3 ms·
I could not disagree more. Trading liberty for safety is not something we should ever do. Risk mitigation is different than giving up rights. They can be done a
by sailfast 8y ago
I could not disagree more. Trading liberty for safety is not something we should ever do. Risk mitigation is different than giving up rights. They can be done at the same time without compromising anything. “No slippery slope...yet” isn’t really a thing you want to rely on.
I am personally furious every time I fly because these rules do little to protect us. I’m glad it is giving someone (you?) some peace I guess, but the cost is too much to bear.
Outside of rights, do you have any idea how much this costs taxpayers and how insanely run that organization is? I’d say it fails many, many rational tests.
- refurb 8y agoI could not disagree more. Trading liberty for safety is not something we should ever do. What is your stance on field sobriety testing? That’s a pretty clear example of trading liberty for safety.
- marshall007 8y agoField sobriety tests are only issued once the officer has probable cause based on suspicion of intoxication. I don't think anyone would disagree that suspicious behavior within an airport warrants detainment and questioning, but in that case no one's liberties are being compromised.
- FireBeyond 8y agoAnd in some cases, suspicious behavior has included: * reading math textbooks while Indian * wearing a turban * praying * talking to spouses in a non-English language and worse. So I guess we just disagree on the definition of "suspicious behavior".
- sneak 8y agoTerry v Ohio makes pretty clear the criterion for detaining someone against their will. Too bad all of our rights go out of the window at airports.
- eanzenberg 8y agoTrading liberty, as in being searched the 5 min each time you fly is worth the added safety of being stuck in a soeeding metal tube 30k feet in the sky.