Tsa

In every single instance, in the entire know history of mankind, when a government requires "citizens" to let "authorities" look at their naked bodies as a condition for travel, such actions are a precursor to genocide.

Rome. The Ottoman Empire. Native American "relocations". Germany. USSR. Cambodia. Somalia. Kosovo. Israel/Palestine. Rwanda. Sudan. Tibet.

Every time.

In every instance.

Without exception.

Never forget this...

Constitutionality has no place is a discussion of what private airlines require before flight. TSA simply provides a service to those airlines and you certainly don't have to buy a ticket or fly.

I fly every week (waiting to board #49 this year as I type.). I have only been scanned 1 time this year and never before. The new measures are better than previous methods for detecting hidden items. They are not perfect, but largely not invasive and harmless. People seem to want to be indignant without knowing anything about what is being implemented.

As to carrying on planes, it is not necessary, and probably creates unneeded hassles. 9-11 can't happen again since we all recognize the danger and won't mind getting hurt defending our plane from becoming a missile. But I would love to be able to just walk on with mine when I'm just taking a day trip and no bags.

I personally will not subject myself or my family to these intrusive measures, I have a very comfortable Cadillac that we will drive where ever we need to go.

nonameisgood said:

Constitutionality has no place is a discussion of what private airlines require before flight. TSA simply provides a service to those airlines and you certainly don't have to buy a ticket or fly.

Click to expand...

I do believe that the TSA or something akin to it is required of the airline industry by the Federal Government, I have a feeling that they (Airline's) would be more than happy to get rid of the headache that is the TSA.

nonameisgood: The federal government requires the airlines to use the TSA (or a private organization performing exactly the same searches) on all commercial airline passengers.

You may think it is not invasive, but I don't care what you think. This is my body that they are going to image naked or grope (including my genitals). It matters what I think about what they may do to my body.

This IS a constitutional issue. The government is subjecting us to searches without warrant or probable cause in order to do something that has become routine in our country. Would you submit to such a search to go to Wal-Mart? No.

And don't try to tell me that such a search is necessary for security on an airplane, but not in Wal-Mart. Security has nothing to do with the governments right to perform a search. The courts have been clear: a warrant or probable cause is required for such an invasive search. Security does not justify the invasiveness of these searches.

We have a Constitution precisely because what the government is allowed to do should not be determined by what folks don't care if they do or, even worse, what the majority wants it to do. Our Constitution makes it clear what the feds may and may not do. It's about time we started caring about it overstepping its bounds while there is still a chance of keeping it in check.

Nice post, eye95. I agree 100%

A wise man once said "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I think history has shown him to be very wise in this indeed.

ecocks said:

Also, I agree that vetted passengers (another slippery slope) should be allowed to carry weapons on board although there remains the concern that terrorists could simply buy out the plane and put their own people on-board.

Click to expand...

Why would a terrorist organization need more than two people to pilot a plane that's going down unless they are planning an armed conflict at a given location?

Four words:

Chainmail
and
lead plates

ecocks said:

I'm in favor of almost anything as long as it makes the flying travel safer. The pat-downs and scans don't particularly bother me although I'd suggest the DHS/TSA increase their educational program to demonstrate how security protocols help lessen the danger to travelers.

Implementing profiling and higher-level training for TSA officers also seem to be needed to maximize the safety of American travelers.

Also, I agree that vetted passengers (another slippery slope) should be allowed to carry weapons on board although there remains the concern that terrorists could simply buy out the plane and put their own people on-board.

It's a mess.

Click to expand...

As stated by one of our founding fathers:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

These searches are a violation of our rights.

Besides they would not give me one of the correct gender (female) who is both good looking and willing.

I probably said this somewhere else, but how is it that the police can be liable under Color of Law, but the TSA cannot?

Kirbinator said:

I probably said this somewhere else, but how is it that the police can be liable under Color of Law, but the TSA cannot?

Click to expand...

they are TSA! thats why!

TSA = The Super Agents

In my opinion, If you don't like airport security...don't fly. I know a couple of people who work at TSA at RDM and they have absolutely no interest in seeing any of your bodies naked, they are simply doing a low paying government job that doubles as air traffic security. As for your "Rights" I don't remember reading in the constitution that you have the right to not be screened by airport security...the only reason you should be worried by it is if you have something to hide.

Just because a couple people don't want the "bother" of being screened thoroughly won't change anything, hope those of you who are complaining about it like road trips. As for the person that claimed they feel like all Americans should have the right to carry weapons on a plane. What about an American born Islamic extremist...they are technically American, should they be allowed to carry a gun on a plane? Probably not right?

I was in the Air Force for 20 years. Did I follow orders blindly? No, I demanded to know why I was being told to do something and my commanders learned to respect that. Sometimes I didn't like what I was being told to do, but at least I understood the reasoning. I don't see that happening here.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure about the Air Force, but you get absolutely no respect questioning the orders of a Commanding Officer in the Army. I really find it hard to believe that they respected you constantly questioning them, I'd put more money on you getting smoked constantly then respected....and if you "knew it all" why were you not promoted?

JackOR said:

In my opinion, If you don't like airport security...don't fly

Just because a couple people don't want the "bother" of being screened thoroughly won't change anything, hope those of you who are complaining about it like road trips

Click to expand...

What people don't like is pretend airport security. I've been enjoying my road trips a great deal in the last few years and don't miss the fake security act at all. I'll leave the airport rapes to others that are into that sort of thing.

JackOR said:

In my opinion, If you don't like airport security...don't fly

Just because a couple people don't want the "bother" of being screened thoroughly won't change anything, hope those of you who are complaining about it like road trips

Click to expand...

If I had the money to do so I would love to start a no screening needed for armed passengers airline. Till then I'll not fly commercial when given a choice.

Do you really feel like a handful of people not flying will make a difference though? military contracts alone with airlines contributes a sizable amount to their revenue per year

JackOR said:

IAs for your "Rights" I don't remember reading in the constitution that you have the right to not be screened by airport security...the only reason you should be worried by it is if you have something to hide.

Click to expand...

The Constitution doesn't define the rights of the people; it defines limits on the power of the federal government. I don't remember reading in the Constitution that mandating and enforcing security measures for private businesses is one of the enumerated powers of the fed. gov.

"The only reason you should be worried by it is if you have something to hide."
Oh, really? By that logic, Terry should not apply, and anyone openly carrying a firearm should be subject to a full detainment, warrant check, and running of the firearm's serial number. After all, "the only reason you should be worried by it is if you have something to hide."

Check your naked statism at the door, sir. We are citizens with natural, inalienable rights, not inmates with granted privileges.

First-hand Report

On Saturday (Dec 4, 2010), I escorted my son to his flight back to his Mom following his Thanksgiving visitation with me. As per C.R.S. and Denver law, I wore my firearm to the airport, but left it locked in my vehicle while we were in the airport (no open carry in Denver, and certainly no carry whatsoever between the TSA station and the gate!)

As my son and I entered the security checkpoint, I was asked if I'd like to go through the scanning machine or subject myself to the pat-down. I said, "Given the fact your machine subjects me to 0.15 milicuries of ionizing radiation, I'd prefer the pat-down."

So, we proceeded accordingly, and were done in seconds.

It does not matter how brief the violation of rights, only that they are violated.

Didn't some justice or judge say something very similar? I hope someone can find it.

Kirbinator said:

I probably said this somewhere else, but how is it that the police can be liable under Color of Law, but the TSA cannot?

Click to expand...

TSA airport security are NOT sworn LEOs. They do NOT have the power to arrest. That's why they have to call over local LEOs in the airport to effect lawful detainments or arrests.

Because they are not LEOs, the whole "color of law" thing doesn't apply to them, any more than it applies to a bank teller, or a postal clerk, or someone working a hotline for the EPA's Safe Drinking Water program.

What the TSA IS guilty of is "impersonating a police officer", because they give people the impression that they must follow their demands or they will be arrested, detained, or otherwise judicially sanctioned.