Liberal BS
 

This is why I think many people do not take the far left too seriously. I think that while the 2% that objected may have done so on principle, I submit they would run through the entire airport naked to get off of a plane that was hijacked :shrug:
_______________________________________________________

Airport X-ray sees through clothes

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- A new X-ray machine at London's Heathrow airport, which sees through passengers' clothes, has been attacked by civil liberties campaigners as a "voyeur's charter."

The machine uses low-level radiation to see through clothing, producing an anatomically detailed black and white image of the body underneath.

Capable of detecting solid objects concealed under clothing, it started a four month trial in October.

Randomly picked passengers are asked if they will volunteer to be scanned by the machine.

"I stood in front of the screen and they took three pictures in different positions," said passenger Pernille Nielsen.

"I don't mind if the pictures are a little more personal as long as I'm safe in air -- that's what matters," she told Reuters.

Another passenger, Maria Love, said: "It's all about being safe, and I really have no problem with it."

A spokeswoman for BAA Heathrow said 98 percent of participants gave positive feedback.

But British civil rights group Liberty called the X-ray images unjustified and intrusive.

"We obviously do not object to taking security measures, but I remain totally unconvinced that it is necessary," a spokesman said.

To justify the intrusion, the airport should show current detectors are inadequate, he added.

"It's an obvious invasion of people's privacy -- it's a voyeur's charter."

The American Transport Security Administration, which has considered using the machines at U.S. airports, echoed Liberty's concerns.

"There are a number of privacy issues that need to be addressed before we would do field tests," a spokeswoman said.

Scanners currently looking for concealed weapons or explosives on passengers have shown limitations in the past.

Traditional X-ray machines used to scan baggage have often struggled to identify plastic explosives, accidentally sounding alarms when detecting chocolate, cheese and peanut butter because of their similar density to the explosive Semtex.

Heathrow, which for security reasons declined to say how the new X-ray machine improves on current scanners, denies the machines could cause embarrassment.

"It's a very low dose X-ray, the images are not stored, it's same sex operated and the operator that sees the image will not see the person," said the airport spokeswoman.

"There will not be a situation that could cause embarrassment," she added.

Heathrow is one of the world's busiest airports, handling around 64 million passengers a year.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2004 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TRAVEL/11/09...eut/index.html

Can it detect drugs in body orifices? From what i read, no. It seems a bit invasive, and a bit radiative, but not that big a deal. solid objects under clothes? Might be good. According to this case i read last year about airport searching...you can't frisk people unless you suspect something. course, this case took place before bush, and even then the "probable cause" requirements were pretty loose...

"Probable cause" is going to disappear altogether very soon...mark my words.

I agree with that in spirit. But, for years you the need for security at airports has outweighed almost all rights, including probable cause. I generally tend to agree with this (although there are limits :eek: ) but I think in this case, this is not unreasonable. I mean yes they can see you sort of naked, but most screeners see hundreds of people a day and in the larger airports - thousands. So, I think any intrusion is insignificant. Plus, you do not have to fly if you do not like it :shrug:

But and again, the Fourth Amend. protections have been dwindeling for years.

Can I recommend that you change the title of the thread as you state an article from CNN however thread title is your opinion? This is not an editorial.

This is more of a libertarian-type of BS, Jason, not "liberals."

Touche' Touche'

I was approaching it from the point of view that the ACLU will take the case. But, you are right in the sense that llibertarians in general probably care more about this :angel:

The ACLU took Limpball's case. :laugh:

I give them my money whenever I can, but I was a bit hesitant to send another check after that. :lol:

Well, no. It is my opinon on the incident noted in this article. But, thanks for the suggestion :wavey:

Again, I can see the ACLU, which I think is safe to call a liberal organization :laugh: - esp. in today's world :eek: screaming about this. Oops - it already has :laugh: (emphasis supplied)
_________________________________________________________

There are some security measures that are extremely intrusive and should only be used when there is good cause to suspect that an individual is a security risk. Low-dose X-ray machines such as - Body Search - are in use in some airports by the Customs Service to search for drugs and other contraband. The ACLU is concerned that these searches have been conducted without good cause and based on profiles that are racially discriminatory. In addition, these machines are capable of projecting an image of a passenger’s naked body. We oppose using this as part of a routine screening procedure. Passengers expect privacy underneath their clothing and should not be required to display highly personal details of their bodies such as evidence of mastectomies, colostomy appliances, penile implants, catheter tubes and the size of their breasts or genitals as a pre-requisite to boarding a plane. However, such technology may be used in place of an intrusive search, such as a body cavity search, when there is probable cause sufficient to support such a search.
_________________________________________________________

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/Safe...ID=13508&c=206

I mean their statement "Passengers expect privacy underneath their clothing" in an airport is just not true in that courts have ruled any expectation of privacy is greatly reduced for air passengers and any expectation of privacy can fairly easily be outweighed by security measures.

Again, I cannot believe this is even an issue because as we know a plane in the wrong hands can kills thousands. I cannot see how that does not outweigh any momentary nakedness. And - these screeners will see hundreds if not thousands of people for an instant and they are looking for weapons, not genetalia and if they ever really noticed with interest the nudity clearly they after awhile will not really care about the nudity - as said evidenced by Stevie's "if you walk down the street naked everyday, eventually people will stop looking" :shrug: :laugh: But, I am sure this will be an issue. But it will be in vain because I think any legal contest of this will lose based on those reasons.

I will give it up for the ACLU and I like them. They are not hyppocrites. They stick by their guns ( :laugh: ) no matter how repugnant the client or case they may make as a friend of the court or interested party. That takes sand - and they have it in spades.

As for Rush, he is a rank hypocrite for taking their help. But, I think we knew that already :laugh:

I completely agree. Though, I must admit, I am a bit saddened that they represent NAMBLA. I mean, c'mon. :lol:

I know. I am shocked by that as well. I mean consenting adults can roll around naked in ketchup screaming "I'm a french fry" for all I care. But, a child under 18 with a 45 year old man is quite another. I do not understand where the ACLU and others suppose that right exists. But, they do and that is a bad thing. Having said that, the rest of the ACLU's work is pretty good IMO even if some of it is in the abstract and hard to apply to reality a la the right to burn a cross in protest to the end of slavery :eek: I agree with the right, but that is a tough one :nod:

Yeah, i was just gonna ask you guys what you thought of that... :wavey:

Gross, dude. That "organization" is beyond disturbing. Since when is man/boy "love" a civil liberty ? :shrug:

:laugh: :lol: :laugh:
Thanks for the great suggestion! Finally, a way to really maximize on my love of, and near worship for, chips and fries... :laugh:

I think it's sick. When I first heard about it, I wasn't sure what NAMBLA was, so I went to their website. My word, I was shocked and felt the urge to vomit.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

That's one of the funniest things I've ever read, dear.

It would be inappropriate for me to research that on this comp. Can someone post exactly what the ACLU's reasoning was and/or what issue they supported, because I cannot imagine they support the general cause of that organization, just like they do not support Rush.

I will, hold on a minute. :wavey:

It came from some sitcom in the, I think, 80's - I laugh at it often, but and perhaps sadly, have never tried it :eek: :laugh: :wavey:

Well, i assumed, but i meant more what you thought of ACLU defending them.

Okay, sorry, I had to take out the trash, darlings. :laugh:

Their argument was a simple 1st amendment one: they weren't breaking any laws (no child porn was posted, etc.) and they had the right to free speech. They said that even if it was offensive, they Constitution afforded them the right to publish it.

It depends on what the ACLU was defending. I mean even the sickest and/or most heinous American citizen criminal deserves representation in court (well at least until now :eek: ) - so if they were defending that right, I have no problem with it even though I despise that organization and eveything it stands for.

That is a tricky area because what is not present in the content is present in the intent. I gotta fall on the side of the govt. there, even though I am usually loathe to abridge any free speech rights.

I don't like it one iota, but the law sides with them and the purpose of the ACLU is to uphold civil liberties. No matter how offensive the content of NAMBLA was (and it is stomach-churning), it was their right to publish it and speak it.

From the ACLU's FAQ:

Why did the ACLU defend NAMBLA?
In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. For more information, please read the ACLU’s press release.


ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations
August 31, 2000

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.

Yeah, what he said. :laugh:

A Ha - (thanks to you and Diss :wavey: ) - this is a tough one, but I change my position based on this explanded explanation. And - let me repeat - I LOATHE that organization.

It was all about a case here in MA of a young boy being abducted, raped, and then murdered. the parents sued NAMBLA because the murderers had viewed the site before commiting the crimes. The crux of their argument was that NAMBLA actually particpated and helped commit crimes by posting how to lure young boys, how to avoid the cops, etc. I partially agree.

Did you ever see "The Accused" with Jodie Foster? A lot of sex laws in New England changed after that case (it happened in Connecticut), so the lawyers for the parents had more leg-room.

Does this mean someone killed a member of NAMBLA based on content of their organization and then blamed that content for the murder? So the murderer filed suit? :confused:

yeppers. But that sure is a fine line in my head. I mean, if they're talking about it, most or all of them are probably doing it, and that's illegal. Of course, that's not what the trial was about, so... :shrug:

No, two pedophiles went to the NAMBLA website before raping and killing a little boy and the parents of the boy blamed NAMBLA because NAMBLA went into detail on their site about how to gain the trust of little boys, evade the cops, etc. Very sick stuff. :(

Ohhh. Yes very sick. :( I did see "The Accused". That was extremely disturbing. Did this boy's parents lose their suit?

They won, I believe, $330 million form the two sickos (I won't even go into what they did to this poor child, you'd have nightmares). The suit against NAMBLA is still ongoing to my knowledge.

This is over the line. Posting how to lure young boys, avoid the cops? That's way illegal. I mean, those things are illegal, is talking about them illegal? :confused: If child porn is illegal, that should be to...

From articles I have read in the past, there exists a whole underground network sponsered by these pedophiles. And - we are not talking about a 17 3/4 year old here, we are mostly talking 10 and 11 year olds and sometimes younger. The thought makes me so angry I want to spit.

Those people should be castrated, drawn and quartered.

:nod: Normally, I would cringe at these kind of lawsuits, but when you consider what these two men did to this little baby, all you can see is red. There was a big thing about possibly reinstating the death penalty in MA because of it about six years ago.

Was this Jeffrey Curly? These stories sadden me deeply, and yes I would have nightmares so thanks for sparing me. I'm glad the parents won. I'm not sure the money in any way eases the pain but those sons o' b*tches have to pay somehow.

Ya know - that might be a good idea :laugh:

Seriously, the far scarier thing to me is from what I have read, very few true pedophiles can be rehabilitated. So, unless they are put away forever, they will just do it again - they almost cannot help themselves because they are mentally ill. Thus, I say lock them up and throw away the key :mad: