T.S.A. At It Again

#28
#28
nbakerld said:
It's a hypothetical, so what I am saying is: what if there were no such thing as unlawful search and seizure? You could avoid unjustified search and seizure, but the alternative isn't feasible. If you choose to live, you choose to be searched.
Click to expand...

ummm ok?

nbakerld said:
Pretend the TSA has expanded to general security, so anytime you attend a football game, movie, concert, etc. you get searched by federal agents. No one is making you go to the movie. It's for your safety. Are you still cool with it?
Click to expand...

I submit to searches already for many of those things and know that going in. Why would I be against it now?
 
#30
#30
utvolpj said:
ummm ok?

I submit to searches already for many of those things and know that going in. Why would I be against it now?
Click to expand...

So federal agents search you when you go to concerts?

The whole point is where does government intrusion stop? It's not about being searched. It's about the nature of their power, and how they exercise it. Going to a concert and showing their security the inside of my backpack is a lot different from federal agents making me go through a full-body scanner to see The White Stripes. To me it's no different being forced to go through a full-body scanner so that I can go visit Grandma. They forcefully take my money from me and use it to inconvenience me. Airlines could do security cheaper, better, and with the customer's comfort in mind. The TSA doesn't have an incentive to ensure any of that.
 
Last edited:
#32
#32
This isn't some slippery slope. They have scanners so you can avoid a pat down. Keep complaining about it though.
 
#34
#34
Good to see some giving it up so easily. Fortunately, I'm no longer a frequent flyer. Or, fly at all any longer.
 
#36
#36
can't remember who said it but they said they'd tell the pat down person to not start something they couldn't finish...
 
#37
#37
nbakerld said:
They forcefully take my money from me and use it to inconvenience me. Airlines could do security cheaper, better, and with the customer's comfort in mind. The TSA doesn't have an incentive to ensure any of that.
Click to expand...

now you're getting into a different argument
 
#38
#38
gorrell.jpg
 
#41
#41
The big difference is one is a violation of a private entities' rules, the other is a federal offense.

We make a huge deal out of the stupidest attempts--Richard Reed (aka, the shoe bomber) and the underwear bomber were both failures for a bunch of technical reasons. Yet, we sheep listen to the media and then blindly go along with what ever we're told and repeat back the standard lines. "We don't have to fly" "The TSA searches keep us safe" etc etc.

The fact is the TSA is ineffective. If they were effective no drugs, conterfeit goods, or other illegal traffic would ever get on an airplane. Most of the TSAs' measures are intended to provide the illusion of security, deter the amatures and keep the passengers lulled and complacent.

Additionally, we do have a right to freedom of movement in this country. In my view that means we have a right to move however we want without impediment. If I can walk down the street without being searched (none of us can do that anymore but that is another issue) then I ought to be able to get on an airplane without it. And I should be able to carry the same things I carry when I walk down the street. Only those things that could actually destroy the plane should be prohibited.

9/11 happened because we were complacent and did not expect someone to kill the flight crew, take control of the plane and turn it into a weapon. In every prior instance of a hijacking the bad guys took the plane hostage and forced it to fly where they wanted or used it for a political statement, not an actual weapon. We were all taught to stay calm and not fight back. After 9/11 (really, during the attack, the last plane was taken down by the terrorists not far from where I am in Pennsylvania) we became more active and we've seen more episodes where passengers took active steps to control situations--the shoe bomber and underwear bomber are good examples, but there have been more. We need to secure the flight crew so they can fly the plane under duress and let the passengers execute the right of self defense in the back of the plane.

Then TSA can go focus on closing all the real security threats in the rest of the airport.
 
#42
#42
Evidence about airport security being mainly about the illusion of safety: Why are metal detectors/security after the check-in desk? All the people getting on an individual plane are right there in line checking in and checking bags, and are all vulnerable to attack just as much as when they are in the plane.

Other countries actually have their security at the door, and then again right as you board the plane. The US's security still leaves the same number of people vulnerable prior to the first check in the airport.
 
#43
#43
IPorange said:
Evidence about airport security being mainly about the illusion of safety: Why are metal detectors/security after the check-in desk? All the people getting on an individual plane are right there in line checking in and checking bags, and are all vulnerable to attack just as much as when they are in the plane.

Other countries actually have their security at the door, and then again right as you board the plane. The US's security still leaves the same number of people vulnerable prior to the first check in the airport.
Click to expand...

I enjoy the hilarity of the TSA frisking Pilots' crotches when they have access to a gun in the cockpit.
 
#45
#45
Voodoomonkey said:
Or they could just, you know, fly the plane into the ground or something.
Click to expand...

I thought of that, but if you're the pilot who wants to crash the plane, how do you broach the subject with the other pilot? Probably easier just to use the gun.
 
#46
#46
nbakerld said:
I thought of that, but if you're the pilot who wants to crash the plane, how do you broach the subject with the other pilot? Probably easier just to use the gun.
Click to expand...

"so how about them vols?...say, you want to crash this thing?"
 
#48
#48
TSA at it again: TSA Agent Stuffs iPad Down Pants, Steals $50K in Electronics

In regards to the above discussion, enhanced pat-downs and back scatter technology, if you know what you are doing, at some airports, you can avoid them.

In regards to the backscatter technology, I'd like to point out EPICs FOIA request: EPIC - EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security - Full Body Scanner Radiation Risks

From that request:

DHS disclosed key documents, including test results that indicated full body scanners could be emitting more radiation than the TSA claims. DHS failed to produce all records demanded in EPIC's FOIA request.
Click to expand...

Also, just want to throw these cases out there to further the discussion.

Sanez v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 500-03 (1999):

"The right to travel embraces three different components: the right to enter and leave another State; the right to be treated as a welcome visitor while temporarily present in another State; and, for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, the right to be treated like other citizens of that State." Furthermore, “That right is protected by the new arrival’s status as both a state citizen and a United States citizen, and it is plainly identified in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause.”

United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 758 (1966):

The constitutional right to travel from one State to another, and necessarily to use the highways and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce in doing so, occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.”

Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969):

Reaffirmed that, "For all the great purposes for which the Federal government was formed, we are one people, with one common country. We are all citizens of the United States; and, as members of the same community, must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own States." It further reaffirmed, “If a law has no other purpose than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it is patently unconstitutional." United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570, 581 (1968)

United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 912-13 (9th Cir. 1973):

“That screening is more extensive nor intensive than necessary, ... to detect the presence of weapons or explosives, that it is confined in good faith to that purpose, and that potential passengers may avoid the search.”

Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 514 (1964):

"The right to travel is a part of the `liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.. Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country,... may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.

I'd also like to point out that some people don't have the option, currently, to avoid air travel due to work demands.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top