Strip-Searched Grandma Says TSA Removed Her Underwear

[jimnyc]

........AND CLAIMING WE EXPECT THEM to be all smiles and lollipops is a lie, I dont give a rats ass if they smile, just dont stick your fucking finger up my ass looking for bombs, and humiliating me. And yea, RAPE is about humiliation, thats why often they use an object to put up the anus of the victim. Its about humiliation, and if you arent humiliated by someone sticking their finger up your ass, while hundreds of people are on the other side of a 3/4 wall, simply because I didnt smile at them while they go through my most personal of possesions in public, then you are the biggest lemming of them all.

Wow, now that I didn't read. Where did this occur? I didn't know they were or did perform any type of cavity searches. THAT I would put on par with a sexual offense and the TSA should be sued. Which airport was this?

[ConHog]

Wow, now that I didn't read. Where did this occur? I didn't know they were or did perform any type of cavity searches. THAT I would put on par with a sexual offense and the TSA should be sued. Which airport was this?

The International AIrport of Never Never Land :laugh:

[DragonStryk72]

A strip search isn't akin to rape. Good grief............. Now if they did a cavity search you MIGHT have a point.

CH, when does it become wrong in your book? Which of your kids would you have molested by TSA agent? Is that the only point where it becomes bad, or severe overreach? It doesn't matter how many people pass unmolested. It's unreasonable search, CH, unless you've given up on the constitution.

They've more than a decade now, and they've only gotten worse, not better, and still no closer to stopping the crap they're advertising they're protecting us from. Even if they found a suicide bomber, what would happen? Um, here's a thought, but why wouldn't the guy willing to die to blow people just detonate the bomb in the airport then, thus dying to blow people up? Are the rent-a-cops at the baggage check or security gate really going to be able to stop him?

[ConHog]

CH, when does it become wrong in your book? Which of your kids would you have molested by TSA agent? Is that the only point where it becomes bad, or severe overreach? It doesn't matter how many people pass unmolested. It's unreasonable search, CH, unless you've given up on the constitution.

They've more than a decade now, and they've only gotten worse, not better, and still no closer to stopping the crap they're advertising they're protecting us from. Even if they found a suicide bomber, what would happen? Um, here's a thought, but why wouldn't the guy willing to die to blow people just detonate the bomb in the airport then, thus dying to blow people up? Are the rent-a-cops at the baggage check or security gate really going to be able to stop him?

Unresonable? Even if I agreed with you, and I'm not sure I don't, any constitutional claim is waived by virtue of the fact that you can entirely avoid thes
e searches by NOT FLYING.

Oh, and I'll remind the class that even if they did have a right to fly. the Court has already ruled in Sitz that unreasonable searches are okay as long as the inconvenience is kept to a minimum in relation to the safety provided by such searches.

[fj1200]

^You're in favor of a decision that increases the power of the state? Color me shocked.

[ConHog]

^You're in favor of a decision that increases the power of the state? Color me shocked.

Oh please. hyperbole much?

I in favor of keeping future planers from being blown up.

[jimnyc]

Wow, now that I didn't read. Where did this occur? I didn't know they were or did perform any type of cavity searches. THAT I would put on par with a sexual offense and the TSA should be sued. Which airport was this?

*bump*

Hoping maybe someone can answer the above. I did some searching and can't find this anywhere.

[ConHog]

*bump*

Hoping maybe someone can answer the above. I did some searching and can't find this anywhere.

I'm sure that will be answered the same time my questions about some of the absurd statements made by some about what I supposedly support are addressed.

[jimnyc]

I'm sure that will be answered the same time my questions about some of the absurd statements made by some about what I supposedly support are addressed.

I'm FOR security, whether it's the TSA or a private company. But if EITHER were to perform cavity searches, like luvRPgrl posted about, then there is a serious problem. But I'd like to read the story in it's entirety before I judge too much. If a known "drug mule" is coming through, have at it, but he made it seem as if it happened behind a small wall/curtain, to an everyday passenger trying to board a plane. I've found stories of cavity searches, but all of them were of foreigners entering the country from places like Columbia and they found other contraband or had good reasoning for performing the search. I can't find any recent stories about a passenger boarding, that was given a cavity search, and then allowed on the plane. The more I search the more I think that this never happened as presented, or happened at all.

[ConHog]

I'm FOR security, whether it's the TSA or a private company. But if EITHER were to perform cavity searches, like luvRPgrl posted about, then there is a serious problem. But I'd like to read the story in it's entirety before I judge too much. If a known "drug mule" is coming through, have at it, but he made it seem as if it happened behind a small wall/curtain, to an everyday passenger trying to board a plane. I've found stories of cavity searches, but all of them were of foreigners entering the country from places like Columbia and they found other contraband or had good reasoning for performing the search. I can't find any recent stories about a passenger boarding, that was given a cavity search, and then allowed on the plane. The more I search the more I think that this never happened as presented, or happened at all.

I to would find random cavity searches to beyond the pale. But , I put that right up there with this old lady's tale of being strip searched. It didn't happen.

Notice to when asked where the proof that she was strip searched the response from a few (LuvPrgl for one) was " why don't they video tape it to prove they don't strip search" LOL Now I do wonder why they aren't videotaping the pat downs, if they aren't as I actually don't know one way or the other, but to state that they should videotape to prove they aren't guilty is just beyond ridiculous.

[fj1200]

Oh please. hyperbole much?

I in favor of keeping future planers from being blown up.

Not a bit of hyperbole in it. Unless you don't really hold those positions where you support massive increases in the state in the guise of safety.

[LuvRPgrl]

LOL so you are able to read minds? How awesome for you.

I can read yours, you are so predictable.
For starters, you look forward every morning to spending 4- 12 hours on debate policy during the day.

[ConHog]

Not a bit of hyperbole in it. Unless you don't really hold those positions where you support massive increases in the state in the guise of safety.

Except that I've never said that I support massive increases in the state in the guise of safety. So what is there to hold?

[LuvRPgrl]

Wow, now that I didn't read. Where did this occur? I didn't know they were or did perform any type of cavity searches. THAT I would put on par with a sexual offense and the TSA should be sued. Which airport was this?

Border crossing Mexico.

[ConHog]

Border crossing Mexico.

TSA doesn't guard the southern border. And I'm sure if a cavity search was done there it was because a drug dog went crazy around the suspect. it wasn't just a routine " okay you're next to have your asshole searched."

[LuvRPgrl]

Unresonable? Even if I agreed with you, and I'm not sure I don't, any constitutional claim is waived by virtue of the fact that you can entirely avoid thes
e searches by NOT FLYING.

.

Isnt it you who said the skies are owned by the govt, or at least regulated by them?

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm sure that will be answered the same time my questions about some of the absurd statements made by some about what I supposedly support are addressed.

Not only is my dick BIGGER, than yours,:laugh2: but you dont even have the balls to call me out when you are clearly speaking about me. Oh, again, I dont have 12 hours a day to be here, so if it takes some time, so be it, it will be answered. You are the one who leaves lots of questions unanswered, show me where I have dont that.

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm FOR security, whether it's the TSA or a private company. But if EITHER were to perform cavity searches, like luvRPgrl posted about, then there is a serious problem. But I'd like to read the story in it's entirety before I judge too much. If a known "drug mule" is coming through, have at it, but he made it seem as if it happened behind a small wall/curtain, to an everyday passenger trying to board a plane. I've found stories of cavity searches, but all of them were of foreigners entering the country from places like Columbia and they found other contraband or had good reasoning for performing the search. I can't find any recent stories about a passenger boarding, that was given a cavity search, and then allowed on the plane. The more I search the more I think that this never happened as presented, or happened at all.
.
IF, they had good reason, and I dont mean by their standards, but by public standards, and its reason isnt something they trumped up, or discovered after they started the search, then Im for it also, probably.
tThey do occur, but its not reported. TSA and border agents arent stupid. They know how to make sure it doesnt make the papers.
Fast and furious anyone? They got away with that for a loooooooooooong time.

[LuvRPgrl]

Except that I've never said that I support massive increases in the state in the guise of safety. So what is there to hold?
Creation and growth of the TSA isnt massive?:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
Then apparently neither is your self opinion of yourself.
:laugh2:

[LuvRPgrl]

TSA doesn't guard the southern border. And I'm sure if a cavity search was done there it was because a drug dog went crazy around the suspect. it wasn't just a routine " okay you're next to have your asshole searched."

You are so sure? ITS AMAZING how many things you are so sure of, just because.....with no proof.
Dogs, nope, the dogs are farther along in the process at the san ysidro border crossing, the back room check happened before they got there.
/
PS, sorry about the multiple postings, Ive tried to get the multi quote function to work, just having a problem with it.
At least I have kept my responses short though, and
if any mod can compile all these posts in a single post, please do so,.

[fj1200]

Except that I've never said that I support massive increases in the state in the guise of safety. So what is there to hold?

:cough: TSA :cough:

[jimnyc]

Why should I be smiling at someone who is making me wait in line for hours, arrive 3 hours before my departure time, will take away the most inane, stupid things like toe nail clippers, tweezers, and my shoes? Why should I smile if , against my will, they are going to go through my most personal of possesions? No way jose, fuck them, and fuck you. I harrass them as much as I can, cuz even when I didnt, they still did all those searches.
........AND CLAIMING WE EXPECT THEM to be all smiles and lollipops is a lie, I dont give a rats ass if they smile, just dont stick your fucking finger up my ass looking for bombs, and humiliating me. And yea, RAPE is about humiliation, thats why often they use an object to put up the anus of the victim. Its about humiliation, and if you arent humiliated by someone sticking their finger up your ass, while hundreds of people are on the other side of a 3/4 wall, simply because I didnt smile at them while they go through my most personal of possesions in public, then you are the biggest lemming of them all.


Border crossing Mexico.

The above sure didn't sound like you were talking about a border crossing.

[ConHog]

:cough: TSA :cough:

Link to where I have advocated for the expansion of the TSA???

[fj1200]

^Hint: The TSA is the expansion.

EDIT: How could I forget your advocacy of the stripping of constitutional rights to the likes of Awlaki.

[ConHog]

^Hint: The TSA is the expansion.

EDIT: How could I forget your advocacy of the stripping of constitutional rights to the likes of Awlaki.

The TSA is already here and in "power" so advocating that they stay exactly as they are is in fact NOT advocating for the furtherring of the state's power.


Oh and I didn't support taking any rights away from Awlaki, I maintain that he himself surrendered those rights.

[Abbey Marie]

The TSA is already here and in "power" so advocating that they stay exactly as they are is in fact NOT advocating for the furtherring of the state's power.


Oh and I didn't support taking any rights away from Awlaki, I maintain that he himself surrendered those rights.

Creating a new base line. Clever response.

[ConHog]

Creating a new base line. Clever response.

I didn't create the baseline my dear. I merely suggest that I am okay with, and really I'm not even that as I have said several tims that I favor making changes to the system.

[logroller]

^You're in favor of a decision that increases the power of the state? Color me shocked.

When you hear "We're your govt, and we're here to protect you", Run, Don't fly.

[Shadow]

This comment proves to me that some people are just divorced from reality on this issue.


Well...the 80 year old grandma that you keep harping on has not been proven to be a "liar"...infact she has her kids backing her up (plus other grandma's with similar stories about the very same TSA agents). At any rate she is taking the TSA to court and doesn't seem to be backing down on this.

Sorry Shadow, but how would the kids have any clue about what happened in the room? I PROMISE you that old lady wasn't strip searched in front of her kids.

She is lying. She had a back brace, someone mistook it for a money belt and asked her to remove it. That's a mistake to be sure, but some nefarious strip search akin to rape? Nope.

I want them to hold the TSA accountable when they screw up to, but I also wish they would hold liars accountable to. Let this old lady have her day in court, if they rule for her fine pay her some money, if they find against her , throw her old ass in jail. Then the liars would stop lying and people who have LEGITIMATE gripes could see their complaints addressed more quickly.

And just how are you going to "promise me" anything did or didn't happen period,when you weren't even there and have no clue what actually happened either? And I never claimed she was BTW...that was something you just latched onto for some reason.

Apparently the TSA can't even prove their own actions were above board,or they would have...and that would have been the end of it.

[ConHog]

And just how are you going to "promise me" anything did or didn't happen period,when you weren't even there and have no clue what actually happened either? And I never claimed she was BTW...that was something you just latched onto for some reason.

Apparently the TSA can't even prove their own actions were above board,or they would have...and that would have been the end of it.

So, we have another vote for "make the goddamned cops prove they are innocent when accused."

Let's turn this around , what if the TSA had arrested the old lady for plotting an act of terror and then told her "prove you didn't do it?"

[LuvRPgrl]

The above sure didn't sound like you were talking about a border crossing.
Thats ok

[LuvRPgrl]

So, we have another vote for "make the goddamned cops prove they are innocent when accused."

Let's turn this around , what if the TSA had arrested the old lady for plotting an act of terror and then told her "prove you didn't do it?"

thats right, the cops initiated the confrontation, so its their responsability

[fj1200]

The TSA is already here and in "power" so advocating that they stay exactly as they are is in fact NOT advocating for the furtherring of the state's power.


Oh and I didn't support taking any rights away from Awlaki, I maintain that he himself surrendered those rights.

Uh huh. :rolleyes:

[ConHog]

thats right, the cops initiated the confrontation, so its their responsability

Um what? Now who's being an idiot..... You're really telling me that if you get pulled over for speeding and then later claim the cop raped you that he has to prove that he didn't? You're an idiot.

[LuvRPgrl]

Um what? Now who's being an idiot..... You're really telling me that if you get pulled over for speeding and then later claim the cop raped you that he has to prove that he didn't? You're an idiot.

but Im lovable,,,

[Shadow]

So, we have another vote for "make the goddamned cops prove they are innocent when accused."

Let's turn this around , what if the TSA had arrested the old lady for plotting an act of terror and then told her "prove you didn't do it?"

Since these particular TSA agents have had more then a few complaints logged against them ...yes. They should have policies in place to protect themselves and the public from these kind of charges.

And as for your second comment. That's kind of what the TSA is doing now. "hey cancer survivor...you can't "prove" you aren't harboring an explosive...so, remove your breast implants in front of total strangers". "granny...you too...either you remove your panties and prove your medical devices aren't bombs or we will".

[ConHog]

Since these particular TSA agents have had more then a few complaints logged against them ...yes. They should have policies in place to protect themselves and the public from thse kind of charges.

And as for your second comment. That's kind what the TSA is doing now. "hey cancer survivor...you can't "prove" you aren't harboring an explosive...so, remove your breast implants in front of total strangers". "granny...you too...either you remove your panties and prove your medical devices aren't bombs or we will".

As to your first point, I agree, it would be perplexing as to why they don't video all interviews and pat downs if they don't. Speaking from my experience every pat down and interview I ever knew of was videotaped. I haven't heard definitively whether there is a video of this or not. There certainly should be. However, the lack of a video proving that no strip search took place is not credible evidence that a strip search took place.

As to your second point. No it isn't the same thing. The TSA isn't accusing anyone of anything, they are merely checking people, and I haven't seen a shred of evidenced that anyone's panties have been removed during a search, either by their own hands or by force.

[Shadow]

As to your first point, I agree, it would be perplexing as to why they don't video all interviews and pat downs if they don't. Speaking from my experience every pat down and interview I ever knew of was videotaped. I haven't heard definitively whether there is a video of this or not. There certainly should be. However, the lack of a video proving that no strip search took place is not credible evidence that a strip search took place.

As to your second point. No it isn't the same thing. The TSA isn't accusing anyone of anything, they are merely checking people, and I haven't seen a shred of evidenced that anyone's panties have been removed during a search, either by their own hands or by force.

Going to have to disagree. It is the same thing...the TSA in general has had multiple complaints about the agents being abusive and over reaching when it comes to their authority.

In the same way that you accuse the passengers of being rude and out right lying. The same can be said of the agents...they get a rude or frustrated customer...and then they make an example out of them by humilitating them in public on purpose...just because they think they can. You are trying to make folks believe that it is totally unheard of for people with authority to abuse their power...and I'm not buying into it.

[Abbey Marie]

I didn't create the baseline my dear. I merely suggest that I am okay with, and really I'm not even that as I have said several tims that I favor making changes to the system.

I actually meant it as a compliment.

[jimnyc]

Since these particular TSA agents have had more then a few complaints logged against them ...yes. They should have policies in place to protect themselves and the public from these kind of charges.

No way I'm going back through every post in this thread! LOL

But are you stating that the very same agents that were involved in the issue with "grandma" in the OP have other charges against them? Sorry if I'm asking you to repeat something because I'm lazy! But if it's the same agents with multiple complaints on the same charges, then the TSA should remove them until an investigation is done. Up until now, the only "charge" I was aware of was the original one in the first post, and the TSA's version makes more sense than grandmas. But if these same agents received further complaints of the same issue, then that would lend credibility to her side.

[ConHog]

No way I'm going back through every post in this thread! LOL

But are you stating that the very same agents that were involved in the issue with "grandma" in the OP have other charges against them? Sorry if I'm asking you to repeat something because I'm lazy! But if it's the same agents with multiple complaints on the same charges, then the TSA should remove them until an investigation is done. Up until now, the only "charge" I was aware of was the original one in the first post, and the TSA's version makes more sense than grandmas. But if these same agents received further complaints of the same issue, then that would lend credibility to her side.

I agree that if there are multiple claims of similar abuses by these same agents I want to know why they haven't been reprimanded.

However, I still maintain that this old hag wasn't strip searched. She was asked to remove a back brace that agents mistakenly thought was a money belt, which according to TSA policy must be removed during hand pat downs. Was this back brace all she had on as far as underclothes go? If so gross, If not, she wasn't stripped.

At the most this appears to be a case of agents who need to be instructed in the difference between a back brace and a money belt, hardly a constitutional violation.

[jimnyc]

I agree that if there are multiple claims of similar abuses by these same agents I want to know why they haven't been reprimanded.

However, I still maintain that this old hag wasn't strip searched. She was asked to remove a back brace that agents mistakenly thought was a money belt, which according to TSA policy must be removed during hand pat downs. Was this back brace all she had on as far as underclothes go? If so gross, If not, she wasn't stripped.

At the most this appears to be a case of agents who need to be instructed in the difference between a back brace and a money belt, hardly a constitutional violation.

I think some people simply get pissed for various reasons and scream bloody murder as a result. Hell, why do some people show up with video cameras and doing other shit to voice their complaints? They're simply looking for trouble. The line at the airport is not the place to complain or try and get the security issues changed.

As for Grandma, I don't know what tapes exist. Apparently the "public" side of the CCTV showed she was in and out within 11 minutes, and doesn't show anyone in distress or going nuts because they were just forced to completely disrobe, underwear and all. And I think doing this to an 80+ year old woman, wearing health equipment, in a wheelchair - it would likely take more than 11 minutes.

But for the sake of future prevention and accountability, if they don't have them already, they should have EVERY aspect videotaped. Then the problem is, people will complain that their searches, pat downs or strip searches shouldn't be on video.

[ConHog]

I think some people simply get pissed for various reasons and scream bloody murder as a result. Hell, why do some people show up with video cameras and doing other shit to voice their complaints? They're simply looking for trouble. The line at the airport is not the place to complain or try and get the security issues changed.

As for Grandma, I don't know what tapes exist. Apparently the "public" side of the CCTV showed she was in and out within 11 minutes, and doesn't show anyone in distress or going nuts because they were just forced to completely disrobe, underwear and all. And I think doing this to an 80+ year old woman, wearing health equipment, in a wheelchair - it would likely take more than 11 minutes.

But for the sake of future prevention and accountability, if they don't have them already, they should have EVERY aspect videotaped. Then the problem is, people will complain that their searches, pat downs or strip searches shouldn't be on video.


Exactly right, some people would complain if you hung them with a new rope.

[LuvRPgrl]

Um what? Now who's being an idiot..... You're really telling me that if you get pulled over for speeding and then later claim the cop raped you that he has to prove that he didn't? You're an idiot.

your analogy is flawed.
A person who speeds is initiating the confrontation by breaking the law.
The lady in the airport was merely trying to go see her grandkids somewhere. She initiated nothing.

[LuvRPgrl]

Since these particular TSA agents have had more then a few complaints logged against them ...yes. They should have policies in place to protect themselves and the public from these kind of charges.

And as for your second comment. That's kind of what the TSA is doing now. "hey cancer survivor...you can't "prove" you aren't harboring an explosive...so, remove your breast implants in front of total strangers". "granny...you too...either you remove your panties and prove your medical devices aren't bombs or we will".

Absolutely true.
CH's analogies are so flawed on top of it all.
She was forced to go inside the room.
They were not forced to go anywhere.
They had the power to have it video taped or not, she didnt.

[LuvRPgrl]

As to your first point, I agree, it would be perplexing as to why they don't video all interviews and pat downs if they don't. Speaking from my experience every pat down and interview I ever knew of was videotaped. I haven't heard definitively whether there is a video of this or not. There certainly should be. However, the lack of a video proving that no strip search took place is not credible evidence that a strip search took place..
Since you say its suppose to be video taped, then yes, the lack of one raises suspcions.


As to your second point. No it isn't the same thing. The TSA isn't accusing anyone of anything, they are merely checking people, and I haven't seen a shred of evidenced that anyone's panties have been removed during a search, either by their own hands or by force.
So you think they should have the authority to strip search anyone they please, without any accusations, or reasonable cause to be suspcious?

[jimnyc]

Absolutely true.
CH's analogies are so flawed on top of it all.
She was forced to go inside the room.
They were not forced to go anywhere.
They had the power to have it video taped or not, she didnt.

I'm not so sure about that. I think something would need to be passed as far as security changes go, to allow for videotaping of people in various states of undress. I DO feel that this should be the case under the circumstances and the potential for abuse - but then the complaint would immediately be that they are perverts and videotaping people. I'd be curious if it were legal or not for them to do so. What they should do, what the law allows & what people complain about are likely 3 different things.

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm not so sure about that. I think something would need to be passed as far as security changes go, to allow for videotaping of people in various states of undress. I DO feel that this should be the case under the circumstances and the potential for abuse - but then the complaint would immediately be that they are perverts and videotaping people. I'd be curious if it were legal or not for them to do so. What they should do, what the law allows & what people complain about are likely 3 different things.

according to CH, they ARE SUPPOSE to tape it.

[Shadow]

No way I'm going back through every post in this thread! LOL

But are you stating that the very same agents that were involved in the issue with "grandma" in the OP have other charges against them? Sorry if I'm asking you to repeat something because I'm lazy! But if it's the same agents with multiple complaints on the same charges, then the TSA should remove them until an investigation is done. Up until now, the only "charge" I was aware of was the original one in the first post, and the TSA's version makes more sense than grandmas. But if these same agents received further complaints of the same issue, then that would lend credibility to her side.

Yes,the original story about the grandmother who was strip searched because she opted out of the scan (due to her defibrillator) prompted two other elderly women to come forward with similar complaints against the agents at JFK.

[jimnyc]

Yes,the original story about the grandmother who was strip searched because she opted out of the scan (due to her defibrillator) prompted two other elderly women to come forward with similar complaints against the agents at JFK.

Just did some more searching and read about all 3. It wasn't the "same" agents, but at the same airport around the same time is a bit disturbing. Sounds like it's time for a new person in charge at JFK, some training, and a thorough investigation into all 3 episodes, including any and all footage they can get their hands on. Seems all 3 involve elderly women with either medical equipment or medical needs underneath their clothing. The searches aren't "necessary" in such cases as per the TSA's own rules. I see no reason to believe underwear was searched on them as it wouldn't be necessary, but another reason why I believe the security operations should be monitored and videotaped.

[DragonStryk72]

Just did some more searching and read about all 3. It wasn't the "same" agents, but at the same airport around the same time is a bit disturbing. Sounds like it's time for a new person in charge at JFK, some training, and a thorough investigation into all 3 episodes, including any and all footage they can get their hands on. Seems all 3 involve elderly women with either medical equipment or medical needs underneath their clothing. The searches aren't "necessary" in such cases as per the TSA's own rules. I see no reason to believe underwear was searched on them as it wouldn't be necessary, but another reason why I believe the security operations should be monitored and videotaped.

Well, so much for my mom. she's had three hip replacements at this point, and it's a full metal hip with pins. What should be done is stop doing completely useless "security" checks that don't increase our actual security.

[jimnyc]

Well, so much for my mom. she's had three hip replacements at this point, and it's a full metal hip with pins. What should be done is stop doing completely useless "security" checks that don't increase our actual security.

So let anyone stuff whatever they want in their pants and/or carry on luggage? Doesn't matter what they stuff in their shoes or underwear? Just come in whenever you want, walk onto a plane and fly away? Not gonna happen, sorry. The security existed before boarding LONG before 9/11 and will continue. And you can't say the security is "useless", as I think the skies have been fairly trouble free for quite some time.

Oh, wait, is it because we didn't capture terrorists yet, like rev said?

[DragonStryk72]

So let anyone stuff whatever they want in their pants and/or carry on luggage? Doesn't matter what they stuff in their shoes or underwear? Just come in whenever you want, walk onto a plane and fly away? Not gonna happen, sorry. The security existed before boarding LONG before 9/11 and will continue. And you can't say the security is "useless", as I think the skies have been fairly trouble free for quite some time.

Oh, wait, is it because we didn't capture terrorists yet, like rev said?

I'm not saying security is useless, you are. We used to employ probable cause, observation, but no, grandma might be a terrorist cause she purchased a legal ticket to get on an airplane and got in line. Why do you believe that it can only be violating Grandma is okay or do absolutely nothing whatsoever? Why can we not use intelligent security, as opposed to the idiotic security we have now? Why must it always be A or B, like we're stuck in some sort of choose your own adventure?

[jimnyc]

I'm not saying security is useless, you are. We used to employ probable cause, observation, but no, grandma might be a terrorist cause she purchased a legal ticket to get on an airplane and got in line. Why do you believe that it can only be violating Grandma is okay or do absolutely nothing whatsoever? Why can we not use intelligent security, as opposed to the idiotic security we have now? Why must it always be A or B, like we're stuck in some sort of choose your own adventure?


Well, so much for my mom. she's had three hip replacements at this point, and it's a full metal hip with pins. What should be done is stop doing completely useless "security" checks that don't increase our actual security.

My bad, it sounded like you were stating that security checks were useless in general. If you're stating that they are useless when done to very old people that are obviously not involved in any criminal activity, I would agree for the most part. But security checks are essential to ensure we don't have a repeat of 9/11, and that further criminal activity doesn't take over airplanes.

Probable cause and observation won't prevent a "shoe bomb" or "underwear bomb". So long as their are holes in the security system, some will look to exploit it.

Btw, probable cause isn't an issue in a consented search, which it is since everyone agrees to the terms when purchasing tickets. You're still under the false impression that this is somehow a constitutional 4th amendment violation, which it's not, not even close.

[Kathianne]

My bad, it sounded like you were stating that security checks were useless in general. If you're stating that they are useless when done to very old people that are obviously not involved in any criminal activity, I would agree for the most part. But security checks are essential to ensure we don't have a repeat of 9/11, and that further criminal activity doesn't take over airplanes.

Probable cause and observation won't prevent a "shoe bomb" or "underwear bomb". So long as their are holes in the security system, some will look to exploit it.

Btw, probable cause isn't an issue in a consented search, which it is since everyone agrees to the terms when purchasing tickets. You're still under the false impression that this is somehow a constitutional 4th amendment violation, which it's not, not even close.

I agree. I thanked DS post for the very reason that he's advocating 'smarter' security, not ending any security. You are correct in the 4th amendment issue, no one HAS to fly.

Profiling and other smart ways of choosing whom to up security of is necessary. This whole process of trying to 'be fair' by randomly picking people is nonsense, which is where we get all the complaints about tiny tots and grannies.

[LuvRPgrl]

So let anyone stuff whatever they want in their pants and/or carry on luggage? Doesn't matter what they stuff in their shoes or underwear? Just come in whenever you want, walk onto a plane and fly away? Not gonna happen, sorry. The security existed before boarding LONG before 9/11 and will continue. And you can't say the security is "useless", as I think the skies have been fairly trouble free for quite some time.

Oh, wait, is it because we didn't capture terrorists yet, like rev said?

what is going on now is not the onlly solution, but they want you to think it is.

[jimnyc]

I agree. I thanked DS post for the very reason that he's advocating 'smarter' security, not ending any security. You are correct in the 4th amendment issue, no one HAS to fly.

Profiling and other smart ways of choosing whom to up security of is necessary. This whole process of trying to 'be fair' by randomly picking people is nonsense, which is where we get all the complaints about tiny tots and grannies.

Keep in mind, it's not just a "terrorist" thing, but also criminal. I don't have the figures handy, but the TSA confiscated over 1 million knives in one year! Other contraband is consistently confiscated and a shitload of guns. The "system" can certainly be a LOT better, and I already stated would be better done without the TSA and using a private company, but they should continue the searches as it's obviously finding a lot of shit I wouldn't want my fellow passengers to have with them flying.

[jimnyc]

what is going on now is not the onlly solution, but they want you to think it is.

Never said it was and never thought it was.

[LuvRPgrl]

My bad, it sounded like you were stating that security checks were useless in general. If you're stating that they are useless when done to very old people that are obviously not involved in any criminal activity, I would agree for the most part. But security checks are essential to ensure we don't have a repeat of 9/11, and that further criminal activity doesn't take over airplanes.

Probable cause and observation won't prevent a "shoe bomb" or "underwear bomb". So long as their are holes in the security system, some will look to exploit it.

Btw, probable cause isn't an issue in a consented search, which it is since everyone agrees to the terms when purchasing tickets. You're still under the false impression that this is somehow a constitutional 4th amendment violation, which it's not, not even close.

Im not sure why it isnt a "rights " issue. The skies are public property. People have a right to use them, just as I have a right to pay a driver to take me over a bridge that charges a toll. The searches should be illegal, if they arent, then its just one more confirmation that we are indeed in a police state

[LuvRPgrl]

I agree. I thanked DS post for the very reason that he's advocating 'smarter' security, not ending any security. You are correct in the 4th amendment issue, no one HAS to fly.

Profiling and other smart ways of choosing whom to up security of is necessary. This whole process of trying to 'be fair' by randomly picking people is nonsense, which is where we get all the complaints about tiny tots and grannies.

Nobody HAS to do anything.
.. If one of the provisions of hiring a driver to take me somewhere, if POSSIBLE STRIP SEARCH were involved, based on the opinon and whim of the driver, THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL.

[jimnyc]

Im not sure why it isnt a "rights " issue. The skies are public property. People have a right to use them, just as I have a right to pay a driver to take me over a bridge that charges a toll. The searches should be illegal, if they arent, then its just one more confirmation that we are indeed in a police state

Flying is not a "right". You can be refused the PRIVILEGE of flying at any time. You are free to buy your own airplane and fly without restrictions, but don't expect those less restrictions when you're flying on a loaded plane, owned by another company, and loaded with a bunch of people who have no idea who one another are.

[jimnyc]

Nobody HAS to do anything.
.. If one of the provisions of hiring a driver to take me somewhere, if POSSIBLE STRIP SEARCH were involved, based on the opinon and whim of the driver, THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL.

First off, it's not "strip searches" being conducted at airports, and it's actually against their policy, even though some have stated otherwise. Nonetheless, if you hire a private limo to take you into NYC, and that company requires pat downs to ensure driver safety and that no one is carrying a weapon - that's quite legal.

[LuvRPgrl]

Keep in mind, it's not just a "terrorist" thing, but also criminal. I don't have the figures handy, but the TSA confiscated over 1 million knives in one year! Other contraband is consistently confiscated and a shitload of guns. The "system" can certainly be a LOT better, and I already stated would be better done without the TSA and using a private company, but they should continue the searches as it's obviously finding a lot of shit I wouldn't want my fellow passengers to have with them flying.

YEA, they consider finger nail clippers as knives if they want to.
TSA is going to scew the number of times, and how, they have saved our nation, as much as they can, to justify their own existence.

I dont recall issues with knives and guns really being an issue before searches were initiated, save for the terrorists thing, and hijackings. I think the hijacking and terrorist thing is pretty much handled without the searches anymore. I may be wrong, Im sure if I am, someone will point it out :laugh:

But also, Im wondering how many of the guns were taken from people with no ill intentions towards the pass, flight, plane, airlines, etc. And if someone on 9/11 had a gun, maybe they wouldnt have reached the twin towers.

[jimnyc]

YEA, they consider finger nail clippers as knives if they want to.
TSA is going to scew the number of times, and how, they have saved our nation, as much as they can, to justify their own existence.

I dont recall issues with knives and guns really being an issue before searches were initiated, save for the terrorists thing, and hijackings. I think the hijacking and terrorist thing is pretty much handled without the searches anymore. I may be wrong, Im sure if I am, someone will point it out :laugh:

But also, Im wondering how many of the guns were taken from people with no ill intentions towards the pass, flight, plane, airlines, etc. And if someone on 9/11 had a gun, maybe they wouldnt have reached the twin towers.

That's because security, metal detectors and the occasional pat down existed before, as with screening of baggage. The ONLY thing that has really changed is the increased technology they use for screening and the pat downs for those that refuse the new technology. Other than that, I've been stopped by security every single time I've ever flown, dating back to the early 80's.

And cut out the things you consider lame, even cut it in half, that would be 500,000 knives -and that's just one year. And countless guns and other things that can be quite harmful while in the air. If you want to ignore their successes and only bitch about the complaints, that's your problem.

[LuvRPgrl]

Flying is not a "right". You can be refused the PRIVILEGE of flying at any time. You are free to buy your own airplane and fly without restrictions, but don't expect those less restrictions when you're flying on a loaded plane, owned by another company, and loaded with a bunch of people who have no idea who one another are.

I didnt say it was a right, I said it SHOULD BE, court rulings are wrong all the time, we at DP know that better than anyone.
Driving may not be a right, but using the roads to be driven is.
Who ownss the roads? Who owns the skies? Tell me any difference between flying and catching a cab.

[LuvRPgrl]

First off, it's not "strip searches" being conducted at airports, and it's actually against their policy, even though some have stated otherwise. Nonetheless, if you hire a private limo to take you into NYC, and that company requires pat downs to ensure driver safety and that no one is carrying a weapon - that's quite legal.

But that would be the choice of the limo company. And it wouldnt be done by a govt agent.
We could actually save more lives by scanning cab riders for guns,than all the lives lost in hijackings.

[jimnyc]

I didnt say it was a right, I said it SHOULD BE, court rulings are wrong all the time, we at DP know that better than anyone.
Driving may not be a right, but using the roads to be driven is.
Who ownss the roads? Who owns the skies? Tell me any difference between flying and catching a cab.

The state/towns own the roads, hence why we pay for shitty tolls everywhere we go.

I guess when you catch a cab, you aren't doing so with perhaps a few hundred total strangers, in a vehicle that is worth about 300,000 cabs!

[jimnyc]

But that would be the choice of the limo company. And it wouldnt be done by a govt agent.
We could actually save more lives by scanning cab riders for guns,than all the lives lost in hijackings.

I already said the government shouldn't be running the show here. Then it'll fall back to the airlines, who will hire private security companies, and I'll guarantee you the security pretty much stays the same. The only difference is the accountability at that point, which is the reason I would support the change. I WANT accountability of there is wrongdoing, but I also want security.

[LuvRPgrl]

That's because security, metal detectors and the occasional pat down existed before, as with screening of baggage. The ONLY thing that has really changed is the increased technology they use for screening and the pat downs for those that refuse the new technology. Other than that, I've been stopped by security every single time I've ever flown, dating back to the early 80's.

And cut out the things you consider lame, even cut it in half, that would be 500,000 knives -and that's just one year. And countless guns and other things that can be quite harmful while in the air. If you want to ignore their successes and only bitch about the complaints, that's your problem.

Im not saying the number isnt significant, but Im not saying it is either. We could cut energy use by 1 trillion megawatts if we just eliminated the light bulbs in refrigerators. My point is, I dont know how many people fly in the given time the knives were taken away, what kind of knives, what the people were like, ie. did a 9 year old cub scout have a small pocket knife in his backpack?

And I do harken back to the days when you just went onboard the plane, all you needed was your boarding pass.
Anybody who loses their fear to fly because of the TSA are as likely to believe Obama is good for the economy.

Not sure what you mean by "stopped by security". I flew back and forth from china, japan, korea, philippines and others many, many times, and I opted out taking onboard luggage, and was never, not once, been stopped by security. Im talking over 50 flights, including into well know terrorists parts of the world, Mindinao. Quite a few americans have been murdered there.

[jimnyc]

Im not saying the number isnt significant, but Im not saying it is either. We could cut energy use by 1 trillion megawatts if we just eliminated the light bulbs in refrigerators. My point is, I dont know how many people fly in the given time the knives were taken away, what kind of knives, what the people were like, ie. did a 9 year old cub scout have a small pocket knife in his backpack?

And I do harken back to the days when you just went onboard the plane, all you needed was your boarding pass.
Anybody who loses their fear to fly because of the TSA are as likely to believe Obama is good for the economy.

Not sure what you mean by "stopped by security". I flew back and forth from china, japan, korea, philippines and others many, many times, and I opted out taking onboard luggage, and was never, not once, been stopped by security. Im talking over 50 flights, including into well know terrorists parts of the world, Mindinao. Quite a few americans have been murdered there.

I've been going through metal detectors, seeing the "wand" and emptying my pockets since I made my first flight in the early 80's. Nothing major, empty your pockets of all metal, toss your bag to the xray machine, meet both on the other side in 20 seconds. I saw your age on your birthday the other day, it's probably because you're an old bastard and flew long before my first flight! LOL

[LuvRPgrl]

The state/towns own the roads, hence why we pay for shitty tolls everywhere we go.

I guess when you catch a cab, you aren't doing so with perhaps a few hundred total strangers, in a vehicle that is worth about 300,000 cabs!

hmmm, and the govt owns the skies.
Tour buses carry quite a few citizens. Trains?

Point is, the laws and rights re: all public transportation has to be the same if the law is going to be consistent. WHO decides when our rights are no longer valid based on their opinion of how dangerous it is, and not by the rule of the law.?

Jimny, slow down, you are making me think on a sat ;morning !
Rev, where are you, I need back up, before CH gets here !!!!!!!!! LOL

[jimnyc]

hmmm, and the govt owns the skies.
Tour buses carry quite a few citizens. Trains?

Point is, the laws and rights re: all public transportation has to be the same if the law is going to be consistent. WHO decides when our rights are no longer valid based on their opinion of how dangerous it is, and not by the rule of the law.?

Jimny, slow down, you are making me think on a sat ;morning !
Rev, where are you, I need back up, before CH gets here !!!!!!!!! LOL

I know there is enhanced security in the subways here in NY. They were searching some baggage for awhile but that's stopped. Trains, buses... supposedly both have been targeted before, or there was chatter about bombing one or both as they did in London... I suppose IF Amtrak or similar wanted to hire a private company to perform security, I wouldn't complain, but wouldn't cheer either. It's THEIR trains and railroads after all, and I do think both need to ensure the safety of their passengers.

[LuvRPgrl]

I already said the government shouldn't be running the show here. Then it'll fall back to the airlines, who will hire private security companies, and I'll guarantee you the security pretty much stays the same. The only difference is the accountability at that point, which is the reason I would support the change. I WANT accountability of there is wrongdoing, but I also want security.

I would love to own stock in an airline if the security went private. As is always the case with open markets, some security system would be devised that could do better, and non invasive, no scanners or body checks. When that happens, EVERYBODY who trusts it will work will want to fly that airline.

Fact is, violence has been perpetuated upon the public from day one. Every time the bad guys devise a new strategy, the good guys devise a counter repellent, spy vs spy, and they do it by outsmarting them, not having everyone boarding get scanned, etc.
I know there are better ways but with no compelling reason to improve, the TSA DOESNT give a crap to change, typical govt bull.

[jimnyc]

Jimny, slow down, you are making me think on a sat ;morning !
Rev, where are you, I need back up, before CH gets here !!!!!!!!! LOL

NOOOOOO!!!!! Rev will post 75 Youtube videos and make his letters real large, and CH will come in and read the riot act to all of us about the constitution, and then fj will come and lecture us on the law, and then RSR will come in and call us all liberals!

Just kidding all, just trying to lighten the mood in what's been a pretty good thread for being so long. :coffee:

[LuvRPgrl]

I've been going through metal detectors, seeing the "wand" and emptying my pockets since I made my first flight in the early 80's. Nothing major, empty your pockets of all metal, toss your bag to the xray machine, meet both on the other side in 20 seconds. I saw your age on your birthday the other day, it's probably because you're an old bastard and flew long before my first flight! LOL

oh hell, I was around when all we had were prop engine planes.:laugh:

[LuvRPgrl]

NOOOOOO!!!!! Rev will post 75 Youtube videos and make his letters real large, and CH will come in and read the riot act to all of us about the constitution, and then fj will come and lecture us on the law, and then RSR will come in and call us all liberals!

Just kidding all, just trying to lighten the mood in what's been a pretty good thread for being so long. :coffee:

That is funny, You left all the girls out though ! what, are you homo or something? hahhaha,

oh, and I forgot YOU FREAKIN TATOO LADEN, PUSS SQUEEAING RED FACED LITTLE FAGGOT,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,uh, oppps, forgot what I was gonna say..LOL

[jimnyc]

That is funny, You left all the girls out though ! what, are you homo or something? hahhaha,

oh, and I forgot YOU FREAKIN TATOO LADEN, PUSS SQUEEAING RED FACED LITTLE FAGGOT,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,uh, oppps, forgot what I was gonna say..LOL

Meh, * brushes off shoulder * - I've been called much worse. You do realize that the LBGT community will be reaching out to you now for making homophobic comments!

I left out all the girls as I'm still holding out hope that one of them will someday show me their boobies!

[LuvRPgrl]

Meh, * brushes off shoulder * - I've been called much worse. You do realize that the LBGT community will be reaching out to you now for making homophobic comments!

I left out all the girls as I'm still holding out hope that one of them will someday show me their boobies!

Ha ! You havent seen any of them yet,??? Color me puzzled, I've seen...........

LBGT, I would love it if they showed up at my front door, especially if I had all my friends who also are homosexuals there who dont like what that "comminity" is doing either.
And I refuse to call them gay, they are anything but.

Re: your PM, I think we are on the same page, just disagree on how to get it done.

[DragonStryk72]

My bad, it sounded like you were stating that security checks were useless in general. If you're stating that they are useless when done to very old people that are obviously not involved in any criminal activity, I would agree for the most part. But security checks are essential to ensure we don't have a repeat of 9/11, and that further criminal activity doesn't take over airplanes.

Probable cause and observation won't prevent a "shoe bomb" or "underwear bomb". So long as their are holes in the security system, some will look to exploit it. And neither did security. Speaking as both former military, and former security, there is no security without holes

Btw, probable cause isn't an issue in a consented search, which it is since everyone agrees to the terms when purchasing tickets. You're still under the false impression that this is somehow a constitutional 4th amendment violation, which it's not, not even close.

So they can opt out and still fly? Oh wait, no they can't, so it's still de facto mandatory consent, which isn't really consent, any more than a person is "consenting" to a person stealing their wallet at gunpoint.

Actually, these sorts of ridiculous random searches decrease security, not increase it. Security has finite resources, so every time you deviate from keeping them at attention for things that could actually be a threat, you're opening up a hole in the defense. As well, a bomber of any sort will still likely get through security, since the statistical chance of them getting called at random is somewhat low, and they can use tricks to fool the security (Hide explosive compounds in a false boot heel, anthrax in a bottle of baby powder, there are thousands of tricks). Even if a bomber realizes he's caught, then he'll just set the bomb off in the crowded line at security. Actually,there would make more sense than the plane, because the people on board have no time to panic, unlike those in the station, so you would get not only the blast, but people running in a blind panic with possible secondary kills by trampling deaths and such.

9/11 was accomplished with tiny little knives, not bombs, because we had pulled federal marshals off the planes. We've corrected that, with an added increase security of the marshals being in plain clothes and armed. With no way of knowing who the federal marshal is, there is no way to accomplish another 9/11, and it is completely non-invasive. No one gets put out by this strategy, and it is a far better deterrent than the excessive security of the airports.

[jimnyc]

So they can opt out and still fly? Oh wait, no they can't, so it's still de facto mandatory consent, which isn't really consent, any more than a person is "consenting" to a person stealing their wallet at gunpoint.

Actually, these sorts of ridiculous random searches decrease security, not increase it. Security has finite resources, so every time you deviate from keeping them at attention for things that could actually be a threat, you're opening up a hole in the defense. As well, a bomber of any sort will still likely get through security, since the statistical chance of them getting called at random is somewhat low, and they can use tricks to fool the security (Hide explosive compounds in a false boot heel, anthrax in a bottle of baby powder, there are thousands of tricks). Even if a bomber realizes he's caught, then he'll just set the bomb off in the crowded line at security. Actually,there would make more sense than the plane, because the people on board have no time to panic, unlike those in the station, so you would get not only the blast, but people running in a blind panic with possible secondary kills by trampling deaths and such.

9/11 was accomplished with tiny little knives, not bombs, because we had pulled federal marshals off the planes. We've corrected that, with an added increase security of the marshals being in plain clothes and armed. With no way of knowing who the federal marshal is, there is no way to accomplish another 9/11, and it is completely non-invasive. No one gets put out by this strategy, and it is a far better deterrent than the excessive security of the airports.

And how will that stop someone from having a bomb upon their person and taking down the plane and 300 passengers mid-flight? And while you say there are always ways and things they can do anyway, I like my odds a little more when there is security for most obvious things, like a damn bomb on someone.

[LuvRPgrl]

And how will that stop someone from having a bomb upon their person and taking down the plane and 300 passengers mid-flight? And while you say there are always ways and things they can do anyway, I like my odds a little more when there is security for most obvious things, like a damn bomb on someone.

DS made a lot of good points. If I were to want to get by security, I would plant a couple of dummies in front of me so that the agents would be suspcious and take them aside and get their attention of me.

I know for a fact that if I wanted to get something by the security check, I could. But I wouldnt do it by trying to conceal it on my body somewhere, I would get it in through a back door.

I have absolutely zero percent confidence that the TSA checks could or do stop serious terrorists, and I dont think those under wear and shoe bombers were nothing but incidents where the guys wanted to get caugtht and say "look at me"/

[LuvRPgrl]

And how will that stop someone from having a bomb upon their person and taking down the plane and 300 passengers mid-flight? And while you say there are always ways and things they can do anyway, I like my odds a little more when there is security for most obvious things, like a damn bomb on someone.

There are two seperate and distinct reasons for opposing the searches. One is based on is it right or wrong. The other, is it the most effective way. Neither it being right, or effective have been proven.,

[DragonStryk72]

And how will that stop someone from having a bomb upon their person and taking down the plane and 300 passengers mid-flight? And while you say there are always ways and things they can do anyway, I like my odds a little more when there is security for most obvious things, like a damn bomb on someone.

Read my post on using intelligent security within the airports. Random searching people isn't it, Jim. Like I said, security resources are finite, so every time they're searching someone who clearly isn't a threat is time they're not looking for the people who are. We waste valuable time, energy and resources on these sorts of counter-productive measures. Again, you seem to be implying that I'm calling for the elimination of all airport security, and I'm not, never have, and never will. This ridiculously overhyped security is worse than useless, because it distracts from the real threats that we do need to worry about. Grandma ain't it, Jim.

[revelarts]

Read my post on using intelligent security within the airports. Random searching people isn't it, Jim. Like I said, security resources are finite, so every time they're searching someone who clearly isn't a threat is time they're not looking for the people who are. We waste valuable time, energy and resources on these sorts of counter-productive measures. Again, you seem to be implying that I'm calling for the elimination of all airport security, and I'm not, never have, and never will. This ridiculously overhyped security is worse than useless, because it distracts from the real threats that we do need to worry about. Grandma ain't it, Jim.

EXACTLY
now that I've gotten my big word out of the way I'll post youtube #1 of 75

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aWdR1z1HfI

Is CNN, a pilot video taped the difference in screening of passengers and the airport ground crew.
I've mention this before as well. The Ground crew walk in and out of the airport and onto planes without any check of persons or bags daily. It's an obvious security hole.

Chorus: TSA is nigh on useless security theater

"The Federal Government can't stop 6,000 tons of Cocaine coming into America every year, DMS can't stop thousands of illegal immigrants every month. Nothing can stop a man with a suitcase bomb coming into an unwatched port. Safety and security are illusions. The TSA is a scam."

Chorus: TSA is nigh on useless security theater

"Like a condom with the end cut off"

Chorus: TSA is nigh on useless security theater
Another Israel head of security of ElAl says Body scanners are no good.
He Basically says the shoes, and underwear searches are stupid, But cargo checks, catering, food, washing of the plane , ground crew checks, the baggage checks are most important. but it's the safety of the passengers which is paramount not the searching because 99.99% of passengers are innocent. He says The passenger list with the data would flag serious threats long before they got to the airport and security would be waiting to pull that suspect person/s aside toc heck them. They know they are coming to get on the plane. then interviews intel based, laser profile, yes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lw7V1g-hpA&feature=related

Chorus: TSA is nigh on useless security theater
How Many quotes do we need of women saying the searches are worse than the gynecologist, News reporters have complained, Miss America in tears, Grandma, Midwestern mothers leaving the airport in tears, Fathers trying to explain to there little girls and boys that somehow it's Ok for these people to put there hands on their privates, or take naked pics of them. TSA checking Baby and grandmas diapers, But miss the Muslims Guys GUN in his carry on bag. RED TEAM's testing the security getting nearly 100% of the fake bombs, that look like BOMBS on board planes to the point that the TSA screening is consistently so bad that the gov't classifies the reports on the testing.

Chorus: TSA is nigh on useless security theater


Jim says it could better or reformed, And even if private you'd still be felt up or scanned.
Even though there's no need for that type of security. Feeling up everyone is stupid. plain and simply. and it wrong. No one has a problem with the airlines Checking our luggage or carry on. Well trained private companies could do it and it ridiculous to assume that everyone will run to cover of the gov't TSA mall cops. Personally I'll gladly take the private company run airports flights and So will many others who don't think the Gov't is their Mommy who we can't be safe without. AND ,as I pointed out previously, MANY airports all ready do their own and no ones bailing those airports even though they are privately run. El Al doesn't feel up people but insurance companies aren't jacking prices, and passengers aren't fleeing, stock isn't dropping, terrorist arn't blowing there planes out of the sky, BUT the passengers keep their shoes on. So clearly there is no "guarantee" that we have to be felt up or scanned etc etc at a U.S. airport to be safe or even feeeel safe. period. There absolutely no need. and it's actually COUNTER PRODUCTIVE a waste of security resources as Dragon points out.

TSA needs to be Scraped is only a few years old and should be nipped in the bud.

Did I mentioned hardened cockpit doors means no more hijacked planes. so all we are really talking about are possible airline explosions, which while tragic would not come near the 9-11 tragedy. Level headed vigilance not emotional paranoia driven by visions of towers should guide our security. 99.9+++ pecent of airline passengers are innocent.

TSA needs to be scraped and security reworked from the ground up.

[ConHog]

I didnt say it was a right, I said it SHOULD BE, court rulings are wrong all the time, we at DP know that better than anyone.
Driving may not be a right, but using the roads to be driven is.
Who ownss the roads? Who owns the skies? Tell me any difference between flying and catching a cab.

Really? B/c I'm pretty sure that the state can take away your "right" to drive on a public road at any time, even if you haven't done anything illegal.

[fj1200]

Really? B/c I'm pretty sure that the state can take away your "right" to drive on a public road at any time, even if you haven't done anything illegal.

Really? How's that?

[ConHog]

Really? How's that?

You never came across a detour sign? A road is closed sign? I've NEVER came across a sign that took away any of my constitutionally protected rights.

[fj1200]

:facepalm:

[ConHog]

:facepalm:

Tell me I'm wrong.

I mean you do understand and agree that the COTUS does not guarantee that EVERYTHING that is an alleged right won't be taken away or limited by the government, right?

[fj1200]

Tell me I'm wrong.

I mean you do understand and agree that the COTUS does not guarantee that EVERYTHING that is an alleged right won't be taken away or limited by the government, right?

Your grand analogy of intrusive government led searches via the TSA prior to exercising the fulfillment of a contract between two private entities and the government taking away your "privilege" of using public rights of way was... a detour sign??? :rolleyes:

I am now sorry I asked the question.

[fj1200]

Oh and I didn't support taking any rights away from Awlaki, I maintain that he himself surrendered those rights.

So he committed something other than treason?

[ConHog]

So he committed something other than treason?

I believe that when you proclaim yourself an enemy of the US and hide in a hostile nation that you have surrendered your own rights.

[LuvRPgrl]

I believe that when you proclaim yourself an enemy of the US and hide in a hostile nation that you have surrendered your own rights.

Its kinda semantics, but in actuality, no. "all men are created with certain inalienable rights"
But the fact is, he had those rights, and if he no longer has them, it is the burden of the govt to show why, they cant just proclaim he doesnt have them anymore.
Is that kinda like a detour sign?

[ConHog]

Its kinda semantics, but in actuality, no. "all men are created with certain inalienable rights"
But the fact is, he had those rights, and if he no longer has them, it is the burden of the govt to show why, they cant just proclaim he doesnt have them anymore.
Is that kinda like a detour sign?

Who says the government has to prove he has done so? Can you show me where inthe COTUS the government has that responsibility?No, you can't because as was stated this is a complicated set of circumstances. I think we can both agree that the founding fathers probably never envision a situation where a US citizen would declare themselves an enemy of this country ,help plan attacks on civilians and THEN hide in another country.

[fj1200]

I believe that when you proclaim yourself an enemy of the US and hide in a hostile nation that you have surrendered your own rights.

That's a convenient belief to hold. I don't believe in intrusion but the TSA is already here... so I can't be for the expansion of intrusion. I don't believe Awlaki is entitled to protections... so I can't be for the government expanding its war against terrorism to include citizens. :happyworld:


Who says the government has to prove he has done so? Can you show me where inthe COTUS the government has that responsibility?No, you can't because as was stated this is a complicated set of circumstances. I think we can both agree that the founding fathers probably never envision a situation where a US citizen would declare themselves an enemy of this country ,help plan attacks on civilians and THEN hide in another country.

I'm pretty sure the COTUS would say the government has to prove:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attainder) of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attainder#Corruption_of_blood), or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Do you really think the founding fathers envisioned a situation where the rights that they just established would be so easily taken away?

[LuvRPgrl]

That's a convenient belief to hold. I don't believe in intrusion but the TSA is already here... so I can't be for the expansion of intrusion. I don't believe Awlaki is entitled to protections... so I can't be for the government expanding its war against terrorism to include citizens. :happyworld:



I'm pretty sure the COTUS would say the government has to prove:


Do you really think the founding fathers envisioned a situation where the rights that they just established would be so easily taken away?f

Thanks for that info.
Im not even sure of the details of the Alwaki case, but as you and the quote you showed say,, it would require certain parameters to be met before you can strip a man of his rights.
Like I said before and CH claimed was wrong. he has his rights as a citizen until the govt can prove he deserves to have them revoked. Now if CH wants to provide us with evidence that fits the description of the quote fj gave us, then I would love to see it.
However, I think we are going to be hearing a whole lotta nothing on the subject.

[logroller]

You never came across a detour sign? A road is closed sign? I've NEVER came across a sign that took away any of my constitutionally protected rights.http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2003/02/20/ba_airport1.jpg


Really? B/c I'm pretty sure that the state can take away your "right" to drive on a public road at any time, even if you haven't done anything illegal. Due process. Ministerial duties must allow for grievances to be addressed.


Tell me I'm wrong.

I mean you do understand and agree that the COTUS does not guarantee that EVERYTHING that is an alleged right won't be taken away or limited by the government, right? I agree, COTUS says nothing of alleged rights; just rights. Like this one-
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified (http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html#BoR) 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The law says probable cause and describes the process by which it can be violated. Is trying to board a plane probable cause, or reasonable suspicion?


Who says the government has to prove he has done so? Can you show me where inthe COTUS the government has that responsibility?No, you can't...

Yes I can! "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" Who is responsible for the due process of law? The government is, excepting appeals, the onus lies with the govt. Man, you're throwing meatballs.

[jimnyc]

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2003/02/20/ba_airport1.jpg



Curious, what constitutional rights were taken away by that sign, or signs like that, that had went up after 9/11? I believe they limited travel, both in the air and on the roads. But I don't recall the constitution being set aside while the threat level was raised, at least not pertaining to driving or flying.

[revelarts]

Really? B/c I'm pretty sure that the state can take away your "right" to drive on a public road at any time, even if you haven't done anything illegal.

.

so says Police State Charlie.

the State determines what rights you have anytime anywhere, no due process, nada the constitution is not a block on gov't of doing ANYTHING it want's based on what your saying CON. At the very least your saying it doesn't have to follow the constitution all the time, when IT decides it's unnecessary or a bother.
At least the Congress makes excuses for breaking the constitution you just ASSUME that "important" gov't's acts always TRUMPS the constitution and any Civil rights named or unnamed in the constitution.

below the congress is writting a new law that supposedly give the military the right to do as you have already assumed they can do.


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4EpJ8gGcDRs?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

[ConHog]

That's a convenient belief to hold. I don't believe in intrusion but the TSA is already here... so I can't be for the expansion of intrusion. I don't believe Awlaki is entitled to protections... so I can't be for the government expanding its war against terrorism to include citizens. :happyworld:



I'm pretty sure the COTUS would say the government has to prove:


Do you really think the founding fathers envisioned a situation where the rights that they just established would be so easily taken away?


Absolutely they did,thus they gave us the Constitution which specifically enumerates those rights that the government can NEVER take away.

[fj1200]

Absolutely they did,thus they gave us the Constitution which specifically enumerates those rights that the government can NEVER take away.

Sorry, no.

[ConHog]

Sorry, no.

Sorry yes. Or can you reasonably explain why they would have set up a system to make sure something that they didn't envision happening would ever happen? That doesn't even make sense.

[revelarts]

Absolutely they did,thus they gave us the Constitution which specifically enumerates those rights that the government can NEVER take away.

What rights can the go'vt never take away CON?
what can't the gov't do or take from a citizen , even if it thinks it's necessary?

[logroller]

Curious, what constitutional rights were taken away by that sign, or signs like that, that had went up after 9/11? I believe they limited travel, both in the air and on the roads. But I don't recall the constitution being set aside while the threat level was raised, at least not pertaining to driving or flying.

Hell i don't fly, so I ask myself, why should I care, rights or not, it doesn't effect me. But I remind myself of the first words of our Constitution


<big><big><big>We the People</big></big></big> of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility
, provide for the common defence
, promote the general Welfare
, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
, do ordain
and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
Its about the People, not the government.
As MLK said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

they don't have the color system anymore, because it was too broad and easily misunderstood, and thus, ignored. The new system is different, and I believe more in line with what is Constitutional, especially because it calls upon the public to provide information and evidence which, in concordance with the Search and seizure amendment's clause for oath or affirmation, provides the public with the capacity to fulfill our responsibility to protect ourselves while still preserving our rights. Which is much preferred over DHS or their TSA minions in their brownshirts strip searching grandma. That's just my opinion, and maybe I'm wrong. Maybe We the People are too weak to protect ourselves, and this grand experiment in constitutional democracy cannot stand against terrorism. But I like to believe that We can and I encourage others to do so as well, rather than pass the buck to a nanny-state.

[jimnyc]

Hell i don't fly, so I ask myself, why should I care, rights or not, it doesn't effect me. But I remind myself of the first words of our Constitution


Its about the People, not the government.
As MLK said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

they don't have the color system anymore, because it was too broad and easily misunderstood, and thus, ignored. The new system is different, and I believe more in line with what is Constitutional, especially because it calls upon the public to provide information and evidence which, in concordance with the Search and seizure amendment's clause for oath or affirmation, provides the public with the capacity to fulfill our responsibility to protect ourselves while still preserving our rights. Which is much preferred over DHS or their TSA minions in their brownshirts strip searching grandma. That's just my opinion, and maybe I'm wrong. Maybe We the People are too weak to protect ourselves, and this grand experiment in constitutional democracy cannot stand against terrorism. But I like to believe that We can and I encourage others to do so as well, rather than pass the buck to a nanny-state.

Limiting air travel or driving is not a constitutional violation. While there are surely better ways to protect/secure both, simply limiting them (according to the sign) isn't a constitutional issue.

[fj1200]

Sorry yes. Or can you reasonably explain why they would have set up a system to make sure something that they didn't envision happening would ever happen? That doesn't even make sense.

Your last two posts don't even make sense. But I think it would be incumbent on the person who wants to take away rights to explain the rationale for that position.

[ConHog]

Your last two posts don't even make sense. But I think it would be incumbent on the person who wants to take away rights to explain the rationale for that position.

Doesn't make sense?


Well FJ, tell me why the COTUS would have included the second amendment saying the government can NEVER make a law restricting gun ownership if the founders hadn't envisioned that at some point the government might try to do so if they weren't prohibited from doing it?

[fj1200]

Doesn't make sense?


Well FJ, tell me why the COTUS would have included the second amendment saying the government can NEVER make a law restricting gun ownership if the founders hadn't envisioned that at some point the government might try to do so if they weren't prohibited from doing it?

No, it doesn't make sense. And neither does your analogy.

2A, along with 4A and 5A are useful as a defense against tyranny. You don't make sense because you support 2A but apparently not 4A (TSA) or 5A (Awlaki).

[LuvRPgrl]

Hell i don't fly, so I ask myself, why should I care, rights or not, it doesn't effect me. But I remind myself of the first words of our Constitution


Its about the People, not the government.
As MLK said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

they don't have the color system anymore, because it was too broad and easily misunderstood, and thus, ignored. The new system is different, and I believe more in line with what is Constitutional, especially because it calls upon the public to provide information and evidence which, in concordance with the Search and seizure amendment's clause for oath or affirmation, provides the public with the capacity to fulfill our responsibility to protect ourselves while still preserving our rights. Which is much preferred over DHS or their TSA minions in their brownshirts strip searching grandma. That's just my opinion, and maybe I'm wrong. Maybe We the People are too weak to protect ourselves, and this grand experiment in constitutional democracy cannot stand against terrorism. But I like to believe that We can and I encourage others to do so as well, rather than pass the buck to a nanny-state.

Precisely.
As soon as we start allowing citizens rights to be narrowed in an attempt to stem terrorism, then terrorism has won.

[ConHog]

Precisely.
As soon as we start allowing citizens rights to be narrowed in an attempt to stem terrorism, then terrorism has won.

What a load of garbage. The terrorists haven't won in the slightest because of airport security.

[LuvRPgrl]

Limiting air travel or driving is not a constitutional violation. While there are surely better ways to protect/secure both, simply limiting them (according to the sign) isn't a constitutional issue.

They can limit it, but it has to be applied equally to all persons, they cant pick and choose who to limit and how much to limit them. Persons who have broken particular laws can be limited individually, but, Not consenting to a search isnt a crime, and hence should not be a valid reason to restrict anyone from any air travel.
. anyone who hasnt committed any crime can go anywhere anyone else can go without any restrictions other than restrictions that are uniformally imposed upon all citizens already, ie, you cant walk down a street with anthrax,,

[LuvRPgrl]

Doesn't make sense?


Well FJ, tell me why the COTUS would have included the second amendment saying the government can NEVER make a law restricting gun ownership if the founders hadn't envisioned that at some point the government might try to do so if they weren't prohibited from doing it?

Mr constitutional expert, that was ONLY to prevent the FEDERAL CONGRESS from over riding any laws any of the states might want to make.

[ConHog]

They can limit it, but it has to be applied equally to all persons, they cant pick and choose who to limit and how much to limit them. Persons who have broken particular laws can be limited individually, but, Not consenting to a search isnt a crime, and hence should not be a valid reason to restrict anyone from any air travel.
. anyone who hasnt committed any crime can go anywhere anyone else can go without any restrictions other than restrictions that are uniformally imposed upon all citizens already, ie, you cant walk down a street with anthrax,,

What part of private airlines have agreed to allow their passengers to be searched do you not understand?

You can buy an airplane and fly around all you want without being searched. Provided you have a licensed pilot of course.

[ConHog]

Mr constitutional expert, that was ONLY to prevent the FEDERAL CONGRESS from over riding any laws any of the states might want to make.


No it certainly wasn't. If THAT were true , then please explain the Supremacy clause.

[LuvRPgrl]

What a load of garbage. The terrorists haven't won in the slightest because of airport security.

first, I didnt say they win as soon as we start airport searches,

But even so, yea, it is a victory on their side when airport searches are allowed. YOU JUST DONT GET IT. You support govt policing beyond what the founding fathers ever wanted to see because it is in your blood. Its part of your DNA, it is one of the many things that has, and is destroying this country.

[LuvRPgrl]

No it certainly wasn't. If THAT were true , then please explain the Supremacy clause.

Not sure what you are talking about.

[ConHog]

Not sure what you are talking about.

You just said the 2nd was to make sure the federal government didn't make laws that superseded the state law, but in fact the very same constitution says that the federal government is supreme over the states. The fact that you don't like that doesn't change ANYTHING.

[LuvRPgrl]

What part of private airlines have agreed to allow their passengers to be searched do you not understand?

You can buy an airplane and fly around all you want without being searched. Provided you have a licensed pilot of course.

The airlines might be private, but the airways arent.
So, then in essence, well no, if fact, you are saying if the airlines want us strip searched and body cavities searched, then we have to allow it.
I would love to live in your utopia, heil hitler.

But actually, often the cotus is run over these days by govt. and ignored by the courts. I dont believe the govt should be allowed to be included in any searches of private citizens just because they are using public transportation. If they want to hire private concerns, thats another story.
Although a cop may be able to search a visiting person by the consent of an owner of a house, that consent cannot be asked unless the cop has reasonable suspcion to request the search.
So, an owner just "wanting" someone searched by the govt isnt sufficient to allow it.

[ConHog]

The airlines might be private, but the airways arent.
So, then in essence, well no, if fact, you are saying if the airlines want us strip searched and body cavities searched, then we have to allow it.
I would love to live in your utopia, heil hitler.

Actually they would. It's their fucking airplane. Why do YOU support being able to tell someone else that they have to let you use their property?



But actually, often the cotus is run over these days by govt. and ignored by the courts.


I agree 100% that that happens.



I dont believe the govt should be allowed to be included in any searches of private citizens just because they are using public transportation. If they want to hire private concerns, thats another story.

Airlines are NOT public transportation. You seem to be unable to comprehend that. If you were arguing that the government couldn't prevent you from using the airways, you MIGHT have a point, but you are arguing that the government can't keep you off of a private company's airplanes.


Although a cop may be able to search a visiting person by the consent of an owner of a house, that consent cannot be asked unless the cop has reasonable suspcion to request the search.
So, an owner just "wanting" someone searched by the govt isnt sufficient to allow it.

You are completely , and totally wrong about that. A police officer could randomly walk through the neighborhood asking home owners if he could search their homes and if they consent then the cop finds something illegal in one of those homes the search would be 100% legal and the evidence found would be in as far as evidence goes.

LUV you don't understand the principles involved here at all. Not one bit.

[LuvRPgrl]

Actually they would. It's their fucking airplane. Why do YOU support being able to tell someone else that they have to let you use their property?.
Because they are providing a public service, its different than a privately owned bakery for instance. The airlines are given permission to use the airways, but certain activities cannot be required for a person to be able to use them. Housing sales for example, cannot be denied based on race, the airlines cant say, no you cant use our plane because you are gay, but a baker in a bakery can.



I agree 100% that that happens.



Airlines are NOT public transportation..
READ THE VERY LAST LINE OF YOURS IN THIS POST.
If they are not public transportation, then just what the hell are they?



You seem to be unable to comprehend that If you were arguing that the government couldn't prevent you from using the airways, you MIGHT have a point, but you are arguing that the government can't keep you off of a private company's airplanes..
THEY CANT RANDOMLY CHOOSE PEOPLE TO EXCLUDE.



You are completely , and totally wrong about that. A police officer could randomly walk through the neighborhood asking home owners if he could search their homes and if they consent then the cop finds something illegal in one of those homes the search would be 100% legal and the evidence found would be in as far as evidence goes..
I DOUBT THAT, BUT ITS A BAD ANALOGY ANYWAYS, BUT, THE COTUS DOESNT GIVE GOVT THE RIGHT TO SEARCH A PERSON UNREASONABLY EVEN IF A PRIVATE PERSON OR COMPANY ASKS THEM TO, ANY MORE THAN THEY COULD ARREST THEM WITH NO GROUNDS IF they asked them to, or hold them without charging them, even if the private person asked them to.


LUV you don't understand the principles involved here at all. Not one bit.
I think I will just take the detour down the street.

[LuvRPgrl]

You just said the 2nd was to make sure the federal government didn't make laws that superseded the state law, but in fact the very same constitution says that the federal government is supreme over the states. The fact that you don't like that doesn't change ANYTHING.

R U being intentionally obtuse?
That federal law trumps, NOT SUPERCEDES, State law,is precisely the reason the FF's didnt want to let the feds write any laws regarding things like, establishment of govt sponsored religions, arms restrictions or bans. THAT IS PRECISELY THE REASON THE "BILL OF RIGHTS" WAS WRITTEN.

[ConHog]

Because they are providing a public service, its different than a privately owned bakery for instance. The airlines are given permission to use the airways, but certain activities cannot be required for a person to be able to use them. Housing sales for example, cannot be denied based on race, the airlines cant say, no you cant use our plane because you are gay, but a baker in a bakery can.

How are they given permission when you earlier claimed that the government doesn't have the right to tell people they can't use the airwayves? Why would they need permission then?

Oh and yes, certain activities certainly CAN be required. No different than the state requiring that you have a driver's license before you're allowed to drive on public roads.




READ THE VERY LAST LINE OF YOURS IN THIS POST.
If they are not public transportation, then just what the hell are they?

They are private airplanes of course

[QUOTE]
THEY CANT RANDOMLY CHOOSE PEOPLE TO EXCLUDE.



And they don't randomly choose people to exclude. if you pass through the security and follow the rules, you get to fly.

But I would argue that as a private company they should be able to randomly not do business with anyone they choose.




I DOUBT THAT, BUT ITS A BAD ANALOGY ANYWAYS, BUT, THE COTUS DOESNT GIVE GOVT THE RIGHT TO SEARCH A PERSON UNREASONABLY EVEN IF A PRIVATE PERSON OR COMPANY ASKS THEM TO, ANY MORE THAN THEY COULD ARREST THEM WITH NO GROUNDS IF they asked them to, or hold them without charging them, even if the private person asked them to.

Who gives a shit what you believe? It's a fact. The police can ask for permission to search your shit with or without reasonable cause and if u grant it then thats your prblem.

[LuvRPgrl]

How are they given permission when you earlier claimed that the government doesn't have the right to tell people they can't use the airwayves?.
Maybe you can figure that one out on your own. But heck, ok, I will spend (waste) some time explaining basics 101 to an idiot.



Why would they need permission then?.
People and airlines are two different things. They cant tell a PERSON, they cant fly. But they can regulate anyone running a business involving the airways.


Oh and yes, certain activities certainly CAN be required. No different than the state requiring that you have a driver's license before you're allowed to drive on public roads. .
never said it wasnt so.




READ THE VERY LAST LINE OF YOURS IN THIS POST.
If they are not public transportation, then just what the hell are they?

[QUOTE=ConHog;510891]They are private airplanes of course.airplanes, not airways. The service of public transportation is what they are providing. They are not providing us with airplanes.




And they don't randomly choose people to exclude. if you pass through the security and follow the rules, you get to fly..so the rules include "not being rude"?


But I would argue that as a private company they should be able to randomly not do business with anyone they choose..
not when they are providing a public service, and thats a fact, whether you like it or not.





Who gives a shit what you believe?.hmmm, I dont know, check my rep if you want to bring it up. Not that I care that much, but YOU brought it up.


It's a fact. The police can ask for permission to search your shit with or without reasonable cause and if u grant it then thats your prblem.

That makes about as much sense as your Well FJ, tell me why the COTUS would have included the second amendment saying the government can NEVER make a law restricting gun ownership if the founders hadn't envisioned that at some point the government might try to do so if they weren't prohibited from doing it?

[ConHog]

Maybe you can figure that one out on your own. But heck, ok, I will spend (waste) some time explaining basics 101 to an idiot.



People and airlines are two different things. They cant tell a PERSON, they cant fly. But they can regulate anyone running a business involving the airways.


never said it wasnt so.

[QUOTE]

READ THE VERY LAST LINE OF YOURS IN THIS POST.
If they are not public transportation, then just what the hell are they?

airplanes, not airways. The service of public transportation is what they are providing. They are not providing us with airplanes.



so the rules include "not being rude"?


not when they are providing a public service, and thats a fact, whether you like it or not.




hmmm, I dont know, check my rep if you want to bring it up. Not that I care that much, but YOU brought it up.



That makes about as much sense as your Well FJ, tell me why the COTUS would have included the second amendment saying the government can NEVER make a law restricting gun ownership if the founders hadn't envisioned that at some point the government might try to do so if they weren't prohibited from doing it?


You're a fucking idiot. Go ask ANY lawyer if a police officer has to have reasonable cause to ask you for permission to search you or your shit. I'll GUARANFUCKINGTEE they too a man and woman tell you that they do not.

The fact that your dumb ass is wrong on THAT point shows me that you don't know a goddamned thing about the COTUS and are just talking out of your ass.

[LuvRPgrl]

You're a fucking idiot. Go ask ANY lawyer if a police officer has to have reasonable cause to ask you for permission to search you or your shit. I'll GUARANFUCKINGTEE they too a man and woman tell you that they do not.

The fact that your dumb ass is wrong on THAT point shows me that you don't know a goddamned thing about the COTUS and are just talking out of your ass.[/QUOTE]

first off, you didnt respond to anything else I posted.

But please, re read what you posted in quotes above, and read it carefully, and ask yourself if maybe you dont want to re word it , so that it doesnt sound like you are making some really moronic statements.

[LuvRPgrl]

before we waste alot of time going back and forth, especially since you have so much more than I do,
NOBODY EVER SAID THE COPS DONT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK IF THEY CAN SEARCH ANYTHING.

[ConHog]

before we waste alot of time going back and forth, especially since you have so much more than I do,
NOBODY EVER SAID THE COPS DONT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK IF THEY CAN SEARCH ANYTHING.

Don't be jealous that I'm retired at 40 and you're still slinging Big Macs at 60.

[logroller]

before we waste alot of time going back and forth, especially since you have so much more than I do,
NOBODY EVER SAID THE COPS DONT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK IF THEY CAN SEARCH ANYTHING.

You don't even have the right to stop them, that's obstruction; but you have the right to refuse consent at any time, even if they have a warrant or you'd previously consented to search-- but you have to state such. Pretty much all their questions amount to "Why don't you waive your fifth amendment rights and tell me what laws you've broken?" ....I'm going to remain silent, am I free to go?

[ConHog]

You don't even have the right to stop them, that's obstruction; but you have the right to refuse consent at any time, even if they have a warrant or you'd previously consented to search-- but you have to state such. Pretty much all their questions amount to "Why don't you waive your fifth amendment rights and tell me what laws you've broken?" ....I'm going to remain silent, am I free to go?

You do NOT have the right to refuse them if they have a warrant. In fact the first thing we did when serving no knock warrants was put everyone in the house in handcuffs and remove them from the house before we started the search.

[logroller]

You do NOT have the right to refuse them if they have a warrant. In fact the first thing we did when serving no knock warrants was put everyone in the house in handcuffs and remove them from the house before we started the search.
I KNOW my rights CH. I have a right to verbally refuse consent-- free speech. I just can't physically stop them. I have a right to establish a defense; just because there's a warrant, it doesn't mean it was legitimate and it could be challenged in court. If the warrant is subsequently found to be illegitimate, or the evidence gathered was from a location not listed in the warrant, I could then say I had refused to consent to the search-- rendering any consent claims false. For example, my files are locked, the key is in a biometric safe. If my files are in the warrant, but my safe isn't, then i can refuse to open the files because I don't have the key, and opening my safe would allow them to search it too. You see what i mean?

[ConHog]

I KNOW my rights CH. I have a right to verbally refuse consent-- free speech. I just can't physically stop them. I have a right to establish a defense; just because there's a warrant, it doesn't mean it was legitimate and it could be challenged in court. If the warrant is subsequently found to be illegitimate, or the evidence gathered was from a location not listed in the warrant, I could then say I had refused to consent to the search-- rendering any consent claims false. For example, my files are locked, the key is in a biometric safe. If my files are in the warrant, but my safe isn't, then i can refuse to open the files because I don't have the key, and opening my safe would allow them to search it too. You see what i mean?

You can NOT refuse to allow a warrant to served. That's the point of a search warrant.

As to your second point. We had a thread on this right after I joined. A guy sued over his computer being broken into during a warrant search when he refused to give the password, I'm fairly certain the courts ruled that the search of the computer was valid.

[LuvRPgrl]

Don't be jealous that I'm retired at 40 and you're still slinging Big Macs at 60.

jealous that Im out singing Christmas Carols with my 3 and 5 year old daughters instead of pounding out nonsense on a keyboard all day and night, to people I dont even know, and probably will never meet?
Hardly.
The only thing I do with big macs is eat them.

[ConHog]

jealous that Im out singing Christmas Carols with my 3 and 5 year old daughters instead of pounding out nonsense on a keyboard all day and night, to people I dont even know, and probably will never meet?
Hardly.
The only thing I do with big macs is eat them.

Oh certainly you don't post any nonsense at all. Where is the roll eyes at?

[LuvRPgrl]

You can NOT refuse to allow a warrant to served. That's the point of a search warrant.

As to your second point. We had a thread on this right after I joined. A guy sued over his computer being broken into during a warrant search when he refused to give the password, I'm fairly certain the courts ruled that the search of the computer was valid.

Apparently you didnt read what LR posted. He said he has the right to verbally refuse to consent to the warrant, but not physically resist it.
As for your second point, IF the computer was listed in the warrant, then they can try to get the password or use some other method to get in. But how the hell can they force someone to give a password, you cant.

[ConHog]

Apparently you didnt read what LR posted. He said he has the right to verbally refuse to consent to the warrant, but not physically resist it.
As for your second point, IF the computer was listed in the warrant, then they can try to get the password or use some other method to get in. But how the hell can they force someone to give a password, you cant.


Big deal you have the right to scream all you want when they are searching your shit, waht does that mean? Nothing.

And no, a computer specifically doesn't neccesarily have to be listed in a warrant. neither does a safe, IF the warrant says the house and all of its' contents or something similar.In that case a computer password or a key to a safe is no different than a locked bedroom door which can just be smashed in if a key sin't available.

[LuvRPgrl]

Oh certainly you don't post any nonsense at all. Where is the roll eyes at?

Well, you just proved my point about nonsense

[ConHog]

Well, you just proved my point about nonsense

So then are you trying to presume to tell me how much time I should spend with my family? That's really none of your business grampa.

[LuvRPgrl]

big deal you have the right to scream all you want when they are searching your shit, waht does that mean? Nothing..

Big deal or not, thats what LR said, and you responded about it.


And no, a computer specifically doesn't neccesarily have to be listed in a warrant. Neither does a safe, if the warrant says the house and all of its' contents or something similar.in that case a computer password or a key to a safe is no different than a locked bedroom door which can just be smashed in if a key sin't available.

Nope, not even close to what I said.
I said if the warrant includes the PC, then they do have the right to try and search it, but they cant force the guy to give the password.

[LuvRPgrl]

So then are you trying to presume to tell me how much time I should spend with my family? That's really none of your business grampa.
You opened the door, now your bitching like a lil girl that I walked thru it, TOO FUCKING BAD.

[ConHog]

You opened the door, now your bitching like a lil girl that I walked thru it, TOO FUCKING BAD.



I didn't open any door you fool you are the one who is contnusly worried about how much time I spend on here; and further telling you it is none of your business is not even close to whining about it like a little girl.

Not only am I smarter than you, and not only could I kick your ass, I also apparently am so far in your head that I should be paying rent.

How about getting back to the topic?

[logroller]

You can NOT refuse to allow a warrant to served. That's the point of a search warrant.

As to your second point. We had a thread on this right after I joined. A guy sued over his computer being broken into during a warrant search when he refused to give the password, I'm fairly certain the courts ruled that the search of the computer was valid.

By merely stating I don't consent, I haven't refused to allow the warrant to be served. I was advised on this by my former attorney, who's now a judge; and he said never consent, always say you don't consent to any search. Just going off what he said.

[LuvRPgrl]

Don't be jealous that I'm retired at 40 and you're still slinging Big Macs at 60

Does that sound familiar? Post 377,


I didn't open any door you fool you are the one who is contnusly worried about how much time I spend on here;??
Your choice of terms is very, very often, uh, shall I say, not too good or accurate. Me WORRIED? hahaha



and further telling you it is none of your business is not even close to whining about it like a little girl.?hahahahha


Not only am I smarter than you,?hahahahhahhahahah

and not only could I kick your ass,?hhahahahah hahaahhahha bwahahahahhahahah

I would choose wisdom over all of your superior talents, and dont go thinking for one second you have any at all.


I also apparently am so far in your head that I should be paying rent.?BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA


How about getting back to the topic?YOU FIRST.

[LuvRPgrl]

By merely stating I don't consent, I haven't refused to allow the warrant to be served. I was advised on this by my former attorney, who's now a judge; and he said never consent, always say you don't consent to any search. Just going off what he said.

exactly, cuz it simply cant hurt.

But our resident police gestapo officer doesnt like being told NO, when he gives an order. So he wants us to think we cant.
WRONG

[ConHog]

By merely stating I don't consent, I haven't refused to allow the warrant to be served. I was advised on this by my former attorney, who's now a judge; and he said never consent, always say you don't consent to any search. Just going off what he said.

Well of course you can say whatever you want, and no one is ever oR SHOULD EVER, get in trouble for that. I wasn't suggesting otherwise. All I was saying that objecting to a search wasn't going to prevent a valid warrant from being served.

We evidently were discussing two different points. Probably my fault for misunderstanding you.

[LuvRPgrl]

You do NOT have the right to refuse them if they have a warrant. In fact the first thing we did when serving no knock warrants was put everyone in the house in handcuffs and remove them from the house before we started the search.

You must really miss that...locking people up

[ConHog]

You must really miss that...locking people up

If I really missed it, I have 5 outstanding job offers, and that doesn't even include the option of rejoining the military.


Not to mention what a stupid remark anyway. It was a job, nothing more , to me. Sure there are some law enforcement people who enjoy the power, but to most it's just a job.

[LuvRPgrl]

If I really missed it, I have 5 outstanding job offers, and that doesn't even include the option of rejoining the military.


Not to mention what a stupid remark anyway. It was a job, nothing more , to me. Sure there are some law enforcement people who enjoy the power, but to most it's just a job.

I still think you miss it.
LMaybe wifey wont let you go back to work

[logroller]

Well of course you can say whatever you want, and no one is ever oR SHOULD EVER, get in trouble for that. I wasn't suggesting otherwise. All I was saying that objecting to a search wasn't going to prevent a valid warrant from being served.

We evidently were discussing two different points. Probably my fault for misunderstanding you.

Quite frankly, objecting to an invalid search warrant won't prevent it from being served; but, nonetheless, I need to preserve what rights I do have, including establishing a defense.

Two points/ Sorta. You're looking at it from the perspective of law enforcement, I'm looking at it from the side of the citizen. Its not that its your fault, just what you've been trained to be aware of as part of your job duties--a job I don't want, so I don't condemn those who do. What I take issue with, or rather have concern over, is most citizens aren't trained on their rights, and too often people think the police will preserve their rights--but they're mistaken. Again, its not the fault of LE, it's just that LE protects and serves, not defends and exonerates.

If a cop wants search my house or person, I don't consent, but I won't resist you. I'm a pleasant person to deal with, so don't think I'd be an asshole to a cop--that's just dumb. My goal is to get the police to leave me be so they can attend to more pressing issues like terrorists, murders and rapists...which i'm not, am I free to go?

[ConHog]

I still think you miss it.
LMaybe wifey wont let you go back to work

Please keep all references to my family out of your comments directed at me.

[ConHog]

Quite frankly, objecting to an invalid search warrant won't prevent it from being served; but, nonetheless, I need to preserve what rights I do have, including establishing a defense.

Two points/ Sorta. You're looking at it from the perspective of law enforcement, I'm looking at it from the side of the citizen. Its not that its your fault, just what you've been trained to be aware of as part of your job duties--a job I don't want, so I don't condemn those who do. What I take issue with, or rather have concern over, is most citizens aren't trained on their rights, and too often people think the police will preserve their rights--but they're mistaken. Again, its not the fault of LE, it's just that LE protects and serves, not defends and exonerates.

If a cop wants search my house or person, I don't consent, but I won't resist you. I'm a pleasant person to deal with, so don't think I'd be an asshole to a cop--that's just dumb. My goal is to get the police to leave me be so they can attend to more pressing issues like terrorists, murders and rapists...which i'm not, am I free to go?

I get what you're saying and you are correct. Other than reading a card one time the police are under no obligation to make sure you know your rights. And other than making sure that any evidence obtained is admissible in court, some cops couldn't care less about respecting your rights. BUT on the whole, most LEO are acutely aware of and respect that they in fact hired to protect.

I was actually trained as an MP long before I was TAD to the DEA so in fact most of the stuff I learned had to be relearned so to speak, b/c in the military the Bill of Rights may as well not exist. Now true, the UCMJ does afford many of the same rights to suspects as the BoR , not all.

As to your last sentence. Generally speaking the quiet, cooperative person is far more likely to walk from minor transgressions than the loud mouth obnoxious dude who is running his mouth about his rights is. Also generally speaking the louder a person he is in situations like that, the more likely he is to be guilty of something, and LE knows that fact.

[logroller]

I get what you're saying and you are correct. Other than reading a card one time the police are under no obligation to make sure you know your rights. And other than making sure that any evidence obtained is admissible in court, some cops couldn't care less about respecting your rights. BUT on the whole, most LEO are acutely aware of and respect that they in fact hired to protect.

I was actually trained as an MP long before I was TAD to the DEA so in fact most of the stuff I learned had to be relearned so to speak, b/c in the military the Bill of Rights may as well not exist. Now true, the UCMJ does afford many of the same rights to suspects as the BoR , not all.

As to your last sentence. Generally speaking the quiet, cooperative person is far more likely to walk from minor transgressions than the loud mouth obnoxious dude who is running his mouth about his rights is. Also generally speaking the louder a person he is in situations like that, the more likely he is to be guilty of something, and LE knows that fact.

Please don't misunderstand me, as I'm not saying LE doesn't respect my rights, they just aren't concerned with preserving them. I'm under no obligation to answer their questions, beyond name, ID, registration etc, but I've NEVER heard of cop telling somebody that. But to get back to issue of this thread, and how this applies, if nobody refuses consent to the TSA searches, they are assumed to be voluntary. Not to say that makes them unconstitutional, but in giving consent--they automatically are.

[ConHog]

Please don't misunderstand me, as I'm not saying LE doesn't respect my rights, they just aren't concerned with preserving them. I'm under no obligation to answer their questions, beyond name, ID, registration etc, but I've NEVER heard of cop telling somebody that. But to get back to issue of this thread, and how this applies, if nobody refuses consent to the TSA searches, they are assumed to be voluntary. Not to say that makes them unconstitutional, but in giving consent--they automatically are.

I think most ARE concerned with preserving your rights in MOST cases. yes of course if they are after a murderer or something they don't give a shit about a suspects rights; BUt if you're pulled over for speeding or something like that, then yes training says protecting your rights is of the utmost concern. I know the popular opinion is to say that police are just looking for a reason to arrest people , but its simply not true. Probably 1 out of 100 encounters between police and civilians results in an arrest.

And of course as you say, the searches at airports are 100% constitutional. A better argument would be constitutional or not, are they NECESSARY? On THAT I would say no there are better ways of doing things in most cases.

[LuvRPgrl]

Please keep all references to my family out of your comments directed at me.

I didnt say anything remotely disparaging about your wife,
and YOU OPENED the door on that yourself you hypocrite.
If you dont want someone talking about your family, then dont say shit about others.

[LuvRPgrl]

Laserjet 4050 laser

[ConHog]

I didnt say anything remotely disparaging about your wife,
and YOU OPENED the door on that yourself you hypocrite.
If you dont want someone talking about your family, then dont say shit about others.

I didn't say you said anything disparaging about her retard. I asked that you just don't bring my family up at all. And no I didn't open the door for you to say shit about them in this thread

[LuvRPgrl]

I didn't say you said anything disparaging about her retard. I asked that you just don't bring my family up at all. And no I didn't open the door for you to say shit about them in this thread

Oh yea, I get it, you can say something about someone elses family, but since it wasnt in this thread, you dont think they should bring up your familly IN THIS THREAD?
WHAT A LOAD OF BULLSHIT.
As usual, ;you say one thing, then do another. Its simple, if you dont want your family brought up, then dont bring up someone elses family first.
Now you can keep this going, but IF you are telling the truth, you dont want your family brought up at all, then dont respond at all

[logroller]

I visit this site to get away from bickering children.

[Creek]

This is why I just wear a bathrobe & slippers when flying these days.

It makes getting through the lines all that much faster,and never really had all that much to hide anyways.

[ConHog]

Oh yea, I get it, you can say something about someone elses family, but since it wasnt in this thread, you dont think they should bring up your familly IN THIS THREAD?
WHAT A LOAD OF BULLSHIT.
As usual, ;you say one thing, then do another. Its simple, if you dont want your family brought up, then dont bring up someone elses family first.
Now you can keep this going, but IF you are telling the truth, you dont want your family brought up at all, then dont respond at all

Show me where I brought someone's family into a conversation. You liar.

[Abbey Marie]

Seems this thread has outlived it's usefullness. :salute: