Airport staff 'exposed woman's breasts, laughed'

  • Thread starter Thread starter exoflare
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Listen_to_This said:
A state prosecutor cannot prosecute a federal employee for conducting his official duties because state laws are pre-empted to the extent they interfere with a federal regulatory scheme.

A passenger could only bring a tort action under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which makes federal employees immune for their official duties.

The federal government could bring a case, but the Office of Legal Council has surely approved the new search procedures. OLC reviews all legislation, and their opinions are binding on executive branch officials, meaning federal prosecutors have to follow their opinions. The attorney general can overturn an OLC opinion, but this almost never happens.

There really is no one to bring a case against the searchers, unless Congressman Paul’s bill passes.
Click to expand...
The new procedures are not “legislation” but regulations promulgated by the TSA. I do not know if they promulgated these rules by the notice and comment period or if they were able to do without the notice and comments, by calling them something else. I also doubt the OLC gives an office opinion on all regulations as there would just be too many.
 
jilly4ski said:
The new procedures are not “legislation” but regulations promulgated by the TSA. I do not know if they promulgated these rules by the notice and comment period or if they were able to do without the notice and comments, by calling them something else. I also doubt the OLC gives an office opinion on all regulations as there would just be too many.
Click to expand...
The regulations are authorized under Public Law 107–71.
 
Listen_to_This said:
The regulations are authorized under Public Law 107–71.
Click to expand...
umm this law authorizes the TSA to make regulations, it doesn’t spell out these regulations. The regulations themselves are written and developed by the TSA. I never said the TSA wasn’t authorized to make regulations, but just because they make regulations doesn’t mean that they can’t make regulations that conflict with their delegated authority or with other laws. Nor does it mean that the OLC gives opinions on all their regulations.
 
I was just pointing out that state laws that infer with the regulatory scheme are pre-empted.

I don’t know if OLC commented on new regulations or the underlying legislation. I would assume they did since there had to be an expectation of future ligation, but I obviously don’t have access to all their memos. It is kind of a moot point since the administration clearly supports the new regulations, they are unlikely to prosecute TSA. Frankly, I doubt even if the administration was opposed to the regulations that their response would be to prosecute a TSA worker.
 
Dirty dancing mum Lorena Clayton sidesteps jail
Lorena Camille Clayton, 44, of Keysborough,** ran her hands over a 16-year-old girl’s breasts and bottom** while dancing with her on April Fools Day 2006.
Clayton, who has a history of offending while drunk, was placed on a community-based order and ordered to perform 150 hours of unpaid community work.
The single mother of two teenage boys pleaded not guilty to assaulting the teenage girl and her sister, but a** County Court jury found her guilty of three counts of indecent assault and one indecent act with a child under 16.**<…>
Judge Gaynor ordered Clayton be a registered sex offender for eight years. She suspended a one-month jail sentence for two charges of driving while disqualified.
Click to expand...
What is different about what the TSA is doing?

They said that the scanners cannot store images when they patently can and do.

They said they would not subject children under 12 to the enhanced pat-down or scanner but they pat down 3 year olds.

They say that the TSA people are vetted thoroughly. I would have to ask - vetted for what since they have hired at least one person with a false identity who had 5 aliases, and was a sex offender. Then the guy who said this was unusual was himself arrested for sexual offenses. I don’t believe them when they say they thoroughly vet employees.

They say that the scanners are safe - I don’t believe them

They say it is for our safety - I don’t believe them.

Anyone with a weapon other than a bomb will be quickly dealt with by the other passengers. It is not like pre-9/11 where passengers cooperated with their hijackers to improve their chances of survival. Anyone brandishing a knife on board will be brought down very quickly.

Here in Australia, we have dogs sniffing baggage and patrolling the passengers. The dog does not need to stick its nose into your crotch. They can detect explosives just standing next to you. Passengers also get chosen at random for an explosives swab. They run a wand with a pad on the end over your body and check it for explosives. It takes about 15 seconds. This accomplishes the same thing that the TSA says they need to fondle your privates to detect. Moreover, every one of the agents who has chosen me for the swab was polite and cheerful, not rude, obnoxious and drunk with their own power.
 
pnewton said:
For one thing, you could consider the possibility, no matter how remote, that since the law is not your area of expertise, that you may not be the best arbitor of what is “wrong”.
Click to expand...
Point out the mistakes I made.
 
You don’t need to be a lawyer to comment on the law. You just have to be able to read.

My comments have been based on the legal texts and case law. Your position is nothing more than naked elitism. Lawyers are not the only people who can intelligently comment on the law. If you felt I was getting things wrong it would be one thing, but you are basically telling me to shut up because I don’t have a law degree.
 
Listen_to_This said:
You don’t need to be a lawyer to comment on the law. You just have to be able to read… If you felt I was getting things wrong it would be one thing, but you are basically telling me to shut up because I don’t have a law degree.
Click to expand...
No, I did not say that. And yes, one needs to be able to read. However, it is difficult to accept another one’s ability to read and understand law unless one can demonstrate the ability to read and understand the simpler English found here.
 
My earlier “misreading” involved reading a pronoun. The writer later wrote the pronoun stood for an antecedent that had never been used. I read the pronoun as replacing the only antecedent used that could have been “it”'s antecedent. A “misreading” that would have been avoided by careful pronoun use.

Legal texts usually use proper usage.
 
This forum is a very public field. When you post here, you are posting in front of hundreds of people. Some may be paying attention, some may not.

But in either case, a certain amount of discretion should be employed.

There is a difference between pointing out a mistake for correction and utilizing the mistake as some kind of whipping post.

As I have heard a number of times on this thread. Pray first, then post.

Charity will go much further in a public setting then would any stick.
 
vz71 said:
There is a difference between pointing out a mistake for correction and utilizing the mistake as some kind of whipping post.
Click to expand...
I did not use anything as whipping post. I honestly misread the sloppy pronoun use.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top