Breaking: Libertarians Call For Arrest Of TSA Agents

page: 2
92
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


Airports are not private property. See above.




posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by DerekJR321
 


You're right about the part of we need to do something.

You'll notice that the TSA changed their child pat down procedures. Enough parents got outraged that there was going to be some nasty fallout about their child pat down policy. So they quickly changed their tune.

Now if only enough adults got outraged about about the pat downs.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
By the way, when a strip search is performed, the person who is strip-searched is the only person who touches anything.

This should give you all an idea about what is right and wrong here.

If no one can touch your privates under the law, then why are they touching people's privates?

And why are they touching children in ways that are considered by society to be inappropriate? We tell kids to tell an adult or policeman if they are touched like that six-year-old girl was touched by the St. Louis TSA.

Houston, we have a problem!



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by DerekJR321
 



Now if only enough adults got outraged about about the pat downs.


I am surprised it has not already happened. Think about it, how many fights have we seen started for even simpler and certainly more innocent things when another man touched/talked to another mans girlfriend/wife. Our society never ceases to amaze me.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
I don't believe it's right to arrest the agents. Now, arresting the policy makers is where we need to go if we're going to arrest anybody. They're the ones using desperate times to hire on a bunch of people to do things that there's no way the goodly majority of them would do.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


--The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated--

The 4th Amendment states nothing about whether a person is a sworn officer or not. Being grabbed and groped – regardless of who or what is doing it – for the purpose of searching an individual without probable cause is not reasonable.


Furthermore, if they are not held back by the Constitution, which you claim, then they can't use the Constitution as a defense.

--What's our take on the Texas House of Representatives voting to ban the current TSA pat-down? Well, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article. VI. Clause 2) prevents states from regulating the federal government. Link--

Oh . . . what is that bold part? TSA is part of the federal government? Then they must follow the Constitution. Game over.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Public or private property is irrelevant. The law is the law.

Private property only makes a difference in that you can be asked to leave.

As far as a search is concerned, reasonable suspicion means you can do a pat-down for weapons for your protection, but the courts have been very specific that unless you have probable cause you'd better keeps your hands off a person in other situations.

If security guards are exceeding this requirement then people should be seeking legal redress. As unsworn personnel they have even less authority to touch your person.

There is a reason LEO's are sworn. They have better training and far more responsibility, therefore have more authority to search.
edit on 7/4/2011 by 2012srb because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Once they started pulling the diapers off of old wheel-chair bound ladies and groping around in the panties of little pre-pubescent girls while gently kissing the behinds of bearded muslims to avoid "profiling' accusations it was obvious that TSA is the wrong organization in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Hey AIRLINES! Listen UP: Me and a bunch of others like me who are outraged at this behavior have avoided flying all together. MORE WILL FOLLOW! Get off your duffs and start screaming loud and often to the feds - or watch your entire industry slip into oblivion. Only the sloppy, often drunk business-traveler will be left - and the economy and e-business practices are eliminating their need for air travel as well. Want a big and sudden boost in revenue? Abolish the TSA immediately and replace it with something a bit more humane, logical, sensible, realistic.

Oh yeah - you airlines are always looking to the feds for subsidies, bailouts, and other 'considerations', aren't you?

Oh well - never mind then...



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Incidentally, as far as I know, we haven't overturned the Constitution.

The Fourth Amendment is very specific. There is no mistaking its intent.

Under this amendment, these TSA searches meet the definition of unreasonable searches of one's person.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Outrageo
 


When this started, I stopped flying. That is the only way we will win this fight for our dignity and our RIGHTS.

Unreasonable searches violate a RIGHT addressed by a specific amendment. The founders thought that right to be pretty damned important.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by Cuervo
 


They (security) acts as an agent for the owner of the private property (mall) and if you do not like their rules they can and will remove you from the property. It is the same thing with the TSA and Airports.

You can choose not to fly and not be subjected to the search you agree to when you purchase the tickets. You can choose not to go to the mall. Your rights do not trump the rights of private property owners to insure people conduct themselves, while on the owner's property, in whatever fashion the property owner sees fit. That means the mall can tell you to not wear hats or leave and it means the airlines can say consent to a search or leave.



The airports were forced to allow TSA to do these searches by law So the contract is invalid because it is coerced and forced under color of law.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Yes private security they can escort you out since its private property. If you refuse to leave then security can use whatever force neccissary excluding death to remove you. They can also detain and cite you for tresspassing. Resisting security in any manner wil result in more charges against you.

Your "rights" dont extend to private property that does not belong to you.

On a seperate note to a few other posters who think they know what they are talking about.

I find it humerous, yet not surprising, that while you guys think you know what your rights are and how they work (which you dont), and demand others resepct them, you guys have no problem at all jumping on the bandwagon along with Libertarians to arrest all TSA agents.

The question is for what?

You claim you demand the 4th amendment be followed when it comes to you, yet you have no problems throwing it out the window when it comes to dealing with people you guys dont like. People make comments calling them child molesters, thugs etc.

You guys demand the Constitution be followed, yet you have apparently no issues depriving TSA of due process, in addition to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Not only is it sad that you dont know your rights or how the law works, its even worse when you try to claim the moral high grond while essentially behaving in the exact same manner you accuse the Government of doing..

Sad, ignorant and now hypocritical.. Whats even worse is some fo you will attempt to make a distinction between your behavior and that of the Government, doing whatever you can to argue your view is somehow different.

Whats even better is nothing will change because the bulk of you guys only have courage when you are behind your computer. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and actually organize to change the laws you don't like, instead of complaining al the time about how unfair it is?

A day will come where your going to think you know what your rights are, and your going to get your ass kicked in the process by security and charged. Whats sad is you won't know why because you will be to busy crying over what you think your rights are and how they were violated.

You guys really are the pigs from animal farm. All people are equal, but apparently you guys are more equal than others.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Thank You prez o...and your minions...reward the faithful by killing them with radiaion while they do your bidding....



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
The airports were forced to allow TSA to do these searches by law So the contract is invalid because it is coerced and forced under color of law.


and because airports and other major forms of interstate / international forms of travel are federally regulated, they can prescribe the manner in which security is established and carried out.

Making TSA legal and valid.

You arent forced to go through security, you have a choice. If you opt not to go through security, then you dont fly. Go get a car, walk, use a horse, bicycle etc etc etc.

But since you are apparently now an expert on the law, feel free to cite your source where you claim the Government forces TSA security and how its illegal.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Well, thanks for the blanket party.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


Yeah, going back to the argument we were having about how the law works and who can actually violate a civil right as opposed to not being able to.

When was the last time you arrested a person for breaking into someones house and charged them for violating the home owners 4th amendment? Oh wait, thats right, never because it doesnt apply to anyone other than those acting under color of law. Were you not trained when you went through the academy or were you sick the day they went over Con law?

Its spelled out in 42 USC 1983.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2012srb
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Well, thanks for the blanket party.


I guess you only care for them when the blanket is not on top of you?



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Or sentence them to being a catholic priest for a year. O wait we're trying to punish them.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by 2012srb
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Well, thanks for the blanket party.


I guess you only care for them when the blanket is not on top of you?


I don't like being lumped in with a group. You made a blanket statement about the posters on this thread.

I understand the outrage of other posters here. You seem to be above it all, as if the outrage is unwarranted.
edit on 7/4/2011 by 2012srb because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2012srb
I don't like being lumped in with a group. You made a blanket statement about the posters on this thread.


I sure did.. Just treating people in the forums in the same manner they like to treat anyone they dont agree with. Its intresting that you are ok with it when its shifted in one direction, and take exception to it when its shifted back.

So apparently its ok to be silent on an issue when it doesnt directly include you?

Thank you for helping me prove my point.
edit on 4-7-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
92
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join