It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama's TSA pat-downs joke infuriates ACLU

page: 6
30
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


It would seem to me that you are stating that the "Enhanced Pat Down" procedure is ok because we have no expectation of privacy at the airport. Is this correct?


No, that is not correct. We have some expectation of privacy, even in an airport.
They can't just walk up to you as you're buying a ticket and start frisking you. But we also have the expectation of a reasonable search in the security area of an airport before boarding an airplane. This is a vehicle, owned by an airline and they have a policy with the TSA.

I don't like the policy. I am NOT OK with it. So, I don't fly. But I do think that if this comes to court, the SC will rule in favor of the TSA and the airlines.

I'm fully prepared to be wrong about this. And I would actually be glad to be wrong. I would love it if the whole searching and scanning thing would go away. But I don't think it will.

I guess one big question in my mind is: Are commercial aircraft public or private property? If they are private property, then I think the airlines can make whatever rules they want, including having the government do their security.



"Public Aircraft" means an aircraft used exclusively in the governmental service of the United States, or of any
state or of any public agency, including military and naval aircraft.

"Commercial Aircraft" means any aircraft other than public aircraft engaged in the business of transporting
persons or property.

"Private Aircraft" means any aircraft other than public and commercial aircraft.


Source



Airports: In 1992 the Supreme Court ruled that public airport terminals are not public forums. Airports have not historically been made available for speech activity. Therefore, a "reasonable" regulation of expression is constitutional, as long as the regulation is not an effort to suppress the speaker's activity due to disagreement with the speaker's view, the Court said. (International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee)

What constitutes a "reasonable" regulation concerning an airport is unclear....

The lesson from these cases might be that generally, regulations that create blanket restrictions without promoting some type of public interest are more likely to be found unreasonable.


Source

OK, I'm caught up.
But I still don't know whether the TSA policy at airports is constitutional or not.




posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I still remain profoundly confused why anyone would support such 'SECURITY THEATER'?

In particular, why would anyone do so when it requires such fuzzy legal justifications that do nothing more than further weaken the protections we require from unreasonable government interference and abuses.



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The right to travel is the right to use the roads and highways of the country, NOT the skies.


Really? Why this distinction? On what basis is that made? What's the legal theory? As I said previously, why not trains...buses...box-stores...malls...interstates...high-rise buildings?



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Can you take a space shuttle?


Well, this example asks about a means of travel, not a requirement for a 4th amendment search. But otherwise, sure, if I build one or use one belonging to someone else. Virgin Galactic



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
A tank?


This example also asks about a means of travel, not a requirement for a 4th amendment search. But sure. Tanks for Sale


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Can you travel at 200 mph? Legally?


This example asks about the manner of travel, not a requirement for a 4th amendment search.



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Can you travel to Area 51?


Area 51 is not a public place and the example does little to justify a 4th amendment search when traveling in public places.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Can you fly YOUR plane without restriction? Over the White House? Through the St. Louis Arch? Under the Golden Gate Bridge?
Can you drive without a license? Drive drunk? Can you ignore a cop whose lights and siren come on behind you?


These examples too ask about the manner of travel, not a requirement for a 4th amendment search.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Your inalienable right is intact. You DO have the right to travel, by plane if you so wish. But you must undergo a reasonable search to do so.


Not really.

The real elephant in the room is the fact that these searches only essentially apply to those who are not sufficiently wealthy to travel privately.



From a 2008 article:




Corporations and aviation groups are watching closely as the TSA prepares to regulate roughly 15,000 private planes that are seen as a convenient alternative to commercial flights. The planes fly in a network of 4,700 small airports — 10 times the number of commercial airports — that rarely have delays and often sit closer to city centers, said Robert Olislagers, executive director of Centennial Airport near Denver, one of the busiest small airports.



Now it is 2011. Where are they with this issue? HINT: No where. NADA!!!





Private Plane, Public Menace

...access to corporate-aviation flights...

...arrived at the airport gate. A private security guard asked my friend for the tail number of our plane. He provided the number—or he provided a few digits of the number—and we were waved through, without an identification check.

We climbed aboard the eight-seat twin-engine plane. The pilot greeted us, took my bag from me, and placed it on a seat. I noticed that no door separated the cabin from the cockpit.

We took off a few minutes later and headed south, in the direction of the Pentagon, the White House, and the United States Capitol complex.


Source.



So, while you're interpreting the 4th Amendment, why not throw some equal protection consideration into the mix.


The truth is there is nothing reasonable about the 'unwashed masses' having the choice between potential damaging radiation exposure by insufficiently calibrated Backscatter X-ray machines or having their genitals fondled by a government official.

But keep up the good work. Oppression needs the support of the ignorant to prevail.

edit on 27-1-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't like the policy. I am NOT OK with it. So, I don't fly.


Fair enough, but it isn't very helpful when the electorate acts resigned to such issues.

In my view, it's irresponsible not to speak out against such dangerous absurdities.
edit on 27-1-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Well, it would seem that the constitutionality boils down to if it is reasonable to expect one to consent to such a private search. I claim it is not. I don't fly until something changes.

BTW, i don't think the airlines are allowed to do their own security.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 



Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
BTW, i don't think the airlines are allowed to do their own security.





Airports Who Opt out of TSA Screening are Still Regulated by TSA

There has been a lot of confusion after a recent report that the Orlando Sanford Airport (SFB) has requested to opt out of TSA screening.

Any commercial airport can apply to TSA’s Screening Partnership Program (SPP), which has been around since the inception of TSA. After approval from TSA and a competitive bidding process, SPP allows airports to transition to private screeners while maintaining TSA oversight and the corresponding increased level of security implemented since 9/11.

So… if an airport applies and is accepted into the SPP program, they receive the same screening from a private company instead of TSA officers. That’s the only difference. All commercial airports are regulated by TSA whether the actual screening is performed by TSA or private companies. So TSA’s policies – including advanced imaging technology and pat downs – are in place at all domestic airports.


edit on 27-1-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   


1) The Right to TRAVEL FREELY, UNENCUMBERED, and UNFETTERED is guaranteed as a RIGHT and not a mere privilege. That the Right to TRAVEL is such a BASIC RIGHT it does NOT even need to be mentioned for it is SELF-evident by Common Sense that the Right to TRAVEL is a BASIC CONCOMMITANT of a FREE Society to come and go from length and breath FREELY UNENCUMBERED and UNFETTERED distinguishes the characteristic required for a FREE PEOPLE TO EXIST IN FACT. Please See SHAPIRO vs. THOMSON, 394 U.

edit on 1/26/2011 by -W1LL because: (no reason given)


Good. Go hoof your sorry butt around on your feet and on public transit. There's your unrestricted travel. You can walk wherever you feel like, ride a horse, a bike, or anything else that doesn't require government intervention. As soon as you use a public road with a motorized vehicle, a private flight service, or anything else that is licensed and regulated, you are beholden to those rules, which includes any government check instituted on said travel mode.

You know, no one can give you crap for walking anywhere, so why don't you?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Jesus Mary Josef...
The man really can't do anything right can he?

What ever he does people somehow feel offended or mistreated.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 



Originally posted by loam
...it isn't very helpful when the electorate acts resigned to such issues.

In my view, it's irresponsible not to speak out against such dangerous absurdities.


Ironically, this article on RawStory:




US empire will fall due to lack of faith, not finances or war, author warns

Dmitry Orlov, author of "Reinventing Collapse: The Soviet Example and American Prospects," ....

...told Raw Story in an exclusive interview, Americans will "stop expecting anything of Washington," turning the US into more of a "banana republic" than a super power.

...

By the next election cycle, Orlov figured, the United States would be in the throes of a "banana republic" such that the voters would exchange one inept political party for another inept political party while expecting different results.

While nothing constructive would result from this behavior, he said, the next meaningless shift in 2012 may be the last straw.

"That will run its course where people walk away in disgust and stop expecting anything of Washington," he said.



I don't fully agree with every point, but the basic premise is likely not far off.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Subjective1
 


Subjective... he could cure aids and cancer... He cant cure his color.. So yes he will be blamed by the closet racists for the remainder of his term.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
This is typical of elitist thinking in two ways.

1. The President: Making light of to what many of us is a crime against us and no laughing matter is just an attempt to teach people to essentially laugh at themselves and find humor in it. In other words grab a snickers bar because this policy isn't going away anytime soon.



That's how I heard it.

Didn't he actually say something to the effect that "its not going to go away" - - a few weeks (or more) ago.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Subjective1
Jesus Mary Josef...
The man really can't do anything right can he?

What ever he does people somehow feel offended or mistreated.


Yeah - - and how often do they actually come up with a real educated/knowledgeable reason to support their position?

Like almost Never. They sound like media parrots.

My daughter said her co-workers are always grumbling about Obama. I told her to ask them why. She did. Not one person had a real answer.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
if all are equal , as the laws and constitution states in the states

does that mean the president goes through the TSA pat down or scanner every time he boards air force 1
or anyone of his staff for that matter ?

or

do TSA workers need to go through the pat down or scanner as the walk back and forth between the "boarding control"

if not it must be shear hypocrisy , i mean it would mean that tsa agents can smuggle as much stuff they want in and out of the airport without being subdued to the treatment they hand out,



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Didn't he actually say something to the effect that "its not going to go away" - - a few weeks (or more) ago.


I submit that if enough of the Board of Directors of the US Gov't followed these examples:


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't like the policy. I am NOT OK with it. So, I don't fly.



Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Well, it would seem that the constitutionality boils down to if it is reasonable to expect one to consent to such a private search. I claim it is not. I don't fly until something changes.


Then this policy would change tomorrow. As always in the US, the almight Dollar rules. If people refused to fly under these circumstances, as demonstrated by the two above examples (and I also do not fly under these conditions), then airlines and other business would lose those dollars and that would mean the end of this policy.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
I submit that if enough of the Board of Directors of the US Gov't followed these examples:
Then this policy would change tomorrow. As always in the US, the almighty Dollar rules. If people refused to fly under these circumstances, as demonstrated by the two above examples (and I also do not fly under these conditions), then airlines and other business would lose those dollars and that would mean the end of this policy.


Most things yes. But I don't think so on this subject.

I actually think security and scanning will increase. I think it really is: "get used to it - 'cuz it is not going away".

I know from having this discussion a few years back on a different forum - - that Israel has the most successful airport screening methods and are used as a model.

Travelers in Israel show up four hours before their flight to go through screening.
edit on 27-1-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
OK, I'm caught up.
But I still don't know whether the TSA policy at airports is constitutional or not.
The Supreme Court has yet to analyze a case where TSA policies are in dispute.

However, a 2006 case, United States v. Hartwell (opinion), the US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit had the following situation and dispute before it—

Christian Hartwell set off a metal detector at a security checkpoint in an airport. Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”) agents then used a magnetic wand to pinpoint any metal on his person. They detected something in Hartwell’s pocket and asked to see it. Ultimately, they discovered that the object was crack coc aine and placed Hartwell under arrest. Hartwell argues that the drugs should have been suppressed because the search offended the Fourth Amendment.
The Court ruled that there was no violation of the 4th Amendment in this instance, but the language and tests used give us insight on the Court’s reasoning.

Then-judge Samuel Alito, now in the Supreme Court, explained the Court’s ruling—

[T]he procedures involved in Hartwell’s search were minimally intrusive. They were well-tailored to protect personal privacy, escalating in invasiveness only after a lower level of screening disclosed a reason to conduct a more probing search. The search began when Hartwell simply passed through a magnetometer and had his bag x-rayed, two screenings that involved no physical touching.
Judge Alito continues—

Only after Hartwell set off the metal detector was he screened with a wand—yet another less intrusive substitute for a physical pat-down. And only after the wand detected something solid on his person, and after repeated requests that he produce the item, did the TSA agents (according to Hartwell) reach into his pocket.
I am very skeptical that current TSA procedures and policies would pass these tests.

Having to choose between a pat-down – a procedure the Court acknowledged was more intrusive – or go through a scanner – is the technology “well-tailored to protect personal privacy”? – without a prior reason to “escalate in invasiveness” seems to go against the reasoning the Court applied in Hartwell.

This is not proof, of course, of how the Supreme Court will rule on a case involving TSA’s procedures, but I think it offers and raises pertinent questions regarding the current TSA policies. Also not to be discarded is the fact that the opinion was written by a now Justice on the Supreme Court.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Well, it would be an interesting experiment...


I'd love to see the reaction if one day everybody said "Enough of this. I am not flying under these conditions."

Of course, the reasons behind it all are an entire discussion in themselves...



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


get em!!



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
The problem is that the American Government and the TSA went about introducing all this Scanner & pat-down stuff all wrong...!!

Marketing!!! It's all in the marketing!!!

They should have advertised the scaners as "FREE X-Rays" and the pat-downs as "FREE ALL BODY MASSAGES"..!!

People would have been quing for them and more people would have been flying for all the freebies!!

Sry, I just couldn't resist that...



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


Thanks for that. It gives us something to base the SC's rulings on. I think you may be right - for the 2006 Supreme Court. But today? I doubt the response would be the same. I hope it does go to court because I would love to hear their ruling and reasoning.
.

edit on 1/27/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: I'm an idiot.




posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 



Originally posted by Annee
Not one person had a real answer.


You mean an answer you liked.



Originally posted by Annee
I know from having this discussion a few years back on a different forum - - that Israel has the most successful airport screening methods and are used as a model.

Travelers in Israel show up four hours before their flight to go through screening.

(Emphasis supplied.)

Actually:




Leaving Isreal: Security Check

Passengers must arrive at the airport three hours before departure time.



Compare with Delta:




Security Check-in Requirements for International Travel To/From Non-U.S. Cities

The recommended arrival time at the airport prior to departure of International Flights is 3 hours.





edit on 27-1-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
30
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join