Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Do I have the right to refuse this search? (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Do I have the right to refuse this search?
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The complete history of how we went from point A to point B (naked scanners and crotch groping).
Scanners: Abdulmutallab, Reid, Chertoff, that Nicely Dressed Indian Man and the Great Terror Lobby
quote:
...Everyone must understand that ICTS is the worst airport security company ever to have existed…. FACT. They were running the show at Schiphol that day, just as they were at Boston’s Logan on 11th of September 2001, and as well when Richard Reid boarded his flight at Charles de Gaulle. This is the security company made up of crack Israeli ex Shin Bet agents, expert in counter-terrorism, that has the worst airport security track record in history. Prior to the 3 biggest air-terrorist acts in recent history this company actually managed to TURN OFF all procedures just at the moment when the terrorists were passing security. Mohamed Atta managed to breeze through the magnetic detectors with his boxcutters without so much as a beep. Richard Reid had already been identified as a potential threat, yet was allowed to board his flight. Abdulmutallab had all the markings of a suicide bomber and even his own father had reported him two weeks before, and the scanners just happened to be switched off that day. Either this company is really, really unlucky or its Israeli owners had a side-line more profitable than its airport security racket.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The latest poster boy for fighting this is in hot water now:
quote:
The Transportation Security Administration has opened an investigation targeting John Tyner, the Oceanside man who left Lindbergh Field under duress on Saturday morning after refusing to undertake a full body scan.

Tyner recorded the half-hour long encounter on his cell phone and later posted it to his personal blog, along with an extensive account of the incident. The blog went viral, attracting hundreds of thousands of readers and thousands of comments.

Michael J. Aguilar, chief of the TSA office in San Diego, called a news conference at the airport Monday afternoon to announce the probe. He said the investigation could lead to prosecution and civil penalties of up to $11,000.

TSA agents had told Tyner on Saturday that he could be fined up to $10,000.

“That’s the old fine,” Aguilar said. “It has been increased.”

I have listened to the recording and Tyner was reasonably courteous and did everything he should have. Now he will be made an example of because he refused to have his groin felt up by TSA screeners.

I particularly like the arbitrary increase in the fine amount. Nice.

[ November 16, 2010, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Might be- there's no guarantee at this point that he will be fined.

And where do you get the information that the increase was arbitrary?

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He's being made an example of because he dares to speak out against the system. Plenty of folks are refusing this BS; not so many are recording it and then posting the info online.
Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Certainly, but let's keep the facts straight- he's been threatened that he might be fined, he hasn't actually been fined. The maximum amount of the fine is generally set by statute, not an arbitrary number that's pumped up when someone feels like making it bigger.

There's absolutely going to be a vindictive probe for his challenge to abuse of authority, but ultimately, it's got to pass muster with a string of judges before it becomes final, which could, with a strong enough push, possibly even lead to rulings that cut back on the theater. Odds are against it, sure, but we haven't seen the outcome yet so claims that imply that he's already been arbitrarily fined are wrong twice over. This is the expected result of his civil disobedience, and I hope he gets the support he needs to let it play out properly and win some ground back.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
While the ACLU probably wouldn't touch it (they might, but are biased in what they support),
I'm interested in whether you have any particular evidence upon which you are basing this statement. I have found them to be quite catholic in their defense of Constitutionally-protected freedoms; what is the "bias" that you see?

Regardless, you were wrong in this particular case:

http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/homeland-security-wants-see-you-naked

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think these scanners are as safe as they are letting on. Mark my words: more people will end up dying from cancer caused by these scanners than would have been blown up by terrorists in airplanes.

The fondling I don't mind so much, but I would prefer a little pillow talk first.

It's always nice to have a choice though:

Rads.

Or nads.

The latest is that there are no religious exemptions, and that I agree with because we all know which religion would want to be exempt and that would defeat the whole purpose of violating our bodies if not our rights.

One curious thing I noticed on my last trip through the airport though was that the dumpy middle-aged guy with the greasy hair relieving the other guy in the little scanner viewing room was carrying a box of tissue and a jar of vaseline. Not sure what that was about, and I didn't ask.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ACLU isn't exactly the biggest supporter of some rights - gun rights come to mind, for example. To me, that makes them selective about what they peruse. They are very good at what they support, but they don’t always support the entire bill of rights from what I see (which is limited to what filters through media online these days). Granted, the NRA and other gun rights groups pick up the slack there, so maybe it isn't bias.

That said, I do stand corrected in my assumption. Heard an interview with Tyner yesterday - he said the ACLU had touched base with him just to let him know they were there to help if he wanted it, but he had not yet taken them up on it b/c, as of yesterday at least, there was no fine/charges yet.

He also said he would fight it all the way if they push it.

If it goes to trial, it could be very good or very bad - depending on how much you trust the courts to knock down or support such BS in the name of "security". I'm hopeful, but the judicial system is far from impartial and non-corrupted.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
The latest is that there are no religious exemptions...

Children under 12 will be exempted from the groping. If there's nothing wrong with feeling around in a 12 year old's crotch what's wrong with squeezing the genitals of a 10 or 11 year old?

What this means is terrorists must hide their bombs in the pants of someone 11 years old or younger. Problem solved, at least for a terrorist. This is some brilliant freaking "security".

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cb
Member
Member # 6179

 - posted      Profile for cb   Email cb       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe this has already been brought up and I missed it, but why isn't everyone up in arms about this as a violation of 4th Amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure? Isn't probable cause supposed to be present? Do we give probable cause simply by being airline passengers? Are we so scared of terrorism that we are willing to allow ourselves to be considered guilty before proven innocent?

And what about the naked images that were saved for whatever nefarious reason in violation of the supposedly strict regulations against such actions http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1330327/Airport-security-breach-naked-body-scanner-images-leaked-online.html?ito=feeds-newsxml ? They can guarantee us privacy all they want, once the images are on a computer - even for just a moment - with the proficiency of hackers today, it become public property.

I keep hearing interviews with passengers, some of them saying "If it makes us safer, then I'm for it". I wonder where the line will be drawn. If the next suicide bombing is attempted by someone with a plastic bomb tucked up his nether regions will these same passengers consider full cavity search part of the price of an airline ticket?

The answer to our problem is not to expose people to X-rays or to violate their personal space...the answer is Israelification http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-bother .

Posts: 347 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
4th amendment doesn't apply because you're technically opting into it by choosing to fly. You put yourself in the weird grey area between private business (the airlines and the airport itself) and public regulations that say that the TSA is the only option to actually conduct security. That's why you'll see most of the language around such incidents phrased so passive-aggressively (Not "we require you to be screened" but "You implicitly agree to submit to our screening")
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cb
Member
Member # 6179

 - posted      Profile for cb   Email cb       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
4th amendment doesn't apply because you're technically opting into it by choosing to fly. You put yourself in the weird grey area between private business (the airlines and the airport itself) and public regulations that say that the TSA is the only option to actually conduct security. That's why you'll see most of the language around such incidents phrased so passive-aggressively (Not "we require you to be screened" but "You implicitly agree to submit to our screening")

The idea that when we become a customer of the airlines and step into the airport we tacitly give up our constitutional protections should be abhorrent to everyone.

Did you read my link about the methods used by Israel? They are the experts...why aren't we following their example? It makes much more sense to me.

Posts: 347 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
4th amendment doesn't apply because you're technically opting into it by choosing to fly. You put yourself in the weird grey area between private business (the airlines and the airport itself) and public regulations that say that the TSA is the only option to actually conduct security. That's why you'll see most of the language around such incidents phrased so passive-aggressively (Not "we require you to be screened" but "You implicitly agree to submit to our screening")

Comments like this are interesting in light of other topics in this forum like: Federal Agents Assume Right to Seize Laptops at Border

Everyone browse that thread then come back here for a compare & contrast. Quite interesting.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cb:
Did you read my link about the methods used by Israel? They are the experts...why aren't we following their example? It makes much more sense to me.

They did a modified version of this by having TSA agents prowl around airports looking for suspicious behavior. It didn't work out so well. I think the way the Israelis do it has some issues with scaling to US air travel proportions.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Evolving:
quote:
Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri said prior to Pistole's testimony that she believed TSA was in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, because people would be hopping mad at TSA if Christmas bomber Umar Farouk Adbulmutallab had succeeded. She went on to say the new advanced imaging technology--which has caused uproar because of its leave-no-secrets imaging and potential health risks--is more of a blessing than a curse.
The "Christmas bomber" was an example of a TSA failure. Adbulmutallab did actually succeed in getting a bomb on a plane. The only reason the bomb did not go off was a faulty detonator.

quote:
"I'm wildly excited that I can walk through a machine instead of getting my dose of love pats," Sen. McCaskill said.
"Love pats"? I don't think Claire has a clue of what's really going on. And, those machines may or may not be safe. There is some genuine concern about repeated exposure there.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cb:
The idea that when we become a customer of the airlines and step into the airport we tacitly give up our constitutional protections should be abhorrent to everyone.

Constitutional protections are limits on what the federal government can do, not private citizens/businesses. Unless you're suggesting that we outright federalize the airlines, then private contract rules apply, not the restrictions imposed on government activity.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
4th amendment doesn't apply because you're technically opting into it by choosing to fly. You put yourself in the weird grey area between private business (the airlines and the airport itself) and public regulations that say that the TSA is the only option to actually conduct security. That's why you'll see most of the language around such incidents phrased so passive-aggressively (Not "we require you to be screened" but "You implicitly agree to submit to our screening")

Comments like this are interesting in light of other topics in this forum like: Federal Agents Assume Right to Seize Laptops at Border

Everyone browse that thread then come back here for a compare & contrast. Quite interesting.

No private companies are involved there, so border crossing doesn't have the same kind of loopholes to be abused.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
The "Christmas bomber" was an example of a TSA failure. Adbulmutallab did actually succeed in getting a bomb on a plane. The only reason the bomb did not go off was a faulty detonator.

You're saying that the TSA runs airport security in Amsterdam and Yemen as well?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
4th amendment doesn't apply because you're technically opting into it by choosing to fly. You put yourself in the weird grey area between private business (the airlines and the airport itself) and public regulations that say that the TSA is the only option to actually conduct security. That's why you'll see most of the language around such incidents phrased so passive-aggressively (Not "we require you to be screened" but "You implicitly agree to submit to our screening")

Comments like this are interesting in light of other topics in this forum like: Federal Agents Assume Right to Seize Laptops at Border

Everyone browse that thread then come back here for a compare & contrast. Quite interesting.

No private companies are involved there, so border crossing doesn't have the same kind of loopholes to be abused.
Are you saying that if the federal government mandated that private companies do the actual laptop seizing then it wouldn't have been a problem?
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LoverOfJoy:
Are you saying that if the federal government mandated that private companies do the actual laptop seizing then it wouldn't have been a problem?

You're assuming action on the wrong end- they couldn't employ people to seize laptops, but they could mandate that companies add requirements to submit to laptop search and seizure to their contracts, since people have to option of simply not agreeing to the contract and accepting the services of the companies in question.

It's a loophole that can be abused pretty badly, which is why it's pretty important to recognize the way it works rather than trying to pretend that the Constitution applies to private individuals or businesses.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cb
Member
Member # 6179

 - posted      Profile for cb   Email cb       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by cb:
Did you read my link about the methods used by Israel? They are the experts...why aren't we following their example? It makes much more sense to me.

They did a modified version of this by having TSA agents prowl around airports looking for suspicious behavior. It didn't work out so well. I think the way the Israelis do it has some issues with scaling to US air travel proportions.
Possibly.

Or it could have to do with the level of training they agents received before initiating the program.

And, BTW who said it didn't work so well? I don't recall hearing or reading where that scaled down version was especially disastrous or allowed more attempted terrorism than does our present system.

It's more likely it was too much work or the TSA employees complained or the union objected or some kind of complaint was filed about profiling.

The fact is, the Israeli security works. If we have the personnel to cover the security we have now I can't imagine that taking those same TSA agents and having them ask simple question instead of harassing customers would require much growth in TSA employee ranks.

Now training, as it would take some time to properly train agents to recognize suspicious reactions, is the only down side I see to Israeli security measures. I'm willing to put up with other security measures until such training can take place as long as it is TEMPORARY!!!

Posts: 347 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by cb:
The idea that when we become a customer of the airlines and step into the airport we tacitly give up our constitutional protections should be abhorrent to everyone.

Constitutional protections are limits on what the federal government can do, not private citizens/businesses. Unless you're suggesting that we outright federalize the airlines, then private contract rules apply, not the restrictions imposed on government activity.
So what you are saying then is that the act of purchasing an airline ticket from an airline or an agent representing the airline waives your right to your 4th amendment protections and that is okay since it is a private organization and not the government. Even if this were a valid argument, and I do not think it is, how does that make it okay for a government agency to act in violation of your 4th amendment rights? What I am saying is that if the argument is valid then it would still have to be that private organization or another private organization acting on its behalf that acts against your 4th amendment rights and not a government organization like the TSA.
Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The "Christmas bomber" was an example of a TSA failure. Adbulmutallab did actually succeed in getting a bomb on a plane. The only reason the bomb did not go off was a faulty detonator."

There was zero TSA involvement in him being on that plane. He started in Yemen and transferred in Amsterdam. He also managed to get on that plane in Amsterdam WITHOUT having a passport - something the TSA would surely prohibit. Eyewitness accounts put a "sharp dressed middle-aged Indian-looking gentleman" with him and talking him through security. We could verify/dispel that if the security video from Amsterdam were to be released… But, surprise surprise, it’s unavailable.

It has all the makings of a setup.

On another note, am I the only one who finds it difficult to believe the organization alleged to have orchestrated 9/11 is reduced to relying on suicidal (and not in the good way for a bomber) imbeciles who can't even put together a proper bomb? (Richard Reid included)

It all reeks of BS.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cb
Member
Member # 6179

 - posted      Profile for cb   Email cb       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by cb:
The idea that when we become a customer of the airlines and step into the airport we tacitly give up our constitutional protections should be abhorrent to everyone.

Constitutional protections are limits on what the federal government can do, not private citizens/businesses. Unless you're suggesting that we outright federalize the airlines, then private contract rules apply, not the restrictions imposed on government activity.
Ummm, the TSA is a federal agency, not private. As a federal agency they should be respecting and honoring Constitutional strictures.

Out of curiosity, how do you conscious the idea that a private company operating in America isn't or shouldn't be governed by Constitutional law??

It historically has taken a large measure of probable cause to sanction bare body search (which is what this amounts to) by any kind of security. How the same people on this site who shouted (and still shout) and protested (and still protest) the invasion of privacy under Bush's security measures after 9/11 can sanction this outrageous assault on our persons of the most intimate nature is beyond me.

Posts: 347 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Alex Jones interview w/ John Tyner yesterday (15 minutes total) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8XnZPVcXhM&feature=player_embedded
Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave at Work:
So what you are saying then is that the act of purchasing an airline ticket from an airline or an agent representing the airline waives your right to your 4th amendment protections and that is okay since it is a private organization and not the government. Even if this were a valid argument, and I do not think it is, how does that make it okay for a government agency to act in violation of your 4th amendment rights? What I am saying is that if the argument is valid then it would still have to be that private organization or another private organization acting on its behalf that acts against your 4th amendment rights and not a government organization like the TSA.

I didn't say that it was okay. "Okay" is a value judgement that's completely separate from "legal". Pointing out the legal reality of a situation is in no way making a judgement about whether it's the right thing to do.

And, again, the government isn't acting in violation of any rights here. There isn't any direct requirement from the government that you be searched- the requirement comes from your contractual agreement with the private company to allow a search before you get on their airplane. The company is legally within its rights to assert that precondition, just as you are within your rights to decline a contract with that precondition. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about what terms may or may not be in private contracts. The government can regulate the terms of contracts, which is what creates the loophole that allows it to indirectly require you to agree to submit to the search as a condition of accepting the contract.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
The "Christmas bomber" was an example of a TSA failure. Adbulmutallab did actually succeed in getting a bomb on a plane. The only reason the bomb did not go off was a faulty detonator.

You're saying that the TSA runs airport security in Amsterdam and Yemen as well?
This is precisely my point. The TSA does not and cannot control air safety as this demonstrates. Instead, it must rely on faulty detonators or other fortunate circumstances. No matter how many people they fondle, there will still be gaping security holes that cannot be addressed which will render these invasive searches irrelevant.

quote:
Originally posted by Colin JM0397:
There was zero TSA involvement in him being on that plane. He started in Yemen and transferred in Amsterdam. He also managed to get on that plane in Amsterdam WITHOUT having a passport - something the TSA would surely prohibit

But he flew in anyway didn't he?

[ November 17, 2010, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cb:
Ummm, the TSA is a federal agency, not private. As a federal agency they should be respecting and honoring Constitutional strictures.


It's not the TSA that you're buying an airline ticket from. It's the terms of the ticket agreement that you must submit to the search, not a direct power of the TSA.

quote:
Out of curiosity, how do you conscious the idea that a private company operating in America isn't or shouldn't be governed by Constitutional law?

Because they're governed by statutory law. The Constitution is the defining document of the Government, it's not a statute or regulation. You have legal protections in business transactions, not Constitutional ones.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
There isn't any direct requirement from the government that you be searched ...

That is patently false.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
The "Christmas bomber" was an example of a TSA failure. Adbulmutallab did actually succeed in getting a bomb on a plane. The only reason the bomb did not go off was a faulty detonator.

You're saying that the TSA runs airport security in Amsterdam and Yemen as well?
This is precisely my point. The TSA does not and cannot control air safety as this demonstrates. Instead, it must rely on faulty detonators or other fortunate circumstances. No matter how many people they fondle, there will still be gaping security holes that cannot be addressed which will render these invasive searches irrelevant.
You said it was a failure of the TSA. To be a failure of the TSA, it would have had to have been the responsibility of the TSA in the first place. Stopping him from getting on a plane was the responsibility of security at the airports he was screened at; the failure at that point is a security risk, but it's one that's completely tangential to the TSA, even if they used it as justification to step up the bull within the scope of their authority.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
There isn't any direct requirement from the government that you be searched ...

That is patently false.
The TSA can just stop you on the street and search you then?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
You said it was a failure of the TSA. To be a failure of the TSA, it would have had to have been the responsibility of the TSA in the first place.

Are you saying it is not the responsibility of the TSA to provide security for flights? Well, it is. That's what they were created to do. Bis Sis agrees with me:
quote:
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano conceded Monday that the aviation security system failed when a young man on a watchlist with a U.S. visa in his pocket and a powerful explosive hidden on his body was allowed to board a fight from Amsterdam to Detroit.
"The aviation security system failed", that system being the TSA.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cb
Member
Member # 6179

 - posted      Profile for cb   Email cb       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Edited because of more current replies that furthered the debate.

quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
[QUOTE]
And, again, the government isn't acting in violation of any rights here. There isn't any direct requirement from the government that you be searched- the requirement comes from your contractual agreement with the private company to allow a search before you get on their airplane. The company is legally within its rights to assert that precondition, just as you are within your rights to decline a contract with that precondition. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about what terms may or may not be in private contracts. The government can regulate the terms of contracts, which is what creates the loophole that allows it to indirectly require you to agree to submit to the search as a condition of accepting the contract.

You have legal protections in business transactions, not Constitutional ones.

The Constitution is the law of the land upon which all other laws are predicated. That is why when a company infringes on Constitutional freedoms the Supreme Court of the Land has been brought into it through lawsuits.

Any contract that asks a person to give up Constitutional rights in order to partake of it's services should be sued out of it's socks.

And please keep in mind that the TSA IS a Federal Agency and IS bound by Constitutional dictates.

[ November 17, 2010, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: cb ]

Posts: 347 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
There isn't any direct requirement from the government that you be searched ...

That is patently false.
The TSA can just stop you on the street and search you then?
Did you know that the TSA has a reach beyond the airport? They cover mass transit:
quote:
Through the Surface Transportation Security Inspection Program, or STSI, we [the TSA] have deployed 100 inspectors assigned to 18 field offices across the country, to provide support to our nation’s largest mass transit systems.
Rail:
quote:
The Freight Rail Division will ensure the secure movement of all cargo on our nation’s freight rail systems and promote the free flow of commerce by working with our [the TSA] public and private sector partners to maintain a secure, resilient and sustainable network.
The airport is just the most common area of contact with the TSA. It's not the only place they operate.

For example:
quote:
The TSA today launched a test program to measure the feasibility of explosives screening for people and bags traveling on U.S. trains. Amtrak and Maryland Rail Commuter (MARC) passengers boarding at the New Carrollton train station will be screened for explosives starting May 4 as part of a pilot project to make rail travel safer, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced today.


[ November 17, 2010, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cb:
The Constitution is the LAW OF THE LAND and any company that operates within the borders of this AMERICAN nation is subject to that LAW!


The Constitution is the defining document of the US government. It's a contract that defines the structure of the government and ensures specific protections from its powers for the people. It is the law the government must abide by and that we can use to protect ourselves from overreach. It does not offer any private protections.

You can sign Non-disclosure Agreements with companies, and be sued in civil courts for breaking them. While there are some statutory regulations on them, they're not violations of the first amendment, because they're private agreements, not government mandates. (You'll note, similarly, that it's a civil suit that the guy above was threatened with- one, essentially, for a certain breach of contract- not a criminal offense) The constitution is irrelevant in matters of private contracts, except as it allows or restricts the ability of the government to regulate those contracts.

quote:
Any contract that asks a person to give up Constitutional rights in order to partake of it's services should be sued out of it's socks.
No contract can ask a person to give up constitutional rights. But constitutional rights only apply to direct government action. Even after you buy a ticket, you can decline to be searched, but the airline can (and, by regulation, must) decline to let you on the plane if you do so. The government can't impose any criminal sanctions or fines on you for declining the search, but you can be sued in civil court for breach of contract per the terms of the ticket.

quote:
And please keep in mind that the TSA IS a Federal Agency and IS bound by Constitutional dictates.
Indeed. And as such it can't legally force you to submit to the search- you'll note the guy above was not searched when he refused it. However it can legally enforce the contract that say you can't cross the line if you haven't been searched because there is no Constitutional guarantee that forces it to allow you access to private property or to get on an airplane.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Did you know that the TSA has a reach beyond the airport?
I hear that plums tend to be purple as well.

That's got nothing to do with the point. The TSA can't directly force you to be searched- but you can't force whatever form of transportation that's in question to carry you or admit you into their private property if you choose not to submit to the search that was a contractual requirement for admittance.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Pyrtolin said:
And, again, the government isn't acting in violation of any rights here.

So the following right doesn't exist?

quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave at Work:
quote:
Pyrtolin said:
And, again, the government isn't acting in violation of any rights here.

So the following right doesn't exist?

quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Not in regards to private contracts. If you sign a contacts saying that you consent to, say, drug testing as a condition of employment, your employer can test you for drugs. If you sign a contract saying you agree to be searched before you get on a plane, you can be searched before you get on the plane. The amendment only applies to direct government action, not contractual agreements that you opt into.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If 1) the government requires that these provisions be included within a private contract, and
2) The government then operates an agency which carries out the duties thus contracted, then

everything else that remains is just a shell game. Agreed, Pyrtolin, that it is a shell game with the barest vestige of legality, but any court that didn't have its collective head up its bum would toss this out on its ear, not say 'why, in this state of heightened threat, we /need/ to circumvent these bothersome restrictions!'

Well, from what I've heard, people are opting to drive this holiday, for the most part, rather than fly--despite reasonably high gas prices. Excellent. If the airlines /do/ have the smallest amount of say in this whole process, maybe this will wake them up.

Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Did you know that the TSA has a reach beyond the airport?
I hear that plums tend to be purple as well.

That's got nothing to do with the point. The TSA can't directly force you to be searched- but you can't force whatever form of transportation that's in question to carry you or admit you into their private property if you choose not to submit to the search that was a contractual requirement for admittance. [/QB]

Yes, it has everything to do with the point. Quit playing with your plums for a moment and think.

The TSA can and does force you to be searched. Use Google and do a search beyond the limited personal perceptions you're applying to this. You might want to see what's happening out in the real world, it ain't what you suppose is happening.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1