D
Darryl1958
Guest
I guess when you job entails visually or manually probing thousands of dinguses every day, it is rather easy to become callous to the question of personal dignity.
- Status
D
DawnInTexas
Guest
If they do (airports get rid of TSA and use a private company)—they still have to comply with the TSA standards.
There are some Civilian Control Towers, however they too have to comply with Government Standards.
God Bless you.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn
R
rlg94086
Guest
That is so true. I used to fly weekly in my previous jobs (high tech sales handling large territories). I can’t believe I’m typing this, but I think I am thankful that I was laid off two years ago. I’m not making nearly as much (I’m up to 1/2 with my latest promotion
), but I am home every night and have no reason to fly anywhere. 
L
Linda_Marie
Guest
What I don’t understand is how some un-elected bureaucrat can write a rule which has the force of law that strips people of their inalienable rights, in this case, the right not to be subjected to searches without a warrant issued by a judge who has reviewed the accusations and evidence of wrong-doing. Where did they get the authority to deprive American citizens of their inalienable rights with a wave of a pen? Who said I gave up my rights by buying a ticket for my flight? Is it on the ticket?
Are elected representatives or appointees subjected to this? No, they are exempt. We now have 2 classes of citizens. Those with rights and those without.
This solution of ‘just don’t fly’ doesn’t wash, imho. Americans either have rights in all of America, or they have none. No one agreed to check their rights at the door. Being told that someone, some t(name removed by moderator)ot martinet, decreed that they have does not make it true.
The other thing I keep hearing is how this is in response to a heightened level of threat since the underpants bomber last Christmas. That was a year ago. They didn’t institute the ‘enhanced’ (euphemism for intrusive) body searches until now, right after the election. Anybody see any connection there?
What’s next - internal passports to allow to travel within the country?
Then we have the granting of American rights to illegal aliens including granting them access to welfare, free college education, even to vote with a refusal to require identification from them to prove their citizenship. Illegals are being granted rights they don’t have while citizens are being stripped of rights they do have.
As for this mob who exposed the woman’s breasts and laughed about it - this is the calibre of people employed to do these ‘security’ checks. They all seem to be sadistic perverts who enjoy putting people through the wringer. They aren’t interested in the safety of the flying public but in getting their jollies. I bet they gather after work and laugh about all the people they sexually assaulted during the day, just as this lot laughed about exposing a woman’s breasts in public.
Are elected representatives or appointees subjected to this? No, they are exempt. We now have 2 classes of citizens. Those with rights and those without.
This solution of ‘just don’t fly’ doesn’t wash, imho. Americans either have rights in all of America, or they have none. No one agreed to check their rights at the door. Being told that someone, some t(name removed by moderator)ot martinet, decreed that they have does not make it true.
The other thing I keep hearing is how this is in response to a heightened level of threat since the underpants bomber last Christmas. That was a year ago. They didn’t institute the ‘enhanced’ (euphemism for intrusive) body searches until now, right after the election. Anybody see any connection there?
What’s next - internal passports to allow to travel within the country?
Then we have the granting of American rights to illegal aliens including granting them access to welfare, free college education, even to vote with a refusal to require identification from them to prove their citizenship. Illegals are being granted rights they don’t have while citizens are being stripped of rights they do have.
As for this mob who exposed the woman’s breasts and laughed about it - this is the calibre of people employed to do these ‘security’ checks. They all seem to be sadistic perverts who enjoy putting people through the wringer. They aren’t interested in the safety of the flying public but in getting their jollies. I bet they gather after work and laugh about all the people they sexually assaulted during the day, just as this lot laughed about exposing a woman’s breasts in public.
L
Listen_to_This
Guest
Congress has authorized the regulation through legislation.
Do you really there should be no searches before getting on a plane? No metal detectors? The 4th amendment does not prevent warrantless searches. It prevents unreasonable searches. In the view of the courts, administrative searches for the safety of airline passengers are reasonable.
ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2005/06/07/0430243.pdf
Government officials and members of Congress are only exempt if they are traveling with a security detail.
voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/11/who_is_exempt_from_airport_sec.html
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
I think the regulations and direct taxes from bureaucracies have for the most part gone unnoticed by the masses.
I hope that changes soon, and I hope all hell breaks loose on government when it does.
I don’t have a problem with certain security measures at the airports, but the way they have it set up now just doesn’t seem right. I think there are plenty of things that could be changed.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
That’s Funny, BBarrick8383, yet so Sad. And so True, unfortunately, as well.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
L
Linda_Marie
Guest
Congress did not pass a law removing 4th amendment rights to allow random passengers to be selected to go through a naked scanner or allow themselves to be subjected to a sexual assaut in full view of other people. This is a rule, the way in which the law is enforced. Congress just said ‘reasonable searches’. Unelected TSA bureaucrats decide what that entails.
Why do people assume that one is against all security when there are objections to what they are doing specifically?
From your court ruling:
It mentions nothing about feeling people’s genitals in public or making them stand in a scanner which strips them naked for anyone to see, exposes them to an unknown quantity of radiation and stores those images for an unknown future use. Nor does it say anything about making someone complete the security check if they have elected not to fly and subjecting them to an $11,000 fine if they do not submit.
They claim heightened risk due to the underpants bomber, but that happened a year ago without them doing this immediately afterwards. Why wait a year? What has changed between January and November?
Besides which, we have seen an increase in cargo infiltrations, rather than passenger. Why are we subjecting passengers to increased scrutiny when cargo which has been neglected for so long?
They should not be exempt at all. Every single one of them, security detail included should go through the exact same procedures as are in place for everyone else. In the same place, so we can get to see a congresswoman getting felt up and down and lifted off her feet by the force of the searchers contact just like what is happening to ordinary citizens.
L
Listen_to_This
Guest
I can see you are not being serious. The rest of your post is just a divorced from reality as this dishonest garbage.
4th amendments rights still apply. Nobody is being sexually assaulted.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
With all due respect, Listen To This:
So the woman in the OP’s story was not “assaulted?” There are many people here and elsewhere who would disagree with that.
There are also other stories in the media that are beginning to surface of women and men being subjected to humiliating and dgrading searches by TSA—many of them have been known to openly mock the sufferings of these people.
So I can’t really understand how you are saying that nobody could be considered to have been “sexually assaulted.”
Maybe from YOUR point of view, but definitely not from other’s POV.
L
Listen_to_This
Guest
The woman was in Amarillo, Texas. Here is Texas’s sexual assault law:
continued in next post
L
Listen_to_This
Guest
Tell me how what the woman alleges happened meets the elements of sexual assault in the jurisdiction. There is no federal sexual assault law.
law.onecle.com/texas/penal/22.011.00.html
L
Listen_to_This
Guest
It is not a matter of point of view. There is nothing to suggest a sexual assault. Read the law on sexual assault. What this woman alleges is not even close.Maybe from YOUR point of view, but definitely not from other’s POV.
L
Listen_to_This
Guest
In short, for there to have been a sexual assault, either there would have to have been (at minimum) 1.) penetration of a person’s sexual organ or anus or 2.) contact of a person’s sexual organ, mouth, or anus by another person’s sexual organ.
Nothing like that is alleged.
Nothing like that is alleged.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
The methods used, especially in this woman’s case are questionable. Sexual assault can include inappropriate touching, depending on what state you are in. Many people would consider the back side of someone’s hand rubbing on their genitals inappropriate.
I’m not sure their methods on children, but I would hope they are not so intrusive.
**The fact is, we American citizens, should be able to purchase a round trip, domestic airline ticket without being afraid of getting violated by some stranger. **
Before all of this took place, my wife had to fly with our child a couple of times. They were so impatient with her a couple of times that she broke down crying. She would have her diaper bag, the stroller, the baby and whatever else she happened to be carrying at the time. When they would ask her to remove the babies milk and all of that they were very rude about it.
It’s only going to get worse.
We usually buy tickets several times a year, we won’t be buying any while this is going on. When the airlines see this hitting them financially, things will change. We need a means available for us to fly around our own country without all this bureaucracy bs.
If this keeps up, I could run against Obama in 2012 and beat him.
A
Aramis
Guest
WRONG!
Interstate travel is a right. Operating a plane oneself is a privIledge, but being able to travel is in fact a right. One the USSC has repeately upheld.
And the 4th Amendment requires due process prior to search by government agents; the TSA is in fact a violation of the 4th amendment.
When the airlines required it, it was a non-issue. But the moment a federal employee searches you for exercising a right, you’ve stepped into fascism.
L
Listen_to_This
Guest
No, it does not. The 4th amendment requires searches to be reasonable. Due process is something else entirely. (The only thing that due process has to do the 4th amendment is the 14 amendment’s due process clause incorporates the 4th amendment to the states.)
Read the case I linked to.
L
Linda_Marie
Guest
Who decides the risk level that they are using to justify the increased scrutiny? What incident sparked the increased risk level they are citing as justification for these intensive searches? Who decides what kind of search is reasonable with the risk level?
Is it Congress? Did they really pass a law that details all of that? Or did they give it to the TSA and Homeland Security to sort out, with unelected bureaucrats deciding risk levels and what is reasonable?
What about TSA officials outright telling people that they left their rights at the door? Americans have rights everywhere except in airport terminals and on airplanes. If I want to fly, I must relinquish my rights and give permission for a government employee to grope me intimately in public, or to be stripped naked in a scanner?
How can a right be inalienable if it can be suspended by the government ín certain circumstances?
If the airline requires this as a condition for boarding their aircraft, it is one thing. This is the Government imposing this and suspending citizens’ rights in the name of public safety.
Where else is going to be exempted from following the Constitution in the name of public safety? Shopping malls, subway stations? These also are targets. Can we expect to be stopped and body searched by the police at random in a shopping mall or subway because there might be a threat from a terrorist? I think we’d find this unreasonable, just as it is unreasonable to do it to airline passengers.
The only heightened risk I am aware of in recent months is from parcels and cargo, not from passengers. Increasing scrutiny of passengers in the wake of a heightened risk from cargo is unreasonable. The previous search methods have been effective and I see no reason to have changed them.
I’ve been body searched before. That was in Bahrain in 1970 when the PFLP hijacked several planes and took them to the desert in Jordan. I missed being on one of the hijacked planes by one day. Course, I wasn’t expecting any rights in Bahrain but at least the Bahrainis were considerate enough to have screened booths for the body search and didn’t make you stand out there in front of God and everybody while being groped.
Is it Congress? Did they really pass a law that details all of that? Or did they give it to the TSA and Homeland Security to sort out, with unelected bureaucrats deciding risk levels and what is reasonable?
What about TSA officials outright telling people that they left their rights at the door? Americans have rights everywhere except in airport terminals and on airplanes. If I want to fly, I must relinquish my rights and give permission for a government employee to grope me intimately in public, or to be stripped naked in a scanner?
How can a right be inalienable if it can be suspended by the government ín certain circumstances?
If the airline requires this as a condition for boarding their aircraft, it is one thing. This is the Government imposing this and suspending citizens’ rights in the name of public safety.
Where else is going to be exempted from following the Constitution in the name of public safety? Shopping malls, subway stations? These also are targets. Can we expect to be stopped and body searched by the police at random in a shopping mall or subway because there might be a threat from a terrorist? I think we’d find this unreasonable, just as it is unreasonable to do it to airline passengers.
The only heightened risk I am aware of in recent months is from parcels and cargo, not from passengers. Increasing scrutiny of passengers in the wake of a heightened risk from cargo is unreasonable. The previous search methods have been effective and I see no reason to have changed them.
I’ve been body searched before. That was in Bahrain in 1970 when the PFLP hijacked several planes and took them to the desert in Jordan. I missed being on one of the hijacked planes by one day. Course, I wasn’t expecting any rights in Bahrain but at least the Bahrainis were considerate enough to have screened booths for the body search and didn’t make you stand out there in front of God and everybody while being groped.
C
canadianguy1143
Guest
Maybe its not sexual assault by the strict legal definition of Texas state law. It is wrong for them to behave in such a manner and I would expect you to agree with the rest of us on that. Laughing at exposed women, does not help to protect an airplane from a terrorist attack.
- Status