Anyone boycotting the TSA scanners tomorrow?

[mike114]

No, it didn't. It's not violating your rights, because you're choosing to fly. If you don't fly, you don't have to worry about following their rules. It would be a different story if you were walking down the street, and someone pulled up to search you for no reason, but that's not the case at all. It's really not all that difficult.

So because I choose to do something, that automatically means the TSA can just ignore the Constitution? Do you realize how absurd your argument is? And let's use your example of walking down the street. What's to then prevent you from being stopped and searched all in the name of security?

We are losing our Rights piece by piece and we are idly sitting back and letting them do it to us. We are no longer a free country and Americans have taken their Liberty for granted. We are told what we can buy, what we can eat, what we can grow, what doctors we will be able to see, etc.

I feel sorrow and anger when it comes to people like you Irv. Our government is becoming more tyrannical and you just excuse it as, "Well, you chose to fly. You have no rights. We must be safe at all costs." Pathetic, truly pathetic.

 

[IOWA]

So it appears Congress can't even watch someone during the sexual assaul... "enhanced patdown"

TSA uproar moves to Capitol Hill - Laura Rozen - POLITICO.com

This is about to get interesting.

 

[mike114]

So it appears Congress can't even watch someone during the sexual assaul... "enhanced patdown"

TSA uproar moves to Capitol Hill - Laura Rozen - POLITICO.com

This is about to get interesting.

Hope you don't mind, but I'm going to quote directly from the Politico article you mention for those who won't read it.

 

[Crude]

I'm waiting for rf chips that register what checkpoints you have passed embedded in your skin.

 

[mike114]

Something to think about. How would you protect against someone setting off an explosive while waiting in a security line with hundreds of people in the immediate vicinity? Isn't that as much of a threat as what happens on the other side of the TSA checkpoint?

 

[mike114]

seriously. walk thru the damn scanners and lets move on with our lives please.
its painful enough to go thru security in airports. lets not make it worse.

I just came across a reader's comment on an ABC story. According to you everything is cut and dry right?

"I just completed my cancer treatment in July. I had a bilateral mastectomy and have two prosthetics.
A wonderful friend paid for a trip for me to visit her for Christmas and I am dreading going because of
all of this. It's a shame that I can't just to look forward to enjoying the holidays instead of feeling
anxious over the possibility of being humiliated at the airport."

TSA Airport Security Medical Humiliations For Travelers with Prosthetic Devices During Pat-Downs and Body Scans - ABC News

Is this how we are to treat people just because we want to fly from point A to point B?

 

[lrv]

So because I choose to do something, that automatically means the TSA can just ignore the Constitution? Do you realize how absurd your argument is? And let's use your example of walking down the street. What's to then prevent you from being stopped and searched all in the name of security?

We are losing our Rights piece by piece and we are idly sitting back and letting them do it to us. We are no longer a free country and Americans have taken their Liberty for granted. We are told what we can buy, what we can eat, what we can grow, what doctors we will be able to see, etc.

I feel sorrow and anger when it comes to people like you Irv. Our government is becoming more tyrannical and you just excuse it as, "Well, you chose to fly. You have no rights. We must be safe at all costs." Pathetic, truly pathetic.

Did you miss when I said they're not violating the Constitution? You don't have to fly. Violating the Constitution would be not giving you another choice, but there is another choice; don't fly.

 

[IOWA]

Did you miss when I said they're not violating the Constitution? You don't have to fly. Violating the Constitution would be not giving you another choice, but there is another choice; don't fly.

I'm guessing you failed the constitution test? Re-read the 4th amendment.

Amendment IV

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.

Doesn't matter what you choose to do or not do, we have a RIGHT against UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.

 

[lrv]

I'm guessing you failed the constitution test? Re-read the 4th amendment.



Doesn't matter what you choose to do or not do, we have a RIGHT against UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.

If I invite you to my house, I have the right to search you before entering. If you don't comply, I can tell you to leave.

 

[IOWA]

If I invite you to my house, I have the right to search you before entering. If you don't comply, I can tell you to leave.

Your not a government agency.

/end thread.

 

[lunatic59]

I'm guessing you failed the constitution test? Re-read the 4th amendment.



Doesn't matter what you choose to do or not do, we have a RIGHT against UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.

Looks like Chief Justice IOWA has unilaterally decreed that an airport security scan is an unreasonable search.

I must conclude that the TSA views the situation a little differently. Good thing we have remedies for such things in this country ... it's called the Supreme Court. Until it's challenged and there is a ruling, you can be as pompous and sanctimonious as you like (ain't freedom wonderful?) but you have to accept the possibility that you are wrong.

 

[Roze]

Did you miss when I said they're not violating the Constitution? You don't have to fly. Violating the Constitution would be not giving you another choice, but there is another choice; don't fly.

My question is, what if you are left with no other choice? If the government sees this work, what will stop them from having the body scanner and full body search in the subway, bus stations, train stations, docks or border crossing (car). Any places with high concentration of people can be a potential terrorist attack hot spot.

I think what the other side of the argument is saying is that we're slowly erroding our rights/freedom in the name of national security.

 

[Stuntman]

I think what the other side of the argument is saying is that we're slowly erroding our rights/freedom in the name of national security.

More like for the illusion if increased security and saving lives.

If 100 more people die each year because another plane crashes every year, people feel less safe. If 400 more people die each year because more people choose to drive instead of fly, no one notices.

 

[IOWA]

More like for the illusion if increased security and saving lives.

If 100 more people die each year because another plane crashes every year, people feel less safe. If 400 more people die each year because more people choose to drive instead of fly, no one notices.

Not to mention it's been proven already that the scanners don't even prevent bombs from getting on the plane anyway.

 

[tommy_ed]

No, it didn't. It's not violating your rights, because you're choosing to fly. If you don't fly, you don't have to worry about following their rules. It would be a different story if you were walking down the street, and someone pulled up to search you for no reason, but that's not the case at all. It's really not all that difficult.

This point isn't valid. If I choose to drive down the street and a cop pulls me over and searches my car without probable cause then arrests me for no reason, it would STILL be a violation of my rights even though I CHOSE to drive.
If I go to a political speech and tell the candidate I don't approve of his/her actions and get arrested for it, that's STILL a violation of rights even though I CHOSE to speak.

And you can't say it's different because we know we're going to be searched, as you mention above. That doesn't make it right. That would be like the governemt saying anyone who says "obama sucks" will go to jail, then you saying it's not an infringement of freedom of speech rights because we're choosing to say it. See how that doesn't work?

This is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The only probable cause is prejudice, which isn't valid probable cause.

 

[IOWA]

This point isn't valid. If I choose to drive down the street and a cop pulls me over and searches my car without probable cause then arrests me for no reason, it would STILL be a violation of my rights even though I CHOSE to drive.
If I go to a political speech and tell the candidate I don't approve of his/her actions and get arrested for it, that's STILL a violation of rights even though I CHOSE to speak.

And you can't say it's different because we know we're going to be searched, as you mention above. That doesn't make it right. That would be like the governemt saying anyone who says "obama sucks" will go to jail, then you saying it's not an infringement of freedom of speech rights because we're choosing to say it. See how that doesn't work?

This is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The only probable cause is prejudice, which isn't valid probable cause.

This. Any search of the body that is simply unwarranted, is a violation of our fourth amendment rights.

 

[Roze]

More like for the illusion if increased security and saving lives.

If 100 more people die each year because another plane crashes every year, people feel less safe. If 400 more people die each year because more people choose to drive instead of fly, no one notices.

Not to mention it's been proven already that the scanners don't even prevent bombs from getting on the plane anyway.

I wonder how much further they, the goverment, will increase security when another bombing occur because both the bodyscanner and vigorous body check does not show the plastic bomb inside the anal/virginia of the terrorist.

 

[tommy_ed]

everyone should be treated guilty until proved otherwise, and to prove otherwise all you need to do is go through the body scanner or get a pat down. if you refuse then its a red flag that you are hiding something. theres your probable cause.

that's not probable cause. what if people just don't want some random guy to see their naked body? or get their genitals touched by some other random person? that would be like a cop randomly pulling you over and saying "Will you consent to a strip search?" and when you say no, he says it's probable cause that you're hiding something and searches you and your car.

What is REALLY sad is the fact that the government can do this, and know the american people won't have the balls to stand up and defend their rights anymore. It's happening more and more often, and if it KEEPS happening, it's NOT going to end well for the citizens. Even the hippies had the balls to stand up to the gvt in the 60s... HIPPIES GOD DAMMIT!!!

 

[mike114]

If I invite you to my house, I have the right to search you before entering. If you don't comply, I can tell you to leave.

Wrong Irv. If you touched me or my family the way the TSA is touching people, you would be arrested immediately.

 

[IOWA]

I understand that we operate under an innocent until proven guilty philosophy. But as I said "I FEEL" meaning my opinion, that in a situation where national security has been shown to be at risk, everyone should be treated guilty until proved otherwise, and to prove otherwise all you need to do is go through the body scanner or get a pat down. if you refuse then its a red flag that you are hiding something. theres your probable cause.


im not saying in all situations to follow this philosophy. just those involving national security. (flights etc...)

Are you serious?

People thought the same way about tracking down witches during the witch hunt too.

Refusing to be molested doesn't mean your guilty of anything other than having dignity.

 

[droiduzr2]

Looks like Chief Justice IOWA has unilaterally decreed that an airport security scan is an unreasonable search.

I must conclude that the TSA views the situation a little differently. Good thing we have remedies for such things in this country ... it's called the Supreme Court. Until it's challenged and there is a ruling, you can be as pompous and sanctimonious as you like (ain't freedom wonderful?) but you have to accept the REALITY (possibility) that you are wrong.

This is a very good summary. Thanks!

This does raise the case for improved train service i.e. "bullet" trains.

 

[droiduzr2]

I wonder how much further they, the goverment, will increase security when another bombing occur because both the bodyscanner and vigorous body check does not show the plastic bomb inside the anal/vagina of the terrorist.

I think the terrorists have WON. They seem to just toss things out for which some are just red herrings just to see us REACT and tighten down on the regular people. We spend Billions to fight against their $10k plots. Our Governments treat us like scared kids and keep building a BIGGER BUBBLE to put you in.

It seems WE are loosing the FREEDOM of living life without ever more scrutiny and the terrorists just enjoy us dancing to their tunes.

I am betting that if you put out $1 Billion reward on the leaders heads this problem would be solved overnight BUT then again all the companies that rely on you living in fear will lose $$$.

 

[Bob Maxey]

If I invite you to my house, I have the right to search you before entering. If you don't comply, I can tell you to leave.

I think you do indeed have the "right." Well, it is not a right, I suppose, since we are (seem to be?) talking about the constitutionality of the TSA searches and what constitutes a right.

I also have the "right" not to darken your doorway.

By the way, if I bring my kids with me and you touch them like some TSA employees apparently do, you run the risk of a child assault or molestation charge and a huge bill to fix broken teeth. Warn us that you demand searches, however. Or you run the risk of being charged with assault for putting your hands on me and mine.

Bob Maxey

 

[ElasticNinja]

TBH they are taking this too far
Seems like a culture of fear


EDIT: when you take out the leaders, they get replaced...

 

[Bob Maxey]

I understand that we operate under an innocent until proven guilty philosophy. But as I said "I FEEL" meaning my opinion, that in a situation where national security has been shown to be at risk, everyone should be treated guilty until proved otherwise, and to prove otherwise all you need to do is go through the body scanner or get a pat down. if you refuse then its a red flag that you are hiding something. theres your probable cause.


im not saying in all situations to follow this philosophy. just those involving national security. (flights etc...)

Ahhh National Security. How many times must this be used to justify acts that are clearly unconstitutional? YES, we have a dire need for national security. Absolutely we do. But that phrase can be used to cover a multitude of sins by a multitude of people that think everyone is a potential threat.

When you are a hammer, everyone looks like a nail.

As for probable cause, you are wrong. I am a smart and clever fellow and if I were a cop, I am certain I could find a way to look at you. National Security is one answer and I/we would not need to justify why we dragged you to a little dark room for a few days of questioning. Then you decide probable cause sucks..

I suggest you grab a copy of Black's and read it.

We are/were innocent until proven guilty, but the TSA reverses it; we are all guilty, we have no rights, it is in the national interest that we make you remove a breast implant, as happened to one sad lady. What should we now fear, titty bombs? What is next? Vaginal inspections, time alone with