[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
United States News Title: Call For a National Air Travel Boycott THIS IS A NATIONAL BOYCOTT CALL. Specifically: * We will not consent to be sexually assaulted as a condition of getting on an airplane. A virtual strip-search is no different than a physical strip-search, and a "grope" is a sexual assault. Period. Such a "Custody Search" is only permissible under US law when one has been arrested with probable cause to believe one has committed a crime and is being taken into custody. We refuse to accept being treated as literal Federal Prisoners as a condition of boarding an aircraft. * We assert that virtual strip-search machines do not in fact, and cannot in fact, detect things such as an explosive device inserted into the anus, which has already been done by a terrorist in an attempt to kill a Saudi Prince. The so-called "purpose" claimed for such searches is thus in fact a lie. * We understand that flying carries risk - including the risk of a terrorist attack. But a terrorist can do just as much damage exploding a device in the security screening line, which of course, a scanner and intrusive grope will not prevent as they haven't been encountered yet. Again, the claimed purpose of said procedures is a lie as any terrorist intending such an action can simply explode himself while standing in line. * You are more than 100 times as likely to die in a car crash then from a terrorist attack on US soil. About 42,000 people die annually in a car crash. 3,000 people died on 9/11, and a few in other terrorist attacks since (e.g. Ft. Hood.) The odds are clear - under 4,000 people have been killed in terrorism attacks on US soil since 2000, while over 400,000 people have died in car accidents. While terrorism is horrifying it does not rise to a risk that justifies abrogation of our Constitutional rights - especially when the proffered claims of "safety" against said attacks made by the government are in fact intentionally false and misleading. * We assert that metal detectors are sufficient to detect weapons such as guns and knives. Armed pilots, marshals and even armed citizens with concealed weapons permits would and will stop armed assaults. In point of fact, United Flight 93 was stopped on 9/11 without any weapons at all by the passengers once they determined the terrorists intended to use it as a bomb. In short, other than by means of explosive, arming pilots, marshals and/or citizens is more than sufficient to prevent terrorism on board. Further, claims that gunfire on board would cause "explosive decompression" are intentional lies - the average aircraft intentionally bleeds off massive amounts of air from the cabin to balance cabin air inducted from the turbine bleed as a routine part of pressurization for high-altitude flight. * We further assert in defense of our position that no prohibited item was brought through security on 9/11. In point of fact boxcutters were permitted items on board aircraft at that point. There was no breach of airport security on that day. No guns, no bombs, nothing but permitted items and determined individuals who were willing to both kill and die. The reason 9/11 succeeded was not due to "lax security" by the airlines but rather because the government refused to act on reports of suspicious activities at flight schools in Florida and also refused to run down and remove persons in this country on expired Visas! That is, 9/11 happened due to government incompetence, not due to airline security breaches - and that's a fact. * We do not, and will not, consent to being under effective arrest just for setting foot inside an airport. The position that the TSA takes that one cannot refuse screening and decide not to board - that is, you cannot determine what you are to be subjected to in advance and elect to give or not to give consent. That is, once apprised of the nature of the screen to be performed you cannot then refuse and not fly. This is an arrest when one has committed no crime. It is our position that this procedure constitutes unlawful detainment and felony kidnapping. Janet asserts: Napolitano, however, said she "really regrets" such calls for an "Opt Out Day," insisting such full-body scanners "in no way resemble electronic strip searches" and travelers should "be realistic and use our common sense." I am being realistic and I am using common sense. I will not consent to a sexual assault of my person, nor will I consent to my daughter being sexually assaulted. I will also not consent to either of us being strip-searched - virtually or otherwise - in order to fly. It is my assertion that "Common Sense" says that The TSA has no right to sexually assault me or anyone else, nor does the TSA have the right to arrest or even kidnap someone - which is exactly what forcing someone to go through screening rather than declining to fly amounts to - when they have committed no crime. It is time for the people of this nation to say "enough" to knowingly-false "Security Theater" games that are intended to make people feel safe without actually doing anything of materiality to provide safety, while at the same time subjecting the citizens of this nation to unreasonable acts that by any rational definition constitute a sexual assault. Contact the airlines and any companies you were going to patronize on vacation and tell them you're not coming - and why. Hit them in the wallet. Make them understand that you will not compromise on this point - until this outrageous set of practices is terminated - not modified, terminated - you're not traveling by airplane and the money you would otherwise spend with their company will not be spent. This is the beginning and end of it as far as I'm concerned.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|