TSA Searches at the airport

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by foodstamp

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)


To you're first question, Yes I googled it. Try harder.

Wand, not grope or take nude pictures?

Sure, I have the right as a private club owner to wand anyone who wants to enter my establishment, I also have the right to go out of business if the club down the street does not take this "security measure"

If as a club owner I took nude pictures, and groped those entering my establishment I would likely have a lwasuit or two on my hand. Or at the very least word would get around that perverts were operating outside my establishment, and that would be sure to drive away business.




posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by DerekJR321
 


I'm not saying I know there's hundreds... I'm saying you don't know there's NOT hundreds. And that you CAN't EXPECT to know. Why would you? That goes against the whole reasoning behind "National security"

And again, I will explain myself one more time. I'm interested in the illegality of TSA searches. Hell I don't believe half the crap coming outta me right now. But i'm doing it for arguments sake. Personally, my "Views" on it are much like yours. But I can't find anything criminal about it! and we must all think critically if we are to find the truth. But all i'm finding right now is opinion. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.... I want you to convince me it's illegal.

The airport/airline thing is a good start.. I like that. But I'm afraid it's just a matter of schemantics. You say technically it's public space. I say the airports a doorway to a private entity... Maybe THAT's how the government gets away with FURTHER TSA intrusion. Like bus stops and checkpoints... Hmmm, perhaps were on to something..



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by crawdad1914
 


So "Wanding" is not a search? and body scanners are? Airports can't search but club owners can? Even if they have the same concern of safety? Am I getting you right? Cause I believe this whole TSA thing goes way back before 911 too when metal detectors were a "Violation of the 4th amendment" to many people as well.

And let's be real. Not penis or titties are showing up on these things. At least not anymore. they visually detect solid objects under garments. Just like a wand does it with an audio response. Same thing...
edit on 9/5/1212 by foodstamp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   


To you're first question, Yes I googled it. Try harder.


Could you send me, say, two links to seperate articles? I'm interested. after all, that is what I'm looking for. A Legal argument.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by foodstamp
reply to post by crawdad1914
 


So "Wanding" is not a search? and body scanners are? Airports can't search but club owners can? Even if they have the same concern of safety? Am I getting you right? Cause I believe this whole TSA thing goes way back before 911 too when metal detectors were a "Violation of the 4th amendment" to many people as well.

And let's be real. Not penis or titties are showing up on these things. At least not anymore. they visually detect solid objects under garments. Just like a wand does it with an audio response. Same thing...
edit on 9/5/1212 by foodstamp because: (no reason given)


When did they change the machines to be able to determine and edit genitals, from surrounding anatomy? This is new to me. I'm only aware of the scan machines that take full on body images genitals and all.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by crawdad1914
 


The changes are in the process of being made due to recently passed legislation. Couldn't tell you which law but here's a quote from the ACLU.

"New software being installed in some millimeter wave body scanners allows agents to see only a generic outline of your body with potential “anomalies” highlighted. This is a definite improvement in privacy. The machine will, however, still highlight some medical conditions or other bodily “anomalies,” leading to pat-downs.

Health questions have been raised concerning radiation emitted by the backscatter x-ray machines (which look like a wall that you stand against, as opposed to the millimeter wave machines which are a glass booth you step inside)"

For full information on both the censored scanners and the uncensored scanners you can go here.

www.aclu.org...



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by foodstamp
reply to post by DerekJR321
 


I'm not saying I know there's hundreds... I'm saying you don't know there's NOT hundreds. And that you CAN't EXPECT to know. Why would you? That goes against the whole reasoning behind "National security"

And again, I will explain myself one more time. I'm interested in the illegality of TSA searches. Hell I don't believe half the crap coming outta me right now. But i'm doing it for arguments sake. Personally, my "Views" on it are much like yours. But I can't find anything criminal about it! and we must all think critically if we are to find the truth. But all i'm finding right now is opinion. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.... I want you to convince me it's illegal.

The airport/airline thing is a good start.. I like that. But I'm afraid it's just a matter of schemantics. You say technically it's public space. I say the airports a doorway to a private entity... Maybe THAT's how the government gets away with FURTHER TSA intrusion. Like bus stops and checkpoints... Hmmm, perhaps were on to something..


Ok fair enough. I thought you were just straight up cheering for the TSA. I now see where you are coming from and so I will approach this discussion from a different angle. Thank you for clearing that up.

I have to go out for a job interview right now but when I get back I will dig around and see what I can come up with as far as hard evidence of the legality of what they are doing. I think the other poster (im sorry I forgot his name) has a good point though. If you were, as a private company, were to use the security measures of the TSA, you would probably be sued out of business. So we need to find out why it is OK for the TSA to do this, but not say, as he said a small night club. My guess? Big government. They do tend to get away with whatever they want. And if that is truly the case, i'm afraid we will never find "HARD" evidence. I've been doing my absolute best to not reference Alex Jones or Info Wars... unfortunately a lot of TSA stuff comes up under his site. I will stay away from it however for the sake of bias.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by crawdad1914
reply to post by foodstamp
 


www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.infowars.com...





Unfortunatley, the case concerning Lynsie Muller was won on the claim of Defamation by TSA because they laughed at her breasts. Not because the scanner or pat down was a violation of her rights.

And the other case is about a guy who got a case dismissed when he was charged with disorderly conduct after not allowing a search and also NOT LEAVING the airport untill police intervened. Perhaps being a "public space" is why the charges were dropped. But again none of this pertains to the legality of TSA searches.

This isn't gonna work...



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by crawdad1914
reply to post by crawdad1914
 


www.huffingtonpost.com...



Bud, I really appreciate your help, but are you reading these?

"The law states that TSA agents should be able to search for weapons and explosives, things that could pose a threat to flight safety. But extending their searches to fishing expeditions for general law enforcement purposes - searches TSA agents are not trained to perform - only serves to distract from that task."

And...

"On June 18, 2009, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit on my behalf in federal court, charging TSA with violating my constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. My focus was on principle rather than financial gain, and I did not seek money in the lawsuit. Rather, my case asked the court to order TSA screeners to conform their searches to the Constitution's requirements. Under the Constitution, TSA screeners do not have the unlimited ability to search and detain passengers. Search procedures designed for purposes other than screening for weapons and explosives exceed TSA's authority and violate passenger rights, and we hoped a court order could generate a policy from TSA that respected all travelers' liberties."

This article states that the TSA is LEGALLY able to search for weapons and explosives. Not detain due to large sums of money. Not to mention the case was not won in a court of law. The TSA simply changed there policy concerning large sums of money and the case was dropped.

This article actually solidify's what i'm saying..



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


So we need to find out why it is OK for the TSA to do this, but not say, as he said a small night club. My guess? Big government. They do tend to get away with whatever they want. And if that is truly the case, i'm afraid we will never find "HARD" evidence. I've been doing my absolute best to not reference Alex Jones or Info Wars... unfortunately a lot of TSA stuff comes up under his site. I will stay away from it however for the sake of bias.



Please address this when you return..

Actually, here in Michigan it's opposite. As a club owner you CAN conduct pat downs. The government has NO RIGHT to tell you what to do in your business. And no one gives any crap for this. Because to tell a club owner what to do with his business would be an intrusion into a private business.

But in the TSA's case. It's a private entity conducting searches that the government OVERSEES. So they should not be getting crap either. Cause they are being set up legally as a private company thus subject to their own rules and regulations concerning search of their customers.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I think these articles bring up another unmentioned point of mine.

When you (crawdad) approach an article with a certain bias, you will see what you want to see. For example. Alex Jones can stick a fancy title saying that the TSA lost a lawsuit because of infringing on someones rights. Our biased minds read that article and misinform our own selves at to what the article says or means.

Crawdad, you must approach all things with a critical thought process. Step back, take a breath and try to read these articles as there meant to be read. You know what's really sad about the third article you sent me? Is the fact that in the article the victim not only praises the TSA search policy, but admits and praises that it's LAW! A clear violation of the 4th amendment!But that's never even brought up! That's sad.. This guy is concerned about being detained over large sums of money. Not over the fact he was detained. Which is where he SHOULD be complaining.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
The only issue I see with what your saying is this. You are claiming the TSA is a civivlian agency overseen by the government. If that is so then TSA workers wouldn't be federal employess which they very much are. I was offered a job with the TSA and it would have continued my federal service from the military. An agency cannot be civilian when it is made up of DOD employees. I choose not to fly in order to not have to deal with them, but the idea that they are a civilian agency is just naive in my opinion. It may look that way on paper but go ask any TSA employee and they will confirm that they are DOD employed.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by foodstamp
I think these articles bring up another unmentioned point of mine.

When you (crawdad) approach an article with a certain bias, you will see what you want to see. For example. Alex Jones can stick a fancy title saying that the TSA lost a lawsuit because of infringing on someones rights. Our biased minds read that article and misinform our own selves at to what the article says or means.

Crawdad, you must approach all things with a critical thought process. Step back, take a breath and try to read these articles as there meant to be read. You know what's really sad about the third article you sent me? Is the fact that in the article the victim not only praises the TSA search policy, but admits and praises that it's LAW! A clear violation of the 4th amendment!But that's never even brought up! That's sad.. This guy is concerned about being detained over large sums of money. Not over the fact he was detained. Which is where he SHOULD be complaining.



Thanks for the advise.
Spin the storys however you like. You asked for a couple links to lawsuits filed and won against the TSA. I did that.
Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed the against the TSA, and likely more will be won in the coming years.
edit on 5-9-2012 by crawdad1914 because: spelling



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by usmc0311
 


Actually it's considered an agency of the DHS. Yes, but legally, it's incorporated as a private agency, Thus giving it certain priveleges of a private company.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by foodstamp
reply to post by usmc0311
 


Actually it's considered an agency of the DHS. Yes, but legally, it's incorporated as a private agency, Thus giving it certain priveleges of a private company.


That may be so but to me it is not a private agency when it is staffed by DOD employees. Funny how they get around certain things isn't it?



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by crawdad1914

Originally posted by foodstamp
I think these articles bring up another unmentioned point of mine.

When you (crawdad) approach an article with a certain bias, you will see what you want to see. For example. Alex Jones can stick a fancy title saying that the TSA lost a lawsuit because of infringing on someones rights. Our biased minds read that article and misinform our own selves at to what the article says or means.

Crawdad, you must approach all things with a critical thought process. Step back, take a breath and try to read these articles as there meant to be read. You know what's really sad about the third article you sent me? Is the fact that in the article the victim not only praises the TSA search policy, but admits and praises that it's LAW! A clear violation of the 4th amendment!But that's never even brought up! That's sad.. This guy is concerned about being detained over large sums of money. Not over the fact he was detained. Which is where he SHOULD be complaining.



Thanks for the advise.
Spin the storys however you like. You asked for a couple links to lawsuits filed and won against the TSA. I did that.
Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed the against the TSA, and likely more will be won in the coming years.
edit on 5-9-2012 by crawdad1914 because: spelling


Spin them? Lol... Hell, I quoted them! It doesn't get any clearer than the article YOU sent, stating that it's law that the TSA conduct searches for weapons and explosives. It's a FACT that none of the stories you sent have ANYTHING to do with the legality of search and seizure. Which is EXACTLY what we've been talking about the whole time! You call that spin? Lol

Clearly your going to continue to cherry pick pieces of my statements to try and distort them. I'm done with this argument. Your statements are clearly baseless and unintelligable at best.

I was very clear on what I'm looking for Crawdad. Over and over again I've said it. And there are no TSA lawsuits that they have lost that concern any violation of ones fourth amendment rights! None that you've claimed anyway. None on google and none on what you used as exmaples... N-O-N-E. That's a F-A-C-T. Not S-P-I-N.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by usmc0311

Originally posted by foodstamp
reply to post by usmc0311
 


Actually it's considered an agency of the DHS. Yes, but legally, it's incorporated as a private agency, Thus giving it certain priveleges of a private company.


That may be so but to me it is not a private agency when it is staffed by DOD employees. Funny how they get around certain things isn't it?


It's sickening really. I swear there's many people in government who's sole purpose is to poke holes in the constitution and to find very elaborate ways around it. In fact, that's exactly what I'm trying to show here. I hold the same views as everyone in this room concerning what the TSA does as being WRONG and in violation of the fourth amendment. But the interesting part is HOW they manage to make it legal and how they get it to bypass the rights of the constitution. But as you can see, I just keep getting attacked with opinions I'm in support of and not with any critical thought whatsoever. It would seem that many people have formulated their views around emotion and "news quotes" instead of understanding how these treasonous bastards work in such a genius fashion. How are we to ever fight back if we cannot even cite the proper laws?



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
The argument against, don't buy gas, don't fly, is the same as a SHOT GUN MARRIAGE.. We have the right to travel, and that includes planes/jets/trains/cars,etc. Just because someone builds cars, and some offer them in services like taxi's does not mean we should give up our constitutional rights at the whim of a business personal and be frisked for every taxi call.

Employers have to follow the constitution or they are violating individual rights in shot gun marriage deals. We have the right to homes, to travel, to live, to breathe, to work, to vacation (YES OVERSEE's) without anyone usurping our constitutional rights.

If buisnesses want that abolish them and then I want us to have people co-ops alligned with the constitutions and shares.


I hate their used car salesman language of trying to get out of having to comply with the constitution.

The technology and upgrades BELONG TO ALL OF US!!!!!
edit on 5-9-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)





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

log in

join