TSA Searches at the airport

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
This thread is created to debate why people consider searches at the airport to be a violation of the 4th amendment. Which is the protection against illegal searches and seizure.

It has been my argument that the airlines are a private entity. Therefore, are allowed to subject persons to search if they deem appropriate. Just like a dance club owner could subject people to search for weapons before admission to a club. Being that the search is elective, in other words, a choice of the citizen, then the search is legal. A person electing to use airplanes as a method of transportation therefore give up their protection against search and seizure in order to fly. This is far different than the police randomly knocking on your door and searching your house or person for no reason, which the constitution protects against.

The constitution makes taxes elective as well. There are to be no taxes that a person can't refrain from paying should they choose not too. Don't support gas taxes? Don't buy gas. Don't support a city sales tax? go buy products in another city. etc etc.. That's also the basis for the claim that income tax is an illegal tax with no foundation the constitution. But that's another thread for another time. Please, explain to the people WHY exactly should TSA searches in the airport (specifically) are a violation of the fourth amendment?




posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by foodstamp
 


If this whole affair is private, as you claim, then let private security do it. Why is the Federal Gov't involved?

Moreover, TSA is moving to bus terminals and train stations. Obviously, you ELECT to travel via airplane, so you can travel by other means if you want to avoid being unreasonably searched. But since buses and trains are also becoming subject to such searches, perhaps driving a car, whether your own or rented, would help. But wait, there are VIPR roadblocks being set up here and there.

I know. Perhaps walking or riding a horse! For now...

Furthermore, your entire discussion is from a flawed perspective. Tax is only so optional as you want to live off the grid. You will likely still have to pay property tax if you own a hut in the mountains on YOUR land, since you can't build it on gov't property or someone else's property. Thus, good luck avoiding to pay taxes. They're a sure indication that you don't own anything, since anything you own can be taken away from you if you don't pay taxes on it.

So, who are you pantering to?



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by foodstamp
 


I dont think the searches are illeagal. They just suck. It's a little demeaning to be handled in such a way by a stranger and Americans are not used to it. We have space issues and we are uncomfortable with our bodies.

Personally it wouldnt bother me one bit if they just said, "OK no carry-on luggage". There is no reason you need a bag of stuff with you on a plane. I have actually elected to not fly and drive instead because of the hassle that goes into flying now (not to mention the price). Youre right in saying that it is a private entity and they can do what they want. Luckily I havent been "forced" to fly since then so I am able to avoid it because I simply dont like it.

I do feel however for the people that are "forced" to fly on a regular basis.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by gandalph
 


Private security firms are becoming an option as you describe. And have become quite common in California. But for arguments sake, TSA is a private firm. It's government regulated however. So your wrong when you say the TSA is not a private agency.

And I also said "Airports specifically" not the other issues you describe.

So please, elaborate on the facts and legalities of the situation. Not your opinion... I understand your opinion and agree with it for the most part. But opinions don't run the country..Laws do... So describe how it's against the law or a violation of the 4th please.

PS,

Making the TSA government regulated also protects airline companies against suit from terrorist activities. If it were up to each airline to ensure safety on their flights they would be subject to suit. So believe me... If it were soley up to them.. Search procedure would be MUCH MUCH worse.
edit on 9/5/1212 by foodstamp because: Addition


PSS,

Also, your not required to go through a search at a VIPR checkpoint. Not unless there's probable cause... I'm afraid your misinformed on many things. But again, that's another thread for another time.
edit on 9/5/1212 by foodstamp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by underduck
 


I agree, however I don't believe anyones FORCED to fly. It may be a condition of there job. But the person chooses their job. If certain people were FORCED to fly, then this search policy wouldn't stand and would be illegal and a violation of the 4th.

I'm sure you already knew that and i'm taking you outta context. So forgive me, but I'm trying to be as clear and concise as I possibly can.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by foodstamp
reply to post by underduck
 


I agree, however I don't believe anyones FORCED to fly. It may be a condition of there job. But the person chooses their job. If certain people were FORCED to fly, then this search policy wouldn't stand and would be illegal and a violation of the 4th.

I'm sure you already knew that and i'm taking you outta context. So forgive me, but I'm trying to be as clear and concise as I possibly can.


No worries. Yeah I used forced in quotation marks because it isnt eactly forced if you have to do it for work. You could always quit. I am not FORCED to process paperwork but I do it because it feeds my family and puts a roof over our heads.

In an effort to be as concise as I possibly can I should say that I feel for people who think they are forced to go through such treatment.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by foodstamp
 


"Government regulated" That in and of itself tells me that TSA being a "private entity" means nothing in terms of freedom to operate in a manner that works in the best interests of the people.

Take the government completely out of the equation, hire true private entities in airport security, and the free market will rapidly weed out the idiocy that we see daily at the airports.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Airports are designated PUBLIC property. Not private. Look it up. Especially commercial airports.

There is nothing wrong with security when you are flying. But if you honestly believe the TSA is doing their job correctly then.....

We as tax payers have spent over $60 BILLION dollars on this farce of a security firm. They have caught absolutely ZERO terrorists. And please don't bring up the false flag shoe and underwear bombers. Those were 'needed' in order to bring in these full-body scanners that Chertoff wanted so badly.

Did you know that the TSA is now swabbing your drinks at the airport? After you've passed the security check point? Did you know they are barking 'freeze' at passengers and if you don't comply they pull you aside? This is not in the name of security. This is in the name of 'following orders'.

The vast majority of people who are working for the TSA have absolutely no knowledge of security. The TSA is more concerned with breast milk, shampoo and groping 6 year old children then they are with any real means of security. All they have succeeded in doing is make people NOT want to fly.

The TSA is a complete WASTE of money, and have accomplished nothing but causing terror on their own.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by crawdad1914
reply to post by foodstamp
 


"Government regulated" That in and of itself tells me that TSA being a "private entity" means nothing in terms of freedom to operate in a manner that works in the best interests of the people.

Take the government completely out of the equation, hire true private entities in airport security, and the free market will rapidly weed out the idiocy that we see daily at the airports.


You honestly think that if a private airline was solely responsible if a terrorist got on their flight that security measures would be less strict? Are you kidding me? They would be subject to less scrutiny and lesser oversight. God, there's one thing we can be assured of in a bloated government, that's oversight.

And again, airports have taken the TSA out and the result has been the same..

You appear to be a man over his thirties. Remember a time when racial profiling was big and frowned upon? Well, now you have EVERYONE being searched because of that public backlash in the 90's. the government is hated when everyones treated as a possible terrorist and is hated when they profile. In fact you can find arguments against both of those actions on the internet..Google it...



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by foodstamp
reply to post by underduck
 


I agree, however I don't believe anyones FORCED to fly. It may be a condition of there job. But the person chooses their job. If certain people were FORCED to fly, then this search policy wouldn't stand and would be illegal and a violation of the 4th.

I'm sure you already knew that and i'm taking you outta context. So forgive me, but I'm trying to be as clear and concise as I possibly can.


This entire argument annoys the hell out of me. To say that in this country we should accept the lunacy,and be willing to accept being groped and scanned is ridiculous. I have not flown in years, and refuse to because of what is going on at the airports. I love to travel, I really want to travel to Europe, I want to see the world. So to do this I should scarifice my dignity and that of my wifes? Yes you are correct, I dont have to Fly to Europe. A person who's job is dependent on flight, can quit his job, and hope to find another. A couple who misses their extended family living across the country, or overseas does not need to travel via plane to visit, they can ask for far more time off from work to travel by train, car or possibly boat. Hopefully they will still have their job after the extended time off. You'r staement that people do not need to fly, is pat, and shortsighted in my opinion.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by DerekJR321
Airports are designated PUBLIC property. Not private. Look it up. Especially commercial airports.



Yes this is true, however the airline is not. and that's the weapon and/or the method of terror. Not the airport...So close, but no cigar. I thought we had a viable argument there for a minute...



We as tax payers have spent over $60 BILLION dollars on this farce of a security firm. They have caught absolutely ZERO terrorists. And please don't bring up the false flag shoe and underwear bombers. Those were 'needed' in order to bring in these full-body scanners that Chertoff wanted so badly.



That we know of. due to government regulation, any caught terrorists would fall under the issue of "National security" and would not be released to the public. And to think that the government would instill mass fear and panic and lose millions, potentially billions in stock sales because they said they caught over 150 terrorist "last year alone" then you're mistaken. But i'm sure that would go against your mindset that the government is there to instill fear and control and has no interest in money. So you won't like my theory very much i'm sure.

I do agree that the shoe bomber and whomever were patsy's yes. But only to assure the public that security is needed because they HAVE in fact caught many terrorists in transit through airlines and international flights. To think that terrorists aren't traveling is simply dumb.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by crawdad1914
This entire argument annoys the hell out of me. To say that in this country we should accept the lunacy,and be willing to accept being groped and scanned is ridiculous. I have not flown in years, and refuse to because of what is going on at the airports. I love to travel, I really want to travel to Europe, I want to see the world. So to do this I should scarifice my dignity and that of my wifes? Yes you are correct, I dont have to Fly to Europe. A person who's job is dependent on flight, can quit his job, and hope to find another. A couple who misses their extended family living across the country, or overseas does not need to travel via plane to visit, they can ask for far more time off from work to travel by train, car or possibly boat. Hopefully they will still have their job after the extended time off. You'r staement that people do not need to fly, is pat, and shortsighted in my opinion.



Let's not forget that the TSA is now involved in Buses, Subways, and travel by Boat. People forget that the TSA is not just airlines. So basically your just supposed to accept being molested in order to travel anywhere.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by crawdad1914
 


Truth is crawdad...If we really wanted...Two days of non flight from say, half the travelling population would be enough to NEVER have another search again. But, most people don't agree with you and will do no such thing..They may hate it, but think it's necessary to stop bombers from getting on planes and stop terrorists from coming into the country. And you know what? They're right...

And it's legal.....



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by DerekJR321
 


Can someone please address the illegality? Please!? That's what this is about...Airlines...Not bus stations... Airlines and their illegality...



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by foodstamp
reply to post by DerekJR321
 


Can someone please address the illegality? Please!? That's what this is about...Airlines...Not bus stations... Airlines and their illegality...


Just Google "TSA Lawsuits" What you will find is many claimants winning on the folowing grounds:
The Administrative Procedure Act, the Privacy Act, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Fourth Amendment.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by foodstamp
reply to post by crawdad1914
 


Truth is crawdad...If we really wanted...Two days of non flight from say, half the travelling population would be enough to NEVER have another search again. But, most people don't agree with you and will do no such thing..They may hate it, but think it's necessary to stop bombers from getting on planes and stop terrorists from coming into the country. And you know what? They're right...

And it's legal.....



You're entire premis is operating under the assumption that the present TSA operating procedure is neccesary and proven to prevent terrorist attacks via airplane. I dont buy into this anymore than I buy into the argument that we need to accept the groping and the nude pictures taken of myself, my wife or our children.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by crawdad1914

Originally posted by foodstamp
reply to post by DerekJR321
 


Can someone please address the illegality? Please!? That's what this is about...Airlines...Not bus stations... Airlines and their illegality...


Just Google "TSA Lawsuits" What you will find is many claimants winning on the folowing grounds:
The Administrative Procedure Act, the Privacy Act, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Fourth Amendment.


Did you really google it? Cause the first two pages I didn't find one lawsuit that actually won. Although I will say they may be out there but certainly their in the minority. In fact on the first two pages, I counted 5 lawsuits that have been thrown out and none that won.

Congress passed the laws to empower the TSA because they found them to be within the scope of the constitution. And the supreme court has also uphekld that idea. a couple times over in fact.

I'm not interested If "Joe Blow" thinks his pat down was akin to "rape" and sued accordingly. I'm talking about ESTABLISHED law that contradicts the execution of elective searches.

Let me ask you a question off the topic a little bit. You're Joe Club owner. and last year, two people died in gunfights in your bar. Do you have the right to electronically "Wand" people if they want to enter your club?
Or do you feel the government should step in and tell you what you can and cannot do to ensure customer safety in your own club?

edit on 9/5/1212 by foodstamp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I will say this. To see a four year old get patted down is sickening. But what's more sickening then that is the mother and father that subject their child to it. KNOWINGLY! then record it! that's perverse!



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by crawdad1914

Originally posted by foodstamp
reply to post by crawdad1914
 


Truth is crawdad...If we really wanted...Two days of non flight from say, half the travelling population would be enough to NEVER have another search again. But, most people don't agree with you and will do no such thing..They may hate it, but think it's necessary to stop bombers from getting on planes and stop terrorists from coming into the country. And you know what? They're right...

And it's legal.....



You're entire premis is operating under the assumption that the present TSA operating procedure is neccesary and proven to prevent terrorist attacks via airplane. I dont buy into this anymore than I buy into the argument that we need to accept the groping and the nude pictures taken of myself, my wife or our children.



You're telling me you don't think stripping down every person is not a deterent to your average lone retard and uneducated fanatical terrorist? You don't get it? Really?? Come on dude... You don't believe you right now.

We live in a time where the masses are awakening to the criminality of the government. You don't think more people are empowered to DO something about it!?! really?

You don't think that these same people I speak of could harm innocent lives!? Please
edit on 9/5/1212 by foodstamp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by foodstamp
 


So your entire argument against my post is that... somehow YOU know that the government has caught hundreds of terrorists, and yet they just aren't telling us??? Seriously? Why would the government shove the "shoe bomber" down our throats, or the "underwear bomber" but magically hide every single other successful sting?

Oh and your argument about airlines being private? Yes.. that is correct. However, the TSA is not preventing you from getting ON the airline. They are preventing you from entering the boarding zone in the PUBLIC airport. So YOUR argument is wrong.

The FAA had security measures and testing in place long before 9/11 or the existence of the TSA. They were able to sneak weapons and explosives past security 90% of the time, if not more. When they made these reports known to their superiors, they were effectively shut down, or removed from their positions. You know what happened to the people who ran the FAA 'after' 9/11? They were given cushy positions in the TSA. The SAME higher ups who buried and ignored reports about airline security from the FAA inspectors.

NY Times: Inspectors say FAA Ignored Violations

The SAME people who ignored security warnings and violations were now put in high positions at the TSA. Makes you feel all warm and safe doesn't it? That someone who wanted to protect their own ass is now in charge of protecting yours?

Oh.. and as of 2011.. the TSA is operating with a 70% failure rate. That's the "reported" rate. I'm sure it is much much higher.

What's the TSA's current failure rate?

But feel free to convince me that the TSA are great and needed. Feel free to convince me that this $60 billion dollar monstrosity is doing a better job than any private firm could do at 1/8th the cost.





new topics
top topics
 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join