Airport staff 'exposed woman's breasts, laughed'

  • Thread starter Thread starter exoflare
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
canadianguy1143 said:
This isn’t the lawyers forum. This isn’t the law forum. This is Catholic Answers Forum. The law can be corrupt as abortion is legal so spare us on trying to merge our morality with US laws.
Click to expand...
Whether the 4th amendment has been violated is a legal question. Whether someone has been sexually assaulted in a legal question.
I would like to ask you again if you think its okay to laugh at a woman who has her breasts exposed?
Click to expand...
No. But we do not know if it really happened.
 
Listen_to_This said:
Keep in mind that under the law those characteristics cannot include:
Code: 
* Race - Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866
* Color - Civil Rights Act of 1964
* Religion - Civil Rights Act of 1964
* National origin - Civil Rights Act of 1964
* Sex - Civil Rights Act of 1964
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand.

I’m not sure how much control we have over foreign airports that have flights departing to the US. But I would hope we have almost complete control. I’ve never flown out of the country, do they have TSA or something similar for foreign flights entering the US? Also, each and every passenger would be questioned. From what I understand the underwear bomber and many of the suicide bombers are often on some sort of chemical substance.

But on foreign soil, if possible the characteristics would have to include the country of origin, flight path(round trip, one way), and criminal history. I would expect there are others, but I’m no expert on this matter. And a bomb dog to walk by every single passenger and their luggage.

Domestic round trip flights for American citizens, should not be as intrusive.
 
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not an ERA. Each prohibition was in a specific area (e.g. federal aid, employment, etc.) Airline security is not mentioned. Whether it can be stretched to include an area such as how much searching is done, would be a good question. I am sure the 9th Court of Appeals could spin in all kinds of ways.

Better to let the legislature step in on this.
 
pnewton said:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not an ERA. Each prohibition was in a specific area (e.g. federal aid, employment, etc.) Airline security is not mentioned. Whether it can be stretched to include an area such as how much searching is done, would be a good question. I am sure the 9th Court of Appeals could spin in all kinds of ways.

Better to let the legislature step in on this.
Click to expand...
Airlines are public accommodations.
 
pnewton said:
And you get to say what is relevant? That is not how things work here, or in the courts. A judge determines which points are relevant not one side.
Click to expand...
The only real difference between the old screening methods and new screening methods in the amount of information they are able to obtain. The new methods allow for more dangerous materials, including bombs (remember we had a bomb get through the old methods), to be found, which also involves discovering more information about the individual being screened. There is no fundamental difference difference between the old methods and the new methods.
 
Listen_to_This said:
The only real difference between the old screening methods and new screening methods in the amount of information they are able to obtain.
Click to expand...
I said earlier that it is easy to say they are different, harder to say why. Now I will explain this what I meant. There is one more significant difference. Namely, pictures and the touching of genitals and breasts. That is different than a magnetic wand that beeps.
 
Listen_to_This said:
The only real difference between the old screening methods and new screening methods in the amount of information they are able to obtain. The new methods allow for more dangerous materials, including bombs (remember we had a bomb get through the old methods), to be found, which also involves discovering more information about the individual being screened. There is no fundamental difference difference between the old methods and the new methods.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, I don’t recall rupturing colostomy bags ever happening before.

I haven’t flown much in the past year, but have flown quite a bit in the past 5 years. I don’t recall anyone telling me they will be feeling my genitals for my own security. Or that there will be someone in a room looking at a picture that can tell whether or not I am circumcised.

Just so I can fly down to Florida to see my in-laws? I think not.

I’ll be driving.
 
Listen_to_This said:
Did you read the case I posted and the other cases cited in that opinion? Obviously not. You have no understanding of the the 4th amendment. Why don’t you read the case law and do some research on the 4th amendment. If you look into the law, you will why your post and the inane scenarios in it only show a total ignorance of the law.

Edit - Here is the case again. ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2005/06/07/0430243.pdf
Click to expand...
The case cited makes no mention at all of these aggresive pat-down procedures.
The issue here is whether the random selection of Marquez to go to the selectee lane, where he would automatically be subjected to the wanding of his person with the handheld magnetometer in addition to the walkthrough magnetometer and the x-ray luggage scan, was reasonable.
We conclude that it was.
Click to expand...
Do you have another case up your sleeve that presents these aggresive pat downs?
 
Listen_to_This said:
The only real difference between the old screening methods and new screening methods in the amount of information they are able to obtain. The new methods allow for more dangerous materials, including bombs (remember we had a bomb get through the old methods), to be found, which also involves discovering more information about the individual being screened. There is no fundamental difference difference between the old methods and the new methods.
Click to expand...
The last couple of bombers (the underwear bomber and the shoe bomber) would not have been discovered in these aggresive pat downs.

The enhanced pat-down does not provide the information required to catch them.
 
vz71 said:
The case cited makes no mention at all of these aggresive pat-down procedures.

Do you have another case up your sleeve that presents these aggresive pat downs?
Click to expand...
The new procedures are new so there have not been any decisions on them yet. But the general principle is still the same.
 
vz71 said:
The last couple of bombers (the underwear bomber and the shoe bomber) would not have been discovered in these aggresive pat downs.

The enhanced pat-down does not provide the information required to catch them.
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. But the new procedures do have the potential to identify more dangerous items than the old procedures.
 
vz71 said:
The screening itself is an unreasonable search.
Click to expand...
Based on what? The people saying these procedures violate the 4th amendment bear the burden of showing they violate the 4th amendment. Just saying they are unreasonable because they are unreasonable only begs the questions.

For everyone saying the searches violates the 4th amendment (a legal question), can you back up your claim with a legal argument supported by cited authority?
 
Listen_to_This said:
The new procedures are new so there have not been any decisions on them yet. But the general principle is still the same.
Click to expand...
The standards listed in the case in no way resemble genital groping and molestation.

As I already have asked, do you have some case pertinent to the pat downs?
 
Listen_to_This said:
Maybe, maybe not. But the new procedures do have the potential to identify more dangerous items than the old procedures.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but there is no room for your opinion in the FACT.
The information gathered with the aggresive pat down is not sufficient to stop either of those bombers.
 
Listen_to_This said:
Based on what? The people saying these procedures violate the 4th amendment bear the burden of showing they violate the 4th amendment. Just saying they are unreasonable because they are unreasonable only begs the questions.

For everyone saying the searches violates the 4th amendment (a legal question), can you back up your claim with a legal argument supported by cited authority?
Click to expand...
Let’s see, if I want to fly on a plane I must submit myself to two types of searches.

One that will let the government look at my genitals.

Or one that will let government touch my genitals.

Am I stupid or have we been bombed by American citizens hiding explosives in their genitals?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top