Airport staff 'exposed woman's breasts, laughed'

[newbetx]

Here it is:
msnbc.msn.com/id/40291856/ns/travel-news

The biggest obstacle I can see right now towards getting all of this resolved is the unwillingness of people to accept the consequences of protesting.

If everyone resolved not to fly over these incidents, this would be a non-issue.

I disagree. History shows that if the airlines suffer from this stuff, the government bails them out (again, again and again.) The only way to stop the nonsense is to elect those willing to remove it.

There is no reason what so ever that the scans can not be automated. Anything suspicious can be flagged just like the metal scanner does. That way, no one is seen my another person.

 

[newbetx]

If an exposed breast or two or three is what it takes to keep us safe, it’s worth the sacrifice of our liberties, I say! Sounds stupid, I realize. Well, that’s but a small extrapolation of quotes that I’ve actually heard from a few of our once-proud citizens as they prepare to mount aircraft.
Obama and Napolitano are ruthless bullies who have no regard for the Constitution and individual rights. They become more disgraceful daily, as they pretend that EVERYONE is an equal threat, and we can’t POSSIBLY know who the purveyors of peace who threaten airlines are! Rob

All this stuff started under Bush, I’m afraid…

 

[psr13]

Yes, and again, why was that fence erected? Do we really want to take it down?

Yes. The same way. Have you been to a club lately? lol, heck, have you been to OAKLAND lately?? lol…‘pat down’…please. Police will jiggle your goodies to make sure stuff don’t fall out - huney, I know this first hand.

So what kind of change do you think would be appropriate?

They started with ‘basic pat downs’ which took foreverrrr and didnt really work.

So they made the scanners, cuts down on time and its very effective. And for those who are uncomfortable due to modesty, they can still do the pat down, but it’s a tad more thorough…

What would you propose? Only scanners? So there’s no ‘hands on’? I don’t understand, its like there’s an option for both travelers, one for people who don’t want to be touched, and one for people who don’t want to be seen naked. The only other option I see is no security check at all. And why would you want that given you KNOW people are trying to get in there and blow themselves up?

You must be going to some ghetto clubs. No club I have ever been to has wanded or done a pat down. My friend did go to a concert where she had a prett instrusive pat down, but it is a concert that is known to have A LOT of drug problems.

 

[bbarrick8383]

All this stuff started under Bush, I’m afraid…

Ooh, I apologize, but the statute of limitations to blame Bush expired about 5 pages ago. Thank you, please post again.

 

[Linda_Marie]

All this stuff started under Bush, I’m afraid…

Bush may have proposed it, but Congress wrote it and passed it, a Democrat majority Congress. Many of them have been tossed out on their ears in the Nov election for not listening to the people they are supposed to be serving. Does anyone really not connect the Nov election to the institution of these unreasonable searches? This is the only thing that has changed, not the risk level.

Congressmen/women and other government officials do not have to subject themselves to this nonsense. They get special clearance methods and don’t have to be fondled in public by a stranger or have nudie pictures taken of them. No one will ever have to sooth Obama’s kids.

There are two classes of citizen here: our Overlords and us peons.

What is with this ‘you can’t speak’ to the person being fondled? Time and again, we are hearing that TSA agents order people to be silent while they try to sooth their children while they are being molested, or the soldier whose buddy had his nail clippers confiscated while carrying an assault rifle who was told he couldn’t speak to his buddy. First, it is the suspension of the 4th Amendment, now it is the 1st Amendment - the right to speak at all, much less say what we want to say. We may as well use the Constitution for toilet paper.

Reasonable applies to the person, not the situation. The 9th circuit, the most overturned court in the US, said that reasonable applies to the situation, that due to the situation, random searches are reasonable. This is an error.

Reasonable has always applied to the individual. Is it reasonable to search this particular person? I don’t care what the 9th circuit has to say about it. They get it wrong too many times.

 

[Listen_to_This]

Many of them have been tossed out on their ears in the Nov election for not listening to the people they are supposed to be serving. Does anyone really not connect the Nov election to the institution of these unreasonable searches? This is the only thing that has changed, not the risk level.

The scanners have been being phased in since 2007. They started adding a lot more in January 2010. I wonder what might have happened around that time.

sltrib.com/sltrib/money/50590050-79/tsa-scanner-airport-body.html.csp
network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2010/01/21/first-full-body-scanners-installed-at-pearson.aspx

Congressmen/women and other government officials do not have to subject themselves to this nonsense. They get special clearance methods and don’t have to be fondled in public by a stranger or have nudie pictures taken of them.No one will ever have to sooth Obama’s kids.

There are two classes of citizen here: our Overlords and us peons.

As I already posted, government officials and members of Congress are only exempt if they are traveling with a security detail. In fact, I posted this information is response to an earlier post of yours, yet you decided to re-post false information.

voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/11/who_is_exempt_from_airport_sec.html

First, it is the suspension of the 4th Amendment, now it is the 1st Amendment - the right to speak at all, much less say what we want to say. We may as well use the Constitution for toilet paper.

The 4th amendment has not been suspended. The 4th amendment will apply to any cases that are brought.

Reasonable applies to the person, not the situation. The 9th circuit, the most overturned court in the US, said that reasonable applies to the situation, that due to the situation, random searches are reasonable. This is an error.

What do you base this on? What is your response to 3rd circuit case? Or the Supreme Court dicta?

From the Supreme Court:

“We reiterate, too, that where the risk to public safety is substantial and real, blanket suspicionless searches calibrated to the risk may rank as “reasonable”–for example, searches now routine at airports and at entrances to courts and other official buildings.”

“Our holding also does not affect the validity of border searches or searches at places like airports and government buildings, where the need for such measures to ensure public safety can be particularly acute.”

Reasonable has always applied to the individual. Is it reasonable to search this particular person? I don’t care what the 9th circuit has to say about it. They get it wrong too many times.

Your position is in conflict with the Supreme Court quotes above.

 

[Listen_to_This]

Ooh, I apologize, but the statute of limitations to blame Bush expired about 5 pages ago. Thank you, please post again.

The statute limitations ended before Bush left office?

 

[buzzoff1031]

I admittedly haven’t taken the time to read through this thread, but will reply nonethless. This is atrocious. The fact that people can even possibly get away with this is a perfect indicator of how sick our society has become!

 

[bbarrick8383]

The statute limitations ended before Bush left office?

Well, my post was 100 percent sarcasm.

But I’m scratching my head as to how you came to understand it as you did.

Usually we tend to point it out as soon as the Bush’s fault thread is posted. Most of the time it’s within the first few pages.

 

[Linda_Marie]

As I already posted, government officials and members of Congress are only exempt if they are traveling with a security detail. In fact, I posted this information is response to an earlier post of yours, yet you decided to re-post false information.

voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/11/who_is_exempt_from_airport_sec.html

Us regular folks are not given the option to travel with a security detail or to have our security checks done prior to arriving at the airport. This makes them privileged first class ‘citizens’ and us second class.

Have any of them foregone the option to travel with a security detail and put themselves through the humiliation and degradation to which the rest of us are subject? Would any TSA officer have the guts to select a congressperson or their children for the scan or the enhanced pat-down?

The 4th amendment has not been suspended. The 4th amendment will apply to any cases that are brought.

So now I have to apply to a court to have my rights. That isn’t going to help me when I front up to the airport and try to fly somewhere. Looks like I have to be violated first and apply to the court afterwards.

You didn’t provide a link for the alleged Supreme Court ruling.

“We reiterate, too, that where the risk to public safety is substantial and real, blanket suspicionless searches calibrated to the risk may rank as “reasonable”–for example, searches now routine at airports and at entrances to courts and other official buildings.”

This is rather vague. Who decides what is substantial and real? What does ‘may rank as reasonable’ mean? that anything and everything that the TSA, a government bureaucracy, decides to do is reasonable? What was the date of this ruling when they say ‘searches now routine’? Does it include the new invasive hands all over your genitals searches? Will it include body cavity searches in the future?

I would have more rights if I was suspected of committing a crime than I have just trying to fly home to visit Mom. It is kind of hard to get from Australia to anywhere else in the world without flying unless we have 6 months or a year’s leave hiding up our sleeves so we can take a boat.

Even then, Janet Napolitano is talking about extending these procedures to include all other forms of transport as well, trains, boats, buses, subways. I’m sure they’ll figure out a way to check personal vehicles too, checkpoints on highways for instance, and they’ll argue that it is all perfectly reasonable for our safety and not a violation of our rights.

Everyone is saying, well, just don’t fly. If they put this in place for other forms of transport, it will be, well, just don’t travel.

 

[Listen_to_This]

You didn’t provide a link for the alleged Supreme Court ruling.

I provided the full citations with page numbers.

Here are links:

law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-126.ZO.html

law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1030.ZO.html

 

[Listen_to_This]

Us regular folks are not given the option to travel with a security detail or to have our security checks done prior to arriving at the airport. This makes them privileged first class ‘citizens’ and us second class.

Have any of them foregone the option to travel a security detail and put themselves through the humiliation and degradation to which the rest of us are subject? Would any TSA officer have the guts to select a congressperson or their children for the scan or the enhanced pat-down?

Any reasonable procedure is not going to stop government officials that have a security detail. At least one congressman has been patted down. He was not happy about it.

voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/09/was_utah_lawmaker_targeted_by.html

So now I have to apply to a court to have my rights. That isn’t going to help me when I front up to the airport and try to fly somewhere. Looks like I have to be violated first and apply to the court afterwards.

The screening procedures are not a violation of your rights.

Further, you don’t have to apply to court to have your rights. You have your rights no matter what. If you wants your rights adjudicated, you have to go to court.

This is rather vague. Who decides what is substantial and real? What does ‘may rank as reasonable’ mean? that anything and everything that the TSA, a government bureaucracy, decides to do is reasonable? What was the date of this ruling when they say ‘searches now routine’? Does it include the new invasive hands all over your genitals searches? Will it include body cavity searches in the future?

The courts interpret reasonableness. I doubt they would find everything acceptable. The new procedures, however, are rights in line with the judicial opinions.

I would have more rights if I was suspected of committing a crime than I have just trying to fly home to visit Mom.

Nope. You have the same rights at all times.

 

[Linda_Marie]

law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-126.ZO.html

“*t is . . . immaterial that the intrusion was in aid of law enforcement. Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.” Id., at 479.
<…>

“We reiterate, too, that where the risk to public safety is substantial and real, blanket suspicionless searches calibrated to the risk may rank as “reasonable”–for example, searches now routine at airports and at entrances to courts and other official buildings.”

But where, as in this case, public safety is not genuinely in jeopardy, the Fourth Amendment precludes the suspicionless search, no matter how conveniently arranged.*

law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1030.ZO.html

The primary purpose of the Indianapolis narcotics checkpoints is in the end to advance “the general interest in crime control,” Prouse, 440 U.S., at 659, n. 18. We decline to suspend the usual requirement of individualized suspicion

where the police seek to employ a checkpoint primarily for the ordinary enterprise of investigating crimes. We cannot sanction stops justified only by the generalized and ever-present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime.
<…>
When law enforcement authorities pursue primarily general crime control purposes at checkpoints such as here, however, stops can only be justified by some quantum of individualized suspicion.

Our holding also does not affect the validity of border searches or searches at places like airports and government buildings, where the need for such measures to ensure public safety can be particularly acute. Nor does our opinion speak to other intrusions aimed primarily at purposes beyond the general interest in crime control.

 

[Listen_to_This]

Notice they second to last sentence. The opinion does not affect airport screenings, which are valid.

You may not like the law,but warrantless airport screenings that are not supported by probable cause are valid and legal administrative searches.

 

[Listen_to_This]

But where, as in this case, public safety is not genuinely in jeopardy, the Fourth Amendment precludes the suspicionless search, no matter how conveniently arranged.

Of course the Court later says that airport screening are one of those situations were the risk to public safety is substantial and real.

"We reiterate, too, that where the risk to public safety is substantial and real, blanket suspicionless searches calibrated to the risk may rank as “reasonable”–for example, searches now routine at airports and at entrances to courts and other official buildings. "

 

[Aramis]

Warrantless blanket searches of civilian in-country travel has generally been seen by most people as unreasonable… the exceptions seem to be from the 1940’s… in Italy, Germany, Russia, and China.

 

[wabrams]

Notice they second to last sentence. The opinion does not affect airport screenings, which are valid.

You may not like the law,but warrantless airport screenings that are not supported by probable cause are valid and legal administrative searches.

That ruling was before 9/11, before x-ray body scans, and before these intensive pat-downs. That ruling is from when there was only a metal detector and a general pat-down if you repeatedly set off the metal detectors or acted outright suspicious.

 

[Listen_to_This]

Warrantless blanket searches of civilian in-country travel has generally been seen by most people as unreasonable… the exceptions seem to be from the 1940’s… in Italy, Germany, Russia, and China.

And, of course, airport screenings in America.

 

[Listen_to_This]

That ruling was before 9/11,

Yeah, I guess 9/11 showed there was no need for airport screenings.

before x-ray body scans, and before these intensive pat-downs. That ruling is from when there was only a metal detector and a general pat-down if you repeatedly set off the metal detectors or acted outright suspicious.

The metal detectors were a search. The same general principle applies. Warrantless searches that are not supported by probable cause are legal. The new procedures are necessary to discover materials that the old methods cannot. Short of a strip search, the new procedures offer the best chance to discover dangerous materials.

 

[wabrams]

Yeah, I guess 9/11 showed there was no need for airport screenings.

Don’t be a smart alec; you know that wasn’t what I was implying.

The metal detectors were a search. The same general principle applies. Warrantless searches that are not supported by probable cause are legal. The new procedures are necessary to discover materials that the old methods cannot. Short of a strip search, the new procedures offer the best chance to discover dangerous materials.

But those searches were very non-invasive; nothing like they are doing now. It seems since the game has changed, then the new search procedures need to be reviewed through the court system.