SALDEF Coalition Welcomes TSA Rescission Of 14 Country Security Directive

[PCJ]

Earlier I stated that to restrict the religious rights of anyone without a a compelling evidence of a clear and present danger is a violation of the constitution.

Let me make it simple. You see a man in the security queue. He is wearing a turban. You decide on the basis of complete ignorance that he must be a muslim. Then you jump to the conclusion that he "might be" a terrorist and he might be hiding something in his turban. So you take action. You tell him to remove his turban. He won't. You have him detained. All of this is called prior restraint because there is no compelling evidence of a clear and present danger. Because a turban is at issue, the violation is "prior restraint." based solely on seeing a turban (religious expression). He is also a Sikh (minority group) and is required to wear a turban. Therefore his constitutional rights have been violated solely because he is a member of a minority religion. Not only has the 1rst Amendment to the US 14th Amendment.



"But TSA's gotta do what they need to do to prevent another 9-11"

How far are you willing to let them go before you personally start making noise. Maybe by then it will be too late because no freedoms will be left to protect.

A Sikh is not being targetted because he could be Muslim, even Muslims are not targetted because they are Muslim.

It only makes sense to check all those people with headwears big enough to hide explosive in them...

 

[ballym]

A Sikh is not being targetted because he could be Muslim, even Muslims are not targetted because they are Muslim.

It only makes sense to check all those people with headwears big enough to hide explosive in them...

Request #1: Please be more descriptive about your OPINION.
#2 : opinion can not be a truth. I guess you understand such logical statements as you have given a very philosophical statement on : :"Leaving sikhism" thread.
I get this feeling that you seem to think that you are always stating truth and others are ignorant, biased and lack understanding of the issue.
#3: regarding bottled milk issue... I remember it clearly... it did happen as per news reports.
#4 Another logic point comes here... be ready. One incident of presumably majority group people being searched thoroughly does not say anything for or against undue checking of minorities. I am sure statistics theory says that. ( Disclosure: I was just reading related topic in statistics). Moreover that family may be from diferent country or first nations etc. Why did you jump on this flimsy ground to try to prove your point? your statement in "leaving sikhism" looks much better quality that this attempt.
#5: Main point is about UNDUE search and the way it is conducted. Sikhism is about equality and that is why there is no general objection about WHY the search... but it HOW POORLY you are searching/ humiliating.
#6 I guess US law syas that sikhs must be searched with a wand and if there is doubt or any signal then a detailed search must be done. But data are showing 100% detailed search( if data are correct). That is the OBJECTION.
#7 Regarding muslims... Ask any muslim and you will know. Even Bollywood hero Sharukh Khan was not spared. What do you say about it. Was he a doubtful character? He had to spend many hours. So I think thry had doubt if he actually was shahrukh... granted.. it is legitimate point... but how long would it take to prove identity? It took very long for him to comeout.
#8 What about caucasian terrorists like david headley? how do you propose to search him? Was it not for his colour that he could move around freely? Is it not for this reason that he is being somhow helped to escape going to India for trial?

Now let us have answers........ Agreement... or disagreement.... on same level.... and more than two lines.

 

[PCJ]

#1: Not an opinion, this is a fact that nobody is targetted for being minority

#3: Check this out: JFK Security Forced Mother To Drink Her Own Milk! — Civil Aviation Forum | Airliners.net

If it did happen, it obviously happened in Aug, 2002. Do you know when TSA took over? It was some time in 2002. So, either TSA was too new or maybe even hadn't taken over yet... But I bet there is no such TSA policy...

#4: See #1

#5: Once you have submitted yourself for, you are subject to any reasonable search. Nothing is UNDUE...

#6: USA law says nothing about extra screening of Sikhs, period.

#7: Why should SRK be spared at all? Why should anybody care if he is an actor? All of Hollywood actors get screend as well... He received extra attention because a name matching to his appeared on a special list.

#8: Yes terrorist come in all shapes. Therefore, it's important to screen everybody....

 

[ballym]

We are talking on different levels.
If you are searched and no signal is noticed but you are still asked for strip search... very often. What will you make out of it?

The fact that this lady got upset by such demand shows that people do get upset on undue actions by others. That exactly is the point. It becomes undue if it is more frequent than normal. US stats has shown this in case of blacks.
Once again... objection is not against screening but extra screening just on personalized , subjective doubt of screening officer. As per news, steps are already taken by US to make it objective to decide on taking next step of screening.
It is not important if it happened Post or Pre TSA

Opinions vs Truth: I thought I am supposed to give opinion on forums... not "spread" truths. Truth shall prevail itself.
If it is truth, no debate is necessary.

SRK : Point was made to show that there are different rules. All are subject to screening.
You are making the point that no laxity should be there in screening. My point is that while doing this minorities are seen with suspicion without sufficient reason. There is lot of subjectivity.

 

[PCJ]

We are talking on different levels.
If you are searched and no signal is noticed but you are still asked for strip search... very often. What will you make out of it?

The fact that this lady got upset by such demand shows that people do get upset on undue actions by others. That exactly is the point. It becomes undue if it is more frequent than normal. US stats has shown this in case of blacks.
Once again... objection is not against screening but extra screening just on personalized , subjective doubt of screening officer. As per news, steps are already taken by US to make it objective to decide on taking next step of screening.
It is not important if it happened Post or Pre TSA

Opinions vs Truth: I thought I am supposed to give opinion on forums... not "spread" truths. Truth shall prevail itself.
If it is truth, no debate is necessary.

SRK : Point was made to show that there are different rules. All are subject to screening.
You are making the point that no laxity should be there in screening. My point is that while doing this minorities are seen with suspicion without sufficient reason. There is lot of subjectivity.

You obviously don't know how it works. Who was strip-searched even though he or she didn't alarm in the first place?

You are making up stuff about Blacks being targetted now. It isn't matter of more frequent than normal, it has to be every time you go through security screening.

If extra screening is needed, they do it. It has nothing to do with anybody's race or religion.

I am telling you the facts. Therefore, there is no need for opinion. This is a fact that nobody is targetted because of his or her race and/or religion.

How do you know that different rules applied to SRK? There are people who believe that it was publicity stunt, SRK also claimed that he autographed his full body image which the airport denied that it ever happened.

Check this out: Airport denies body scanner photo claim by Bollywood star Shahrukh Khan - Telegraph

You actually trust this guy?

But yes if someone of similar name was on the special list of people who impose danger to a country, then there was nothing wrong with paying extra attention for the security purpose. But he was not targetted for being Muslim. Security can never be too much. Those who don't support security will not be taking responsibility if another 9-11 happens.