Airports, X-Rays, and Genital Fondling

[Paulie_Walnuts]

I don't recall ever mentioning anything to do with insurgents or their constitutional rights. I believe in the human rights of  innocent civilians who happen to be caught up in a war. Especially a war started by invading countries who had no burden of proof that warranted an invasion in the first place.

If innocent Iraqis and Afghans can pay with their lives as part of the "War On Terror" surely you can cope with a security guard groping your nuts for a couple of seconds?

[el_chode]

No you did not specifically mention it, but your point is easily inferred: You equate my rights with those of Iraqis. My rights, by convenient definition outside of philosophy (not discussing the role of natural rights or social contracts), exist through constitutional fiat. Therefore, I have those rights while those not subject to the rights and powers granted by the document do not.

So no, as an American citizen, my rights are not conditioned upon or relative to the way insurgents or suspected insurgents are treated in Iraq.

Call it selfish or whatever you will, but the whole issue with the war is that we are fighting ideology with force and that will never work. If we acquiesce ideology in response to an ideological assault, then the battle is lost.

EDIT: I should add that I'm not suddenly outraged; I do realize that some of the outrage seems sudden or manufactured as too little, too late. Part of the reason I was booted from school was for voicing opposition to "Free speech zones" and silencing of opposing viewpoints during the 2004 presidential election. And when that guy tried to light his farts last xmas, the first thing I said "great, now we can't bring undies on airplanes"

[Sticky Icky Green Stuff]

I've gotta drunkenly interject a jizz attack of a thought about the helicopter incident.

let's be real for a second.  the US military, Marines especially are trained killers.  that is there purpose.  they are literally bred and condition to think without remorse.  to get off the destruction of the "enemy". 

I'm not necessarily defending any of the actions taken by the troops, nor do I think there is much that can be done about that specific situation other than bicker about ethical ideas.

To put it simply the dog was unleashed.  the US military doesn't fuck around, they sorta just kill and blow up stuff, then scope out the area and blow away any other persons who need dealing with.

you guys know as well as I that War is only about one thing, Killing the fuck out of the other country to the point of submission.  that's all it is.  pointless killing for resources, power, or both. 

If it was questionable to people that civilians were going to die if we went to war than they're extremely naive.   

[Paulie_Walnuts]

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here. Yes I'm sure most people accept that soldiers are trained killing machines, and trained to kill the "enemy" without remorse. And of course there will be civilian casualties in any war. First of all I thought you were saying that "they sorta just kill and blow up stuff, then scope out the area and blow away any other persons who need dealing with" and that that comes with the territory.

But then I noticed that you said "I'm not necessarily defending any of the actions taken by the troops".

I totally understand that soldiers in a combat situation are frightened, under pressure, ready to kill etc. etc. But my ethical questioning of this is about when should their actions come under criminal scrutiny (and stop being protected by the Army)? And when should they have to defend themselves? If you argue that the shooting up of the minibus was acceptable (when it appeared they were trying to help injured people), and doesn't warrant criminal scrutiny, where do you draw the line? If they had machine gunned a bus queue of women and children would that warrant criminal scrutiny, or is that acceptable in a combat situation?

In my opinion you have to draw the line somewhere. Military super powers have a history of covering up war crimes e.g. the Mai Lai massacre. Is that acceptable?

If you don't draw the line and hold people criminally accountable then forget the whole idea of ever trying to convict people of war crimes on any side. "War crimes" are the buzzword when the West wants to track down the latest dictator in their way, but are conveniently forgotten when it applies to them.

[Sticky Icky Green Stuff]

but that's kind of my point.  there never will be a line when it comes to war.  war is about killing people.

I think killing is wrong.  I think war is bullshit.  haven't seen the minivan video, have no real desire too to be honest but once you unleash these soldiers, they're going to kill stuff.  pretty much anything even slightly suspicious.  then what happens? you leave these killing machines in the desert for months or years at a time.  They are bound to go a little crazy.

On top of that most of the insurgents looked no different than normal civilians. 

I'm against the Wars but at the same time, this shit doesn't surprise which is why it doesn't bother me.  War is one of the most fucked up, stupid things human beings are capable.  Plus, Bush/Cheney and the rest of the crusaders were NUTS, war hungry, plutocrats. 

I'm just trying to be realistic about the situation.  if you throw a bunch of soldiers into a war, they're going to kill the fuck out of shit. 

stray missiles, IED's, etc they're not much different than some group of helicopter pilots killing for joy.   innocent people died because we were careless.  simple as that.  whether you want to prosecute some of these soldiers, not sure, there are probably quite a few stories like this.  I'd rather start at the top and lock up the Bush Administration and everybody connected to it, including the wallstreet fuck ups and heartless lobbyist.  The defense contractors, Haliburton, etc.   If we did this to justify the deaths of 9/11, or terrorism it's mental.  we've killed more civilians than the terrorist have combined. 

[el_chode]

I think you hit on a good point though, which is intent. Even though this is better put in the other thread, when it comes to punishing soldiers, I think the intent does matter. A squad decimating a village on foot because their bored is one thing. But I don't think the chopper guys had a "guilty mind" when they carried out the attack.

[Penny Lane]

I was thinking the same thing with dogs. I was wondering why we rarely see them in airports...they can be trained to smell anything...even cancer cells.

I also think they're good because they can smell fear.

Good thing no one's afraid to fly!   ;D ;)

Question: do you look into the people who look nervous or the people who look calm?

i can't see terrorists being nervous...they're about to bomb themselves for an eternity of glory---i'm not sure how being caught would make them get nervous

i fly at least every month, sometimes more, i welcome these. i don't care if we don't have statistical proof to back it up yet, i don't want anyone with fingernail files, butter knives, even an weird looking bobby pin --sitting next to me on a plane. i think they should scan everyone's every orafice, and interview them, fondle them..and do whatever they have to do. i wish more capable people worked for the govt but what can i do about that...like ALady said, privacy is a myth..yes the Constitution was written to protect us from Big Brother, but govt has also expanded to take care of everyone's every need, then the need to protect us expands. you can't have it both ways...dogs are a great idea...i'm all for it... i don't think twice at these precautions and i think most people who have to travel a lot welcome them or at least don't mind them..

great discussion, i'm all for questioning the infringement of constitutional rights, but not in this case; privacy rights are important, but not only for combating terrorism (which we don't know if it does or might never know) but it falls under interstate commerce, which is one of the original purposes

i'm rambling..

[el_chode]

I was thinking the same thing with dogs. I was wondering why we rarely see them in airports...they can be trained to smell anything...even cancer cells.

I also think they're good because they can smell fear.

Good thing no one's afraid to fly!   ;D ;)

Question: do you look into the people who look nervous or the people who look calm?

i can't see terrorists being nervous...they're about to bomb themselves for an eternity of glory---i'm not sure how being caught would make them get nervous

i fly at least every month, sometimes more, i welcome these. i don't care if we don't have statistical proof to back it up yet, i don't want anyone with fingernail files, butter knives, even an weird looking bobby pin --sitting next to me on a plane. i think they should scan everyone's every orafice, and interview them, fondle them..and do whatever they have to do. i wish more capable people worked for the govt but what can i do about that...like ALady said, privacy is a myth..yes the Constitution was written to protect us from Big Brother, but govt has also expanded to take care of everyone's every need, then the need to protect us expands. you can't have it both ways...dogs are a great idea...i'm all for it... i don't think twice at these precautions and i think most people who have to travel a lot welcome them or at least don't mind them..

great discussion, i'm all for questioning the infringement of constitutional rights, but not in this case; privacy rights are important, but not only for combating terrorism (which we don't know if it does or might never know) but it falls under interstate commerce, which is one of the original purposes

i'm rambling..

Let's play pretend for a second:

I fill a super soaker with a fluid I claim will make any explosive you have concealed on your body inert if I just squirt you once with it. It also dulls sharp objects. There's really nothing backing up my assertion, but I'm the government, so I have that going for me.

Do you feel safer?

[Paulie_Walnuts]

but that's kind of my point.  there never will be a line when it comes to war.  war is about killing people.

I think killing is wrong.  I think war is bullshit.  haven't seen the minivan video, have no real desire too to be honest but once you unleash these soldiers, they're going to kill stuff.  pretty much anything even slightly suspicious.  then what happens? you leave these killing machines in the desert for months or years at a time.  They are bound to go a little crazy.

On top of that most of the insurgents looked no different than normal civilians. 

I'm against the Wars but at the same time, this shit doesn't surprise which is why it doesn't bother me.  War is one of the most fucked up, stupid things human beings are capable.  Plus, Bush/Cheney and the rest of the crusaders were NUTS, war hungry, plutocrats. 

I'm just trying to be realistic about the situation.  if you throw a bunch of soldiers into a war, they're going to kill the fuck out of shit. 

stray missiles, IED's, etc they're not much different than some group of helicopter pilots killing for joy.   innocent people died because we were careless.  simple as that.  whether you want to prosecute some of these soldiers, not sure, there are probably quite a few stories like this.  I'd rather start at the top and lock up the Bush Administration and everybody connected to it, including the wallstreet fuck ups and heartless lobbyist.  The defense contractors, Haliburton, etc.   If we did this to justify the deaths of 9/11, or terrorism it's mental.  we've killed more civilians than the terrorist have combined.

You won't find me arguing with your last paragraph!

[MMJ_fanatic]

I am definitely on board with replacing TSA numbnuts hands with dog noses.  There is a limitation to dogs that I seem to remember reading/hearing about and that is fatigue.  Meaning the dogs become less effective the longer they are on the job so you would have to regularly roatate fresh dogs onto the job--from a Christian Science Monitor article on why dogs probablt won't appear in US airports anytime soon:
"According to the Monitor article, too many people are scared of dogs, or have concerns about allergies. Training a dog and handler can take 10 weeks. And dogs can be effective for only one or two 30-minute sessions per work day, some say. Boredom sets in after that, and you don't want a bored explosives dog."
So you can see we'd need a s**tload of dogs which, in turn, means a s**load of kennel space & dog food as well as a s**load of pooper scoopers to keep up with it all.

I'm still holding out hope tho'