Breaking: Libertarians Call For Arrest Of TSA Agents

page: 5
92
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiracy Now
 


Nooo.. I said the TSA is NOT comissioned. They are not law enforcement.

Huge difference for this argument. By your same argument, since the post office is part of the federal government, can a regular postal worker stop you and search you?

No because of their classification under federal law as to their placement.

As far as Mall security goes - No, private security, while you are on property they are responsible for, does not need any reason at all to make contact with an individual. They dont need any RS or PC to request to search your belongings bags or vehicle on their property.

You can refuse the request, at which point security can ask you to leave the property. If you refuse, you are then tresspassing and as such, you can be forcibly removed under state law (varies), or detained and cited for tresspassing.
edit on 4-7-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
xcathdra, I am unsworn. Can I touch your privates just to inspect them? I want to make sure that everyone is safe. you read to be inspected by me? I will do it without gloves if you feel better.


Actually im glad you decided to be a wise ass for once. Because you asked me, I have the option of saying sure, in which case no law is broken.

If I say no and you do so anyways, you would be charged with a crime since you are not acting in any capacity other than that of a civilian.

The term your looking for is called a Terry Frisk. Look it up before trying to make a comparison.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


So once again instead of an itelligent rebuttal you once again resort to name calling and making blanket statements you ant support.

When you decide to take part in the debate and actually offer up something relevant, let us know. Absent that whine by yourself.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2012srb
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You're fighting with one of your own.

Retired. 25 years.


Lemon Fresh is also retired law enforcment. I respect both of your opinons, however I dont agree with them based on current case law.

Not really sure what else to tell you.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
IK am going to quote my own post so it doesnt get buried. It has the info you guys are arguing about. The FBI website is included if you want to file a civil rights complaint.

Arm yourself with knowledge and go make the changes. Its as simple as that.

Lets try it this way -

US Constitution - 4th Amendment


Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


In depth overview of how the 4th applies in various situations

Exceptions to the 4th Amendment -
* - Conesnt
* - Warrant
* - Plain sight
* - Incident to an arrest
* - mitigating circumstance (life or death)

Going through a security checkpoint at the airport falls under the first part - Conesent.

By going through the checkpoint, you are voluntarily agreeing to the search of your belongings and the pat down of your outter clothing. The key term is volunatarily in this case.

Your patdown -
Terry vs. Ohio
You will note in the Supreme Court decision that it applies to Law Enforcement. It falls under an exception to the exclusionary rule of the 4th amendment. The Court took notice that while the 4th amendment exists to prevent an illegal collection of evidence, a terry frisk is not geared to that goal. Instead its geared as officer safety, and since its not intended to find evidence, its not a 4th amendment violation.

Those who argue about what consent is -

Consent Searches.—Fourth Amendment rights, like other constitutional rights, may be waived, and one may consent to search of his person or premises by officers who have not complied with the Amendment.79 The Court, however, has insisted that the burden is on the prosecution to prove the voluntariness of the consent80 and awareness of the right of choice.

81 Reviewing courts must determine on the basis of the totality of the circumstances whether consent has been freely given or has been coerced. Actual knowledge of the right to refuse consent is not essential to the issue of voluntariness, and therefore police are not required to acquaint a person with his rights, as through a Fourth Amendment version of Miranda warnings.

82 But consent will not be regarded as voluntary when the officer asserts his official status and claim of right and the occupant yields to these factors rather than makes his own determination to admit officers.83 When consent is obtained through the deception of an undercover officer or an informer gaining admission without, of course, advising a suspect who he is, the Court has held that the suspect has simply assumed the risk that an invitee would betray him, and evidence obtained through the deception is admissible.84


Color of Law

Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act but which may operate in violation of law. .

FBI - Color of Law Explanation

Law Enforcement has the appearance of acting under the color of law, where as a civilian does not. Civilians are not empowered to make an arrest in the same manner law enforcement is. Civilians are not empowered to submit a request for a search warrant or an arrest warrant where as law enforcement is etc etc etc.

Federal Civil Right legislation that modified sections of 42 USC

A win yet a loss for those who are against the TSA -
ATS Thread - man found not guilty for refusing to provide identification to TSA

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) - An Albuquerque jury has acquitted a Seattle man who refused to show his identification to Transportation Security Administration officers at a New Mexico airport.

Mocek was facing several charges, including failure to obey an officer and concealing his identity. He was found not guilty of all charges on Friday.


The reason its a double edge sword. In that ruling it reaffirmed the argument that the TSA is not acting under color of law as commissioned law enforcement.

There are currently about 6 lawsuits pending against the TSA on 4th amendment argumens alone.

Here is the info you guys need to understand the basics. Now that you have the info and the website, including the FBI website where you can file civil righ violation complaints, its time to quit complaining.

You guys have the info and the website, do something about it instead of whining if you want the laws changed.





posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Yes! My day is complete! Another cop thread, another reference to Terry Stops! When in doubt, spout about Terry Stops!



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
TSA is not law enforcement?
If I recall, the TSA threatened to shut down all air traffic in Texas a few weeks back. What kind of authority can do that?
The TSA is criminal by any standards of human decency and natural law.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
I have to charge my phone.

All I have to say is that I view this as a Fourth Amendment issue. I don't really give a damn how the courts have interpteted it. This is exactly the kind of thing the Fourth Amendment prohibits.

Touching my breasts and crotch without my consent is wrong. Anyone who argues otherwise is mentally ill.
edit on 7/4/2011 by 2012srb because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirClem
TSA is not law enforcement?
If I recall, the TSA threatened to shut down all air traffic in Texas a few weeks back. What kind of authority can do that?
The TSA is criminal by any standards of human decency and natural law.


Speaking of blanket comments and accusations.

Here is an idea.. Since I am arguing the opposing view point, how about you and the others take that argument and information and actually do something with it? You guyshave the laws and reasons why its being done. Continually coming into these forums and doing nothing but complaining doesnt really fix the iussue now does it?

You guys either need to organize and make the argument to effect change, or quit complaining. It really is that simple.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Who are not comissioned officers.


That does not matter. In your thinking, a security officer can't violate rights. That is wrong thinking.


Secondly you voluntarily agree to the screening process by going through it.


It is not voluntary. It is under duress. Either you go through the screening, or you get arrested and fined.


The different I am pointing out, that you missed in the academy, is you are free to leave the airport and take another form of travel if you dont want to submit to the security screening.


And I am free to not own a weapon as well. That does not negate the Constitution or the rights of people.


You are not being forced to go through the process,


Let's ask the people at the airport if they are forced to go through the checkpoints.


which means you aren't seized,


Holding me against my will = seized


which means there is no 4th amendment implications.


So anyone can walk down the street and pat me down or xray me. I could always take another route home. Right?


A 4th amendment violation would occur if you are forced into a car at your house, forcibly brought to the airport, forcibly placed into a screening line and forcibly searched.


Agreed. Notice the bold.


Big difference...


How about no difference.




I would suggest you go brush up on your Con law.. You seem to be out of practice.


So one can claim the Constitution as a defense on one hand, but not be held to it on the other hand?

I think not.



reported what? Me saying you dont know what your talking about based on your responses? Thats not a personal attack, that would be the truth.



It is an Ad Hominem. Please discuss the facts. Not the personal lives of the people debating you.

Ad Hominem Attacks And You

--By far the most common and destructive problems ATS moderators have to deal with are insults, epithets, name-calling and other forms of personal commentary,also known as ad hominem attacks. -
edit on 7/4/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I'm glad you referenced the expectation of privacy in public.
And you are correct. It's a public place.

However I think it's been long established that in order for LEO's to conduct an invasive search of your body. Which is what the TSA is doing. A search that goes under your clothing akin to what they do when you are arrested minus the body cavity search. Or openly exposes body parts body parts so that everyone can see. Like that lady who had her breasts exposed in the airport.

My whole argument is that no Law Enforcement Agency has any legal constitutional authority to conduct a invasive search. If they did so they would be breaking the law. And then they can only do so if you've been arrested for breaking a law.

The TSA is sidestepping the process. And pretty much treating people like criminals. It's not right.

And what happens to those people who do not consent and the TSA searches them anyways?



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Yes! My day is complete! Another cop thread, another reference to Terry Stops! When in doubt, spout about Terry Stops!


Ah yes.. another comment that adds nothing to thie thread... Another complaint yet abolustely nothing behind it to make changes.

Lets all go outside and yell at the sky because its raining shall we?

.......after you



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2012srb
I have to charge my phone.

All I have to say is that I view this as a Fourth Amendment issue. I don't really give a damn how the courts have interpteted it. This is exactly the kind of thing the Fourth Amendment prohibits.

Touching my breasts and crotch without my consent is wrong. Anyone who argues otherwise is mentally ill.
edit on 7/4/2011 by 2012srb because: (no reason given)


And when you go through security you are giving consent to the search?

If you dont like it, do something to change it instead of complaining.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by hawkiye
 


So once again instead of an itelligent rebuttal you once again resort to name calling and making blanket statements you ant support.

When you decide to take part in the debate and actually offer up something relevant, let us know. Absent that whine by yourself.


My rebuttals are always intelligent, you may not have the intelligence to understand them but that is a different issue. I pointed out that nowhere in the constitution is the right to restrict travel granted to the federal government yet you ignored that. I pointed out that in fact the constitution does not grant the federal government any authority over peoples lives but restricts the federal government in doing such. Yet idiots continue to act as if they Federal government and even state and local government have all power over the people who created them. The people are ignorant now lucky for the thugs who call themselves LE. That will change one day.

Referring to the actions of a thug is not name calling it is truth. Officers with your mindset are nothing but thugs pure and simple. You think because some group of criminals got together in your area and decided they could involve themselves in peoples lives who have harmed no one that it is ok for you to act as their agent enforcing thier thuggery. That is called a gang of thugs and you are an enforcer. TSA is another gang of thugs and thugs usually get thier just deserts sooner or later.

edit on 4-7-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
THis is a good thing. We need to rid the airports of these people. I don't get the people that support them. Why do you support them? I'm currious. I don't whanna be a jerk or anything but what good has the TSA done? The safest airports in the world are Israel airports and all they have are Metal detectors, wands and dogs. We don't need more. Again I ask the question because I whanna understand. Why support TSA?



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
If nothing else it is a reminder that we must fight for our rights if we are to retain them.


Originally posted by Xcathdra

You don't know your rights, let alone how the law or your rights work.



Before we get into your legal aspect I'll say that I was born with all my god given rights and it is up to me to defend them as I see fit. It doesn't matter what is written or what is law. What matters is that we all have a choice of whether or not to live and be free move about at our free will in all forms of transport without being subject to procedures which violate or damage our being or that of our families.

Rights are only written as a reminder or for legal business once they have been violated.

Most of us believe the TSA has stepped over the line with the implementation of virtual strip searches and their overly intrusive pat downs. They have accomplished nothing in regards to stopping terrorism with these strip search procedures - except expanding the scope of their searches to include the movement of grey & black market goods & the potential untaxed revenue. Thus these procedures are not about keeping terrorist at bay, instead it is nothing but a ruse to create a LEA not subject to the 4th amendment knowing it has been waived for other purposes. I believe it is time to remove such a waiver and force them to follow the law.

It is really about good and evil. What the TSA is doing fall under the category of an evil act against another human being. I'm not here to argue about whether or not the law agrees, I'm here to say that one way or another we will defeat or put a stop to these evil acts.

Regardless of what you've been taught by your LEO trainers about what is legally right or wrong here, if enough people want to change these policies it will be done.
edit on 4-7-2011 by verylowfrequency because: Just say what again



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Yes! My day is complete! Another cop thread, another reference to Terry Stops! When in doubt, spout about Terry Stops!


Ah yes.. another comment that adds nothing to thie thread... Another complaint yet abolustely nothing behind it to make changes.

Lets all go outside and yell at the sky because its raining shall we?

.......after you


Wait, what did I complain about? You seem to have missed something here. I am simply pointing out that you have about 3 arguments that you use in all of these threads:
1)You are a cop hater
2)You do not know the laws, because you arent a cop
3)You need to research terry stops.

How many threads have you posted these exact things in? Dozens? Hundreds?

You use these arguments even while trying to state that they dont apply to the people in question.

I'm sorry that you dont like the right of americans to dissent. Doesnt mean they need to stop, and it certainly doesnt mean they are in the wrong.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by 2012srb
I have to charge my phone.

All I have to say is that I view this as a Fourth Amendment issue. I don't really give a damn how the courts have interpteted it. This is exactly the kind of thing the Fourth Amendment prohibits.

Touching my breasts and crotch without my consent is wrong. Anyone who argues otherwise is mentally ill.
edit on 7/4/2011 by 2012srb because: (no reason given)


And when you go through security you are giving consent to the search?

If you dont like it, do something to change it instead of complaining.


So now we have gone from "you are wrong" to "you arent doing anything about it so you shouldnt be complaining". Awesome.

99% change starts with complaint, in case you didnt know.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Think about this;

If, and I say If, "totall" security is the reason for doing this pat-downs, then they fail by not examining the internal of all the body openings. (Yes I know how that sounds).

If they find it necessary to actually touch your genital area, to search for concealed objects, then they should examine you internal as well, because you can hide larger objects there, as you can hide on the outside.

Because an object, that large, on the outside could be detected in a frisk without touching the genitals.

So, either do it all the way, or do it not at all.
This way it is useless...

The Government is smart enough to know this, but they still do it this way. Why?

- Fear-mongering?
- Simply because the power-hungry machine can do it?
- To make x-raying sounding like a pleasure alternative?
- To humiliate?
- Other agenda?

Personal note; I think we should accept risks in life to evolve as humanity. Not by law, by living.
edit on 4-7-2011 by EartOccupant because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
has anyone ever taken Magnesium Citrate as a laxative? I wonder what theyd do if you chugged a couple bottles then refused to go through scanner machine and then when they come to feel you up, you liquify yourself while there hand is down your crack?





top topics
 
92
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join