don't understand why people don't get except to say that people have a serious misunderstanding of how rights should be applied. Your right to not be searched in such a way is a restriction on what the government can do, not private organizations. But people confuse rights with empowerment and demand private parties respect their 'rights,' like for example their 'right' to restrict smoking in someone else's restaurant. Whereas a true understanding that a right is a restriction of government power would I think lead more people to understand that a private party, such as an airline, can require body cavity searches for all passengers if it wanted to. Problems arise because people demand empowerment instead of rights, and because they have the government providing services that should be provided for privately along side or instead of the government service, the line gets fuzzy.Originally Posted by OmarJackson
If Southwest wants to they can stick a probe up everyone's ass or shackle them to their seats. It's their airline, it's their rules, and no one has the 'right' to fly on it under any conditions other than what the provider allows. Saying otherwise is arguing for empowerment, not rights, and eventually that empowerment will empower someone who wants to do harm. But once you realize you don't have the right to use someone else's property under any conditions other than what you both mutually agree to, the problem disappears. Of course if the government is providing some of the service, people will start demanding 'rights'/empowerment, and they will get those allowances, along with the terrorists.
08-16-2006, 08:01 PM
08-16-2006, 08:05 PM
Profiling is not solely based on your skin color, race and ethnicity. It takes into consideration of a basket of factors that correlates strongly to terrorism. Go fly El Al and find out first hand. Make sure you visit some Arab countries first before you fly El Al, so you can show them your well stamped passport.
08-16-2006, 08:08 PM
Exactly. El Al passenger screening process is legendary and has been basically foolproof. Lessons learnt in blood. Much to say about their method. It has worked so far.Originally Posted by OmarJackson
08-16-2006, 09:15 PM
Perhaps it would be useful for El Al to offer training in their methods for airport officials from other countries. If they've been doing this for 40 years then they must have a wealth of valuable experience that would be invaluable for the rest of the world.
08-17-2006, 02:21 AM
Exactly. You don't have a constitutional right to fly, just like there is no constitutional right to have a drivers license.Originally Posted by OmarJackson
08-17-2006, 09:13 AM
Problem is you do have a constitutional right against illegal search and seizure, and if the government is providing security services to the airport they are bound by the constitution. The simple answer is use the government for security services where those bounds don't matter and don't hinder them too much, such as developing and applying behavioral profiles to catch terrorists. Then let the carriers institute whatever restrictions they want and enforce them privately at their end. The private security forces could not arrest someone they thought was a threat, but they could bar that person from the flight which is the critical issue, and then serve as a witness to the government forces to get them probable cause to hold and search the person considered a threat. I think that would let us best mirror the more effective approaches of other countries without giving the government powers it shouldn't have.Originally Posted by ArnoldIsMyIdol
08-17-2006, 05:32 PM
Actually, citizens who are not law enforcement CAN arrest someone if they catch them in the act of committing a crime (such as attempting to carry weapons onto an airplane). It's called "citizen's arrest".
08-17-2006, 05:50 PM
Here in North America the right to be free from racial or religous discrimination is engrained in the constitution. Anyone that thinks this right should be sacrificed in the name of "efficiency" doesn't deserve to hold these rights.
08-17-2006, 07:04 PM
yea, you know, your right. Who cares if 250 innocent people get blown up over the atlantic, as long as Hajij from Saudi Arabia isn't offended in line to get on a plane, because that would be intolerable.Originally Posted by Clubberlang
typical liberal arguement.
08-18-2006, 01:44 AM
To correct some misinformation about government search:
"...Border Searches .--''That searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border, should, by now, require no extended demonstration.'' 87 Authorized by the First Congress, 88 the customs search in these circumstances requires no warrant, no probable cause, not even the showing of some degree of suspicion that accompanies even investigatory stops. 89 Moreover, while prolonged detention of travelers beyond the routine customs search and inspection must be justified by the Terry standard of reasonable suspicion having a particularized and objective basis, 90 Terry protections as to the length and intrusiveness of the search do not apply. 91..."
FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment: Annotations pg. 4 of 6
In domestic flight, consent to search is the condition to fly. You don't give consent to search, then you don't fly. If you want to fly, you can't invoke protection against illegal government searches and seizure.
Aviation Law Alert: Court Recently HoldsThat Identification and Search Requirements at Airports Are Constitutional
"..Court Recently HoldsThat Identification and Search Requirements at Airports Are Constitutional..."
08-18-2006, 02:34 AM
Funny, I thought conservatives were the ones that championed the sacredness of the constitution.Originally Posted by OmarJackson
I guess it just sorta went out of style.
08-18-2006, 02:41 AM
Again, there is no constitutional right to fly on an airplane. You may have to give up certain rights in order for the privilege of flying. If it is an inconvienience thats just tough. Take the bus.Originally Posted by Clubberlang
08-18-2006, 02:56 AM
Bingo!!!!Originally Posted by ArnoldIsMyIdol
"....did not infringe any right to travel, as that right does not guarantee travel by any mode and the plaintiff could have chosen alternative means. See Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 1999), Monarch Travel Serv. Assoc. Cultural Clubs, Inc., 466 F.2d 552 (9th Cir. 1972). ..."
Aviation Law Alert: Court Recently HoldsThat Identification and Search Requirements at Airports Are Constitutional
08-18-2006, 02:58 AM
08-18-2006, 09:08 AM
If so, then this entire thread is guilty of farting in the wind too. They allready profile in the US. Happens all the time with the the no fly lists and wiretapping. Everybody else just gets screwed over and inconvenienced at the airport "pour out your liquids and take your shoes off" so some high school drop out earning $8.50 an hour can inspect you. Does anyone here honestly beleive that middle eastern travelers do not face any extra scrutiny when flying to the US? People have been discriminating against folks on the grounds of religion/ethnicity for hundreds of years in America. They don't need government permission to magically turn on the profiling button.Originally Posted by BioHazzard
08-18-2006, 09:18 AM
Newsflash: rights restrict what the government can do. While the government can't be racist, any individual who wants to hold those beliefs can. And, though I admit courts disagree with me and will simply say they are wrong, private organizations can discriminate if they want to. It's called freedom of association. And if I'm running an airline and everytime one of either my or my competitor's planes explodes or crashes into a building there's a Muslim fundamentalist at the controls of the bomb or the plane respectively, I'm concentrating on Muslims to prevent that. It is not a matter of efficiency to concentrate on Muslims from places like Saudi Arabia and the like, it is a matter of stupidity not to. When they start recruiting red headed mothers of four to blow up planes I'll strip search a few. Until then I'm concentrating on the problem population and if that population is defined in part or whole along ethnic/religious lines, I'm incorporating those standards regardless of whose feelings are hurt. Searching every 12th person to get on the plane only makes sense if you're at war with every 12th person getting on a plane.Originally Posted by Clubberlang
08-18-2006, 09:58 AM
actually, I have noticed that seems that airport security is going out of its way not to profile middle eastern men recently. And this is because they are SO scared of being accused of profiling they actually are reverse profiling by passing up inspection of suspicious arab looking men.They allready profile in the US. Happens all the time with the the no fly lists and wiretapping. Everybody else just gets screwed over and inconvenienced at the airport "pour out your liquids and take your shoes off" so some high school drop out earning $8.50 an hour can inspect you. Does anyone here honestly beleive that middle eastern travelers do not face any extra scrutiny when flying to the US?
you said it yourself, these people are usually low-education, low-pay workers, they probably fear greatly being fired for profiling based on race/religion. And they would be too poor to hire a good lawyer and in no way be qualified to defend their stance on why they did what they did especially against ruthless ACLU type lawyers, which would surely align against someone who was accused of profiling.
whats the alternative, let them go on the plane, worst case scenerio the plane is hijacked and/or blown up. Chances are they won't get fired for something like that. There was not a single firing or resignation after 9-11 the single greatest intelligence failure in modern history, why would there be after another succesfull hijacking. this is the point we have gotten to, profiling bad, you get fired or sued for something like that. failure to act resulting in the loss of hundreds of innocent lives, hmmm.... oh well, guess we'll just go on as usual.
perfect, everyone read this til it penetrates your brain.Originally Posted by CDB
08-18-2006, 10:12 AM
Don't let this "Penetrate Your Brain" as Omarjackson suggested. Most of it is bunk.
Abso****inlutely. Which is why I don't think they should be sacrificed in the name of Government efficiencey. It would be more efficient for the cops to kick down the door of suspected drug dealers, detain them without charges and deny them a right to a lawyer. But I think we can see that this sort if thing is "bad". When the "forefathers" mapped out the constitution they had this sort of thing in mind.Originally Posted by CDB
Wrong again. If a buisness or individual, denies me the right to eat lunch at a particular counter because of my skin colour, or tells me my skin is too dark to use that water fountain they are violating my rights. If a landlord explicitly refuses me the right to rent an apartment because of my religion or race then they've got a little legal problem on their hands. There was this thing called the Civil RIghts MOvement that you might be familiar with. "Freedom of Association" doesn't grant them the right to do any of the above. THey don't have to like me. They don't have to be my friend. THey can beleive whatever the **** they want about me, but formal discrimination on the grounds of race/religion is illegal for good reasons.While the government can't be racist, any individual who wants to hold those beliefs can. And, though I admit courts disagree with me and will simply say they are wrong, private organizations can discriminate if they want to. It's called freedom of association.
Again, I won't claim to be a constitutional expert. Whether or not flight is a "right" is something that can be disputed. Even then it allready happens. Saying otherwise is naiive. THere a re problems with profiling from a policing standpoint. My major objection is that it puts efficiency over equality. That's backasswards.And if I'm running an airline and everytime one of either my or my competitor's planes explodes or crashes into a building there's a Muslim fundamentalist at the controls of the bomb or the plane respectively, I'm concentrating on Muslims to prevent that. It is not a matter of efficiency to concentrate on Muslims from places like Saudi Arabia and the like, it is a matter of stupidity not to. When they start recruiting red headed mothers of four to blow up planes I'll strip search a few. Until then I'm concentrating on the problem population and if that population is defined in part or whole along ethnic/religious lines, I'm incorporating those standards regardless of whose feelings are hurt. Searching every 12th person to get on the plane only makes sense if you're at war with every 12th person getting on a plane.
08-18-2006, 10:40 AM
Actually when our forefathers mapped out the constitution they were much more lax. Here in NY earlier last century the government was opening mail when it felt like. However much as your Fourth Ammendment rights do protect your home, they don't protect your "right" to use someone else's property without meeting their requirements for doing so. Being searched before you go on a plane, especially if it's by a private firm, does not in any way violate a single basic right. Not allowing that search, if the airline wanted to administer it, is a violation of someone's rights, their right to set the terms for the use of their service and their property as they see fit.Originally Posted by Clubberlang
That is the modern interpretation of rights and it's incorrect. The 'right' to use someone else's property against their wishes is not a right at all, it is empowerment. You have agreed a right is a restraint on government action. Forcing someone to serve food to someone who, for whatever reason, they don't want to serve requires a positive action on the part of the government to abridge that person's property rights to empower another to eat there. Same for any other product or service, apartments, loans, whatever. You nor I nor anyone else has the 'right' to use anyone else's property on any other terms, if any, than what they set out and we can mutually agree to. Anything else is not rights it is enforced empowerment. Now as I said courts disagree these days. They are wrong.Wrong again. If a buisness or individual, denies me the right to eat lunch at a particular counter because of my skin colour, or tells me my skin is too dark to use that water fountain they are violating my rights.
No it can't. By any standard of rights it is not a right. Nor even if it could be construed as a right can denial of service by a private company be a violation of rights, anymore than investors refusing to underwrite my new newspaper is a violation of freedom of the press or speech, nor is a person not letting me hold a political rally on their front lawn a violation of my right to assemble, nor is a person not letting me simply have their car a violation of my right to move around in general. There is a difference between rights, freedom and empowerment.Again, I won't claim to be a constitutional expert. Whether or not flight is a "right" is something that can be disputed.
Grant that and you're still wrong because treating all people equally when the threat does not equally eminate from all people no matter how they are grouped is insane. Far be it from me as I'm going down in flames on a hijacked plane to perhaps wonder whether or not I would have more life in front of me if security had searched the arab with smoke coming out of his pants and not the old white lady in the wheelchair or the four year old asian kid in batman pajamas.My major objection is that it puts efficiency over equality. That's backasswards.
You are not trading liberty for security in that instance because your liberty does not include the 'right' to fly where ever you want on whatever plane you want, if only because the freedom to do something does not equate to the ability to do so.
Similar Forum Threads
- By Machwon1 in forum Weight LossReplies: 7Last Post: 09-07-2011, 07:15 AM
- By aga_umar00 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 12Last Post: 03-13-2011, 02:31 PM
- By Machwon1 in forum SupplementsReplies: 5Last Post: 06-11-2009, 09:54 AM
- By psychospic in forum SupplementsReplies: 2Last Post: 11-27-2006, 10:07 AM
- By Rodja in forum Nutrition / HealthReplies: 2Last Post: 11-04-2006, 05:11 PM