TSA...OOC (out of control)

[old retired fella]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

what about searching you to try and determine if you have an explosive strapped to your body that can bring down an airplane full of innocent civilsians is "unreasonable"?

You don't have a right to fly on commercial airlines anymore than you have a right to drive a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

 

[Damocles]

i'm actually having this discussion with a few people...let me ask you

has anything the TSA done, that obama said he supports, been determined unconstitutional?

Has anything they done been brought before the courts, or has every obstacle been put in the way?

The right against unreasonable search "shall not be infringed"..

And this is one that was certainly "incorporated".

 

[Damocles]

what about searching you to try and determine if you have an explosive strapped to your body that can bring down an airplane full of innocent civilsians is "unreasonable"?

You don't have a right to fly on commercial airlines anymore than you have a right to drive a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

There is nothing like strip searching a young boy before an audience of thousands that screams "unreasonable". What exactly had he done that brought reason to search specifically him?

It doesn't say, "can be infringed if you are trying to get on an airplane", it says that it "shall not be infringed".

 

[old retired fella]

There is nothing like strip searching a young boy before an audience of thousands that screams "unreasonable". What exactly had he done that brought reason to search specifically him?

I bet you wouldn't have thought it was unreasonable if they had found a bomb strapped to his abdomen, would you?

Like I said... you do not have a RIGHT to fly on commercial airlines. It is a privilege that is not afforded to everyone. If you want to get from point A to point B on a jet airliner that carries hundreds of other people, you will agree to submit to scrutiny that you would not be forced to submit to if you chose to WALK from point A to point B. I am perfectly OK with that. If you aren't...get some good walking shoes and avoid the hassle.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

and courts have said you don't have an expectation of privacy to avoid searches when flying, especially internationally, the issue is state side, but i'm sure there is a decision out there that finds pat downs consitutional

the other issue is...you do not have a right to fly damo

 

[Damocles]

I bet you wouldn't have thought it was unreasonable if they had found a bomb strapped to his abdomen, would you?

Like I said... you do not have a RIGHT to fly on commercial airlines. It is a privilege that is not afforded to everyone. If you want to get from point A to point B on a jet airliner that carries hundreds of other people, you will agree to submit to scrutiny that you would not be forced to submit to if you chose to WALK from point A to point B. I am perfectly OK with that. If you aren't...get some good walking shoes and avoid the hassle.

That's just silly pontificating rubbish.

Amazingly, the same guy who was so against warrantless wiretapping is now supporting further violations from the same office solely because of a "D" slapped next to a name. I no longer hear you speaking against the expanded warrantless wiretapping, instead I hear you supporting further violations. It is somewhat nice to be vindicated in my assumptions that I said way back in the day. What if it was a "D" in the WH? Would you argue at all?

I now know. You wouldn't. (And don't try to tell me you aren't who I know you are, I have access to information that others on the board do not).

And again, the government has no right to infringe on this right without reason. And in this case there was no clear indication of any reason other than some randomizer. It's gross how Americans are willing to give up their "freedom" for false security. None of these things will stop a guy with plastics up his backside.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I bet you wouldn't have thought it was unreasonable if they had found a bomb strapped to his abdomen, would you?

Like I said... you do not have a RIGHT to fly on commercial airlines. It is a privilege that is not afforded to everyone. If you want to get from point A to point B on a jet airliner that carries hundreds of other people, you will agree to submit to scrutiny that you would not be forced to submit to if you chose to WALK from point A to point B. I am perfectly OK with that. If you aren't...get some good walking shoes and avoid the hassle.

it sucks when maineman and i agree

 

[old retired fella]

That's just silly pontificating rubbish.

Amazingly, the same guy who was so against warrantless wiretapping is now supporting further violations from the same office solely because of a "D" slapped next to a name. I no longer hear you speaking against the expanded warrantless wiretapping, instead I hear you supporting further violations. It is somewhat nice to be vindicated in my assumptions that I said way back in the day. What if it was a "D" in the WH? Would you argue at all?

I now know. You wouldn't. (And don't try to tell me you aren't who I know you are, I have access to information that others on the board do not).

And again, the government has no right to infringe on this right without reason. And in this case there was no clear indication of any reason other than some randomizer. It's gross how Americans are willing to give up their

so...you believe we all have a RIGHT to board a commercial airliner without scrutiny?

 

[Damocles]

so...you believe we all have a RIGHT to board a commercial airliner without scrutiny?

I believe we have a right not to be searched unreasonably by any employee of the government whatsoever regardless of whether we are boarding a plane, that right "shall not be infringed"...

It's silly to try to make it so that they can strip search you wherever you are so long as you don't have an outlined right. You don't have a right to board public transportation, so cops should be allowed to strip you down and feel you up if you ride a bus? Stupid.

Any lawyer can tell you that "shall not" is absolute.

 

[old retired fella]

I believe we have a right not to be searched unreasonably by any employee of the government whatsoever regardless of whether we are boarding a plane, that right "shall not be infringed"...

It's silly to try to make it so that they can strip search you wherever you are so long as you don't have an outlined right. You don't have a right to board public transportation, so cops should be allowed to strip you down and feel you up if you ride a bus? Stupid.

Any lawyer can tell you that "shall not" is absolute.

what about the ability of the police to order you out of your car and provide a breathalyzer sample at a roadblock? Are you saying that is unconstitutional as well?

 

[Damocles]

what about the ability of the police to order you out of your car and provide a breathalyzer sample at a roadblock? Are you saying that is unconstitutional as well?

They actually can't require that. They can arrest you for refusing, but they cannot force you to take the breathalyzer or even give a blood sample. However, first they need reason to suspect. Just being at a checkpoint isn't enough. They look to see your bloodshot eyes, check for nystagmus, etc. before they would ever ask you out of the vehicle to provide anything at all. Otherwise their arrest would be thrown out of court. There has to be reason.

 

[old retired fella]

They actually can't require that. They can arrest you for refusing, but they cannot force you to take the breathalyzer or even give a blood sample.

so you are fine with TSA personnel arresting folks who don't want to be searched? that's cool. so am I.

 

[Damocles]

so you are fine with TSA personnel arresting folks who don't want to be searched? that's cool. so am I.

Somebody only took a portion of the post.

I'm cool with them searching somebody they have reason to suspect. Just as at a roadside checkpoint they cannot just demand random people take breathalyzers and must have reason to believe that they are drunk to even attempt a search like that.

 

[wiseones2cents]

Well how about if they were carrying drugs or something illegal like firearms? These drug dealers hide drugs in baby carriages, wooden legs, babies hair, you name it.

Should they stop frisking people?

And the fact that now pilots will not be frisked? These guys would make perfect drug mules.

I just think females should search kids and females and males should search adult males.

 

[old retired fella]

Somebody only took a portion of the post.

I'm cool with them searching somebody they have reason to suspect. Just as at a roadside checkpoint they cannot just demand random people take breathalyzers and must have reason to believe that they are drunk to even attempt a search like that.

and actually.... to be honest...somebody posted and then went back and immediately edited the post while I was reading the original truncated version....

so you are suggesting that, barring the use of blatant racial profiling, where we strip search all people who appear to be middle eastern, you are willing to just admit that there IS no way to attempt to ensure that passengers on commercial airliners are safe. YOu seem to be willing to say,...hey, ragheads... if YOU want to fly on a commercial flight, expect to be strip searched, but if any OTHER of you crazy assholes like Tim McVeigh want to climb aboard with explosives strapped to your body, GO FOR IT! And that means that the rest of the flying public just needs to suck it up and understand that if they want to get from point A to point B faster than a car or a train or their feet can propell them, they just have to accept the fact that any non-arabic looking loony can blow up their flight at any moment.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point, I reckon.

 

[Damocles]

Well how about if they were carrying drugs or something illegal like firearms? These drug dealers hide drugs in baby carriages, wooden legs, babies hair, you name it.

Should they stop frisking people?

And the fact that now pilots will not be frisked? These guys would make perfect drug mules.

I just think females should search kids and females and males should search adult males.

I think pilots likely have means to take down the plane if that is their goal. Even if they are frisked and they don't find a tube of toothpaste in their carry on luggage.

 

[Damocles]

and actually.... to be honest...somebody posted and then went back and immediately edited the post while I was reading the original truncated version....

so you are suggesting that, barring the use of blatant racial profiling, where we strip search all people who appear to be middle eastern, you are willing to just admit that there IS no way to attempt to ensure that passengers on commercial airliners are safe. YOu seem to be willing to say,...hey, ragheads... if YOU want to fly on a commercial flight, expect to be strip searched, but if any OTHER of you crazy assholes like Tim McVeigh want to climb aboard with explosives strapped to your body, GO FOR IT! And that means that the rest of the flying public just needs to suck it up and understand that if they want to get from point A to point B faster than a car or a train or their feet can propell them, they just have to accept the fact that any non-arabic looking loony can blow up their flight at any moment.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point, I reckon.

Ridiculous. Who says we need to racial profiling? This is the false dilemma fallacy.

What we need, is to make use of the technology more efficiently. Rather than making the choice between standing naked before strangers (or allowing your child to do so), or getting felt up publicly, why don't we change the software a bit to show items that are "not human"?

It isn't that hard to write software that would recognize what isn't human and make that show on the screen rather than your shrunken dingus or my wife's curvaceous figure.

 

[Damocles]

Basically, take away the objection, make it so you aren't starring in your own porno flick for strangers, then spend a bit and get enough machines to make everybody walk through one...

 

[Good Luck]

what about searching you to try and determine if you have an explosive strapped to your body that can bring down an airplane full of innocent civilsians is "unreasonable"?

You don't have a right to fly on commercial airlines anymore than you have a right to drive a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

So, where does it say in the 4th Amendment that unreasonable searches are OK if it is related to exercising an option which is not a constitutional right?

Where is it written that one must give up their Constitutional protections in order to fly?

Also, driving a vehicle while intoxicated is illegal because a person cannot properly control their vehicle while intoxicated, thus posing a dager to themselves and others.

To equate the simple act of flying to DUI is assuming everyone is a terrorist. Is that what you are claiming? Everyone is guilty of terrorism until they prove their innocence by submitting to ridiculously invasive searches? Good God, with assholes like you out there, it's no wonder we are so fucked up these days.

 

[old retired fella]

Ridiculous. Who says we need to racial profiling? This is the false dilemma fallacy.

What we need, is to make use of the technology more efficiently. Rather than making the choice between standing naked before strangers (or allowing your child to do so), or getting felt up publicly, why don't we change the software a bit to show items that are "not human"?

It isn't that hard to write software that would recognize what isn't human and make that show on the screen rather than your shrunken dingus or my wife's curvaceous figure.

a smart guy like you could make a lot of money writing that software.

Go for it.

Until then... if we stop body scans and frisking, how to you propose we keep the flying public safe?