Ann Coulter Speaks Her Mind

[Guest woxof]

WFW, could not agree more with this post.

More like, I'm not interested in dying because some scream and kick over nothing. You will walk through a scanner and some person who sees all kinds of body outllines will see yours then forget about it.

Are your rights being violated by by a pat down that sometimes happens, or your bag being opened. Always amazes how many will sooner have that A330 blown up than some quick scan.

If only the protectors of our "rights' could be the guaranteed victim of those rights.

[Kip Powick]

WFW, could not agree more with this post.

WFW ?????

Whaaaaa Fxxxxing Whaaaa = Stop whining ........... is that what you mean?...... cause the way you have your post written, I'm not sure where you are going

[Guest rattler]

probably just finger trouble. Likely WFM was the intended post.....

[Canus Chinookus]

Effective profiling isn't based on a single characteristic such as race or religion. It is far more complicated than that. Done right, it could ferret out anyone who has ill intentions including the Timothy McVeighs or even the guy with a major chip on his shoulder who's destined to be the next unruly passenger.

I agree that profiling is the only way we will have a fighting chance of really preventing terrorist attacks against aviation in the future. However, profiling requires personal contact with passengers and it takes more than one contact for it to be effective. Therefore, some conveniences such as web check-in would have to be taken away so that the personal contact can occur. So while we could make the security checkpoint a simpler process for those millions of honest travellers, they would still be inconvenienced in some way, particularly the frequent business traveller.

Exact-a-frikkn-lutely!

Of course profiling isn't going to get them all, but it'll do a far better job than what we now have, and with immediate results as soon as someone has the balls to enforce it.

[Cargo Agent]

WFW ?????

Whaaaaa Fxxxxing Whaaaa = Stop whining ........... is that what you mean?...... cause the way you have your post written, I'm not sure where you are going

WFW=word for word

[mo32a]

word for word

[mo32a]

WFW=word for word

If I hadn't looked away for a minute I would have beat you!!

[Kip Powick]

WFW, could not agree more with this post.

^^^^^^ re- the explanation fellows and my answer to Chocky is;

-1000

[chockalicious]

More like, I'm not interested in dying because some scream and kick over nothing. You will walk through a scanner and some person who sees all kinds of body outllines will see yours then forget about it.

Are your rights being violated by by a pat down that sometimes happens, or your bag being opened. Always amazes how many will sooner have that A330 blown up than some quick scan.

If only the protectors of our "rights' could be the guaranteed victim of those rights.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Did you read the rest of Defcon's post or do you choose to parse one sentance out of context? As with so many of your posts there is no room for reason. To you the options are a body pat down or blowing up an A 330. Is there no middle ground?

FWIW I am not sure a body pat down wouyod have caught this guy anyway given where he hid the bomb.

I think he raises great questions about the terrorism issue instead of throwing out a blanket solution that will not work.

I agree that it is not a right to fly however the approach to security is completely wrong headed IMO. As long as there are people who want to do us harm there are going to be people who will challenge the system.

To go along like sheep while we are subjected to more and more intrusive screens is not the answer.

[Mitch Cronin]

I don't know how you all missed it, the answer is so simple.... All we have to do is not let anyone on the airplane! Not crew, not passengers, not catering, not groomers, not maintenance, not anyone! Problem solved!

Happy New Year everyone.

[Kip Powick]

I don't know how you all missed it, the answer is so simple.... All we have to do is not let anyone on the airplane! Not crew, not passengers, not catering, not groomers, not maintenance, not anyone! Problem solved!

Happy New Year everyone.

Appleton's does strange things to ones logical reasoning, eh, Mitch

HNY 2U2

[Guest woxof]

To go along like sheep while we are subjected to more and more intrusive screens is not the answer.

Bottom line....a scan that shows your outline is hardly intrusive as some have claimed. It is going to happen, it makes sense, I support it, get used to it. It is likely that 300 people almost died because for some reason, the authorities didn't want to use this scanner. I suspect the reason will come out in the near future.

More intrusive screenings are the answer....El Al has proven it.

[DEFCON]

woxof

"If only the protectors of our "rights' could be the guaranteed victim of those rights."

This statement is quite insulting to those that do! It is nothing short of, immature in the extreme!

I can see you are clearly ready to do whatever 'Big Brother' demands, but yet appear strangely unable to answer any of the questions I posed earlier?

Sooner or later a terrorist will stick a condom laden with bomb making materials up his butt to avoid ‘back-scatter’ screening and then graciously accept the escort of a flight attendant to the lav in the last hour of flight to prepare his 'device' in privacy so that he can then go on to blow up the aircraft from the comfort of his seat. Perhaps he’ll just blow up the plane from the can?

With the above in mind and without regard to passenger considerations, are you prepared to be 'cavity' searched one or more times a day as part of your daily routine when the government grows up and comes to recognize the folly of their past & present course?

[Guest woxof]

woxof

Sooner or later a terrorist will stick a condom laden with bomb making materials up his butt to avoid ‘back-scatter’ screening and then graciously accept the escort of a flight attendant to the lav in the last hour of flight to prepare his 'device' in privacy so that he can then go on to blow up the aircraft from the comfort of his seat. Perhaps he’ll just blow up the plane from the can?

With the above in mind and without regard to passenger considerations, are you prepared to be 'cavity' searched one or more times a day as part of your daily routine when the government grows up and comes to recognize the folly of their past & present course?

I don't have an answer for your theoretical proposal for searches. What I can tell you is that there are more undewear-laden bombers on the way and I do have a simple answer for them. We have a way to detect them(although perhaps an expensive way).

In the near future, you are going to find yourself walking quickly through a body scanner. Someone will see you(most likely someone in a separate room, who doesn't see your face). If people's rights are violated by this, too bad. My right to life outweighs it. Your rights were taken away years ago when the first screenings started to happen. Just like they were taken away when speed limits were posted and seat belt laws came in and no-smoking rules were made.

It is called dealing with reality(or the greater good). People refused to deal with that for the last few years and 300 people died(well almost) because of these so-called rights(whatever exactly those rights specifically are).

[DEFCON]

UD

“Proponents of more intrusive security efforts are promoting the most basic of rights----the right to live.”

In their quest to support their ‘Right to Life’, proponents of these security enhancements are being careless with their existing Rights.

Take this entire issue forward and imagine a world in which blowing up aircraft becomes much too difficult a task. The bad guys are then forced to start targeting malls, trains, buses and or any other venue that harbors large numbers of unsuspecting people.

Never mind scanners, pat downs, cavity searches and God forbid, but if we were to lose a few malls etc, how much time will pass before some genius decides that laying down our rights vis a vis a ‘new’ requirement to carry identification at all times and produce it upon demand etc is paramount to our maintaining a so-called ‘Free Society’?

“From my perspective, I don't have a "right to fly". I think you'll agree that security screening areas are currently posted to advise that you don't have to submit to a search----just turn around and go home if you object.”

You say; “just turn around and go home”?

Do you think airport security will simply allow an individual to refuse a security check to become a simple conscientious objector, or will the more likely scenario find our ‘objector’ becoming the instant subject of further ‘lawful’ and invasive scrutiny?

”On another thread, Defcon, I posted that our society has deemed minor inconveniences (slight abrogations of right) to be justified "in a free and democratic society" to ensure the safety of the highways, or at least reduce risk (RIDE programs).

As we become evermore crowded together and more distant from each other in terms of human contact, some mechanism(s) must be in place to offer the security that "knowing one's neighbor" once provided. “

Ride programs are a case in point UD, they have placed us all on a very slippery slope. As our ‘neighbours’ continue to become ever more numerous, are we to slowly abandon our ‘Rights’ to placate the hysterical proponents of so-called personal safety? Although ‘1984’ may have missed the time frame by a little bit, I’ll bet George Orwell would have loved to live to see the world become his prediction.

[Guest woxof]

In their quest to support their ‘Right to Life’, proponents of these security enhancements are being careless with their existing Rights.

Ride programs are a case in point UD, they have placed us all on a very slippery slope.

Somehow I think the average person's life who has passed through AMS in the last few days will go on just fine after their scan.

Personally....I'm pumping up a little iron now so I can impress.

As for ride programs, I appreciate the vastly increased safety we have gotten over the years from the overall focus on drunk driving.

However, for those who dislike the infringements on their rights, I can think of a place where there is much less constraint on your activities from law enforcement by the the 'Big Brother' government.......Somalia.

[UpperDeck]

In their quest to support their ‘Right to Life’, proponents of these security enhancements are being careless with their existing Rights.

Take this entire issue forward and imagine a world in which blowing up aircraft becomes much too difficult a task. The bad guys are then forced to start targeting malls, trains, buses and or any other venue that harbors large numbers of unsuspecting people.

Never mind scanners, pat downs, cavity searches and God forbid, but if we were to lose a few malls etc, how much time will pass before some genius decides that laying down our rights vis a vis a ‘new’ requirement to carry identification at all times and produce it upon demand etc is paramount to our maintaining a so-called ‘Free Society’?

You say; “just turn around and go home”?

Do you think airport security will simply allow an individual to refuse a security check to become a simple conscientious objector, or will the more likely scenario find our ‘objector’ becoming the instant subject of further ‘lawful’ and invasive scrutiny?

. Defcon....

I wrote of the "right to live"; not the "right to life". Big difference philosophically.

Anyway----1) You postulate an ever-widening range of terrorist activities including the bombing of shopping malls and then rhetorically question whether this will result in a further erosion of rights.

In my opinion, the answer is "yes" and I for one would not question the reasonableness of the temporary suspension of "rights". If "we" became targets to the extreme you suggest, then it might bring home to the general public that this is a war which is being fought within the homeland borders. It would no longer be a distant conflict that could be terminated by a simple withdrawal of troops.

And if we were engaged in such a war, would you engage in civil disobedience because of your belief that terrorist acts do not warrant intrusion upon those rights you hold so dear?

War is war (to be trite) and to succeed, personal "rights" held so dear must be sacrificed for the security of the nation.

2) Until that time comes (God forbid), "we" will continue to step lightly so as not to offend the sensibilities of the ACLU-types. And for that reason---yes, I do believe that you could approach security; decide that you object to body-scanning on personal grounds ; and, leave the terminal. Sure you would be suspect but at this stage, I think your "rights" would protect you from arbitrary detention and search. The acceptance of the posted invitation could hardly be taken as constituting reasonable grounds for arrest and the right to search is only incidental to arrest.

[DEFCON]

woxof

I enjoy the debate and your contribution to this forum. Now, let's have at it...

From the previous page:

"I don't have an answer for your theoretical proposal for searches"

IMO & with respect, that’s because you’re not considering the broader negative implications to the notion of a ‘free society’. When an ever more ‘officially & in your best interest’ invasive approach to managing the herd is undertaken by the government, especially when it involves invocation of the ‘not withstanding’ clause to assign special Rights to, or remove certain Rights from, we are in trouble.

It appears you do a lot of searching & reading. I think it would be great if you took a look at various papers authored by the Founding Fathers that provide explanation and support for their creation, the US Constitution. I’m sorry, I can’t provide an instant link.

From near above:

“As for ride programs, I appreciate the vastly increased safety we have gotten over the years from the overall focus on drunk driving.”

From my perspective, your opinion as expressed above is pretty vague, it seems to be a melding of presumptions that you intend the reader to interpret as fact?

Can you provide credible ‘PROOF’ that in fact, ‘RIDE’ programs have “vastly increased safety”?

It’s not that I like ‘drunk drivers’ either, but punishing the masses to catch one individual violator is a trampling of your ‘Rights’, but allowed for by virtue of the Not Withstanding Clause’.

If our society has come to believe that DUI is so distasteful & egregious a crime that a government suspension of a ‘Right’ of the masses (RIDE) is justifiable and said suspension is intended as part of an effort to locate and ferret out the proverbial ‘needle in the hay stack’, why then doesn’t the punishment match the depravity of the crime?

[DEFCON]

“War is war (to be trite) and to succeed, personal "rights" held so dear must be sacrificed for the security of the nation.”

Yes UD, “war is war” and every form of media keeps telling us, we are at war.

Therefore and other than a nondescript entity known only as ‘terror’, who exactly are we at war with?

Where is the enemy called terror located?

Approximately how many of the enemy is there?

How do we recognize them?

Approximately how many of the enemy will we have to kill to win this war?

Etc.

With the absence of a definable enemy and in consideration of the global realities, I would humbly suggest, our rights will continue to disappear as the decades roll by, one at a time until….

[boestar]

We are NOT at WAR.

WAR has rules and defined in the Geneva Convention. You cannot be at war with a "thing" Terror is not a country or a person. It is an idea and therefore we cannot "declare War" on it. There has bee noo declaration of WAR except that the Media keeps throwing it out there because of the emotion it delivers. We are not at war with Afghanistan, we are in conflict with the Taliban and other terrorist organizations. If this were to be an actual war it would be a global World War 3 since there have been acts on every continent.

We should not have our civil rights "set aside" because of the threat of terror. That threat is always there so where would we draw the line. Now it is a few rights, then a few more "restrictions" then martial law. How far is too far. As far as I am concerned the citisens of the good old USA have been brainwashed to think letting the government decide everything for them is a good idea. So did Stalin.

I will not give up my civil rights unless someone gives me a damn good reason. However I will fight to the death anyone who threatens my civil rights and my way of life.

B

Keep our land glorious and FREE.

[chockalicious]

I agree with what you are saying Boestar however we can thank Bush for the whole "war on terror"... that is the way it was presented. It was a dim son creation, not a media one.

[Guest woxof]

woxof

I enjoy the debate and your contribution to this forum.

I think it would be great if you took a look at various papers authored by the Founding Fathers that provide explanation and support for their creation, the US Constitution. I’m sorry, I can’t provide an instant link.

From near above:

“As for ride programs, I appreciate the vastly increased safety we have gotten over the years from the overall focus on drunk driving.”

Can you provide credible ‘PROOF’ that in fact, ‘RIDE’ programs have “vastly increased safety”?

It’s not that I like ‘drunk drivers’ either, but punishing the masses to catch one individual violator is a trampling of your ‘Rights’, but allowed for by virtue of the Not Withstanding Clause’.

I must say that I really have little to no interest in looking at papers authored by the founding fathers.

At the risk of departing from the reality that we need full body scans to keep many from dying, I will answer your question......

The ride programs are a voluntary thing that I have participated in. No 'rights' violated. I think it is pretty safe to assume that many lives have been saved by the ride program.

You will notice that I never said that 'ride programs' vastly increased safety. I carefully said 'overall focus on drunk driving'. However, that includes the random stops during the holidays which I am quite content with. My inconvenience due to the irresponsible people who drink and drive and continue to do so. Random breathalyzer tests work well and have been proven to save many lives. I am not aware of anyone yet dying due to having to give a random breath test.

By the way...my 'rights' were violated today on order to keep flying. The doctor made me cough twice and then he put on a plastic glove. There are a lot of rights that we don't have.

[Kip Powick]

Another media individual, (columnist), seems to be seeing the light..

Globe and Mail ...05 Jan

My sister is a foot soldier in the war against terrorists. She works in security at a major U.S. airport, where she screens baggage in transit from Canada to other U.S. cities. Many of these bags contain bottles of maple syrup, which evidently resemble bombs. Whenever a bottle is detected by a screening machine, it must be personally examined by security personnel to ensure that it's harmless. The system works! No bomb disguised as maple syrup has ever entered the United States.

This is not simply security theatre, as some people call it. This is Security Theatre of the Absurd.

One day, our grandchildren will marvel at our preposterous approach to self-defence. They'll wonder why we squandered billions on useless security measures. They'll be amazed at how we harassed millions of ordinary citizens and made flying as unpleasant as possible. They'll shake their heads at our naive faith in high-tech fixes to stop low-tech killers. How do we catch crotch-bombers? By buying full-body scanners, at $200,000 apiece!

Airport security is a “show designed to make people feel better,” security expert Bruce Schneier says. It might catch stupid terrorists, but certainly not smart ones. He says only two things have made flying safer since 9/11: the reinforcement of cockpit doors and the fact that passengers now know how to resist hijackers.

But in the face of seeming failure, the authorities must be seen to take decisive action. This is the reason why those of you with weak bladders are now advised to take the train.

Some societies (such as Israel) build walls to keep the killers out. If this involves a certain collective punishment of the killers' neighbours, they figure, then so be it. Ours must be the first society in history that has tried to stop the killers by imposing collective punishment on ourselves.

How did we arrive at this absurd impasse? Because of our elaborately overdeveloped concern for human rights, combined with our towering fear of the hurt feelings of Muslims. If everyone is equal, then differential treatment must be racist, which is why we have decided that your grandma from Moose Jaw gets the same pat-down as a devout young male Muslim from Nigeria who did a recent stint at a religious school in Yemen.

The case of the underwear bomber certainly revealed lapses in the system. But there will always be lapses in the system. Trying to safeguard against the last thing a suicide killer tried – Surrender your liquids, Granny! – is merely theatre, because it's not the technique that needs to be intercepted, it's the killers.

There were other Muslim bad guys on the loose last week. One was an axe-wielding Somali who broke into the house of Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard. The cartoonist has been under constant threat of death since he drew an infamous caricature of the Prophet Mohammed nearly five years ago. His house has been turned into a fortress, with surveillance cameras, steel doors, bulletproof windows and a safe room, to which he retreated with his small grandchild.

The rights of foreigners are scrupulously protected in Denmark. The Somali man had won an asylum case and received a residency permit, even though he had known ties to al-Qaeda. Another man, a Tunisian, was implicated in a different plot to kill the cartoonist. He was released last week after efforts to expel him from Denmark were rejected by an immigration board.

Neither Barack Obama nor anybody else in authority is willing to state the plain and simple facts: that Islamism is on the rise worldwide, that the vast majority of terrorists who attack the West are young Muslim men, that such young men are a demographic time bomb in the Islamic world, that no security system can ever stop them all. Instead of telling us to hold our bladders, maybe they should start to tell the truth – even if it costs my maple-syrup-weary sister a job.