The TSA Feels its Oats - Page 4

That was my point - and why I think it is not possible to maintain a position like SDW's.

On the one hand,if the threat is real at airports then why not make rigorous lock-down security on the border as well?

On the other, the fact they feel they don't need to - borne out by facts so far - tells you a lot.

For one thing it shows the measures are aimed squarely at US citizens far more than any outsider terrorist.

You will note that I have never said flying or driving are constitutional rights.

But (at the risk of hijacking the thread) here's the 6 trillion dollar question: is healthcare a right? I mean, it's not in the Constitution...

Yes the Constitution is only a "living document" when it comes to theft of property, abortion and gun rights. When it comes to transportation though, a horse and wagon will still do you fine!

I think "Don't Touch My Junk" could very well replace "Don't Tread On Me" as the Tea Party slogan.

Seems more relevant in today's world, doesn't it?

Indeed.

It's a funny thing this "rights" question. Some will say "you have no right to fly on an airplane" (or drive on the public roads) but the entire airline industry is supported by money taken from me and other tax payers by force. By extension are they saying you have no inherent right to your property and the money you have earned? If this is the case then they are saying you essentially have no right to yourself, your body, your person or the fruits of your labor. Now mind you, this is all a logical and consistent train of thought. But those who argue some of these things argue that you do have certain rights to your body and your self that cannot be infringed upon by the government. I don't think you can have it both ways.

Hot Topic is close to going bankrupt, I think they would love to be bombed right now.

Wrong goal:

For answers to your questions or complaints---take it to the Supremes.

And here's another thought to ponder: When the TSA claims that they are "on the front lines of defense against terrorists and terrorism" what unspoken implication does that statement carry about the air traveling public? It seems fairly obvious, but lost on most people I suspect.

Chertoff owns a lot of shares in security companies and the guys that make the scanners. All this is capitalism at work. Everyone should be proud!

Chertoff owns a lot of shares in security companies and the guys that make the scanners. All this is capitalism at work. Everyone should be proud!
Republican policy is great!

Of course that's not true and I suspect you know it. If you want to be honest you'll admit that this is not "capitalism at work" otherwise you'll continue repeating this falsehood.



Last I heard it was the Democrats that were in charge and these policies have continued and even become worse. In fact the porno-scanners started rolling out during 2009/2010 and the new grope-down policy was implemented only in the past couple of months. I've also heard the CEO of Rapiscan was a major donor to Barack Obama. Don't get me wrong Chertoff is evil in all this too, but he's not the only player here either. This is a bi-partisan evil.

Cancer surviving flight attendant told to remove prosthetic breast during pat-down

Woman says her Lambert security screening was sexual assault

Enhanced pat down leaves Grand Rapids airline passenger in tears

Maybe the new strategy to take out Bin Laden is to try to make him die of laughter.

Congressmen: TSA has 'Missed the Mark'

+Infinity

Cargo comes in more "shapes and sizes" than people, says your DHS Secretary:

U.S. Screening of All Airline Cargo Isn't Feasible, Napolitano Says

I read that CAIR is trying to exempt all muslim women too. TSA/Obama will bow to them, no doubt.

What I am little surprised by is the lack of a more general and widespread liberal outrage about this. I thought this was the kind of thing that "liberals" and "progressives" were supposed to get pissed off about. Why do I get the feeling that if Bush was president they'd be screaming bloody-murder over this shit.

Weren't they ripping Bush a new one over the Patriot Act?

Now that Obama has extended it, I guess it's fine.

Of course it's not true.
Making money of fear has never been done. Christianity does not exist and does not take money for "salvation." Bush did not say "go shopping". Halliburton did not get contracts worth billions for services provided in war time. Bush's stocks didn't rise when gas costed $ 4.50. None of this happened.

Hmm.... Change it to "Moon river"? ... and up one octave?

Obama calls airport pat-downs frustrating but necessary


Fox Nation falsely portrays Obama as clueless on TSA procedures

These two pilots might have been the cause for the TSA's policy change. Good for them - the Rosa Parks of airline pilots I wonder if all pilots nationwide had been considering joining them on say, the day before Thanksgiving. I suppose we'll never know.

By now all pilots have been extensively interviewed, fingerprinted, background checked, medically certified, drug tested ad nauseum to the point it's inconceivable they could be considered threats, and these two said enough is enough. Then there's the little-known fact that they actually fly the damn airplane. Did the TSA back down because they didn't want a Constitutional challenge from them, or was it fear of a nationwide strike?

What about the TSA "registered traveler" program? Would participants not also be exempt from the grope-a-dope program? It involves paying an annual fee (a different kind of indignity) but it may have the potential for a reasonable settlement to this issue. Of course, privacy advocates will howl at this alternative.


That's the essence of my concern:


A Constitutional test would clearly center around the word "unreasonable". Is it reasonable to search one's privates for no other reason than for the purpose of boarding an airplane? I don't believe case law would help support that argument, since one's person, his home, his car, his backpack may not legally be searched without a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity, or by permission. I assume one grants permission to be groped when getting an intimate TSA massage. Can an average airline passenger reasonably be considered a threat? A child? An octogenarian in a wheelchair? A blind man with a white cane?

You can refuse, and as you know flying an airplane is not a constitutional right, but so what? Neither is driving a car. Is riding a subway? How about walking around the block? That's transportation too... so can the TSA regulate walking? Riding a bike? What about sitting on a park bench? Lying in the sun?


Indeed. I don't think the government wants that though. They may lose.


Jazzguru is correct - don't confuse Constitutional rights and civil rights. Our government does not grant rights, it can only take them away. There are some that it can't - those are enumerated by the BOR, including the 9th Amendment which addresses all the rest. On the other hand "civil rights" are those generally associated with freedom from unequal treatment. Civil rights certainly exist, but when extremists shriek about violations of civil rights for every perceived injustice, it diminishes the meaning of the phrase.

Ah! The perfect marriage of the TSA and Obamacare.

It is beyond the scope of this thread to argue about the semantics of Constitutional Rights and Civil Rights. Either way, my premise that you do not have a right whether Constitutional or Civil Right to drive a car. To qualify, you must meet certain minimum standards set by each state. You must be of a certain age, you must pass a written test, you must demonstrate that you are capable of driving a motor vehicle ie a driving test and health stndards. If you meet these minimum standards, you are issued a license that the state can revoke at any time.

Someone must have read your comment here in PO.

The "peace" protesters disappeared too.

I'm what wingnuts label 'liberal' and I protested many times in this thread. As have others.

Maybe wingers can't read too well or something.

Peace protesters still about too... though to be honest they and the wingnuts have a lot in common so maybe that's why they are quiet: neither want to go off and kill people.

One side like to see others do it though but re the actual deed we're on the same page.

Perhaps many of us do not consider writing on an internet forums to be a form of protest or activism.

Many of you don''t consider facts to be worthy of consideration or the earth to be the age it is either.

I tend to dismiss 'many of you'.

But having said that - whenever a protest manifests here - and there are many - I tend to turn up if the cause needs supporting.

If the EDL ever turn up here for example I shall certainly be amongst the first to greet them in an appropriate fashion.

Obama could easily arrest the entire Republican Congress without an explanation and send them Gitmo.

Who would want to give up an option like that?

How exactly do you virtually bash sculls, burn cars and then go back home and sit on the dole on this forums?

Please share.

I don't disagree with that Fine, but the issue at hand is determining limits on government intrusion, not limits on people's activities. Comparisons to driving a car are specious, just as much as using that argument for Obamacare's individual mandate. The Federal government doesn't regulate cars or who drives them. States do. The 10th Amendment says they can.

Can you tell me what Constitutional right you have to ride the bus or walk around the block? Right - it's not there. The Constitution places limits on government; the People's rights - such as the right to walk around - are presumed to exist already.

The question will center on determining the limits of government. The 4th will make the TSA's new-found intrusiveness a difficult action to defend.

Ron Paul's proposed bill (HR 6416) cites the 4th amendment, and I believe this guy from New Jersey is preparing to argue the 10th.

My online persona is merely a shadow of my real self.

I know the contrary probably applies in your case and you find it impossible to grasp but there it is...some of us have real lives ...with real concerns and we have to develop real solutions...

Strange but true.

Yes, we understand that being a dickhead is cool. That is why I have the sig I do.