That's ridiculous. They have a right to deny you passage, but they do not have a right to violate your person as a qualification to travel. There's a HUGE difference there. I can't find the case law but I seem to remember that the Supreme Court has ruled that such violations of basic rights in exchange for something like travel is beyond the scope of governmental control.

 

So can they say "nope you can't fly"? Yes. But they are not allowed to require you give up an inalienable right in exchange for travel. I don't know how else to explain it to you.

 

 

you can't explain it to me.. because we disagree.. it's really not a big deal..

 

you see a violation of your most basic human rights..

 

I see a bunch of people crying in reaction to the travel industry trying to make flying safer..

sure.. having someone look at your body via xray is invasive..

sure.. the radiation is likely unhealthy...

sure.. TSA is a bunch of overpaid gorillas in many cases being abrasive just for the sake of breaking balls..

but I am sure some crazy militant Muslim lighting some home made bomb on fire mid flight 2 rows back is going to be a hell of a lot more inconvenient than any of that..

 

but I am sure some crazy militant Muslim lighting some home made bomb on fire mid flight 2 rows back is going to be a hell of a lot more inconvenient than any of that..

 

Cannot argue with that. Thank you for the discourse, all food for thought.

Cannot argue with that. Thank you for the discourse, all food for thought.

 

here is the REAL pinch if you really want to get down to it.. people say oh well years ago I didn't have to do this.. or that.. and things were perfectly safe.. and that may be all well and good.. but the world is a lot different now.. and industries (especially airlines) have to worry about damage control... the last thing they want is another 9/11.. so while it is easy to sit back and **** and moan at them (I do it to because I find flying to be a nightmare) no one really has "the answer"... I am sure that if you invented a machine that can detect drugs, bombs, and other weapons simply by having an individual pass through it.. with no privacy invasion, and no slowing down of boarding.. the industry would be all over it.. while I think a lot of the low ranking TSA employees are a bunch of goons.. the industry wants flying to be enjoyable, easy, non stressful.. they want you to enjoy flying so you do it a lot.. the more you fly.. the more money they make.. point being.. while all this stuff IS annoying.. what is the alternative?

Didn't have a chance to opt out at Newark... Scanner was broken. They also didn't pat anyone down either...

All of this is simply because "we" refuse to profile people. My "80 year old grandma" is not the problem.

All this security is an illusion for the masses to make them feel safe. If TSA had a clue they would not repeatedly fail the real security tests the Feds do with Grenades and Guns. As long as the sheeple feel secure they do not care what rights get violated.

As long as it's not that retired cop patting me down who left his pistol exposed while he was some truckers good buddy I don't care.

All this airport security and yet your bags can be lost and never found or items stolen,that's a security gap.

All of this is simply because "we" refuse to profile people. My "80 year old grandma" is not the problem.

 

yup that is exactly what I was saying earlier.. could not agree more..

 

lets waste resources checking a large pool of people even if they are entirely unlikely to be a threat.. because that way we can not be sued for discrimination.. that to me is one of the most frustrating points of the whole mess to me as well..

While I have zero tears for him not being able to fly as the government has every right to impose restrictions when it comes to the defense of the country.

 

I do not agree with the civil suit and $10,000 he followed all the directions given to him.

Just to be clear I do not feel the procedures used are effective at all and the TSA is a joke, but the Federal Government has the right to defend this country and while it can be argued that these tactics do not actually defend the country well their purpose is to do just that.

While I have zero tears for him not being able to fly as the government has every right to impose restrictions when it comes to the defense of the country.

 

I do not agree with the civil suit and $10,000 he followed all the directions given to him.

 

Ahh, the rights that can be infringed in the "defense of our country"...

Ahh, the rights that can be infringed in the "defense of our country"...

 

what rights? Can you please quote the Constitution on this one as I am unclear as to which right you are referring to.

All this security is an illusion for the masses to make them feel safe. If TSA had a clue they would not repeatedly fail the real security tests the Feds do with Grenades and Guns. As long as the sheeple feel secure they do not care what rights get violated.

 

I've heard this sentiment echoed before. Who are these sheeple that feel that airport security safeguards the skies? Anyone? Any group? Name one, even if a relative.

 

The fact of the matter is that airport security exists as it is now constituted because to people inside the government; government is good, big government is better and an all encompassing vampire squid government is best.

 

Only those that are not subject to having your nut sack groped or worried about having their teenage daughter viewed naked by perverts are the ones all for this technology. There's huge money in it. Michael Chertoff set the wheels of the money cart in motion jumped off and is now following it around collecting cash.

Are you suggesting that this is a 4th Amendment issue? Seeing as the vast majority of people do not have a problem with this procedure it would be a pretty hard argument that this is an unreasonable search.

Are you suggesting that this is a 4th Amendment issue? Seeing as the vast majority of people do not have a problem with this procedure it would be a pretty hard argument that this is an unreasonable search.

 

 

it is not a violation of rights because you have the free ability to choose not to go.. no one is forcing you to get on a plane.. I don't like to be man handled, x-rayed, or violated in any other way.. but on the rare instance that I choose to fly because it is more convenient.. I make do with the inconvenience of the system.. it is all done by choice on my part.. so no one is violating my rights.. after all.. how can you have your rights violated when you freely accept the terms of utilizing the travel..

Seeing as the vast majority of people do not have a problem with this procedure it would be a pretty hard argument that this is an unreasonable search.

 

The vast majority of people have no choice. You can fly or you can not go. This is an entirely different animal from "having no problem with it"

 

I fly for my job. There are millions of other business people just like me. We can refuse to fly of course. We will also be hastening our exit from the company. So my choice is let some high school educated, non skilled, unemployable anywhere else dispshit squeeze my nutsack or lose my job. Yeah, I've got a big f...ing problem with it.

US airport security has been doing it wrong since long before 2001

 

How about this:

 

http://www.thestar.com/iphone/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-bother

US airport security has been doing it wrong since long before 2001

 

How about this:

 

http://www.thestar.com/iphone/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-bother

Good article. Fat chance of that ever happening here tho... that would require actually training screening agents to be something other than glorified baggage handlers and paying them more than minimum wage...

While I agree that these types of security measures are intrusive, and that there may be better ways to secure our safety when we fly, the reality is that these are the systems and procedures that are in place right now. If they work to the extent that they will stop someone getting on a plane with the intent to drop it out of the sky, great.

 

So, If anyone really believes that some imagined "inalienable right" to privacy is being violated, you have every right to be outraged, to stand on your soapbox and wail to anyone who cares to listen, to litigate the inferred intrusion to the highest court in the land, and I'll stand up with you and defend your right to do so. But for today, and as long as I'm flying alongside you, tough. Don't like it? Take the bus. Your rights end where mine begin, just as mine end where yours begin, and I would very much like to exercise my right to not be blown out of the sky by some fanatic nutjob with an anus bomb simply because you don't want your wee-wee brushed by some security guard.

The vast majority of people have no choice. You can fly or you can not go. This is an entirely different animal from "having no problem with it"

 

I fly for my job. There are millions of other business people just like me. We can refuse to fly of course. We will also be hastening our exit from the company. So my choice is let some high school educated, non skilled, unemployable anywhere else dispshit squeeze my nutsack or lose my job. Yeah, I've got a big f...ing problem with it.

 

I have a problem with it as well, but that doesn't change the fact that no rights are violated.

I've heard this sentiment echoed before. Who are these sheeple that feel that airport security safeguards the skies? Anyone? Any group? Name one, even if a relative.

 

You have never had a discussion with any one who does not fly as often as you or at all? People I work with have said they will do whatever is necessary to keep them safe when flying. Family that have flown recently were a little dissapointed because the last time they flew there were Armed National Guard and this time there was not. The airport seemed less safe without the armed guards being highly visible. Especially with all the out of shape, half sleeping, the other half talking to each other TSA workers there. Newark really is a joke. The mere presence of percieved security makes them feel safe. Dan Rather reports it and they feel better. The sheeple are the General Public who do not pay attention to anything unless some talking head tells them what to think.

Your rights end where mine begin, just as mine end where yours begin, and I would very much like to exercise my right to not be blown out of the sky by some fanatic nutjob with an anus bomb simply because you don't want your wee-wee brushed by some security guard.

 

Ironically enough this technology wouldn't find a bomb in your anus.

Ironically enough this technology wouldn't find a bomb in your anus.

 

A dog could.

A dog could.

 

That would offend Muslims. I'm all for a** sniffing dogs. I can't think of one dog I've ever owned that didn't go in for a deep whiff.

If you live in Alaska or Hawaii, your rights are being violated.

 

There is a constitutional right to travel between the states. From those two states, the method of travel (excepting by ship) is air. So yes, your right to travel is being violated if you are forced to submit to an unreasonable search in order to travel by air.

 

Don't know what courts will say about this, but it is one possible argument.

If you live in Alaska or Hawaii, your rights are being violated.

 

There is a constitutional right to travel between the states. From those two states, the method of travel (excepting by ship) is air. So yes, your right to travel is being violated if you are forced to submit to an unreasonable search in order to travel by air.

 

Don't know what courts will say about this, but it is one possible argument.

 

 

you can still travel...

you can still travel...

 

Not reasonably. Same issue right now with 2A, what is reasonable. This "security" theater is not.

Not reasonably. Same issue right now with 2A, what is reasonable. This "security" theater is not.

 

 

the constitution does not expressly guarantee you "free reasonable movement" nowhere that I am aware of does it state that it can not enact laws that make traveling difficult or inconvenient.. in fact to be honest I am not even sure what part of the constitution grants you "free travel" law has accepted for some time that there are limitations to free travel (I don't hear anyone complaining that there has to be drivers licenses, speed limits, etc.. all things that regulate my "free movement").... 2a is SPECIFICALLY written SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED clear as day.. so the comparison is a little lacking IMO... a more reasonable comparison would be something along these lines..

 

If a court house required you to pass through an x-ray scanner before entering the court house that might be a violation of your rights.. only because in that instance you may have to go there without choice... requiring it to board a plane, to me is not.. because you simply have the ability to avoid that situation if you want.. you can walk.. ride a boat.. drive a car.. they are not saying you can't fly.. they are just saying that because there are a bunch of nut cases that try to kill everyone.. this is what you need to do before you get on the plane..

 

like I said before.. I don't agree with TSA at all.. my minimal interaction with them has been horrible at best.. but in the same breath I would rather attack the platform based on actual fact.. complain that they are a bunch of idiots.. complain that they don't do their job well.. complain that they abuse the scanners by taking pictures.. complain about the system.. but don't call it a "rights" violation.. because once it is determined it is not a rights violation.. you lose.. focus on the actual real problem at hand..

 

just saying..

 

like I said before.. I don't agree with TSA at all.. my minimal interaction with them has been horrible at best.. but in the same breath I would rather attack the platform based on actual fact.. complain that they are a bunch of idiots.. complain that they don't do their job well.. complain that they abuse the scanners by taking pictures.. complain about the system.. but don't call it a "rights" violation.. because once it is determined it is not a rights violation.. you lose.. focus on the actual real problem at hand..

 

+1