Many are embarassing themselves over TSA pat-downs

[SnakeDoctor]

Damn, I miss that show

No kidding. With 24 and The Unit gone, Burn Notice is pretty much all I've got left. I'm not sure what I'm going to do with myself when January rolls around.

The 24 movie is apparently on the way, though ... the script is reportedly finished.

SnakeDoc

 

[karamazov80]

That, uh, is what the Supreme Court does, when it's not, like, doing its job. When it performs its job correctly, what it does is apply the Constitution. They're the final arbiter of enforcement. Their sole function is to ensure that the Constitution is followed. How can it be followed when it's meaning is constantly changing? You can't obey a law that you don't understand. Y'know?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

"guardian and interpreter of the Constitution"

No spinning your way out of this. Interpretations are constantly changing to reflect changes in society, whether or not that's how you think things should be done (obviously, the various judges on the bench dispute whether or not the specific perceived intentions of the drafters of the Constitution should dictate interpretation). Thing was written when slaves weren't considered people, so they were exempt from its tenets. No more, because interpretations changed. It is also intentionally vague so that it can be interpreted in various ways in different times and contexts. Constitutional amendments are written when you cannot stretch the original founders' words to account for required changes, then they become Constitutional law.

Also, 24 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Burn Unit, IMO

 

[316what]

How can they be searching people without probable cause? What grounds do they have for arguing that anyone could be bringing a bomb on the plane?

Probable cause is not required when you consent to a search. Everyone has the right to refuse the body scan and the pat downs. But that right of refusal comes with a consequence....your azz isn't getting on a plane.

You can't obey a law that you don't understand. Y'know?

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

 

[user 1190]

Didn't the panty bomber just occur last Christmas? I know by then we were having to remove our shoes, walk through metal detectors, and some of us got lucky enough to go the the explosive blowing air puff thingy.

Had the TSA been performing profiling, this guy would have certainly been on a list for additional screening, including that blowing air thing that would have hopefully picked up traces of explosives. His background and travel plans had numerous red flags.

But the US has become too politically correct to implement that profiling, unfortunately to our own peril. So ALL of us are subjected to these searches.

Since these full body scans only detect under the clothing, and not internally, all some whacko terrorist needs to do is shove a stick of dynamite up his wazoo and make it through the full body scan in order to commit his crime. Then what, the TSA will be asking ALL us to submit to full body cavity searches in public next? Because we don't want to offend anyone? Ridiculous.

The shoe bomber was in 2001 before removing shoes was mandatory.

The underwear bomber was more recent but was also on a flight originating outside the US so TSA couldn't do much there.

 

[teemu]

RON PAUL PWNS FRAN TOWNSEND Dept Of Homeland Security

tells it like it is

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FOVFX-qOfc

 

[karamazov80]

He used your lightning analogy. Congrats, teemu, Paul is watching us!

 

[devilof76]

Probable cause is not required when you consent to a search. Everyone has the right to refuse the body scan and the pat downs. But that right of refusal comes with a consequence....your azz isn't getting on a plane.

Isn't probable cause the standard by which search warrants are issued? Don't you need a search warrant to override a refusal of consent? By what right does the TSA impose consequences for refusing consent to searches? Authority of the airlines? Or authority of the government?

Do the airlines have the right to refuse the TSA's presence? I guess that's the real question. If they don't, then the 4th amendment has been violated. If they do, they sure as hell aren't going to say anything about it the day before Thanksgiving, are they?

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

It is if the law does not mean the same thing on Friday that it did on Monday.

(Interpretation is a stupid word to describe the function of an ultimate legal authority. The people who wrote the entry for that .gov should be ashamed of themselves.)

 

[karamazov80]

Not that I want to harp on this. I really don't, but:

https://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/scalia-constitutional-speech.htm

"Our manner of interpreting the Constitution. . ."

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=2342

"This ambiguity of course calls forth interpretation. . .

etc. etc. I guess the Supreme Court Justices themselves are also stupid?

 

[Mister Ski]

From the TSA website...

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was created in the wake of 9/11 to strengthen the security of the nation’s transportation systems while ensuring the freedom of movement for people and commerce. Within a year, TSA assumed responsibility for security at the nation’s airports and deployed a Federal workforce to meet Congressional deadlines for screening all commercial airline passengers and baggage. In March 2003, TSA transferred from the Department of Transportation to the Department of Homeland Security.

TSA employs a risk-based strategy to secure U.S. transportation systems, working closely with stakeholders in aviation, rail, transit, highway, and pipeline sectors, as well as the partners in the law enforcement and intelligence community. The agency will continuously set the standard for excellence in transportation security through its people, processes, technologies and use of intelligence to drive operations.

End paste.

They operate on the authority of the government.

 

[316what]

Isn't probable cause the standard by which search warrants are issued?

Yes

Don't you need a search warrant to override a refusal of consent?

Most of the time, yes. But refusal of consent comes with consequences. It's no different than a driver refusing to consent to a sobriety test. If you don't consent, you lose your driving privileges. Is this also a 4th Amendment violation?

By what right does the TSA impose consequences for refusing consent to searches? Authority of the airlines? Or authority of the government?

Apparently it's authority of the government and I'm sure it's covered somewhere in some obscure line in the Patriot Act.

Do the airlines have the right to refuse the TSA's presence? I guess that's the real question. If they don't, then the 4th amendment has been violated. If they do, they sure as hell aren't going to say anything about it the day before Thanksgiving, are they?

The airlines have no say. They are basically "leasing" space at the airport. The airports on the otherhand can opt out of having TSA conduct security checks. However, whomever they get to replace TSA has to conduct security checks to the same standards.

And does the 4th Amendment apply to an industry?

 

[Mesa]

Can you imagine the outcry and backlash if GWB were still president? This would be blasted all over MSNBC for 24/7 for the next month.

I recall libs and the ACLU taking issue with wiretapping suspected terrorist's phone to terrorists states. But sexual harassment at the airport in public... they're okay with that.

 

[The Ween]

Why isn't there a big stink about it over at Fox News?

 

[teemu]

Why isn't there a big stink about it over at Fox News?

because FOX (666) is controlled mainstream media

 

[Mister Ski]

because FOX (666) is controlled mainstream media

Riiiiight! The only conservative news network is obviously controlled mainstream media.

 

[teemu]

Riiiiight! The only conservative news network is obviously controlled mainstream media.

why dont you research it and find out who really owns it...its just another corporate controlled brainwashing news station

 

[fosing]

because FOX (666) is controlled mainstream media

Sideshow is one of THEM. go panic man. go.

 

[BadMoon]

why dont you research it and find out who really owns it...its just another corporate controlled brainwashing news station

So I guess that CNN video that you posted of Ron Paul was bull____?

 

[karamazov80]

There is a bit of truth to what teemu says, IMO. Fox and MSNBC are pretty much nothing but ideological bull____ nowadays, so you really don't get anything but editorial commentary there. CNN tries to act balanced, but when you are funded by commercial interests, your objectivity gets compromised pretty dang quickly (if not in how they cover stories than in which stories they cover and who they are allowed to interview, etc.). Even PBS begins to worry me as their corporate and philanthropic sponsors seem to get more and more airtime.

Just gets very tough to cut through the BS and find out what "the news" really is.

 

[BadMoon]

I don't think there's a hidden agenda persay. However I do believe its all about ratings. That's why we are subject to star gossip so much of the time.

 

[OSCORP]

It's no "news" that FOX has an agenda. As well as others. Are they the "beast"? I dunno

(all MM media = )