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.

 

Texas bill would make invasive pat-downs a felony

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


You are not making sense. If an airport is a private business and a nightclub is a private business. How come one private business has federal employees running security and the other has private business employees running security.




posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


You are not making sense. If an airport is a private business and a nightclub is a private business. How come one private business has federal employees running security and the other has private business employees running security.



From my understanding, which may be be flawed, the DHS and the FAA strongly encourage the use of TSA to protect the "ports". In the case of a private port, this is ultimately "optional', but the DHS has made it a subtle threat that they will advertise that any airport without TSA screening is a "security risk" and essentially use their scare tactics to drive airlines away from the airport.


edit on 4-30-2011 by rogerstigers because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
Is the right to fly a Constitutionally protected activity?


No. But the right for citizens to be secure in their persons against unreasonable search and seizure IS.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
Is the right to fly a Constitutionally protected activity?


No. But the right for citizens to be secure in their persons against unreasonable search and seizure IS.


My point is that airports arent public property. Of course, since they are highly subsidized in a public private partnership of sorts, one could argue I'm wrong.

Regardless, I notice a lot of people think their constitutional rights are guaranteed on private property, which they arent necessarily. You can willingly enter into a contract that surrenders certain rights you might expect on Public property.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


You are not making sense. If an airport is a private business and a nightclub is a private business. How come one private business has federal employees running security and the other has private business employees running security.



Agreed. It's a gray area. But the government does not outright own the airline industries or airports do they?



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
I have a question. If a person agrees to the pat down then doesn't that negate any lawsuits? How do they even prove it was intentional anyways? I just find it hard to believe someone would grope a person in plain view of an entire airport.

We live in a world where anyone can do anything at any given time. What makes people think women don't hide drugs on their person or parents don't use kids as drug mules? This stuff happens every day. I'm not trying to derail the thread but I don't think anyone would care if Muslim women and children were being groped at airports. I'm willing to bet no one would care.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by LosLobos
 


I would care.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


You are not making sense. If an airport is a private business and a nightclub is a private business. How come one private business has federal employees running security and the other has private business employees running security.



the government controls who flys in and out of the country. So if this private airport accepts international flights then the government can control who is on those planes and what type of security measures can be applied.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers
Technically DFW and other airports are the property of the State of Texas or are private groups operating under state oversight. The DHS can "try" tro impose themselves, but ultimately, they have no authority to force the issue, as far as I have read.


Interesting! If that is the case, then I wonder why the legislation is necessary? Why not just boot out the TSA and run their own security? If the state/private groups own the airports, then it is within their right to say who operates security and how security checks are done, no?



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by martianmallow
You know how I avoid being groped by the TSA? I take the bus, or the Amtrak!

And if everyone in America would follow suit they could avoid it as well.


Try doing that cross country....

Dolt


^ This.

And some people depend on flying cross country or internationally for jobs, and to provide food on the table.
So it's kind of say "I refuse to fly" when your very pockets are at stake.


But I believe ordinary people with the means to do so, should stop flying.. post pone vacations, and etc.

But we know that will never happen, more people will still be flying then not.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by DuceizBack
 


Yea, for some people, flying is a requirement for their jobs, for example, having to be in New York on a Monday and then LA on Tuesday night.
The only reason that the TSA issue isnt getting more exposure is because the only people that anyone listen to anymore, (celebrities etc...) either have private jets or are able to charter private jets.
If one of those brain-dead reality stars tweeted that they were late to filming because of something like this, their fans would be up in arms, demanding something be done.

edit on 1-5-2011 by TriForce because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
I'm not exactly impressed by TSA procedures, but to pretend flying is a 'right' just smacks of entitlement.

Your job and livelihood depends on flying? Then be grateful we have a system that allows you to do so, or come up with a better alternative with your good ol American ingenuity.

But no one 'needs' to fly. You NEED to eat, drink water, sleep and breathe (all four of which are quite difficult to do in Coach these days). Flying is a luxury.
edit on 1-5-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Sorry but flying IS absolutely necessary for the Country and World economy to remain stable.
Why do you think Reagan did what he did when the Air Traffic Controllers struck in the 80s?



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by TriForce
 


I didn't say it wasn't necessary for the continuation of our completely bogus economy.

I said it isn't a "Right"

LOTS of things are 'necessary' for the continuation of our economy, like wars over resources and land. but it doesnt make them a "Right".



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Texas can pass the law; however, and unfortunately, most airports fall under federal jurisdiction. So, federal law would trump the state law.


Even though he's an Aggie, he's right
.

The Federal government will override any bill that attempts to supercede them. Good idea, though.

/TOA



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Doesn't matter if this passes or not, since 'probable cause' is basically just a legal term for justification of invasive search and seizure AFTER the fact. There's been many a police officer that feel they do whatever they want to whoever they want since they can claim probable cause afterwards.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Not even close.

Most public use airports are private property, or owned by the city/county/state.




 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


Who says that it is not a right?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Not even close.

Most public use airports are private property, or owned by the city/county/state.




 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



The federal government has jurisdiction. Regardless of who owns the airport. Now, if the flights want to take off and land in TX, then fine...they could boot the TSA. However, if interstate travel is to be conducted then the federal government has the authority. You can tell me I'm wrong all you want, but I am correct. Like it or not.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join