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 House Bans Offensive Security Pat-Downs

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Texas House Bans Offensive Security Pat-Downs


dfw.cbslocal.com

he Texas House passed a bill that would make it a criminal offense for public servants to inappropriately touch travelers during airport security pat-downs.

It also prohibits searches “that would be offensive to a reasonable person.”
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Well atleast one state is starting to recognize the 4th Amendment! Its good to see that representatives believes it will keep Transportation Security Administration officials from treating travelers like criminals.

Good point too, I mean, I could have swore this country was of due process, and innocent till proven guilty?

dfw.cbslocal.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
The next obvious step will be to build a HUGE international airport for those with any common sense who will prefer to enter the USA (and leave) via Texas.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by chiptrim
The next obvious step will be to build a HUGE international airport for those with any common sense who will prefer to enter the USA (and leave) via Texas.



And sadly, that may be required in order to travel freely in this once " free " country.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
We've been following this for a bit here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Technically it has only been passed into engrossment. Still needs to be voted on, I believe. Links to the bill tracking site are included in the thread referenced above.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
While I applaud this measure taken in Texas, I can not take the nagging feeling that is just political game for the government of the state.

I hope that other states will take same measures for the benefit of the people in this nation that has nothing to do with the "fake war on terror" created by our own government affecting American citizens.

Because is not Alqaida the ones getting the personal violation here.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
One down and 49 more states to go. I believe people have started reaching a tipping point. Thank GOD-the real one, not the jewish one.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 





Because is not Alqaida the ones getting the personal violation here.


Isnt that the truth. Congressman Ron Paul made a good point when he stated something along the lines that the Patriot Act did nothing to prevent terrorism, nor has it done to sway terrorist. All it has done is infringe on the rights and liberties of the US citizenry. He went on to say something about the very fact that this country was of due process, so how can it be that we are now deeming our citizens " criminals " and violating their 4th Amendment rights? He lastly stated about how can we " label " our own citizens, when most have been law abiding citizens?



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Quick question...

How can a state make a law that governs a federal agency? How will it be applied? Isn't the TSA a federal body therefore not liable to state law?

Just asking!

Magnum



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Realms

Originally posted by chiptrim
The next obvious step will be to build a HUGE international airport for those with any common sense who will prefer to enter the USA (and leave) via Texas.



And sadly, that may be required in order to travel freely in this once " free " country.


The downside however means that the Texas border will be crawling with TSA, who will scan and no doubt anal probe everyone entering or leaving the state.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Magnum007
Quick question...

How can a state make a law that governs a federal agency? How will it be applied? Isn't the TSA a federal body therefore not liable to state law?

Just asking!

Magnum


to answer your question:

10th Amendment:


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Also according to the Constitution, if the Federal government is not securing the states borders, or imposing regulation on the states, the states have the authority to supersede the Federal goverment as long as its within the " will " of the people.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Realms
Well atleast one state is starting to recognize the 4th Amendment! Its good to see that representatives believes it will keep Transportation Security Administration officials from treating travelers like criminals. Good point too, I mean, I could have swore this country was of due process, and innocent till proven guilty?


In your world I would feel utterly unsafe. Don't you know that Islamic Jihadists are trying to kill us. They are everywhere, just the other day I saw a woman walking around with a Burkha and I couldn't tell if she was strapped with bombs so we had to cross the street. Then you have all of these returning soldiers from overseas which still think we're a free and open society openly challenging the President's Executive Orders. You know one of them is just going to go off and start shooting.

No, if we have to give up all of our liberty to feel a little bit safe, its worth it. Think how little crime there will be when everyone is stopped and stripped searched when they go to the grocery store! The next best step is getting rid of this paper money and replacing it with a chip. Then there would be no more money laundering or crime of any sort. Did you China is the safest place in the world and I know the NAZI's had a bad reputation but they eliminated crime almost completely!

No, our only salvation is an all-powerful military dictator and millions of Americans that won't question any orders given to them. Hell, maybe we'll be really lucky and be protected by Chinese or Russian troops because Americans soldiers tend to romanticize the Dark Ages of 1776-1913.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ararisq
 





if we have to give up all of our liberty to feel a little bit safe, its worth it


Its people with your thought process that are the problem.

Thomas Jefferson once wrote:

"Those who would be willing to sacrifice liberty for security, do not deserve either."

I would rather be able to walk the streets, making the decisions of life for myself. Rather than have an imposing government pushing their agenda on me, and infringing on my rights.


Quick question, you stated you saw a woman wearing a burkha walking down the street, and you couldn't tell if she had a bomb. First, your living in fear because of the MSM media told you.

Second, if your going to assume that everyone with a mask on is going to attack you, then I suggest either leaving to a small island somewhere, or at the very least, stop being judgmental. Because I saw you walking down the street, and I didnt know if you were carrying a weapon, but because I felt threatened, I shot you in the face as preemptive measures. Is that how we should all be?

simple yes or no will suffice.
edit on 13-5-2011 by Realms because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Realms
 


This is actually a neat thing here, as i see things.
I do not have a problem with the tsa per se.
They stay in the airports of which i have no use and they protect their masters assets as any good guard dog would do.
As long as they stay in their place I'm cool with that.
Now here's where it gets sketchy for me.
The part in the words "make it a criminal offense for public servants to inappropriately touch "
How many people knew that it was already illegal?
To inappropriately touch someone, what will be "inappropriate"?
You can hide weaponry up in your cavities much more securely than in your waistband.
I see a semantics storm in the future here.
Then you have the "offensive to a reasonable person".
Who will dictate what offensive is, where is the line?
What about "reasonable"?
Reasonable to people who plunge us into war and break our economy, Hmmmmm.
Lotta big Lawyer words in there.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Realms
 


Exactly, the patriot act was not a "terrorist" deterrent but rather an excuse to infringe into Americans constitutional rights.

Now for the member asking if state laws supersede federal laws, I will say that the constitution of the US protect the will of the people and that our government is for the people and by the people, the only reason the whores in congress are making laws and passing them to the people and forcing us to abide by them is because we allowed them to to so.

States are republic with their own constitutions and laws and what the people wants is what the people gets.

But as usual the federal government has found a way to bribe states with federal aid and debt to get them into forgetting the people.

Texas is not that bad they more financially solvent.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Realms
reply to post by ararisq
 





if we have to give up all of our liberty to feel a little bit safe, its worth it


Its people with your thought process that are the problem.




Just a reminder that moral and ethical outrage should never cloud one's ability to recognize cynicism or sarcasm.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


There should be a sarcasm text I think, sometimes people say stupid things that I would say sarcastically, and they are serious!



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by g146541
 


Exactly, who now determines or at the very least interprets the definition of inappropriate, and so forth. I saw the Patriot Act as one step closer to complete dominance.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Good it's about time. Did they also make it illegal to get scanned by intrusive imaging technology? Sorry didn't read the whole link.
edit on 13-5-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms
 


The bill is still in the works, but I don't recall seeing anything in that regards, but then again, the " bills " wording may make references to that. I'll see what I can dig up~




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join