Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Have any newspapers published Editorials (not op-eds) against airport scanning/groping? NT

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-10 11:59 AM
Original message
Have any newspapers published Editorials (not op-eds) against airport scanning/groping? NT
NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-10 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. Related... what happened to thread on CO attorney's lawsuit
It included his Federal Court filing asking for an immediate injunction against TSA, based on his experience and that of his daughters returning to Denver from San Diego. I am really dismayed that it has disappeared. Was it a bug? Surely not intentional? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TorchTheWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-10 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. The thread in LBN was locked due to suspicious source...
The attorney in question does appear to be a right wing nut job, however, the bigger point here is that these body scanners are also being placed in courthouses as it was the courthouse where he refused to be scanned or groped. There is a video on YouTube of one of his encounters at the courthouse where he refused the scan/grope and was denied entry... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnlLwWKvQlM&feature=player_embedded

Think what you like about this attorney's politics or his motivation in filing the suit. The POINT is that these intrusive scanners are NOT just coming to an airport near you, they're invading everyday places such as the courthouses... exactly as many of us have feared. Considering that radiation is cummulative and how many people have to go into the courthouse almost every day for work (attorneys, paralegals, document filing clerks, etc.) this is a HUGE problem.

When I was a paralegal I had to go to the courthouse to file papers almost every day and sometimes several times a day. NO WAY would I allow myself to be groped or scanned every damn time I had to go there. Aside from the intrusiveness of the be naked or groped searches the cumulative effects of being zapped as much as several times a DAY is utterly horrifying.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-10 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. I don't know the attorney's politics, but the lawsuit is legit...
Edited on Sun Nov-28-10 02:53 PM by hlthe2b
Given he is from the Springs, he is likely a Rethug, but that is not relevant here. He has a decent reputation. The filing is legit. It was posted on a legit website. The actual court filing was included. This is a serious post on a serious matter. I am appalled that you would be supporting this. I have taken it to the admin forum.


(edited for spelling)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TorchTheWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-10 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. supporting what?
I know the filing is legit, and I don't care whether he's a flaming nutball RWer or not. I don't think his motives are suspect at all especially considering his YouTube video at the courthouse. I'm irked that the LBN thread was closed by the mods, but I'm not in a position to make that call, and don't know if the source that was used in the LBN OP is legit or not since I'd never heard of it. I even posted an OP (something I think I've only done a handful of times in all the years i've been here) to at least address the scanners being put into courthouses with a legitimate source since other than the LBN thread that was locked I don't recall any other thread that addressed these machines being put into courthouses.

Personally, since this TSA issue has come up I've seen a few mod reactions to threads that appear very biased in either closing a thread or allowing it to remain open, and in all the years I've been here, I've never seen that before... and I probably haven't because I'm very lenient in coming to those sorts of conclusions.

I've already considered taking the issue to the admin forum but was trying to figure out if for once I wasn't being as lenient as I usually am in this instance when it comes to mod decisions since I know how livid this body scanner/groping thing makes me.

Frankly, the biggest reason I even made the post about the LBN thread being locked was to at least get the YouTube video posted here somewhere.

I'm sorry if my post confused you at all and I'm embarrassed that it could have been seen in that light... usually I'm pretty good at making myself clear.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-10 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Thanks, TorchTheWitch..
Edited on Sun Nov-28-10 04:27 PM by hlthe2b
I'm sorry I misunderstood your reply. I thought you were defending the deletion. I'm glad you came back to clarify, as I have read many of your posts that had me convinced you too were questioning this whole TSA policy for all the reasons cited repeatedly by many here.
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TorchTheWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-10 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. no problem - and thanks for taking it to the admin forum
I think maybe I was trying to be very careful what I said in that post for fear that this thread would end up locked, too, which may have made my meaning unclear.

And now I realize I'm pissed that I suddenly feel like I have to watch what I say concerning this TSA topic. :banghead:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-10 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. Did you read his filing? It was better written than Orly's stuff, but it was vacuous and sloppy
Edited on Sun Nov-28-10 04:39 PM by struggle4progress
and it isn't going anywhere in the legal system
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-10 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. His is not the only Federal legal filing....
Edited on Sun Nov-28-10 04:52 PM by hlthe2b
No, I am not qualified to review his legal filing, but he is considered to be competent by attorneys with good reps in Colorado. Perhaps, if his filing lacks precision, it only serves to underscore the fact that attorneys should not represent themselves, particularly when they have an emotional attachment to the issue.

Regardless of whether you believe it to be "vacuous and sloppy," or what some perceive as his politics it is an important development. Attorneys are starting to file based on a number of issues--including, but not exclusive to the 4th Amendment. That IS noteworthy. That at least one moderator believed we should not have the right to know about it and discuss it, appalls me. I hope that Skinner will see the need for unbiased discussion of this and all political issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-10 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. The filing is only six or eight pages long. He wrote it in an hour or an hour and a half.
He did not legal research for it. He cites no cases and no statutes. It's not really a case: it's huff-n-puff intended to get attention for himself
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-10 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. A point you should have been able to make...
and to discuss with others on the original link, IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-10 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. I concluded it was rightwing noise. Others concluded the same
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-10 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. What percentage of original threads are based on articles...
from MSM and other sources that we here readily discredit with discussion. Full discussion. Are you advocating for pre-judgement of threads-- i.e., based on particular bias-- to decide if it gets posted? Lots of SUCCESSFUL legal filings make it through, though attorney friends of mine opine on their inadequacies. And, supreme court cases have been settled despite having no legal basis behind them-- to wit, Bush v Gore, 2000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-10 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. Feel free to take it up with the mods/admins
Edited on Sun Nov-28-10 06:18 PM by struggle4progress
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-10 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. As posted earlier in my replies, I have done so....
Edited on Sun Nov-28-10 08:31 PM by hlthe2b
I hope, though, you will take my comments to heart.

As one with considerable medical and epidemiological expertise, I recognize that much of what gets posted in the Health forum is based on junk science. While I try to correct the most egregious of the posts I see, if I insisted all of them be deleted because they were based on a source of information that is demonstrably unreliable, there would be little left. So, like most of the medical folks here, I just try to correct and add facts where possible, countering the junk science. It seems to me the same should be expected with posts that include legal filings or lawsuits that you consider similarly "unreliable"...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2Design Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-10 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
2. mostly op ed - blogs -
have not seen a newspaper against tsa but most newspapers are republican or republican leaning in their reporting
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-10 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
4. Here is one:
Edited on Sun Nov-28-10 02:44 PM by LisaL
"TSA's tactics are all about bullying. The agency wants every American to enter a literal position of surrender while being undressed by an X-rated x-ray machine. There is good reason to question whether such devices are effective, let alone safe. The airport backscatter machines can easily detect metal objects on people, but they are quite a bit less effective at detecting chemicals whose atomic makeup is similar to that of the human body. Rational discussion of whether such machines do any good are swept away with the, "It's classified" dodge."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/20/tsas-security-charade/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-10 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #4
13. That's a Moony source. They're quite unreliable in their position
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-10 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
5. Here is another one:
Edited on Sun Nov-28-10 02:47 PM by LisaL
"Many veteran fliers have mocked the TSA’s policies as "security theater," measures designed not so much to catch terrorists as to reassure the public that air travel is safe. There have been numerous examples of passengers managing to smuggle contraband past gate security — even suspected terrorists boarding planes."
http://www.newsherald.com/articles/editorial-88644-government-hated.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-10 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Thanks. Those editors should have explained that private guards at airports...
...have to follow TSA rules. And if the TSA is abolished, someone will make airport rules. The issue is: what should the rules be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-10 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
7. One more. Basically, google is your friend.
Edited on Sun Nov-28-10 02:50 PM by LisaL
"We surrender our rights and we surrender our dignity in the name of safety."
http://www.news-press.com/article/20101128/OPINION/11280360/Editorial-Don-t-let-fear-erode-American-freedoms
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TeeYiYi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-10 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
18. Here's one...
Americans should stop the TSA’s pat down of our rights

By connor boyack

Published Nov 20, 2010 01:01AM
Updated Nov 20, 2010 01:01AM

snip

During the ordeal, the TSA agent tasked with manhandling Tyner reportedly stated that by purchasing his ticket, Tyner had given up “a lot of his rights.” Perhaps this is a recent development; I don’t recall seeing any fine print about voluntarily surrendering my constitutional rights when I last purchased an airline ticket.

To the contrary: Nobody has to give up their rights, including “the right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures,” by engaging in a commercial transaction with an airline. The federal government, with no probable cause, has seen fit to intervene in this voluntary relationship and impose its onerous mandates on all travelers — and on top of that, has the audacity to refer to them as “customers.”

This right to be free from searches and seizures is deeply rooted in the American experience. In colonial times, the English claimed an unrestrained, oft-abused power to search one’s property or person at any time, for any reason (or no reason). The ensuing resistance to such an egregious assault on the privacy of innocent individuals was, according to John Adams, “the spark in which originated the American Revolution.”

snip

The past few weeks have changed this attitude, however, with the introduction of new “enhanced” pat-down methods which, quite literally, are a form of molestation in which a stranger runs his or her hands over your body with the palms touching genitalia, in full view of other travelers. What would clearly be illegal for any other person has become sanctioned by law for a worker with a badge.

More at link: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/50704991-82/rights-tsa-tyner-boyack.html.csp

TYY

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-10 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
20. One more:
Edited on Sun Nov-28-10 05:22 PM by LisaL
"The pat-downs used by TSA workers are highly invasive and a clear invasion of privacy. Moreover, they are relatively useless, according to several law enforcement officers."
http://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_16629228
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-10 05:44 PM
Response to Original message
21. One more
Edited on Sun Nov-28-10 05:45 PM by LisaL
"The TSA's latest intrusion appears to have pushed Americans across the line. The virtual strip search done by TSA's full-body scanners and the "enhanced pat-downs" for those who decline to be scanned have sparked criticism by the ACLU on the left, and Tea Party Express on the right, along with thousands of Americans who just want to fly from here to there without having an intimate encounter with a TSA agent."
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/editorials/x656203299/Editorial-The-TSA-crosses-a-line
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC