Ventura Decries "Fascist" America After Judge Tosses TSA Case

reply to post by Xcathdra


As I understand it, once you are in the security line you cannot leave unless you are willing to pay a heavy fine. I may be remembering wrong but I thought that was the case.

Question for you, how would you approach this to make changes and hopefully get rid of TSA? Since 4th amendment does not apply, how do we approach it properly to create change?

reply to post by Erongaricuaro


First of thank you for asking me what I think, instead of just assuming im pro TSA / evil government.

The TSA is a joke. The intent of the TSA is valid, but the execution is horrible and a waste of tax payer money. I believe that any agency whose purpose is to have constant contact with the public in an offical manner should be under close scrutiny with varying levels of oversight and checks and balances.

The question people must ask themselves AND answer for themselves is what level of security are they willing to give up their freedoms for? When we live in a free democratic (broad sense) society, people must accept the fact that we wont be 100% safe as well as 100% free.

If we chose to do away with TSA and airport security, we have to accept the fact that the plane we are on could be hijacked, have a bomb on board, etc etc etc.

The TSA, just like law enforcement, is a one way road with media. When we do something wrong, it makes the news. When we stop something, its on page 45C below the fold in the lifestyle section of the paper.

I understand the issues people have, especially with the TSA. My question is what do we do? Get rid of it all together and take our chances? Make changes to more easily define their function? People need to keep in mind that what we have now is from a knee jerk reaction from 9/11. At the time, if people remember, the airlines and federal government were taken to task for allowing it to occur in the first place and for not taking appropriate action to head it off.

Whats the answer?

reply to post by Xcathdra


ill second that, read my motto, those who know the least obey the best.

Originally posted by e11888

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Asktheanimals

 

TSA is not empowered to do anything with regards to private vehicles.

And if they did it would be against the law correct?

Correct. Impersonating Law Enforcement comes to mind and if I look I could probably find a few other laws that might cover them. As I said Commercial trucks are governed by a completely different set of laws, specifically when it comes to RS / PC and searches.

This is based on what we know about the TSA highway issue to date. We need to see the fine details to be certain about what their function and authority will be.

Originally posted by TXTriker
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

As I understand it, once you are in the security line you cannot leave unless you are willing to pay a heavy fine. I may be remembering wrong but I thought that was the case.

Question for you, how would you approach this to make changes and hopefully get rid of TSA? Since 4th amendment does not apply, how do we approach it properly to create change?

To my knowledge there is nothing that prevents a person from getting out of a TSA checkpoint line, and I say this because ive actually had to do it twice over the summer (non leo capacity). I have never seen anything about fines attached to it either. Since TSA is not comissioned law enforcement, I dont see how they could even enforce let alone offically cite a person for that.

There was an incident in Texas if I remeber right where some type of encounter between the TSA and a traveler went downhill pretty quick, resulting in pretty uch a fight. Local law enforcement responded and, again if I remeber right, refused to cite the traveler for assulat on an officer because the TSA is not law enforcement.

To make the changes people need to decide exactly what type of security, in a borad sense, is needed. As for changes people MUST get involved with government at all levels. They must understand their rights and how they apply. They must understand that just because a current law appears idiotic to them, the law is still present and cant just be ignored.

With the amount of people who gon on record all over the country complaining about the TSA, I have only see a few handfull of people actually do something beyond just the initial complaining. Vote with your wallet as well. If people decided to protest the TSA checkpoints by refusing to book airline tickets, the airline companies would be forced to apply pressure to get changes needed to get back business.

Stand up, be heard, be knowledgable about the law, even ones you dont agree with and go from there.

It is absolutely all about participation by the people. Its our country that seems to be holding us hostage and its going to require citizens to remind the government who is really in charge.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Mellok

 

The core problem is the Patriot Act.
If it weren't for this dangerous manifesto being created, we wouldn't have to deal with any of this.

Question about the Patriot Act. What exactly does the patriot act affect?

not trying to be a jerk or anything, but I keep seeing it invoked and am curious.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by backinblack

 

Car, bike, walking, naval vessel just to name a few.

If a person walks into a resteraunt / bar / hospital / mall / retail store etc, and an employee asks to inspect your purse / bag, you have every right to refuse. The business in question also has the right to refuse service to anyone they choose.

Why are people upset with TSA security, yet they say nothing when they enter a courthouse, a Federal courthouse or a clothing store with the detecors at the front to deter shoplifting

I suppose that the loss prevention detectors at the front door of the Gap wouldn't try to put its hand down the business end of my underwear in the name of fighting terror.

It amazes me how people sit here and defend those that wish to keep us in the grip of fascism.

Originally posted by illuminatislave
I suppose that the loss prevention detectors at the front door of the Gap wouldn't try to put its hand down the business end if my underwear in the name of fighting terror.

Since when has the TSA put their hands down anyones underwear?

Originally posted by illuminatislave
It amazes me how people sit here and defend those that wish to keep us in the grip of fascism.

It amazes me how quickly you and others jump to a conclusion instead of reading the posts and understanding the position. I also find it funny that people will scream fascism while not even understanding the law or how their rights work.

Aside from that, what exactly are you doing to force change?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by backinblack

 

Knowing full well what type of security is used in US airports I would say yes, business travelers made a choice.

As for the rest of your post, if you enter a store and they ask to pat you down, you can refuse. You can head out of the store and shop at one that doesnt have that level of security.

Travel within a state as well as across state lines is a constitutionaly protected right.
However, the manner of that transportation is not.

So, if i enter an airport, am required to be patted down, and i refuse, i can walk out without being detained and/or arrested/charged and make may way to an international airport within the continental US that does not require such pat downs/security measures?

Don't think so.

Plus, stores, in general, are generally private businesses. Airports generally are not.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by backinblack

 

Knowing full well what type of security is used in US airports I would say yes, business travelers made a choice.

Insofar as they have the choice to quit said job instead of be subjected to the security procedures required to perform said job, then technically yes; however, business travelers have not made the choice where their means of living are on the line (occupation and income) and when they sometimes have to travel to maintain said employment.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by TXTriker
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

As I understand it, once you are in the security line you cannot leave unless you are willing to pay a heavy fine. I may be remembering wrong but I thought that was the case.

Question for you, how would you approach this to make changes and hopefully get rid of TSA? Since 4th amendment does not apply, how do we approach it properly to create change?

To my knowledge there is nothing that prevents a person from getting out of a TSA checkpoint line, and I say this because ive actually had to do it twice over the summer (non leo capacity). I have never seen anything about fines attached to it either. Since TSA is not comissioned law enforcement, I dont see how they could even enforce let alone offically cite a person for that.

I checked the TSA website and it says you can refuse but won't be allowed to fly. However, I know there was some discussion about fines, etc when they were first starting to use the new nude scanners. I guess they decided against it with all the uproar. I wish I could find it because I'm pretty sure there were threads on here at the time.

Thanks for your responses. Do believe there are any other options besides just not flying to express the level of dissatisifaction the citizens feel. I haven't flown since 2009 but I doubt that there are enough people refusing to fly to make a huge difference and the ones that don't really don't put it out anywhere.

What would you suggest to make the airlines aware that some are not flying because of TSA. Something that could show that a significant amount of people no longer fly. It would take a significant amount to get the airlines' attention.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Erongaricuaro

 

The question people must ask themselves AND answer for themselves is what level of security are they willing to give up their freedoms for? When we live in a free democratic (broad sense) society, people must accept the fact that we wont be 100% safe as well as 100% free.

If we chose to do away with TSA and airport security, we have to accept the fact that the plane we are on could be hijacked, have a bomb on board, etc etc etc.

The TSA, just like law enforcement, is a one way road with media. When we do something wrong, it makes the news. When we stop something, its on page 45C below the fold in the lifestyle section of the paper.

I understand the issues people have, especially with the TSA. My question is what do we do? Get rid of it all together and take our chances? Make changes to more easily define their function? People need to keep in mind that what we have now is from a knee jerk reaction from 9/11. At the time, if people remember, the airlines and federal government were taken to task for allowing it to occur in the first place and for not taking appropriate action to head it off.

Whats the answer?

edit on 5-11-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

I think that TSA should be severely cut back if not eliminated. We had very few incidents prior to 9/11 considering the number of flights. The hijackers got on the plans with box cutters. How did they get through the checkpoints then. I know it was a long time ago but I don't think even then that type of item should have gotten through. Even after we had to start removing shoes, the shoebomber got through.

I know we never hear about the plots they stop - maybe they should be more eager for us to hear about those.

I would be willing to return to the old system of scanning bags and the metal detectors. With the scanning of bags to include the chemical tests. I care far more for my freedoms than false security which is what TSA provides. Too many things still get through for it to be worth what we've given up.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Oh, I dunno I suppose the complaints of people in regards to the Nazi TSA's patdowns are all hot air.

I guess I wouldn't mind molestation style pat down and nude scanners as long as the voyeur pervert is a female.

And I am doing plenty. Making sure that my tools are prepared to own the traitors to this nation of great people, for example. Debating with provocateurs. Stuff like that.

Originally posted by Liquesence
So, if i enter an airport, am required to be patted down, and i refuse, i can walk out without being detained and/or arrested/charged and make may way to an international airport within the continental US that does not require such pat downs/security measures?

If you are going to refuse the patdown, why get in line in the first place? As far as other airports there are, especially in border states that fall under non controlled.

Originally posted by Liquesence
Don't think so.

ok

Originally posted by Liquesence
Plus, stores, in general, are generally private businesses. Airports generally are not.

The first fully private major airport in the United States is located in Branson Misouri (not to be confused with Springfield-Branson airport in Springfield). Aside from that they are quasi private with boards. Since the governing agency for air traffic is federal, airports fall under the special category, just as commercial vehicles do.

Originally posted by Liquesence
Insofar as they have the choice to quit said job instead of be subjected to the security procedures required to perform said job, then technically yes; however, business travelers have not made the choice where their means of living are on the line (occupation and income) and when they sometimes have to travel to maintain said employment.

When a person is sent on a business trip by the company they work for, they are doing so to represent the company, not themselves or their personal opinions.

As I said though I understand what you guys are saying. We can start a thread on the TSA that would be never ending. The problem I see though is not solely with the TSA. When people complain about the TSA and demand something should be done, they they need to get involved. Simply complaining and bashing the TSA / Government doesnt really accomplish anything does it?

Originally posted by TXTriker
I checked the TSA website and it says you can refuse but won't be allowed to fly. However, I know there was some discussion about fines, etc when they were first starting to use the new nude scanners. I guess they decided against it with all the uproar. I wish I could find it because I'm pretty sure there were threads on here at the time.

The TSA started down the road of issuing fines to people who refuse the body scanner, and a different fine for those who refuse to the screening. They wanted it up to 10k. It didnt go anywhere for obvious reasons. However the perosn responsible for that suggestion should be whacked in the nose with a tack hammer and sent to the corner to think about what they did.

Originally posted by TXTriker
Thanks for your responses. Do believe there are any other options besides just not flying to express the level of dissatisifaction the citizens feel. I haven't flown since 2009 but I doubt that there are enough people refusing to fly to make a huge difference and the ones that don't really don't put it out anywhere.

The irritation / anger is present among the travelers, as well as those who dont fly who see it as an atack on liberties and freedom.

All it takes is one lone voice to get the choir singing.

Originally posted by TXTriker
What would you suggest to make the airlines aware that some are not flying because of TSA. Something that could show that a significant amount of people no longer fly. It would take a significant amount to get the airlines' attention.

Call your representatives at both levels of government (federal / State). Send in letters to the airlines, be respectful and on point. As we saw with the BoA fiasco if enough people take notice and say no, changes can occur. The same can work for airlines as well. Right know they can just blame the TSA while ignoring the passengers. Take away enough passengers and the TSA checkpoints now interfere with how the airlines do business.

Affect the bottom line enough and the message gets through.

Its going to require people do more than just complaining - They must get involved.

Xcath, Thank you for the excellent insight to procedures and protocol.

My daughter still had the bejeesus scared out of her. It was very intimidating,according to her.

Although no laws may have been broken,she said she felt like a criminal.

I told her maybe they lied, and there really was a BAD GUY around.

Which is worse? Conceived scare or real one?

Originally posted by TXTriker
I think that TSA should be severely cut back if not eliminated. We had very few incidents prior to 9/11 considering the number of flights. The hijackers got on the plans with box cutters. How did they get through the checkpoints then. I know it was a long time ago but I don't think even then that type of item should have gotten through. Even after we had to start removing shoes, the shoebomber got through.

The TSA vs Private security issue is one of those rare instances where the private sector was worse off than the government sector. Prior to 9/11 secuity at airports were private, and those people ho under paid for the job they were expected to do. The box cutters if I remember right werent a prohibited item on planes. I beleive pocket knives were allowed as well. The logic the federal government uses at times though seems to be more dangerous than what the terrorist can do.

As an example when it was suggested to allow the pilot / coi pilot to be armed with a gun. There was a huge debate over that, and no one really saw that with a gun or without a gun, the pilot / co pilot could just crash the plane.

I think the idea of standardized security is sound, but the manner its been executed has been an absolute disaster.

Originally posted by TXTriker
I know we never hear about the plots they stop - maybe they should be more eager for us to hear about those.

Thats because feel good sories dont pull in ratings. For every news coverage of law enforcement doing something right, you will find at least a hundred other stories showing what went wrong, and even then they rarely follow up as the story plays itself out. As far as releasing info about plots, its a catch 22. I agree with you that info should be released. However, it creates the problem of possibly exposing methods / sources of information gathering.

Originally posted by TXTriker
I would be willing to return to the old system of scanning bags and the metal detectors. With the scanning of bags to include the chemical tests. I care far more for my freedoms than false security which is what TSA provides. Too many things still get through for it to be worth what we've given up.

There are absolutely no guarantees in life. I would rather be killed knowing it was because we didnt compromise our principles / ethics than to be alive living in a glass box for our safety.

We do need some type of security at the airports, as well as better options on the airplanes itself. People should brainstorm ideas and bug their reps about it. Hell bug the airport boards as well. People must be heard and the only way thats going to occur is for people to stop relying on others to fight the fight.

Originally posted by illuminatislave
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Oh, I dunno I suppose the complaints of people in regards to the Nazi TSA's patdowns are all hot air.

I guess I wouldn't mind molestation style pat down and nude scanners as long as the voyeur pervert is a female.

And I am doing plenty. Making sure that my tools are prepared to own the traitors to this nation of great people, for example. Debating with provocateurs. Stuff like that.

So in other words your going to just sit there and criticise / complain because standing up and saying no now is to hard?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by e11888

 

Thats just it though. There is no 4th amendment violation. A pat down and a search are 2 compltely different actions. Secondly, its voluntary - meaning a person can either choose to go through security, or not go through security and arrange another method of travel.

Terry Vs. Ohio

LOL You call that an option?

My goodness, my grandfather an great grandfather who served WW1 and WW2 are rolling in their graves for freedom right now.

The problem here is the pat-downs and scans assume that everyone going through an airport is a danger/threat.
I can see why someone in their own country who is considered a potential threat for no reason could be offended

When you trade security for freedom, freedom is lost. It's amazing, you never really hear a lot about "America, Land of the Free" anymore, do you?

Originally posted by niceguybob
Xcath, Thank you for the excellent insight to procedures and protocol.

My daughter still had the bejeesus scared out of her. It was very intimidating,according to her.

Although no laws may have been broken,she said she felt like a criminal.

I told her maybe they lied, and there really was a BAD GUY around.

Which is worse? Conceived scare or real one?

You're welcome. Keep in mind my responses are based on my experiences / encounters / treaining etc. You will find others who dont agree with my conclusions and will offer up there own. Im all for accepting more than one point of view especially on a topic where people perceive the issue in so many different ways.

The 64k dollar question of course. To scare or not to scare.

There must be a balance. When that balance is disturbed in some manner, it should always error to the side of the people and not security. However the people must respond to those problems knowing that they cant get a fix in 48 hours. They must allow for time to look at the problem and find the best way to counter it that doesnt go to far to the left or right in terms of freedoms.

Our FEderal Government was not designed to be efficient. In fact its quite the opposite and thats done to ensure the minority opinioin is heard. This topic should be treated the same way, and people should feel free to offer alternatives to what we have in place now.

Look at it this way. If the people can suggest a solution to airport security that works, I can see the federal government running with it. The government knows how people feel about the TSA, so anything that comes from the people in the form of a solution is win win for them, since they can play politics with the outcome of the change.

in the very end though, it comes back to the people being involved and holding the government accountible. If all we are going to do is complain and nothing else, then why bother? In that particular instance we are getting exactly what we are asking for.

Originally posted by EspyderMan
LOL You call that an option?

Until the people get off their buts and participate in government to force the changes they want - yes.

Originally posted by EspyderMan
My goodness, my grandfather an great grandfather who served WW1 and WW2 are rolling in their graves for freedom right now.

Im not sure why. Air travel is not a consitutionally guaranteed right.

Originally posted by EspyderMan
The problem here is the pat-downs and scans assume that everyone going through an airport is a danger/threat.
I can see why someone in their own country who is considered a potential threat for no reason could be offended

And the first time a person is treated in a different manner you will have lawsuits out the butt. People are against the TSA yet want some type of security. People are against racial profiling, but want security. People are against behavior profiling, yet want security.

Whats your solution that accomplishes the goals?

Originally posted by EspyderMan
When you trade security for freedom, freedom is lost. It's amazing, you never really hear a lot about "America, Land of the Free" anymore, do you?

edit on 5-11-2011 by EspyderMan because: (no reason given)

That happens when we elect a person who spends his time appologizing to anyone and everyone for the US. That happens when our representatives represent any and all intrests except those of the people they represent.

Freedom is not lost, however I would agree that its being detained. Only the people can fix this mess, and its going to require hard work and participation and above all else - compromise.