Airport Security

alfadriver wrote: I thought we were supposed to defend the Constitution.

Not when it means you need to get to the airport 30 minutes earlier.

alfadriver wrote:

NOHOME wrote:

SVreX wrote: Lol. But on a serious note, I've been through Tel Aviv airport, and their security is the best in the world. Despite their location in the epicenter of all things controversial, they have never had a serious incident. Their approach to security is the complete opposite to ours, and it works. We could learn a lot from them.

They profile the heck out of passengers and political correctness be damned!

The problem with profiling in this country is that it's not Constitutional. Profiling assumes a degree of guilt in certain sectors of the public, whereas the Constitution presumes innocence to all. I thought we were supposed to defend the Constitution.

Well there is another reason. You live in an area where every country near you wants to kill you.

And there is this...

Israel Shoots Down An Errant Libyan Plane: The Libyan Airlines Boeing 727 left the capital, Tripoli, on Feb. 21, 1973, heading east for Cairo when it suffered the double whammy of bad weather and equipment failure. It flew past Cairo and entered the Sinai Peninsula, which was controlled by Israel at the time. Two Israeli warplanes intercepted the Libyan aircraft, and when it refused to land, the Israelis shot it down, killing all but five of the 113 onboard.

In reply to Flight Service:

FWIW, I'm not saying that Israel should not profile, or that it's against the law for them to profile passengers.

I'm saying that it's not legal for the US to profile like that.

That is a current Constitutional interpretation, but still an opinion.

Recognition of statistical probabilities is not a presumption of guilt.

So, if you were looking for child molesters, would you first look hardest at men and give women a pass? By your definition, that sounds like an "unconstitutional" form of gender profiling. But it is a statistically sound approach to addressing the problem, and if the process was burdened with a "need" to look equally at women and men, resources would be spread thinner and fewer child molesters would likely be caught.

It's a foolish approach.

In reply to SVreX:

So willing to give up an individual's presumption of innocence.

Can I take your guns, too? It, too, is a good idea to prevent gun violence.

You don't actually intend to vote, do you? If we only let the right people to vote, we would get better representation- another good idea.

Slippery slope.

But "think of the children" for the win.

In reply to alfadriver:

You know I said none of that.

I am not willing to give up individual presumption of innocence, but I AM willing to go into neighborhoods that have statistical higher crime rates and help the people who live there with more resources because they have a greater need, without first asking what color their skin is, or feeling the need to foolishly waste resources in other neighborhoods that don't need them just so someone doesn't cry, "profiling!"

I don't see profiling as a courageous Constitutional issue. I see it as a distraction, and a position of cowardice from people who are afraid of what others think, and don't really care about people in need.

I am pretty color blind. When I hire people, I consider their skills and abilities. If a potential employ is concerned about race at the beginning of our relationship and not concerned about skill, they probably should not work with me.

BTW, I've been racially profiled multiple times, as have many people in my family (I am bi-racial, and so are my kids).

Not that it matters, but I have no guns.

So what do you call it when people get more scrutiny of guilt (checking you and your baggage more carefully)?

Right now, the system is random, and based on detection of certain keys. It does not matter what religion you are or the color of your skin. I've been tagged for a body scan as has my wife- even though we are both TSA pre. It's random.

If you are ok with profiling- how would you choose who gets extra scrutiny?

Many would say chose Muslims- which then becomes a first amendment problem, since government is applying rules differently based on religion. Again, can't do that.

Funny that you see it as cowardice- as it's the people who are afraid who are calling for profiling to happen.

We are all supposed to be equal, all have the same rights, all the laws should be applied equally. Profiling does not do that.

I don't see going into neighborhoods where crime is more as profiling- that's using statistics of where you are as looking for more. Choosing who to scrutinize more based on who an individual is would be profiling. One based on location, the other based on a person.

BTW, MY interpretation of what you are saying is that you are happy to give up your rights. You didn't say that, sure, that's how I interpret it.

Flight Service wrote: That is brilliant

If this is true, there's really no reason not to do it. It's probably too draconian for the States.

alfadriver wrote:

NOHOME wrote:

SVreX wrote: Lol. But on a serious note, I've been through Tel Aviv airport, and their security is the best in the world. Despite their location in the epicenter of all things controversial, they have never had a serious incident. Their approach to security is the complete opposite to ours, and it works. We could learn a lot from them.

They profile the heck out of passengers and political correctness be damned!

The problem with profiling in this country is that it's not Constitutional. Profiling assumes a degree of guilt in certain sectors of the public, whereas the Constitution presumes innocence to all. I thought we were supposed to defend the Constitution.

This is turning into an "Angry Margie" thread, so I'll tread very lightly.

The elephant in the room (a much smaller elephant these days) is that we know exactly whom to profile. They're quietly already being profiled, anyway.

When you're a kid and you abuse your privileges, they get taken away. We're pretty much at that point with a few parts of our existence (flounder flounder). Too many kids abusing their privileges (yes, I know they're rights) too often lately.

If profiling people prevents a plane from going down, great. Sorry group of people being profiled, but perhaps your culture/culture's leaders need to address why you now need to be profiled.

...and I'm what most would consider a libtard.

In reply to gamby:

Sounds like we agree.

I am not a libtard.