Airport staff 'exposed woman's breasts, laughed'

[wabrams]

The question wasn’t about planes or suicide. You asked about profiling and terrorism and I just gave you an example, plus his attack was one of the top in sheer carnage in our nations history, so now will you admit to being profiled since you fit the McVeigh model, or will we agree that visual profiling is total nonsense?

Go back and re-read my post: I said in airports. McVeigh nor any other domestic terrorist have ever targeted airplanes.

 

[jerryson]

Nonsense?

Is the government currently being bombarded with intelligence on potential white middle age male terrorists?

As you can see there is quite a bit, both in the past and recently en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States

Go back and re-read my post: I said in airports. McVeigh nor any other domestic terrorist have ever targeted airplanes.

Are you saying they never will or haven’t thought of it?

 

[bbarrick8383]

As you can see there is quite a bit, both in the past and recently en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States

Since we are talking about airplanes, how many of those have ever tried blowing up a plane?

 

[Aramis]

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

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.

The metal detectors, prior to the TSA, were usually operated by civilians, often contracted by the Airlines, and without law enforcement authority.

No due process applies, no need for warrants, because when the airline requires it, if you refuse the search, they can simply refund the ticket and refuse service.

When an employee-agent of the government does so, however, that is a whole different color of authority.

 

[Aramis]

A composite what?

As to a plastic knife, can’t do too much with one of those.

I’ve prepped steaks for cooking with a plastic knife. We are not talking the picnic wear, but the fiberglass reinforced high density modern plastic knives.

coldsteel.com/nightshadeseries.html shows several; I’ve used the Zytel plastic tanto in the kitchen. It holds an edge as well as steel, weighs half as much, shows up much less well on X-ray, and did not set off metal detectors. (Roomie was a security guard, had access to wands, and checked it.)

That knife would cut 16oz leather, too. I’ve done so. Scored bone just like a steel blade, too.

 

[pnewton]

What is the relevant difference between and the old and the new scanners?

The amount of sexual distinction. Time will tell the significance the courts decide to attach to this decision. You act like this is a slam dunk decision. But I bet a dollar to a donut that some suit will be considered to have enough merit to precede to a decision. The courts will decide this issue, not armchair lawyers.

 

[Holly3278]

I just want to say that while this infuriates me, I refuse to comment because if I do, I will be banned!

 

[vz71]

Here is what the Supreme Court had to say on this issue:

So you believe in the supreme court over and above logic?

I asked you the question, are you proposing that we waste the limited resources on everyone?

It would be much more logical to utilize the limited resources where they will be most effective.

 

[vz71]

Dogs cannot detect a composite or plastic knife.

For that to be relevent, you will need to have some kind of source indicating these aggresive pat-downs have actually found said materials.
Please tell us.

 

[Listen_to_This]

Dogs can detect whatever they are trained to detect - every object has a distinct scent that dogs are more than able to distinguish - and they cannot be fooled by “cover-up” scents - burying it in coffee or even in a dirty diaper won’t hide anything from a dog.

And dogs are not trained to find plastic. A dog cannot tell the difference between a plastic knife and the numerous plastic things people carry with them every day. And weapons can be made out of other things, like bone. Or things we have not thought of.

Dogs are trained to find a limited range of things. You cannot train any particular dog to find everything. Scanners can find way more things. A scanner could even see a leather whip wrapped around a person’s waist.

 

[vz71]

You aren’t the one being profiled, so of course it’s all fine and dandy to you

And neither are you.

Profiles do not need to be based upon race.
The profiles I and many others advocate involve behavior, not physical trait.

 

[vz71]

Timothy McVeigh, anyone?

A terrorist cannot avoid behavior that would mark him as a terrorist.
Else he simply is not a terrorist.

I am confident that profiling terrorist behavior would have singled McVeigh out.

 

[Listen_to_This]

The metal detectors, prior to the TSA, were usually operated by civilians, often contracted by the Airlines, and without law enforcement authority.

No due process applies, no need for warrants, because when the airline requires it, if you refuse the search, they can simply refund the ticket and refuse service.

When an employee-agent of the government does so, however, that is a whole different color of authority.

Do you just make this stuff up? Have you been following this thread?

1. Due process is not an issue.
2. Courts have repeatedly said warrants are not necessary for administrative searches in airports.
3. Courts also repeatedly held that the government was sufficiently implicate in the searches that were conducted by airline employees to required that the searches were conducted in compliance with the 4th amendment.

Go back and read the cases I linked to.

 

[Listen_to_This]

For that to be relevent, you will need to have some kind of source indicating these aggresive pat-downs have actually found said materials.
Please tell us.

No, I don’t. The Supreme Court has spoken on this (and I have posted it twice):

Nor would we think, in view of the obvious deterrent purpose of these searches, that the validity of the Government’s airport screening program necessarily turns on whether significant numbers of putative air pirates are actually discovered by the searches conducted under the program. In the 15 years the program has been in effect, more than 9.5 billion persons have been screened, and over 10 billion pieces of luggage have been inspected. See Federal Aviation Administration, Semiannual Report to Congress on the Effectiveness of The Civil Aviation Program (Nov. 1988) (Exhibit 6). By far the overwhelming majority of those persons who have been searched, like Customs employees who have been tested under the Service’s drug screening scheme, have proved entirely innocent – only 42,000 firearms have been detected during the same period. Ibid. When the Government’s interest lies in deterring highly hazardous conduct, a low incidence of such conduct, far from impugning the validity of the scheme for implementing this interest, is more logically viewed as a hallmark of success. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520, 441 U. S. 559 (1979).

Edit - The point is the searches may deter people from ever taking the materials on a plane.

 

[Listen_to_This]

So you believe in the supreme court over and above logic?

I asked you the question, are you proposing that we waste the limited resources on everyone?

It would be much more logical to utilize the limited resources where they will be most effective.

I am concerned with the legality of these searches. I don’t really care about the policy issues.

 

[vz71]

Dogs cannot detect a composite or plastic knife.

For that to be relevent, you will need to have some kind of source indicating these aggresive pat-downs have actually found said materials.
Please tell us.

And dogs are not trained to find plastic. A dog cannot tell the difference between a plastic knife and the numerous plastic things people carry with them every day. And weapons can be made out of other things, like bone. Or things we have not thought of.

I ask again, please indicate where these aggresive pat-downs have actually found said materials.

Else you are pounding on an irrelevent point.

 

[vz71]

Edit - The point is the searches may deter people from ever taking the materials on a plane.

Dogs sniffs would have the same effect.
Now please indicate where these aggresove pat-downs have actually found the materials.

 

[vz71]

I am concerned with the legality of these searches. I don’t really care about the policy issues.

Correction, you care about the legalities, not the logic.

Tell me, is the rest of your morality dictated by legalese?

 

[jilly4ski]

I am concerned with the legality of these searches. I don’t really care about the policy issues.

Then you are in the wrong place. All law is formed by policy. The 4th amendment itself was implemented because if fulfilled a policy issue that was important. The reason these enhanced procedures were put in place was because of policy, so it is only fair that we continue to discuss policy when we talk about getting rid of these procedures.

 

[Listen_to_This]

Then you are in the wrong place. All law is formed by policy. The 4th amendment itself was implemented because if fulfilled a policy issue that was important. The reason these enhanced procedures were put in place was because of policy, so it is only fair that we continue to discuss policy when we talk about getting rid of these procedures.

And it is fine if you discuss the policy. I want to focus on the legality.