Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...This issue is not entirely about individual rights that some in this country over-emphasize, but rather the right of other travels to use the airline system in a secure and safe manner. If you know a way of fully inspecting a person without resorting to scanners or a pat down please tell us.
I didn't think I was commenting on the scanners, only these intrusive pat-downs. They're embarrassing; female passengers have been reduced to tears from frustration and humiliation. Can't these kinds of pat-downs be done in some sort of privacy rather than in full view of the other passengers? Especially for the children. Parents teach their kids no one has should be able to touch their private parts, and yet now we're supposed to clarify that with "but this is TSA (the government) so this is okay?" Please! Tell that to a little girl who is in tears over being groped! Ah yes, but the other travelers can rest easy that their flight is now safe and secure. Wanna bet?
What happened to wand scans? Have they stopped using them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiverTodd62
Not if you consented to it. And you are consenting to it when you pass through the security area. You have the perfect right to choose not to pass through security and just leave the airport.
At times, leaving the airport and declining to fly isn't possible, is it? So by having to fly somewhere, you give up your rights (correction: I believe someone posted that you waive your 4th amendment rights). That's interesting. Up until now, I was under the delusion that only prisoners had to give up some of their rights as part of their incarceration and/or punishment.
It's absolutely astonishing how badly some people misunderstand their "rights".
1) Uh, the DOJ got involved because it involves the federal government and that is their job.
2) Going to the courthouse is absolutely voluntary. You may lose your case, but you don't have to go.
3) A citizen can ask that a criminal charge be filed. Only the DA can bring charges. However, civilly, you can sue anyone for almost anything. But simply because a basis for a civil complaint exists does not mean that there is a basis for criminal charge.
4) It's laughable how you keep insisting that this would go far in the Courts. It's a federal issue at every step of the way. It's clearly spelled out in the Constitution. The end.
Quick Constitution lesson, for the slow. The Bill of Rights (4th Amendment) does not give you, a private citizen, any rights. It tells the government what it can and cannot do. It restricts unreasonable search and seizure. First, searching someone before boarding a plane is not unreasonable. Second, you are waiving that protection by voluntarily going to the airport and getting on a plane. Same as if you told cops it was fine to search your house or car. You can always take a bus, or a boat, or some other means of transportation.
What I find most funny about this is how quick so many people are on here to point to the Constitution and Founding Fathers when it supports their view of what should happen, but how easily they brush it aside when it's at odds with what they think ought to be.
Last edited by getmeoutofhere; 06-02-2011 at 06:25 AM..
I think the terrorists won. The question we ought to be asking ourselves is why the Feds are involved in airline security to begin with. I think airlines ought to take care of their own security to a level they see fit and let the market decide whether or not they find pat downs too intrusive.
And Texas law protects its citizens against sexual harrasment and assault. You are NOT on federal property in, say, the DFW airport. The TSA agents are employees of the federal goverment, true, but the grounds proper are still on state soil.
So why was this new law needed if it's already covered under existing law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Let me put it this way. What if, say, I am on an airline flight with my daughter, and some guy in security decides to grope her and feel her up just because:
1. His petty bureaucratic power gives him the right to do so because he turns her own.
2. She has done nothing whatsoever to give any one any reason to suspect her of being a terrorist, other than political correctness demands that blond haired young women be treated the same as plug-ugly Arab men with a one way ticket to Iran.
File a complaint with his supervisors or maybe even take it to the media. It's your assumption as to why he is searching her. TSA supervisors have no reason to want to have pervert pedophiles on their staff. If they can clearly see this is the case then maybe they'll do something behind the scenes. But if they see this guy checks the plug-ugly men the same way then he is just being thorough and there goes your "turned on" argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Does being a federal employee exempt someone from having to be subject to laws of the Fourth Ammendment? That is, to have to back up your actions in a court of law, if necessary?
The 4th Amendment applies to search without warrant. The TSA operates under what is known as an "area warrant" where a zone has been declared as subject to search. This "area warrant" is commonly used in places like airport inspections, customs inspections, police checkpoints, secure installations (i.e. military bases), etc.
I am not going to go on forever with this, today...but what is astounding is how some people think they are using "logic" yet totally misunderstand what is being said.
I am not a hard person to get along with, GMOH, so why don't we discuss this like reasonable men instead of getting bent out of shape? One thing it seems to me that you have a consistent habit of doing is making things personal when the others vision does not precisely square with your own. But anyway....
Quote:
=getmeoutofhere;19410938] It's absolutely astonishing how badly some people misunderstand their "rights".
1) Uh, the DOJ got involved because it involves the federal government and that is their job.
That's right. Which makes it a matter that can be taken to federal court. It is only YOUR opinion that it would be tossed under your ever sacrosanct "supremacy clause." A federal judge/court might see it differently. I'm sorry, but I don't accept that your opinion carries all that much weight in this matter in that particular realm.
2) Going to the courthouse is absolutely voluntary. You may lose your case, but you don't have to go.
True, you don't have to go. But you may not only lose your case, but be charged with contempt of court for not appearing and be subject to arrest. But you seem to miss the main point. A person does not give up their Fourth Ammendment rights (more on that below) nor protections from sexual assault by entering a public building. True, by entering you give consent to be searched, but not manhandled, assaulted, and groped in an unreasonable manner.
3) A citizen can ask that a criminal charge be filed. Only the DA can bring charges. However, civilly, you can sue anyone for almost anything. But simply because a basis for a civil complaint exists does not mean that there is a basis for criminal charge.
The above is not exactly some newly revealed truth that others are unaware of. The point is that sexual assault IS a criminal offense. Sure, it may or may not be prosecuted, but it is still a crime. The Texas bill simply backs up this point.
4) It's laughable how you keep insisting that this would go far in the Courts. It's a federal issue at every step of the way. It's clearly spelled out in the Constitution. The end.
Gawdalmighty. I don't KNOW how far it would go in the courts. I have said that repeatedly. I said let's SEE how far it would go. And, again, I am just not all that impressed with your credentials as a constitutional legal authority to make such a judgement -- no pun intended --on the matter. Yes, it is a federal issue, in a sense, but may or may not involve an actual conflict between federal and state law. For the simple reason that there is no federal law which permits TSA employees to claim immunity to what is illegal in every state of the union. That is not rocket science, my friend but, still, it needs to be tested in a federal court.
Let me ask you this: Does an FBI agent -- on duty -- within the State of Texas have a right to violate Texas law concerning sexual assault? Would, in your opinion, be subject to arrest by state/local authorities if he did so?
Quote:
Quick Constitution lesson, for the slow. The Bill of Rights (4th Amendment) does not give you, a private citizen, any rights. It tells the government what it can and cannot do.
This is absolutely ludicrous. Not withstanding, to repeat something said above, I am not all that impressed with your credentials as a constitutional scholar, your analysis of the Bill of Rights is downright scary. The Bill of Rights -- depending on the particular ammendment -- is an affirmation of individual rights.
The ammendments are full of the mention of the individual via the people. In fact, in one of the latest rulings on the Second Ammendment, the SCOTUS determined that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, not a collective one. The basis for it was the obvious truth that "the people" meant the individual person as a private and free citizen.
You are correct only in a verrrrry narrow realm. Yes, it restricts the government...but the purpose of restricting the government is to affirm the rights of the individual free citizen as an individual free citizen.
Quote:
It restricts unreasonable search and seizure. First, searching someone before boarding a plane is not unreasonable. Second, you are waiving that protection by voluntarily going to the airport and getting on a plane. Same as if you told cops it was fine to search your house or car. You can always take a bus, or a boat, or some other means of transportation.
Do you sometimes just like to hear yourself talk? For one thing, you are arguing points that no one ever disagreed with. Geez.
Whoever said being searched in an airport security line was unreasonable? If there is good and reasonable cause to believe a person is a threat then of course they should be searched. But that is NOT what is being said. What is being objected to the fact all too many TSA people take advantage of their petty power -- via political correctness -- to sexually harrass and grope American citizens (mostly young women) who do not in any way fit the profile of a terrorist.
Second, your analogy is not applicable. If you give the cops permission to search your house, that is what you do. Hell, if you are stopped and there is reason for the officer to believe his safety is threatened, or that you have something on your person that would violate the law, then all that is reasonable cause. But all that is under very clear and understood rules of professional behavior and reasonable cause. It does not allow the officer to go beyond that point.
I don't understand why you don't seem to get this; unless you just can't admit you are wrong!
Quote:
What I find most funny about this is how quick so many people are on here to point to the Constitution and Founding Fathers when it supports their view of what should happen, but how easily they brush it aside when it's at odds with what they think ought to be.
So why was this new law needed if it's already covered under existing law?
Partly, to make a strong point.
Quote:
File a complaint with his supervisors or maybe even take it to the media. It's your assumption as to why he is searching her. TSA supervisors have no reason to want to have pervert pedophiles on their staff. If they can clearly see this is the case then maybe they'll do something behind the scenes. But if they see this guy checks the plug-ugly men the same way then he is just being thorough and there goes your "turned on" argument.
Nothing wrong with that approach...so far as it goes. But the point many are missing -- it seems -- is that many times these guys go thru untouched, while a little old lady or young female is groped unprofessionally; all in the name of proving the politically correct outlook that the latter are just as likely to be terrorists as are muslim men. And, thus, many TSA employees take full advantage of something that any one with any common sense knows is simply not true.
So yeah, file a civil complaint and/or with supervisors. But really, see how far it gets you, sorta like Lily said earlier. Meanwhile, there should also be criminal charge options.
Quote:
The 4th Amendment applies to search without warrant. The TSA operates under what is known as an "area warrant" where a zone has been declared as subject to search. This "area warrant" is commonly used in places like airport inspections, customs inspections, police checkpoints, secure installations (i.e. military bases), etc.
Yes, I know all that. No one is objecting to reasonable searches as in "area warrant" places. What is being protested are when those searches go far beyond the reasonable and warranted (no pun intended! LOL)
i would like to ask a question,does the federal gov.own the airport terminals or the airlines themselves?i always thought it was in the private sector?i mean i know there is like a customs office,and the FAA oversee regulations and stuff like that.did all of this just happen after 9/11 or has in always been the case?thanks,just curious
I am not going to go on forever with this, today...but what is astounding is how some people think they are using "logic" yet totally misunderstand what is being said.
I am not a hard person to get along with, GMOH, so why don't we discuss this like reasonable men instead of getting bent out of shape? One thing it seems to me that you have a consistent habit of doing is making things personal when the others vision does not precisely square with your own. But anyway....
Bent out of shape? Taking things personally? I'm not sure where you get that from.
The only thing I take personally is your repeated cracks about moving out of Texas in places where it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand, yet you seem to present it like it's some valid argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
1) Uh, the DOJ got involved because it involves the federal government and that is their job.
That's right. Which makes it a matter that can be taken to federal court. It is only YOUR opinion that it would be tossed under your ever sacrosanct "supremacy clause." A federal judge/court might see it differently. I'm sorry, but I don't accept that your opinion carries all that much weight in this matter in that particular realm.
There is no other way to see it. 200 years of case law, the Constitution, everything...it's crystal clear to anyone with any vague knowledge that this is entirely a federal issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
2) Going to the courthouse is absolutely voluntary. You may lose your case, but you don't have to go.
True, you don't have to go. But you may not only lose your case, but be charged with contempt of court for not appearing and be subject to arrest. But you seem to miss the main point. A person does not give up their Fourth Ammendment rights (more on that below) nor protections from sexual assault by entering a public building. True, by entering you give consent to be searched, but not manhandled, assaulted, and groped in an unreasonable manner.
There is no 4th Amendment protection from sexual assault. And you absolutely waive your right not to be searched without a warrant by voluntarily entering.
The officer can search you under whatever guidelines are set for his searches. The TSA allows for very "personal" searches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
3) A citizen can ask that a criminal charge be filed. Only the DA can bring charges. However, civilly, you can sue anyone for almost anything. But simply because a basis for a civil complaint exists does not mean that there is a basis for criminal charge.
The above is not exactly some newly revealed truth that others are unaware of. The point is that sexual assault IS a criminal offense. Sure, it may or may not be prosecuted, but it is still a crime. The Texas bill simply backs up this point.
You're assuming it's sexual assault. Faulty assumptions lead to faulty conclusions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
4) It's laughable how you keep insisting that this would go far in the Courts. It's a federal issue at every step of the way. It's clearly spelled out in the Constitution. The end.
Gawdalmighty. I don't KNOW how far it would go in the courts. I have said that repeatedly. I said let's SEE how far it would go. And, again, I am just not all that impressed with your credentials as a constitutional legal authority to make such a judgement -- no pun intended --on the matter. Yes, it is a federal issue, in a sense, but may or may not involve an actual conflict between federal and state law. For the simple reason that there is no federal law which permits TSA employees to claim immunity to what is illegal in every state of the union. That is not rocket science, my friend but, still, it needs to be tested in a federal court.
Wait, what? Immunity? What are you babbling about? If the TSA has mandated search guidelines, and the TSA agent is following them, then they are absolutely immune from state laws that contradict those guidelines. If they step outside those guidelines, then civil complaints can be filed and disciplinary action taken. Either way, what Texas wants has no bearing at all on the matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Let me ask you this: Does an FBI agent -- on duty -- within the State of Texas have a right to violate Texas law concerning sexual assault? Would, in your opinion, be subject to arrest by state/local authorities if he did so?
You're assuming, again, that a personal search is sexual assault. Again, if the TSA has set search guidelines and the agent is following them, then it doesn't matter what Texas says on the matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
This is absolutely ludicrous. Not withstanding, to repeat something said above, I am not all that impressed with your credentials as a constitutional scholar, your analysis of the Bill of Rights is downright scary. The Bill of Rights -- depending on the particular ammendment -- is an affirmation of individual rights.
The Bill of Rights limits what the government can and cannot do. You have no inherent right to any of the things mentioned, they are limitations on the government. That's not simply my analysis, that is the way it works. Seriously, at least make some vague effort to research things before spouting off.
You have no freedom of speech in, say, a movie theater. The rights are not inherent, they are restrictions on the government.
As for my "credentials", I can cay with absolute confidence they are more current and relevant than yours for analyzing the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
The ammendments are full of the mention of the individual via the people. In fact, in one of the latest rulings on the Second Ammendment, the SCOTUS determined that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, not a collective one. The basis for it was the obvious truth that "the people" meant the individual person as a private and free citizen.
You are correct only in a verrrrry narrow realm. Yes, it restricts the government...but the purpose of restricting the government is to affirm the rights of the individual free citizen as an individual free citizen.
See above. The rights are there to preserve freedom from the government. They are not inherent to the person, though. If you get kicked out of a movie theater for calling someone a vulgar name, you can't claim the movie theater infringed on your First Amendment rights. If the police arrest you for it, then you can.
Nothing in the recent Second Amendment case contradicts that. It was based on the interpretation of the collective "people" versus the individual interpretation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Whoever said being searched in an airport security line was unreasonable? If there is good and reasonable cause to believe a person is a threat then of course they should be searched. But that is NOT what is being said. What is being objected to the fact all too many TSA people take advantage of their petty power -- via political correctness -- to sexually harrass and grope American citizens (mostly young women) who do not in any way fit the profile of a terrorist.
Prove it. Prove that the TSA is running rampant and groping anyone they please with no repercussions. Because otherwise, it's just Texas thumping its chest for no reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Second, your analogy is not applicable. If you give the cops permission to search your house, that is what you do. Hell, if you are stopped and there is reason for the officer to believe his safety is threatened, or that you have something on your person that would violate the law, then all that is reasonable cause. But all that is under very clear and understood rules of professional behavior and reasonable cause. It does not allow the officer to go beyond that point.
I don't understand why you don't seem to get this; unless you just can't admit you are wrong!
And the officer can search your crotch, etc., for concealed weapons. Under other circumstances, that would be assault. Under this one, it's not.
Prove it. Prove that the TSA is running rampant and groping anyone they please with no repercussions. Because otherwise, it's just Texas thumping its chest for no reason.
Bent out of shape? Taking things personally? I'm not sure where you get that from.
The only thing I take personally is your repeated cracks about moving out of Texas in places where it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand, yet you seem to present it like it's some valid argument.
Ok, fair enough... in some regards. But if you don't want your obvious contempt and disdain and dislike for Texas and how unhappy you are -- how you regard yourself in "Purgatory" -- and announce to the world how "mean and surly" is your attitude? Then why do you keep it up and almost seemingly shove it other peoples faces? Do you think I am the only person to notice all this? After a time, it just becomes an arrogant outlook that no one is impressed nor intimidated by. And certainly no one cares about nor gives a damn about beyond the point you yourself make it a public production...
I guess that is why I mention it...
Anyway, so far as the rest of it goes, I don't have the time nor inclination at this moment to rejoin. You stated your case, I gave mine. You got the last word in that regard. I am content to let others be the judge of which side won!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gawdalmighty. I don't KNOW how far it would go in the courts. I have said that repeatedly. I said let's SEE how far it would go. And, again, I am just not all that impressed with your credentials as a constitutional legal authority to make such a judgement -- no pun intended --on the matter. Yes, it is a federal issue, in a sense, but may or may not involve an actual conflict between federal and state law. For the simple reason that there is no federal law which permits TSA employees to claim immunity to what is illegal in every state of the union. That is not rocket science, my friend but, still, it needs to be tested in a federal court. 
re.
