Why do so many people have an issue with the TSA?

Originally posted by defcon5
If you give people something to gripe about, some always will.
Others go in looking for a fight because they are on a crusade and trying to make a point.

Ultimately though, they have no leg to stand on. The Contract of Carriage for an airline, which you agree to when you purchase your ticket, gives them the right to do any type of search they wish to you. You waive your rights as part of the contract between you and the airlines, to travel as their passenger.

My apologies in advance and with all due respect... ignorant drivel. One cannot "Contractually" or any other way sign away a right nor can anyone offer a contract requesting such. Under law the contract is null and void.

Under the 4th Ammendement of the Constitution of the United States of America all citizen's are afforded the right to be secure in their persons, property and affects and no contract as such can request or require one to abrogate those rights in excahnge for a good or service. Such a request is illegal and immediately voids said contract.

reply to post by kozmo


Actually, that's not correct. If you voluntarily enter into a contract, you enter into the terms and conditions that form part of that contract. Those terms could - frankly - be almost anything - but you determine whether or not you enter into them. I believe that the only exception would be where a contract relates to an explicitly illegal venture (e.g. the procurement of illegal drugs) - as the act is initself illegal, then the contract is void.

You do realise that when you purchase any good or service legitimately, you are entering into a contract (and the terms that apply to it). That's common, accepted practise.

If you believe you have found a 'loophole' in common contract law, I would be very interested to hear more about it!

Why do so many people have an issue with the TSA?

I will take your question literally absent all the emotional arguments we see so often.

IMO People most often have issue with the TSA because they are an easy and highly visible image of government intrusion and thus are an easy target for those that see "government oppression" everywhere.

Of course this discounts the reality that airline travel is a free-market choice we make and agreeing to the security screening is part of that choice. Otherwise, no one is comming to your home to randomly pat you down and you have the obvious choice to simply not purchase the "product" and not submit to the requirements.

That said, my personal issue with the TSA is that it seems to be an expensive charade, done largely for the sake of appearances. It catches on the most unsophisticated of folks who might wish malice.

There are more sophisticated and less intrusive ways of screening passengers and places like Israel are very good at this. It involves highly trained individuals who ask simple questions while watching for near imperceptable 'tells".

We could have less intrusive pat downs etc., still do the customary basic luggage scan, basic detectors and search and incorporate trained screeners and would have much less issue and better results.

Instead we have low-paying folks that are handed a long list of semi-intrusive search protocols and are not well trained to spot sophisticated smugglers or wrong-doers whoa re often well trained to circumvent the well known protocols.

Originally posted by kozmo

Originally posted by defcon5
If you give people something to gripe about, some always will.
Others go in looking for a fight because they are on a crusade and trying to make a point.

Ultimately though, they have no leg to stand on. The Contract of Carriage for an airline, which you agree to when you purchase your ticket, gives them the right to do any type of search they wish to you. You waive your rights as part of the contract between you and the airlines, to travel as their passenger.

My apologies in advance and with all due respect... ignorant drivel. One cannot "Contractually" or any other way sign away a right nor can anyone offer a contract requesting such. Under law the contract is null and void.

Under the 4th Ammendement of the Constitution of the United States .....

No offense...but please think. You go to a concert of baseball game and you have the choice to refuse a search or pat down. Ditto when you fly American Airlines, United, etc. etc.

No one is demanding to search you. You can simply say "no thanks" and turn around and walk away. Free-choice, free-markets...no constitutional violation. This is like claiming that a gas station that refuses to serve you because of "no shirt, shoes, no service" is somehow discriminating against you.

You retain your freedom from illegal search and only submit to that search via free choice...otherwise, don't enter the baseball stadium, skip the concert, don't attand that rally for Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin or don't get on the plane.

Your freedom from illegal search remains intact.

reply to post by Indigo5


Exactly. Well put

It seems more and more common for the American Constitution to be seen as nothing more than a 'get-out' clause for people who actually just don't like the fact that life doesn't work the way they want it to.

reply to post by Indigo5


Apprently several have not considered "duress" as a legal claim to void said contract. When on is coerced or placed under duress to surrender to terms of contract where inalienable rights will be surrendered, said contract shall have no force of law.

Next, non-sequitur... TSA are NOT the airlines and said "Contract" provided by and agreed to with said airline is NOT a viable extension granting federal authority jurisidiction to void my inalienable 4th Ammendment Right. So you all can argue "Contract" all you want... I would like the TSA to show me the contract I entered into with them surrending my inalienable 4th Ammendment Right.

Originally posted by ComeFindMe
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Exactly. Well put

It seems more and more common for the American Constitution to be seen as nothing more than a 'get-out' clause for people who actually just don't like the fact that life doesn't work the way they want it to.

That may be the most ignorant and dangerous staement I have read in years - if not EVER! The Constitution IS a "Get out" clause. It is the VERY CLAUSE that forces the government to GET OT of our lives and grants them only very specific authority over it. Your post belies your ignorance on the founding principles of this once-great country. Public education has replaced those principles with propagandized non-sense that leads to statements just like yours.

In America we do as we are told. If the media tells us to hate something we do it. XD!! If the media told the people to love the TSA I am sure they would. I do not like them because sticking your hand between my cheecks and under some ones Brest is not going to stop anything. Planes are allot safer then cars and its not because the TSA. Sooner or latter we are going to have to be rapped just to drive a car if this kind of crap continues. I LOVE being radiated and worrying about cancer. ITS AWESOME!!! The TSA was made from goverment jobs. Like 9/11 and the underwear bomber. Since then no one has attempted to high jack a plane. Even though you can. I saw a video on youtube of a man sneaking stuff threw TSA with no problem. When I flew to Hawaii I got a knife on the plane, it was in my bag, I forgot it was their. Give the pilot guns and the plane wont get high jacked. You cant get a gun threw a metal detector.

We all know the plane was not high jacked with a couple of box cutters. If that was the case people would have fought back.

Originally posted by kozmo
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Apprently several have not considered "duress" as a legal claim to void said contract. When on is coerced or placed under duress to surrender to terms of contract where inalienable rights will be surrendered, said contract shall have no force of law.

Next, non-sequitur... TSA are NOT the airlines and said "Contract" provided by and agreed to with said airline is NOT a viable extension granting federal authority jurisidiction to void my inalienable 4th Ammendment Right. So you all can argue "Contract" all you want... I would like the TSA to show me the contract I entered into with them surrending my inalienable 4th Ammendment Right.

There is no duress. You approached the airline to buy a ticket. If you don't agree with terms that a company offers, then you just don't use that company. Defcon5 highlighted that you can still charter a flight and not fall 'foul' of TSA checking - so no one is stopping you from flying.

Airlines have an obligation to provide a safe environment to their customers - the use of body scanners and pat downs is unquestionably a safety measure and in this instance, they are actually meeting their obligation to you and to the other passengers by providing this service (you have accepted that their measures are appropriate by buying their ticket).

The contract you want proof of is self-evident in your presence at the check-in desk, with a ticket for a flight and your willingness to board said flight. The TSA are supplying a legally-sound service to the carrier you are flying with - and with which you entered into a contractual agreement.

reply to post by ComeFindMe


You are missing the point. I'll accept your premise that I have a contract with an airline. I'll accept your premise that airlines have a responsibility to provide a REASONABLY safe traveling environment. HOWEVER, my contract does NOT extend to the TSA nor does it grant the airline or any other entity the right to void my inalienable rights.

In fact, the airlines and airports have been trying to to rid themsleves of the TSA altogether. So please, minus silly non-sequiturs, please explain how anyone has contracted with federal goons to violate my rights?

Well not everyone is against it, some like their genitals juggled.

Originally posted by kozmo

That may be the most ignorant and dangerous staement I have read in years - if not EVER! The Constitution IS a "Get out" clause. It is the VERY CLAUSE that forces the government to GET OT of our lives and grants them only very specific authority over it. Your post belies your ignorance on the founding principles of this once-great country. Public education has replaced those principles with propagandized non-sense that leads to statements just like yours.

I'm very pleased I have had that effect on you! Do you not think it is equally as ignorant to presume that a document written over 200 years ago can still be just as applicable now as it was then? That it is above reproach? That because in this instance, as it benefits you, you choose to have it 'supercede' common-sense rules you don't agree with?

"They said if I don't walk through that scanner or let them pat me down, they can't let me on the flight!"

Oh the inhumanity!

Originally posted by ComeFindMe
reply to post by kozmo

 

Actually, that's not correct. If you voluntarily enter into a contract, you enter into the terms and conditions that form part of that contract. Those terms could - frankly - be almost anything - but you determine whether or not you enter into them. I believe that the only exception would be where a contract relates to an explicitly illegal venture (e.g. the procurement of illegal drugs) - as the act is initself illegal, then the contract is void.

You do realise that when you purchase any good or service legitimately, you are entering into a contract (and the terms that apply to it). That's common, accepted practise.

If you believe you have found a 'loophole' in common contract law, I would be very interested to hear more about it!

Cool! So all I have to do is make up a contract with some fine print where the signer agrees to be my slave for the rest of their lives. Since they agreed to it, the 13th Amendment doesn't apply. Slavery will be reborn!

reply to post by FoxMulder91


Because they do not give happy endings or act very professionally when you ask for one.
(I couldn`t help it)

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom

Originally posted by ComeFindMe
reply to post by kozmo

 

Actually, that's not correct. If you voluntarily enter into a contract, you enter into the terms and conditions that form part of that contract. Those terms could - frankly - be almost anything - but you determine whether or not you enter into them. I believe that the only exception would be where a contract relates to an explicitly illegal venture (e.g. the procurement of illegal drugs) - as the act is initself illegal, then the contract is void.

You do realise that when you purchase any good or service legitimately, you are entering into a contract (and the terms that apply to it). That's common, accepted practise.

If you believe you have found a 'loophole' in common contract law, I would be very interested to hear more about it!

Cool! So all I have to do is make up a contract with some fine print where the signer agrees to be my slave for the rest of their lives. Since they agreed to it, the 13th Amendment doesn't apply. Slavery will be reborn!

Please re-read my post, that you kindly requoted. Contracts are void where they relate to explicitly illegal ventures. Slavery is illegal. The contract you have in mind would be invalid.

i can tell you why americans have such an issue with tsa. we don't have an issue with security. we don't have an issue with wanting safe flights. we have an issue with unwanted touching. american society is much different than most countries'. we need space. meaning we need about a good 2 ft of space from our person. this personal space is quite unique to americans and our need for others to not violate our space. people from other cultures and nations are used to having given up personal space and sensitivities. we are not ready to embrace such intrusion into our space. the body scan is quite intrusive, but the thought that someone is going to pat us down is degrading and demeaning. look, of course we all know its gonna happen, but we don't have to like it. and its going to take some time to get used to.

reply to post by kozmo


The airlines subcontract most contracts (aircraft construction, food and hospitality, computer systems etc) - so how is doing the same thing for security any different? You don't enter into an agreement with Boeing or Airbus when you get on one of their planes, so why should you need to enter into an agreement with the providers of the security checks?

reply to post by ComeFindMe


Aren't warrantless searches also illegal?

I just had to mention that TSA agents have been found using the SAME GLOVES to perform strip searches on hundreds of people! The only thing they do is smear some quick hand sanitizer on the gloves and then shove them right down the next persons pants. That's not right. Also felt the need to mention such incidents as the one with the elderly woman who had a colostomy bag. The TSA were very rough and busted the poor ladies bag contents all over her. I'm pretty sure she couldnt fly at that point. I've heard interviews of fathers breaking down to tears over their young teen/pre-teen daughters being forced into "pat downs". The girls are left emotionally scarred afterwards. I can imagine depending on the roughness, such an experience can feel similar to a rape as a young child. Hell, even Jesse Ventura reported his testicles being bruised by the TSA during a rough "fondle". He has completely denounced airline travel until the TSA is no longer affiliated.

These all sound like good reasons to hate the TSA to me.

I detest the TSA because they violate our rights, grope our children, do virtual strip searches without probable cause, and in essence represent many of the problems that we face as a nation.

Too many people feel that the TSA is protecting us, when in reality they're inept at everything except vigorous searches of children, the elderly, disabled and other vulnerable persons. They hide behind secret rules, and discount common sense.

The problem is that after 10 years most people have forgotten what it was like to be free to travel freely without having your rights violated.

Are we any safer with these goons manning the airport gates? I say no.