Police charge mother who stopped TSA from fondling her daughter, page 4

posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 03:21 AM

link

I can agree on that point of view (private property).

IMO, that is where things get sticky. Even though it is private property, the 4th still applies. If Thea airlines want to carry out the banning of flying without a search, by all means. But it is the TSA, DHS, and FAA doing the rule making.

The airline industry does seem to be going along with it, but IMO, the industry is consenting under duress.

Thanks for the compliment. I enjoy debating with you too. You are quite knowledgeable, don't take personal digs, and know when to go in for the kill or retreat your position.

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

lvrebel

posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 03:26 AM

link

Just a thought here...TSA is considered to be apart of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The Department of Homeland Security was created under by the Homeland Security Act. Many of the tactics the Department of Homeland security use are allowed because of the Patriot Act. However, the Patriot Act was set to expire until President Obama extended the Act. However, the legality of the Act is still in question as he did not actually sign the bill with his signature. He used the autopen machine to sign the Act. However, Lawyers have argued the validity of the autopen device and say is not legal. With the legality of the extension in doubt, couldnt a Lawyer argue in court in court that the TSA is using illegal tactics no longer covered because the Patriot Act has expired and no longer holds a place in the U.S.?

Lemon.Fresh

posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 03:27 AM

link

Reply to post by SFA437

I see where you are coming from. I thought you meant she tried to barge her way through the boarding ramp.

I rarely ever arrested for disorderly conduct. Just wrote a citation, but never to anyone for mouthing off. Had an FTO that would put DC on the citations of anyone who questioned him.

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Lemon.Fresh

posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 03:29 AM

link

Also, pardon my spelling and grammar errors. My phone's auto-correct is stupid sometimes, and I have big thumbs. lol

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

SFA437

posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 03:33 AM

link

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

I can see the 4th applying if consent is not given, or if it is withdrawn. This has actually happened several times where a flier has withdrawn consent, wishes to leave, and has been told they cannot. That is flat out, 100% illegal search & seizure. The flier is not free to leave and is being compelled against his/her will to be subject to an invasive search under threat of arrest by local police (who should really know better).

The airlines go along with this TSA/DHS nonsense for Federal money. Want subsidies then you do it my way or you don't get a dime. Duress... yeah I'd call it duress to a degree as the airlines are dependent on both subsidies and the ATC system. I could even drag my own personal peeve the Interstate Commerce Clause into it which is where the FedGod derives all of it's current power.

Myself- I choose to ride my motorcycle where I need to go or drive a car if the family is coming with me. I avoid TSA like the Black Death- I had to work with these addled morons when I got assigned to an airport in NC. The whole organization is stupidity on a Biblical scale.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

Had an officer lateral into my department who used to do that. He lasted 4 days on my squad. I suggested he resign before a townie shot him or I beat him to death for making my life so much harder. He sells jet-skis now (Sergeants in NC have their own little backchannel network )

No worries on typos- nothing good enuff yet to put on DamnAutoCorrect.com

edit on 14-7-2011 by SFA437 because: (no reason given)

backinblack

posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 03:33 AM

link

Aircraft are owned by the airlines. Nobody has a "right" to a seat on that aircraft to be transported wherever they wish to go.

You may have a "slim" point IF it was the airlines demanding and conducting these searches and scans,
but as far as I'm aware it's NOT them, it's the Government demanding these actions..

So IMO it IS against the constitution..

SFA437

posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 03:39 AM

link

reply to post by backinblack

The government does not mandate the procedures.

The government suggests procedures & regulations which need to be implemented in order to receive Federal funding and assistance. The airlines may or may not adopt the regulations at will. This is why you may board a general aviation aircraft without subjecting yourself to the TSA and fly wherever you wish to fly. It is why you may buy your own aircraft and do the same. You are not beholden to the FedGod for money so you can tell them to pee up a rope.

Keeping this in mind neither the 4th nor 9th attach and the searches are not unconstitutional.

edit on 14-7-2011 by SFA437 because: (no reason given)

backinblack

posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 03:41 AM

link

The government suggests procedures & regulations which need to be implemented in order to receive Federal funding and use of the ATC system.

That sounds like blackmail to me..

edit on 14-7-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)

SFA437

posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 03:45 AM

link

reply to post by backinblack

That is exactly what I am saying.

Private aircraft owners and passengers (even those paying for passage) do NOT need to pass any TSA checkpoint. How many grass fields are there all over the place with Pipers and Beechcraft on them?

Heck do you think John Travolta has a TSA crew living in his house- considering that his garage is an aircraft hangar and his driveway is actually a runway?

Seriously Google the guys house. I kid you not!

reply to post by backinblack

Many smaller airlines, because they are run correctly, do not need to rely on Federal funds. Subsidies are essentially one long, drawn out "bailout" following in the wake of the TWA and Pan-Am collapse and bankruptcy.

I live near MacArthur and Republic airports and there are numerous companies flying G3 and G5 jets and they do not mess with TSA. Just pay at the counter (or online) and get escorted to the plane by a company employee. No muss, no fuss and no hands in the pants (unless you want it and I am sure that would cost extra

)

edit on 14-7-2011 by SFA437 because: (no reason given)

backinblack

posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 03:53 AM

link

reply to post by SFA437

Many smaller airlines, because they are run correctly, do not need to rely on Federal funds. Subsidies are essentially one long, drawn out "bailout" following in the wake of the TWA and Pan-Am collapse and bankruptcy.

I live near MacArthur and Republic airports and there are numerous companies flying G3 and G5 jets and they do not mess with TSA. Just pay at the counter (or online) and get escorted to the plane by a company employee. No muss, no fuss and no hands in the pants (unless you want it and I am sure that would cost extra )

In Australian airports the security screening is before you enter the departure terminals..
So whether you're flying a major airline or small airline, you still must pass security..

Is it different in the states??
Is there a special aisle for people flying airlines that don't accept TSA scrutiny??

backinblack

posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 03:55 AM

link

The government suggests procedures & regulations which need to be implemented in order to receive Federal funding and assistance.

It's NOT mere suggestion if it affects Federal funding..

IMO it's called blackmail.

SFA437

posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 04:06 AM

link

reply to post by backinblack

They actually have a whole different section of the airport for general aviation. No checkpoints at all- just usually an office and waiting rooms.

You're not even within eyesight of the TSA which is why when I need to get somewhere fast I'll take a charter. I flat out refuse to fly commercial.

reply to post by backinblack

If I say to you "Hey I'll pay your mortgage if you do XXXX" and you decide to do it- that is not blackmail. That is a commercial agreement. Paying my lawn guy to cut my grass and describing how I wish it to be cut and stating that if he does not do it my way he will not get my money anymore is not blackmail either.

If the airlines were run correctly they would not need to be sucking on the FedGod's teat and could tell TSA to go get bent. They are not however and as such cannot.

backinblack

posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 04:18 AM

link

If I say to you "Hey I'll pay your mortgage if you do XXXX" and you decide to do it- that is not blackmail. That is a commercial agreement.

That's BS..
If the Fed was funding these airlines in the past and then suddenly say "Agree to these new conditions or the funding stops", I call that blackmail..

Aisling

posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 04:24 AM

link

Basically the message TSA wants to send to parents is, do not protect your children from us. You don't have the right to protect your children in our presence. We are going to touch your child if you want to fly. If you try to protect your child and you give us any trouble you will be arrested.

You know what this sounds like to me? Concentration camp type of rules.

I recently picked up my friend at the airport and she told me about how they grabbed her between her legs. She means GRAB too. She was wearing skinny jeans and a t shirt. She went through the scanner first and for some reason tripped it off so they led her over for the pat down. She said the woman also fondled her breasts in a manner that is fondling. She's never been sexually abused and she said that the process was so uncomfortable it made her almost cry. Don't anyone tell me that she should fly and or get herself a private jet either. Ridiculous!

backinblack

posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 04:27 AM

link

Basically the message TSA wants to send to parents is, do not protect your children from us. You don't have the right to protect your children in our presence. We are going to touch your child if you want to fly. If you try to protect your child and you give us any trouble you will be arrested.

And let's not forget they wish to roll out these procedures to other areas..
Soon they'll be at the entrance to Malls and Schools..

poopmaster

posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 05:02 AM

link

I don't believe that the majority of TSA peeps are getting a sexual thrill from the encounters, but I wonder how many get their jollies from the power trip their unquestionble authority gives them?
.

ALL of em.

SFA437

posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 05:22 AM
link

reply to post by backinblack

By your reasoning if I decide to change the way I want my lawn cut or the composition of the fertilizer- and tell my landscaper to do it my way or be fired- that is blackmail?

Considering I've gone through 4 yard companies in 7 years I should have been locked away in prison a long time ago! Hope nobody calls the cops

LadyGreenEyes

posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 05:24 AM
link

Originally posted by Bixxi3
reply to post by Vitchilo

she knew what she was getting in too. If you refuse the body scanners then you get a pat down. Im not saying itsw right but when you buy that ticket your agreeing with the security measures of the airport.

WRONG. In this country, we have a Constitutional right to NO illegal search and seizure of or persons or our property. These TSA procedures violate that right in SO many ways. Choosing to fly does NOT means one surrenders rights. Not to mention, some don't HAVE a choice. How about military families, who become stationed overseas? They have to fly to get there, so under these fascist policies, they are subjected to being irradiated, or groped? NO WAY that is right. NO ONE should put up with this. If every single person flying STOPPED, that had ANY option other than flying, the airports would lose so much money that they would demand the TSA stop this BS.

Obama got what he wanted; his own little civilian security force, to strip rights from the people.

SFA437

posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
WRONG. In this country, we have a Constitutional right to NO illegal search and seizure of or persons or our property.

If you give consent to the search it is NOT illegal (and nobody is seized by the TSA- they have no arrest power)

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
These TSA procedures violate that right in SO many ways.

No they do not.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Choosing to fly does NOT means one surrenders rights.

This is correct. Purchasing a commercial airline ticket and securing your boarding pass shows intent to waive your 4th Amendment rights. The airline demands a waiver of your 4th Amendment rights and submission to a search in exchange for a seat on their airplane and they are well within THEIR rights to do so.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Not to mention, some don't HAVE a choice.

I have yet to see someone marched to an airport at gunpoint and being forced through the TSA checkpoint under threat of death so in reality people DO have a choice.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
How about military families, who become stationed overseas? They have to fly to get there, so under these fascist policies, they are subjected to being irradiated, or groped? NO WAY that is right.

Military families may fly MAC / Space A and not even have to deal with civilian aircraft at all or even leave the military base's perimeter.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
NO ONE should put up with this. If every single person flying STOPPED, that had ANY option other than flying, the airports would lose so much money that they would demand the TSA stop this BS.

For that bit you got a star!

LadyGreenEyes

posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link

Originally posted by SFA437
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

You do know that the 4th Amendment can be waived with consent don't you?
*snip*
If you enter the airport you have already given consent to search your person and belongings. If you enter into a contract with the airline to fly on their aircraft then you have already given consent to be subjected to the measures adopted by the TSA.
*snip*
The title should read "Woman Places Child in Situation Where She Will be Body Searched and Flips Out Over Her Own Stupidity"... but that wouldn't generate the righteous outrage of the uneducated.

Oh, really? Where does it state, when you buy a ticket to fly, that you are waiving your rights? Oh, yeah, it doesn't. That's the biggest CROCK I ever heard. There is NO REASON to treat people worse than animals, and pretend that it's for anyone's safety. Id they gave a rat's behind about safety, they would not have ALLOWED the underwear bomber to fly, which they did, KNOWING he was dangerous. Simply choosing a form of transportation does NOT mean you voluntarily waive your Constitutional rights. That's exactly the attitude that the FASCIST controlling government wants their SHEEP to have. Not happening. Not myself, not my kids. Some jerk tries that with one of mine, would be more than yelling they had to deal with.