Police charge mother who stopped TSA from fondling her daughter

page: 6
51
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Why dont we just admit Terrorists (boogeymen) have defeated us?

OP hit the nail right on the head. Do away with the TSA immediately! As a customer, if you dont feel safe with less obtrusive security checks, than dont fly!

No one HAS to fly. Just like no one has to go to a bar where people are smoking cigs Stop flying and security will change.




posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by SFA437
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


Think you're a cpl pages behind which is causing me no end of frustration


Did you read the various contracts for carriage I posted where it specifies, in back & white, that they can refuse you service if you do not submit to a search of your person and belongings?

That is the waiver I am speaking of. If you wish to board THEIR aircraft that they own you must abide by their rules- the same as I would have to abide by yours if I was to ride in your car or visit your home. One cannot do whatever one wishes on the property of another.

As for MAC Space A- my wife got back and forth to Jordan twice and once to Germany without issue. Granted my son was 9 to 12 years old on the various flights over the years but it does work. If the child is too young to fly transatlantic ships still run. Flying is a convenience not a right.


Can you imagine the outrage, if I was to hire a nanny, and told them I got to pat them down every day before they could enter my home, or my car? There is no way that would be allowed. NO WAY. Just because this is a big business, and the fascist Fed is running the show, doesn't make it any different on the topic of the Constitution. If this is allowed to continue, then America is dead.

"If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of Almighty God, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." Samuel Adams

"The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the Americans freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizen of his plight." - John Fitzgerald Kennedy Columbia University, 10 days before his assassination

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from his government." - Thomas Paine

"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will Lose its freedom: and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that, too." - William Somerset Maugham (1874-1965), British writer

"The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts." - Edmund Burke (1729-97), Irish-born British politician, writer

"Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom." - Albert Einstein (1875-1955)

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison

"I know not what course others make take, but as for me: give me Liberty, or give me death." - Patrick Henry



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
As I stated before, and will state again, such a "contract" is already a violation.


No it is not a violation of the 4th any more than a waiver of a right to remain silent or to have counsel present is a violation of the 4th and 6th.


Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Several reasons why. One, it assumes that choosing to fly gives them a search warrant.


A warrant is applied for by a sworn law enforcement officer when probable cause exists to believe a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. A voluntary waiver is just that- VOLUNTARY and no warrant is needed, assumed or even comes into the picture.


Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
No judge, no probable cause, just open season.


When you purchase the ticket you consent to the search. Period. As much as you would like it to be otherwise, that wish does not change reality. Consent means no judge needed, no probable cause needed, no warrant needed because you are VOLUNTARILY ALLOWING the search by your action of attempting to board the aircraft IAW the contract of carriage.

If you wish to enter my house I can ask you to submit to a search of your person. If you say "Yes" then I do not need to find a police officer to go to a judge to attempt to gain a search warrant and then bring it back and execute the search.

You may not just walk in and do as you please on my property- the same as you may not walk in and do as you please on the airline's property.


Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Two, people can't even choose to just walk away. No, they are threatened, and arrested, all the time.


It has happened in the past but IIRC there was some case law on this in 2009-ish that prohibited TSA from detaining people who wished to leave rather than continue with the search


Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
You should take note of how far the TSA people go to publicly humiliate anyone that refuses their little x-rated scanners. Searched, groped, stripped, eve,n, right in full view of all the other passengers. At this rate, they will be doing body cavity searches before long, for all the world to witness. Stripping people of their rights, their privacy, their dignity, just to fly a plane? While, at the same time, knowingly allowing a terrorist aboard? You still haven't addressed that point.


I'm not saying that they are not ineffective cretins but rather that the searches do NOT require a warrant, judge, probable cause or a cop because they are voluntary IAW the owner of the aircraft's wishes nor do the violate the 4th as it does not attach to consensual searches IAW legally binding contracts between two private parties.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Any mother that lets these TSA junkies and crooks fondle their daughters or sons is no mother at all.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by SFA437
 


The airlines aren't the ones imposing these regs; the government is. If the airlines did this on their own, no one would fly, lawsuits would be rampant, and the procedures would be changed.

Regardless of some 2009 decision, people have been arrested this year for refusing, and not allowed to simply leave. Check YouTube for the videos; there are tons of them. The TSA is the new Gestapo.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Can you imagine the outrage, if I was to hire a nanny, and told them I got to pat them down every day before they could enter my home, or my car? There is no way that would be allowed. NO WAY. Just because this is a big business, and the fascist Fed is running the show, doesn't make it any different on the topic of the Constitution. If this is allowed to continue, then America is dead.


You would be well within your rights as a property holder to specify a search prior to them entering your home. If the nanny agrees to the searches then you are 100% legal and nobody's 4th Amendment rights get violated because the search was consensual. If the nanny does not agree you could deny her entrance to your home- she could not force her way in, screaming and yelling, then claim you violated her 4th Amendment rights.

I know of many bars here in NYC that do pat downs and hand wanding prior to letting you in. In order to gain access to that private property you have to be searched or find another place to drink beer.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 06:53 AM
link   
What if the headline read "Police charge mother who allowed her boyfriend to fondle her" instead? Anyone who believes the TSA is doing the right thing needs to rethink their beliefs.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


It is not a matter of who thinks up the idea but that the Airline has agreed to it. If they decide not to use TSA they can indeed have a terminal setup for them that does not use the TSA screening service. It may have been invented by the government but it is most certainly sanctioned by the airlines.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by SFA437
 



You would be well within your rights as a property holder to specify a search prior to them entering your home. If the nanny agrees to the searches then you are 100% legal and nobody's 4th Amendment rights get violated because the search was consensual. If the nanny does not agree you could deny her entrance to your home- she could not force her way in, screaming and yelling, then claim you violated her 4th Amendment rights.


So if a couple of 10 tear old girl guides turn up at my house wanting money for doing some work,
I'm within my rights to demand a pat down first and tell the little girls not to worry as it's perfectly legal??

Yeah sure mate, I'd be justifiably lynched by the irate family..

Touching kids is deplorable in anyone's language..



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by SFA437
 


Yeah, right....then the nanny would be bringing a lawsuit, trying to force me to employ her (or him) without such a search, claiming it was "discriminatory" or something, and they would win. NO WAY this would happen. Unless you are a government-controlled airline.

That's the point you keep missing. The government is forcing this.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byeluvolk
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


It is not a matter of who thinks up the idea but that the Airline has agreed to it. If they decide not to use TSA they can indeed have a terminal setup for them that does not use the TSA screening service. It may have been invented by the government but it is most certainly sanctioned by the airlines.


Really? Not the case at all. The government shut down a proposed Texas law that would make such groping a felony there, by threatening to close that airspace. If you don't think they would similarly threaten any airline that stood against them, think again. It's about control. They don't care at all about safety. They WANT things unsafe, so they can use fear tactics to control the sheep. Think about it.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 07:05 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.

This is where you ou have personal, individual rights of first refusal. That is a fact. I know law, been to law school. If you are not given full disclosure and a right o view the contract and strike out what you do not agree with, then it is intrinsic fraud. Anything done to you or your property is a crime, and invasion of your natural protected rights under 18 USC, 42 USC and enforceable under 28 USC.

This woman was not in the wrong, the airlines and government are in the wrong, as are people like you who believe this crap.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by SFA437
 


The airlines aren't the ones imposing these regs; the government is. If the airlines did this on their own, no one would fly, lawsuits would be rampant, and the procedures would be changed.

Regardless of some 2009 decision, people have been arrested this year for refusing, and not allowed to simply leave. Check YouTube for the videos; there are tons of them. The TSA is the new Gestapo.


So your contention is that airports had no security prior to the formation of the TSA?

That is funny as there was airline security when I took my first flight in 1977 and when I got stuck in an airport as a cop from 1998-2002. All those security personnel must have been a figment of my imagination


This is how it works-

Airlines have to provide security for the boarding gates according to government regulations (under authority of the Interstate Commerce Clause). They can opt out of having TSA employees (I refuse to call these mouth breathing morons "agents") however this comes at a price. They must hire their own security. It makes financial sense for the airline to allow the government to pick up the tab and keep TSA in place.

When you buy an airline ticket you give permission to the personnel the airline chooses to maintain security to search your person and belongings. These contracts of carriage have been around for 30+ years and people have been patted down and their belongings have been searched WAY before TSA came into being.

The rub was prior to TSA the security people were private employees, could be fired at will, had no collective bargaining and because of this acted like decent people. Now that the security is provided by government employees there is essentially no way to fire them due to civil service regulations (pushed by unions) so they may misbehave as much as they want with no fear of repercussions.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


No, every airport has a terminal that is for “General Aviation” all privately owned aircraft and most charter services use this terminal. There is absolutely no TSA in this terminal. It is up to the owners of each of these aircraft to either search you or not, at their whim. There is no government rule saying they must, and in most cases they do not, or do so in a very cursory and non intrusive manner. I fly on charter flights any time I am able, to avoid the waits and bull crap in the commercial terminals. If Delta or any other airline wished to be rid of TSA they could indeed setup their own terminals and avoid the TSA altogether.
edit on 14-7-2011 by Byeluvolk because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-7-2011 by Byeluvolk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


If the parents of the minor child agreed to a frisk prior to entrance yes- it would be legal.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


The nanny would have no basis to sue as she gave consent to the searches prior to accepting employment. The practice of searching employees is commonplace. Intel does it, diamond brokers and cutters do it, the US Mint does it... acceptance and consent trumps the 4th and precludes legal action.

Whether or not you choose to believe it makes no difference- this is fact.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


Please- for the love of all that is Holy- Google general aviation.

You do NOT need to pass TSA checkpoints to fly. John Travolta's driveway is a damn RUNWAY. The man does not have TSA personnel living with him, patting him down before he fires up his own personal 707 FFS.

PLEASE educate yourself for the love of the gods!
edit on 14-7-2011 by SFA437 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by SFA437

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by SFA437
 


The airlines aren't the ones imposing these regs; the government is. If the airlines did this on their own, no one would fly, lawsuits would be rampant, and the procedures would be changed.

Regardless of some 2009 decision, people have been arrested this year for refusing, and not allowed to simply leave. Check YouTube for the videos; there are tons of them. The TSA is the new Gestapo.


So your contention is that airports had no security prior to the formation of the TSA?

That is funny as there was airline security when I took my first flight in 1977 and when I got stuck in an airport as a cop from 1998-2002. All those security personnel must have been a figment of my imagination


This is how it works-

Airlines have to provide security for the boarding gates according to government regulations (under authority of the Interstate Commerce Clause). They can opt out of having TSA employees (I refuse to call these mouth breathing morons "agents") however this comes at a price. They must hire their own security. It makes financial sense for the airline to allow the government to pick up the tab and keep TSA in place.

When you buy an airline ticket you give permission to the personnel the airline chooses to maintain security to search your person and belongings. These contracts of carriage have been around for 30+ years and people have been patted down and their belongings have been searched WAY before TSA came into being.

The rub was prior to TSA the security people were private employees, could be fired at will, had no collective bargaining and because of this acted like decent people. Now that the security is provided by government employees there is essentially no way to fire them due to civil service regulations (pushed by unions) so they may misbehave as much as they want with no fear of repercussions.


There was better security then. These new procedures do NOTHING to make anyone safer. They can't see powdered substances, like the underwear bomber (who they government ALLOWED TO FLY) used, nor could they detect those in a pat-down. Unless you promote them grabbing inside your underwear as part of flying. No sane person could possibly think that would be alright. People were not patted down as standard procedure, and did not have NUDE scans done of their persons, until quite recently. I flew many, many times in the past. Metal detector, x-ray of the carry-on baggage, and presumably, of the checked luggage as well. That and some trained dogs would be enough. Well, that and refusing to allow suspected terrorists on the planes. With government consent! Any weird behavior, like the imams, you don't fly. Period. This new stuff isn't effective, and it's about control Can you not see that? Israel has far better security, and they don't do this. The Nazis didn't go this far. No, Obama has surpassed them for fascist BS. THAT is the issue you seem to want to avoid.

In any case, done for now; way past time for sleep. Will try and check later on for replies. Good debate. Nice to bring all the valid points out and discuss them.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by SFA437
 



If the parents of the minor child agreed to a frisk prior to entrance yes- it would be legal.


And what, the parents that signed off on that would NOT be charged??

Are you kidding me??

That would create one HUGE loophole for the pedophile industry..
You do know that many pedophiles prey on their own children right??

I can see new kindergartens opening everywhere if they get a hold of this loophole..

Can't have them damn children walking in with explosives now can we??
Hourly pat downs seem in order here...



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


I see the overall plan- hell as a GS15 with the DoD I was part of the overall plan at one point in my life!

What I am pointing out is not that TSA is effective or correct or a good thing or that there aren't 1000 better ways to run airline security. I am pointing out that they are using valid consent, under the conditions/contract of carriage, to conduct legal searches.

They may be immoral, over-reaching and unethical but they are legal.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   
The whole point of the matter, and the best way to protect the airlines is to SECURE OUR BORDER!!!!! Seriously, if our borders were secure and we were doing what we should have been doing for decades, then we would not have a terrorist threat at our airports. There are more ways to secure the airlines than to have body scanners and pat downs. For years the military and customs have used air sniffers to detect even trace amounts of explosive residue. So all you need is a walk through air chamber that pulses air and then analyzes the results and you are good to go. No invasive searching required. Besides, if a terrorist wants to do something on an airplane, they will already know how to do it and the TSA won't be able to stop it. Even I know what can work to bring them down and how to get it past TSA. Do you really think the advanced terrorists with their martyr attitudes can't figure it out?



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 



You are given full disclosure, the CoC is posted on their web sites, it is posted in the terminals, and in many case sit is even written on the back of your ticket itself. If at any time you wish to exercise your rights and not agree to this contract you may do so. However once you have entered that security zone you have now shown your intent to abide by this contract.

However as I have stated, I do not see the NEED for TSA in the current form. There are far faster and more cost efficient methods to provide adequate security. All it will take is people to express enough dislike for the current system and or just stop using commercial airlines whenever possible and the change will come very fast. The airlines are not going to continue to use TSA as their “chosen” security if they are no longer getting any customers. They will change their acceptance of the TSA model in a hurry.





top topics
 
51
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join