E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSStarting Tuesday, a controversial passenger screening program is being expanded at Boston Logan International Airport. Radio host Michael Smerconish discusses.
Starting Tuesday, many travelers moving through Boston Logan International Airport will see a new level of security imposed by the Transportation Security Administration.
Behavior Detection Officers (BDOs) started on-the-job training for a pilot program that enhances the agency’s already-existing behavior detection program.
BDOs will ask a few questions and look for anomalies in every traveler passing through Logan’s Terminal A, TSA spokesperson Greg Soule told msnbc.com. “Officers are trained to look for specific behaviors that would indicate if an individual is acting suspicious and has a fear of discovery,” he said.
The pilot program, Soule said, is "modeled after a number of behavior-detection programs used by other security and law-enforcement agencies, but tailored to TSA’s specific mission."
BDOs will receive both classroom and on-the-job training.
The agency “will evaluate how the program will impact security, screening operations and passenger through-put,” Soule said. If deemed a success, the pilot program could expand to other airports by this fall.
“This pilot program is part of a larger effort designed to improve efficiency, effectiveness and customer experience of the security screening process by identifying potentially high-risk travelers and ensuring they receive the appropriate level of screening,” TSA said on its website.
“I like the idea that TSA talks to people walking through,” said Robert Strang, CEO of Investigative Management Group. “Just having communication with people is helpful. Rather than just looking at machines, you look people in the eye.”
Strang, who served as co-chair of the Anti Terrorism Task Force in New York and who began his career in law enforcement in 1979, said it’s important to take a balanced approach to airport security. “A lot of people who can find alternatives to flying do so,” he said, citing an extensive security process that includes packing toiletries in plastic bags, taking laptops and electronics out of bags, putting belongings into plastic bins and sending them through X-ray machines, removing shoes and belts before going through magnetometers, and the recent implementation of full-body scanners.
“We have to be careful not to be too extreme with our passengers,” Strang said. “To emphasize one-on-one communication for people coming through is a great idea.”
TSA informed the flying public of the pilot program with signs in front of the affected airport checkpoint and through a local media event held on Monday.
More from Overhead Bin
- Accused TSA groper says touching was unintentional
- Unruly child leads to second flight delay
- Do pet passengers get pat-downs, too?
Joe Myxter has been running msnbc.com's Travel section since 2006. Follow him on Twitter at @joemyxter.
Leave a Comment:
Behavior Detection Officer: "Where are you flying today?"
Me: "I invoke my right to remain silent. Am I being detained? I have nothing to say to you. You have no probable cause to detain me. Am I free to go?"
We need to stand up and say NO to suspicionless searches. The founding fathers would be mad as hell to see what pathetic spineless wimps the American people have become.
I imagine you're free to walk to your destination at any point.
Oh, come on, Eli. Don't start that stale line again. Yes, and you are free to find some other site to drop your snarky, pointless comments.
unfortunately he's probably right since flying is not a right but rather a privelege. they'll tell him he's free to go, just not on the airplane.
As a matter of point - The line 'you can chose something else' is NOT a defense of 4th amendment intrusion. The FACT is that you have a right to choose to fly - and no government can restrict that movement within the United States because you invoke an inalienable right. If you do not wish to speak to an agent of the government, you should not have to - ALL WHILE CONTINUING YOUR CHOSEN TRANSPORTATION. Flying may not be a right - but the idea that you can refuse to answer a government agent without fear of losing your choice is.
Actually, constitutionally speaking, a US citizens has the right to move FREELY around the country without pause unless there is probable cause for suspicion.
Now it would make since to pay closer attention to NON-US Citizens since virtually ALL attacks on US planes have been through NON-CITIZENS.
Statistically speaking, you have an 8 TIMES greater chance of being struck by lighting than killed in a terrorist attack. In other words, there are about 5,000 other ways to die you should spend more time worrying about, if you are inclined to worry.
It is wise to keep perspective when giving up rights and spending hundreds of billions of dollars.
So, the anti-establishmentarianists don't like how the TSA does pat-downs and body scanners.
The TSA listens and begins to try out less invasive measures, such as these BDOs. These BDOs are aspiring to be similar to the Israeli form of airline security, which is considered the best in the world. Which is also what millions of Americans are wanting in their air travel security.
Then the anti-establishmentarianists complain about being illegally searched simply by being asked to where they are flying.
What the h*ll exactly do you want out of our government?
Do you really want to go back to the 70s where we had hijackings once a week (seemingly) because there was no security?
Or is this simply veiled bigotry where classist white Anglo-Saxon Protestants don't feel like THEY should be screened because only "brown" people commit terrorist crimes?
I really think the whole disagreement with TSA comes down to racism. There is no logical argument against having air travel security, so we must look to illogical reasons.
BTW - The founding fathers granted us freedom of movement - but only on your own two feet. Even in the early days of our country none of our founding fathers would say you have the right to force someone to take you somewhere in the other person's wagon.
Yeah, we DON'T like being prodded like a side of beef. And I DON'T like spending my taxpayer dollars on window dressing. Racism? Puh-lease!
We do need security, and the TSA as it is, ain't it baby. If they are, then:
1. Why don't they have dogs? They have them on the battlefield and everywhere else, and they're a proven asset...yet I don't think you see too many of them wearing TSA colors.
2. Why don't they hire QUALIFIED personnel? Police and military at least get rigorous training. The TSA agents? Four or eight weeks of basic courses, and boom your ready to frisk?
3. Speaking of such agents...2 words: BACKGROUND CHECKS. Self explanatory.
4. Why not reconfigure airports to be more secure? (Two more words: Murrah Building.) Google it.
I can go on and on all day about these clowns...you should get the picture.
And enough of this bunk about flight being a privilege...My spending my money on an airline ticket is a privilege to your airline. I also have the PRIVILEGE of NOT spending it on said airline, and using alternate transport. But still, unless you have a warrant or reasonable suspicion, hands off the junk, pal!
Clearly, Annapolis has never flown outside the country. To return to the US, everyone is questioned in this mannner.
I see nothing in the article that indicates this new program will replace any porno screenings or pat-downs/gropings. The article seems to indicate this in addition to said physical screenings.
The TSA does have dogs. They frequently are seen roaming the airports.
Most of the dogs work behind the scenes, however. They are back in the luggage conveyor areas sniffing the checked luggage, which is most likely to contain an explosive.
The answer to the rest of your questions/statements is MONEY.
You can have better trained agents, if you are willing to pay more in taxes. No person with a police or military background would be willing to take such a paycut.
TSA agents are subject to background checks upon hiring.
The airports have been reconfigured to be more secure. That is why you have all that explosive-resistant plexiglass up now that divides secure from non-secure areas.
Most airports we use now were built in the 1960s, well before even the famous hijackings of the 70s started.
The people who designed the airports were interested in duplicating the concept of the railroad station.
A lot of the regional airports are leftover military buildings from the cold war that were given to local governments.
Rebuilding or renovating these terminals would cost millions of dollars each.
In addition, significant renovations or rebuilding affects the airport's ability to get planes in and out in a reasonable manner.
Most airports don't have enough land to simply rebuild a terminal next door while operating the old one.
If you've tried to fly through PHL lately, you can see the affect that construction has on an airport. Southwest pulled something like 20 flights out of PHL earlier last week because they simply couldn't afford all the delays.
Sure, the TSA isn't the best answer. However, contrary to popular opinion, they have caught several bad guys, and we have not had another hijacking since TSA's inception (it is difficult to prove a negative, that is that the TSA is the cause of NOT having any hijackings, but one can make the assumption that the arrests of armed people approaching security and the apprehension of several people who were fugitives and without proper ID has helped).
What it comes down to is that no one has proposed a better option. All people do is complain about what they DON'T want, without offering any constructive criticism.
Most of the comments people have are completely illogical, irrational, and reactionary. Heck, someone on one of these comments tried to say that TSA agents touched his prostate! Women are going around saying their vaginas are being touched, when they don't even know where their vagina is.
The comments are merely inflammatory, and when you have Miss America wannabe whoever she was running around calling the news at the airport saying that the TSA agent touched her vagina, no one in authority is likely to pay attention to such an attention-grabbing media-whore because her comments simply CANNOT be true.
Sure, make comments. Say "I don't want my genital area touched" or say "The TSA agent frisked my labia". Those comments are rational, valid, and true.
Go to your congresspersons and make these comments. Ask your congressperson if you can show him/her on his/her body how you feel you were touched.
But above all, be honest about it. Don't say you were sexually assaulted because you weren't. Sure, you may feel embarrassed by a pat-down, but thousands of people every day are subjected to more humiliating pat-downs in our jail systems (you know, jails, where no one has been convicted of a crime?).
If people simply stepped back and started responding rationally to their anger, then progress could be made.
But inciting people to break the law, physically and verbally assaulting TSA agents, and generally acting like a 2 year old is not the way to get the people who can make changes listen to you.
Personally I hate the entire TSA and everything they sand for. That said, if asking me a couple of questions like Where am I flying? Or how am I doing today? will replace the scanners, metal detectors, pat downs and all the other crap I have to go through every time I go to the airport (and I go there a lot) then bring it on. With all the crap we have had to endure at the hands of our own government under the guise of our own protection, This is the first thing that actually makes sense. But only if it replaces all the other crap we have to go through. I will take a short conversation over a complimentary strip search anyday.
derek.hinch - While I abhor some of the methods being used by TSA, your fourth amendment argument is wrong on the law. If you were correct, the current searches being done would have already been found unconstitutional. You do not have an inalienable right to fly any more than you have a right to drive a car.
As far as these new BDOs go, I think it is a great idea. Looking for suspicious behavior is a far more effective way at screening passengers from a resource utilization standpoint than the current suspect everyone philosophy that is being employed. This move towards BDOs is the first step towards employing profiling which has been used to great effect by countries like Israel in maintaining air travel security and safety. If this new program can result in fewer intrusive pat downs and secondary screenings of 85 year old grandmas and little children, I am all for it.
The most probable outcome from that reply would be to be detained for interfering with a security officer. Is it right? No. But, the reality is that we do not have a Constitutional right to fly on commercial airplanes that arrive and depart from public municipal airports. You are not free to do what you please anywhere you please.
It's a very simple concept. Don't act suspicous and there's a very high chance you won't be questioned. I don't get it. You guys have a problem with everything the TSA does. It's like you want airport security to go back to the way it was before 9/11. Wake up. That's not gonna happen. There are people out there VERY determined to blow up or crash a plane for political agendas, religion or whatever any other reason. And you're mad because you might get asked a few questions? God forbid!!! I'd gladly answer a few simple questions than have the plane I'm flying on Hijacked.
TSA Agent: "Hello, may we inspect the contents of your rectum?"
Me: "Absolutely, as long as it's performed by a 20-something hottie with warm hands!"
Of course I don't have an inalienable right to fly. But an airline has an inalienable right to sell me a ticket, and once I own the ticket, I have an inalienable right to use it. I paid for it. I paid taxes on it. The airline sells me the ticket on the anticipation that I have the right to use it.
The problem with the "don't act suspicious" argument is that I can't help what some other person things. Do I look sad? Well, maybe I am leaving my kids to go on a trip. Do I look nervous? Well, maybe I am on an important business trip.
HATR HURTER says, "he's probably right since flying is not a right but rather a privelege."
There's another tired piece of crap!
Taking an airplane flight is most certainly your right if you have paid for it since the air carrier has contracted with you to transport your person and belongings by selling you a ticket. Once they take your money you most certainly have a right to fly with that ticket.
How about if we stop mouthing this stupidities? These are moronic attitudes that are turning the USA into some sort of fascist state with a population of cowed peasants who are graciously allowed privileges rather than a nation of free people with rights.
Byron,
Try reading the fine print of the ticket.
Even though you purchased it from the airline, the airline has the right to revoke your carriage at any time for any reason whatsoever. Try reading an airline's "contract of carriage" and you will see how it is slanted in favour of the airline. But, by purchasing the ticket, you are entering into a legal agreement to abide by those same rules.
If they don't like your t-shirt, they can deny you passage - all they have to do is issue you a refund. This has actually happened multiple times.
The airline ticket also states that your carriage is subject to you successfully passing screening.
In the end, the courts have upheld the idea that the captain of an airplane can refuse to carry a passenger for whatever reason - he/she does not even need to give a reason (not that it is a good idea to do this willy-nilly). The captains are the ones kicking the drunks, the families who refuse to buckle in their children, and the too-sick to fly people.
Legally you are not forced to answer any questions asked of you by ANY law enforcement person. You have the right to remain silent. Thinking lots of people will be using that if some TSA agent asks them anything.
Every one of you saying we don't have a right to fly are WRONG. We have a right to fly on an airline, because we are the customer. The only reason they would take that right away, is because we have actually done something wrong. Not wanting to be treated like a common criminal IS NOT WRONG!!!
Come on folks, you're not going to change a bad system by yourself, so be extremely kind. Use humor!
Tell the TSA guy/girl a joke. Talk about the weather. Chat like you're at the proctologist.
And if they grab your wee wee, laugh it off. Ha ha ha. Give the guy "your" number (local police department) and tell him to call you for a great time.
Too many people are just blatantly rude to each other while they fly, hence TSA/flyer confrontations. I recently flew from Denver to Eugene, OR to see family. When I went through security the lady asked me where I was going. Instead of being rude and ignoring her or not answering, I simply smiled and told her Eugene to see some family. Guess what... She SMILED back and told me to have a great day, in which I returned the favor!!! Then when I was getting ready to go through the xray, a little old lady ahead of me was having a hell of a time getting everything in the tray fast enough. I offered to help her and she accepted it with a smile. The security officer saw that and thanked me for my kindness when I walked through (not setting off the alarm, for ONCE).
My flying experience was great! Security was nice, the attendant was super cool, and even the pilot had a sense of humor amid so many grouchy customers. Bottom line, I like the idea of the TSA people asking questions. It's a hell of a lot better than a full body scan or being felt up.
Cassivella -- if we go on that theory, then the founding fathers only gave us the right to bear muskets and single shot pistols when fashioning the 2nd Amendment -- not high powered rifles, Glocks and assorted semi-automatics!
And, btw, I would suspect they would say if said wagoneer was a public company, hauling across state lines and changing a fare, then they would have such a right.
I agree Jaime.
I usually wear a fun t-shirt with a joke on it, and I usually end up with smiling TSA agents and we each great each other and wish each other a good day.
The most embarrassing pat-down I've witnessed was a goth? (black leather and piercings - is this what they are still called?) guy who was wearing really tight leather pants.
Unfortunately for this guy, he was having the same problem some high school boys have when standing up for a book report - um, something else was "standing up".
Unfortunately (I guess fortunately for him), he was, um, "well endowed" so it looked like he actually had a banana in his pocket.
As he is getting patted down in a professional manner, the agent comes across the "banana" and goes "what's this?" as he thinks the kid has something stuck in his pants.
The kid turns beet red, then says "Um, that's my junk".
The agent then turns beet red, apologies, and they both shake hands and laugh.
Beth, your argument doesn't follow.
Wagons and other forms of non-feet conveyances were available at the time of the writing of the Constitution.
So, if the framers had the intent you say, we would assume today that we can go force a wagoneer to take us cross-country.
Plus, you will find that the 2nd amendment is not all-inclusive. Fully automatic machine guns and sawed off shotguns are illegal in most areas.
Plus, the 2nd amendment was intended to allow the people to bear arms in a militia.
But, the Constitution is intended to be a living document.
So, you will see that in the 14th amendment and subsequent laws based upon it like the 1964 Federal Civil Rights Act, there is language that specially addresses "places of public accommodation" such as airports and airplanes, whether they are owned by the government or by a private business.
However, these laws simply state that you cannot be refused service ONLY on the basis of race, national origin, sex, etc.
By being engaged in inter-state commerce, and by being a place of public accommodation, airlines are required to follow the Federal Civil Rights Act (however, the airline, as it is not a government entity, is not required to follow the 14th amendment).
But, the fact remains, that by purchasing a ticket you are entering into a legal contract with the airline company.
That contract clearly states that you must successfully go through the screening before boarding.
And, the contract clearly states that they are allowed to deny you boarding for any reason they choose (as long as it does not violate the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964).
So, by purchasing the airline ticket, you are actually waiving some of your rights in exchange for airline travel.
Oh no Cassivella! That's horrible yet hilarious!!! At least the kid and the TSA officer got a good, yet embarrassing laugh out of it. Shall I say most fliers act like they have a banana shoved up their bum-bum? It annoys me so much! My cousin always flies with a Chuck Norris shirt just to make people laugh :) I wore my company shirt (I'm a summer intern for a spot light company called Golight) the front of the shirt is boring, but the back is priceless. It says, "We get turned on when the sun goes down." I heard so many giggles from that!
Wm. Sanders couldn't agree with you more!
Jamie
My idiot husband once wore this old leather jacket when we went flying (this was before 9/11 and when there were only metal detectors).
The jacket had all these chains and other metal decorations, and he was wearing steel-toed boots.
So, he was pulled aside as the metal detector lit up like a christmas tree.
He's getting wanded, and the agent asks him to empty his pockets.
He takes out his keys and change and such, but the wand is still beeping.
So, he keeps digging into the coat, which must have at least 12 pockets.
He's bringing out receipts, and old candy bars, and dirty snotrags.
He's still beeping.
So, he's digging around in the huge inside pockets of the coat, and, I sh*t you not, he pulls out a rubber chicken by the neck and says "How the h*ll did that get in there?".
I say put the TSA in the last rites asylum. That's why C.O.P. stands for cash over people.
Taxes should have NOTHING to do with it. TSA and all other airport security should be paid by the airlines as a part of their cost of using said airport. The airlines are then free to pass along that cost to their passengers if they so desire but NONE of the cost of TSA, air traffic controllers, or any other airport costs should be paid by the taxpayer.
the destination is printed right on the boarding pass. If the agent is gonna question you about destination, just hold the pass out and let them read it themselves.
But the airline isn't doing the denying, it's the government ... in this case. And the TSA is an agent of the government, not the airlines.
And my 2nd amendment argument DOES follow ... they allowed freedom of movement on "feet" (and any other way at the time) because that's all they knew. Just as they didn't know of sawed off shotguns, they didn't know of planes.
Funny, I didn't see that "for any reason" clause in the American Airlines Contract -- they list a number of reasons for denying boarding, but that wasn't one of them! But all contracts ARE different, you're aware of that, right? (And yes, I saw the "not limited to", but that does not equate to "any reason").
ACCEPTANCE OF PASSENGERS
http://www.aa.com/i18n/customerService/customerCommitment/conditionsOfCarriage.jsp
Beth,
I mentioned earlier that the "captain's discretion" removal part was covered by case law. Whether or not it exists in a particular airline's contract of carriage doesn't matter.
If a captain/airline is sued for removing a passenger, the previous legal cases come into play.
According to how our legislative branch works, that is as good as law.
Mac,
The TSA is currently funded (at least most of it) by the security fees you see as taxes when you purchase an airline ticket.
No, that's not true at all. You have the right to remain silent when you've been arrested. If you choose to remain silent when a law enforcement official is questioning you (without being arrested), you can be charged with interfering with an investigation.
Why don't you go take an 8th grade civics class and learn about the country you live in?
One thing I dislike is an investment that has no return. TSA is one investment that has no return but unsustainable cost. I think it is time passengers (we) pay additional fee (Security TAX) for this screening since the safety applies to travelers but not to those who drive. It is unfair to spend TAX payers fund on project that does not serve all US citizens.
Let's start a list of screening questions these guys at Logan Intl Airport should ask:
1. Socks are Yankees?
2. Celtics or Lakers?
3. Pizza or Crab rolls?
4. Do you paaaaaaaaauk the caaaur in Haaaaaauvard Yaaaaaaaaaaurd?
5. Who is John Gault?
6. Paul Farmer or Ben Carson?
7. How many licks does it take to get to the center of lolly pop?
Ask a few questions, or play with my balls? Where is the crowd that was screaming, "let's do it like Israel."
Though it is the TSA and they are bound to muck something up, this will at least cut down on the fondling and harassment of the elderly and handicapped. I just hope they don't harass someone with a speech impediment because they didn't answer the question right.
Sure. I have no problem with that.
What we really need is to cut out the crap. We need to hire people from Israel to teach our people how to profile. They don't pat down 6 year old kids and 93 year old grandmas. They look for the people who pose a real threat. In this country, the libs have no intention of trying to make us safe. They want to intimidate us into giving government power and we, to give up our freedoms. Let's face it, it is working. We just stand there and let them commit, what everyone would normally call a sexual assault. Why? Because there was 1 "underwear bomber." I repeat, that was 1 person out of millions who have flown. Do you really feel safer? Do you feel less free? Do you get nervous just because there is all of this extra "security?" Do you even have the brains to ask whether all of this infringement is worth it? Would you tolerate your local grocery store using the same "safety" techniques? How about every place else you go? If you wouldn't, would you change your opinion if just one bomb went off in a grocery store? Just wondering how much necessary security you'd be willing to put up with to feel safe. Then, would you still feel free?
The article didn't say a single thing about this BDO pilot being a "replacement" for anything. Indeed, with all the money they've invested in those giant machine-thingies and perfecting the pat-down (eye roll here), that would make absolutely no fiscal common sense.
The problem I have with this program has to do with human subjectivity. I don't know a single person who hasn't felt their bottom seize when a cop car is rapidly approaching and they KNOW they've done nothing wrong. It is human nature to be a little nervous when something out of the ordinary happens to you or around you. It's also human nature to react to being starred down or asked questions when you're already in a tense situation which, I think we can all agree, airport security checks create for a great many people. Let's say YOU aren't easily unraveled. Well, that doesn't mean someone else who has done NOTHING wrong won't react differently. What if YOU are deemed to have behaved suspiciously but YOU think you acted and behaved normally? Are YOU going to sit out the flight on the subjective thoughts and resulting beliefs and opinions of another person who happens to be wearing a badge without TRYING to plead your case? Let's see what happens when you miss your flight for a business meeting, a funeral, a wedding, your friend or family member's death bed call! This whole BDO nonsense is just that, nonsense. Is there a new & improved threat of which we should be very, VERY AFRAID? Where are those darned yellow, orange & red indicators that were OH SO useful right after 9/11 up to and including THIS MONTH? Yeah . ..those did a whole lotta good. . . good for absolutely nothing. Stay VERY, VERY, VERY AFRAID, FOLKS! They've got you JUST where they want you. . .UNDER MIND CONTROL! A controlled populace is a complacent populous. Can't have an individual THOUGHT ring in up in here, now CAN we? BAAAA, BAAAA, BAAAAAAAA! :-)
Byron
but are you in so much of a hurry that you can't step aside for a probable maximum of 5 minutes just to answer a few questions? I mean, is it just that inconvenient? If you don't wanna deal with it, take a bus or a train. They're alot slower, but atleast you don't have to deal with five minutes of question asking, right?
Why don't these morons hire DOGs.
@Steve, DISCO! Hey! Wasn't it JUST last week that a woman who has a phobia about being touched, and there are a WHOLE lot of them out there who have that phobia for good reason, was detained because she instinctively put her hand out and brushed against the TSA agent's breast? Yes. . .let remember to FORGET that one, huh? There are likely a whole LOT of people who, like your dad, will wilt under any amount of pressure because they're hard-wired that way. It is for this very well know reason, one deodorant advertisement used the slogan: "Never let them see you sweat." Thanks for sharing your dad's experience. It serves to prove a extremely valid and provable point. Poor DAD!
@Mike. . you go first and show us how it's done, Son! Remember to count your eye blinks! You COULD be doing it ALL WRONG!
@ SEAN. . apologies for getting your name wrong. . .twice! I'm only human, right? MANY APOLOGIES!
@Scott who says, "No, that's not true at all. You have the right to remain silent when you've been arrested. If you choose to remain silent when a law enforcement official is questioning you (without being arrested), you can be charged with interfering with an investigation."
Scott, I beg to differ.
The 5th Amendment to the US Constitution reads: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" (Emphasis added.)
It is your right to not say ANYTHING at any time to a law enforcement officer, either before or after your arrest. What you say before an arrest could be used as evidence against you. Therefore being compelled to make such statements would violate your 5th Amendment rights because those statements could be entered into evidence at trial.
You are obliged to say NOTHING whatsoever to a law enforcement officer.
To hear this advice from a lawyer and former police officer, watch this video on You Tube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
@Jherek Carnelian
As you have posted the text of the 5th ammendment, I think you should read it. What it says is that when you are "answering" for a crime or being a witness in a criminal case, you are not obligated to respond.
When you are "answering" for a crime, you have already been arrested and are in court, answering the charges.
When you are walking through security and are asked basic questions and you refuse to answer, you have no 5th ammendment protections because none of the 5th ammendment pertains to these types of inquiries.
If you choose not to answer one of these inquiries, you have just given the officer or agent reasonable suspicion or probable cause that you are concealing something. Your continued refusal to answer would now be considered interfereing with an investigation.
I would have absolutely no problem answering a few questions. When it's done, I'd apologize for looking suspicous and move on with my life. It's up to you how easy and fast you get through security. And that accounts for every aspect. I just don't understand why this is such a big inconvenience for everyone. I said it once I'll say it again. I'd gladly answer any questions for "looking" suspicous than them not stopping ANYONE for looking suspicous.
You have to understand that the TSA is worried about not only you, but the other 200 or so passengers on your flight. I don't know about you, but if 200 people died simply because security wasn't tight enough, I wouldn't be able to live with myself.
This is a great improvement in the manner the TSA presents it's security theater to us. It's like going from salt on a wound to a glass of fresh lemonade. Make no mistake, it's still just security theater, and for two major reasons:
1.) The lines for security are completely unsecured, and present an excellent target for anyone wishing to terrorize the US airways (since everyone has to pass through them).
2.) The vast majority of airline hijackings over the US have taken place on INTERNATIONAL flights that are coming into the US. These flights see NO TSA SCREENING in the foreign nations they come from (be they Saudi Arabia, Israel, Germany, or Brazil).
Uh, of course. This is true of any place that precedes the security check. If you secure the security line, then there'd be a line to get into the security line and that line would be unsecured and so on.
Maybe historically (going back to the 70's), but on 9/11 the 3 planes hijacked were all domestic flights. And the FAA now requires all internationally inbound flights to have been screened upon departure. You may remember just about 6 months ago, when an inbound international flight was stopped on the tarmack because of intelligence provided by the country or origin that traces of explosives were found in the cargo on the flight. After analysis, it was determined that this was a potentially explosive device that was probably sent as a "test" to see if it would be detected, which it was.
You know, they could really simplify the matter with common sense instead of further trampling of personal liberties. That said, angrily defying an agent merely asking innocuous questions such as "where are you travelling to today?" is senseless, and increases the likelihood you will be detained. Combativeness is a good way to turn a simple question into an arrest.
Why not just let the x-rays of the luggage do their job, and have the bomb-sniffing dogs just kind of hanging out at the metal detectors. They're pretty good at what they do. No need for full-body scans or extensive pat-downs.
Common sense is in extremely short supply in the TSA, among other things.
Common sense is completely absent in those who would oppose this innocuous and effective new tactic. Israel has already proved that this is a strategy that works, and is far less intrusive.
Most of these extra security measure is just for show and big business for the contracting companies. Is that mean we are safer? Consider this:
Imagine if the hijackers are working in group, where they has someone traveled from a third world country smuggling in a gun (yes, very easy). Once they arrived at our airports (they don't have to go through security again), another person can just take that gun and pass it along, etc until they arrive at the designated target airport.
Chris,
After you arrival from a foreign country, you pass through Customs and yes you do have to go through security again.
You just can't predict the subjectivity of human perception. No matter the level of training and "proven" techniques, there's a human on the other side of the process and that is NEVER a predictable aspect of any interaction.
Walking up to someone and asking "Where are you flying today?" is not any type of search which would be covered under the 4th amendment. It's simply striking up a friendly conversation. And when you go to an airport theses days you are consenting to be searched.
So now I'm breaking the law because I don't want to talk with these people?
Grow up, Sim! Yeah, you're probably going to have to talk to these people!
I've flown in and out of alot of airports in Europe. Most of them have someone walking up and down the line of passengers, asking 'did you pack your case?', 'has it been in your possession all the time?', you know, nosey, intrusive questions like that. It was never a problem with me. Especially flying out of Brussells, 6 weeks after the Lockerbie incident (there wasn't enough beer in that airport!).
If that gets your defenses up, stay home. Or like I said at the start, grow up.
Yes, heir commandant, bob!
I'm tired of the TSA being allowed to do whatever they want, with no oversight. Most people who defend them are the ones who need to grow up. What kind of asinine comment is it to tell people to not fly if they don't like being groped and scanned by invasive and offensive procedures?
If the government had been sensible about employing reasonable security measures rather than this knee-jerk reaction that instantly benefited defense contractors (L3 makes the backscatter equipment and is heavily employed with military defense contracts), this might be a different story. The truth is that we never cared about securing our own borders, never cared about screening checked baggage (10 years later and we still aren't even scanning half of it!) and never cared to intelligently look into viable ways to enhance security without drowning ourselves in even more useless debt and eviscerating the constitution.
Tell me that I need to grow up? I'm tired of surrendering my rights as defined by the Constitution of the United States to self-serving people like you who would rather control the people through mass fear and gradual desensitization.
We'll I'm tired of people who have not read the constitution and think that they have rights that they don't.
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the Constituion that grants you a right to refuse to cooperate with security measures at public airports.
What the Constitution does give you a right to do is peacefully protest about your position because you have "Freedom of Assembly" and "Freedom of Speach". You don't have the freedom to interfere with a public safety official performing acts that are within the law.
Bob's a real jerk. I think we disagree without demeaning people.
Sim,
ALL baggage and freight on pasenger aircraft is scanned. It has been for he past few years. I was TSA compliance officer for a freight company. And in Europe recently (Cologne and Berlin) had to pass security and screening twice for the same flight, in addition to passport control
@Sean-336944:
Uh, first, I don't see how your post is relevant. What I said, which was that the Constitution doesn't grant you the right to refuse to cooperate with security measures at public airports, as others have said that it does. Even if your point were accurate (which it is not entirely), my point is still valid.
Second:
Amendment I of the Constitution says:
Did you catch that part about Congress not being able to make any law that tramples on the rights of the people to peaceable assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?
This, not only says that the Government can't make laws to stop you, but it also clearly says that you have the right to peacably assemble and petition the Government.
Amendment II of the Constitution says:
This one's as clear as day. It says that the people have a right to keep and bear arms and it says that the Goverment can't infringe on that.
So, in the end you are incorrect, as the constitution does clearly state that the citizens have certain rights. And, in the end, your comments don't really change or add anything to what is being discussed.
What does the Constitution say about your right to interfere with security personnel? Even if we go with your inaccurate reading of the Constituion, you simply make my point even stronger.
@Bob. . .exactly when did you want U.S to become anything like those Socialist European countries? You do realize that you've backed yourself into a corner with your defense of their methods as being, somehow, BETTER THAN OURS. . .AMERICA. . .THE GREATEST NATION ON EARTH? How's that whole circle-jerk reasoning working out for 'ya?
Scott, Sean is actually making a good point. Both of the parts you cited forbid the government from interfering with people's 'rights', but if Newsvine decides they don't like your post here, they have every right to delete it, your 'freedom of speech' be damned.
That being said, as long as the airports are government owned and operated, the government has every right to screen those entering them however they want. They may kill the commercial aviation industry, but they still have that right. It's the same as entering a military base, or an FBI building, or anything else.
Scott, maybe you missed an ammendment there:
TSA agents groping us at the airport, just because we want to travel across the country, or even to a different country, is definintely treading on our Constitutional right. Travel, whether for business or pleasure, IS NOT probable cause.
And guess what, if they are actually doing so on the grounds of "national security", then they have ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS stopping someone like Montel Williams: www.nbcnewyork.com/entertainment/celebrity/Montel_Williams_Cited_After_Pipe_Found_At_Airport__-_ARTICLE-112912809.html
Because a "marijuana pipe", or for that matter, possesion of a few grams of marijuana, IS IN NO WAY a threat to security!!!
This forum, while open to the general public is privately owned and when you signed up for this Newsvine service, you agreed to follow the posting policies and rules of Newsvine. The servers that house these messages and the software that runs them is owned wholly by Newsvine and they are free to do whatever legal actions they want with them (including removing certain messages they deem inappropriate), so the Constitution is not relevant, nor should anyone posting here expect it to be. I'm not sure I understand what point your are making.
Not all airports are "government" owned and operated (of course millitary ones are), but Logan International airport is not, it's owned and operated by "MassPort" (I believe). When you go to an airport, you are not stepping onto Federal property (as you are when you walk into an FBI building), but because the Federal government has rules regarding airline travel, these private airports are required to have a Federal presence.
Please take the time to READ what the Constitution says! The "probable cause" clause relates to what a judge must have in order to issue a "warrant", which is not at all what we're talking about. The passage that is relevant is that the people are protected against "unreasonable search and seizure". Now, since airliners have been hijacked and blown up (or attempted to be) by people carrying weapons in their bags, shoes and underwear, it's not really that "unreasonable" to expect to have your bags, shoes and potentially underwear searched.
Because a "marijuana pipe", or for that matter, possesion of a few grams of marijuana, IS IN NO WAY a threat to security!!!
Why? Someone possessing illegal drugs doesn't constitute a security risk? That's just ridiculous!!
So how is this any different than just profiling?
Don't get me wrong, I think profiling should be used and it's an idiotic waste of time that they don't profile - but I don't see the difference between this and profiling.
Well, technically they are profiling.
Profile of terrorist: Human.
Which is why the Dogs and Cats don't get their kibbles-and-bits grabbed, because they don't bring box-cutters aboard or bombs aboard.
The TSA technique is likely based on the Israeli security which does profiling. It is profiling that gives the Israeli screening its effectiveness. Would anyone be surprised if TSA removed the profiling and the effectiveness for the US version? Anyone who would grope a 6 year old child or an 85 year old grandmother in a wheelchair looking for weapons isn't playing with a full deck.
My only question is how long it will take before TSA is sued for profiling regardless if they do it or not?
They are profilng. But, not all profiling is illegal or bad. This isn't racial or religious profiling, it's behavioral profiling.
Are we SERIOUSLY comparing our nation to Israel? Are we SERIOUSLY going with the whole tag line that we want to BE like Israel in any form or fashion? ARE YOU SERIOUSLY THAT AFRAID, PEOPLE? The terrorists CLEARLY won the war on terror if this is what we've been reduced to. Get a critical thought and/or buy a CLUE, FOLKS! I have not blemish ONE in my life and character to be concerned about. If I must fly, I'll do whatever I have to do to comply because, at this point, it's not a matter of choice. That said, I do NOT have to like it and I'd like to think this won't be the end-all, be-all of the matter. Adapting to a new reality is one thing. . .adapting a Middle East reality is quite another. I'm not quite ready to give us on U.S. yet. There has to be a point where enough is enough. In the interim, I'll be a good girl and PRAY they don't notice my eye twitch which, as a matter of medical fact, is a nerve damage thing.
So is driving the next "right" we will be denied? Even the UN has declared that internet access is a human right! Society has expanded to where certain modes of communication or transportation ARE necessary. What, are we to start loading up the big tarp-covered wagons and start our several month-long journey around the states? What isn't a right is the government endorsed molestation and invasion of privacy! Protections against those violations are written as clear as day in the Constitution of the United States! Living with that IS a right, if the government doesn't like it, they can find some other country to assault.
Actually, yes, driving is next. The VIPR teams are scheduled to start random checks at toll boths starting in 2012.
(no, not really)
(as far as I know)
@Simbaji:
Driving ISN'T A RIGHT in the first place. You DO NOT have a right to drive. The privledge of driving can be revoked by you not following applicable driving laws. This is no different than your priveldge to fly being revoked by you not following applicable safety laws.
You would be well served to learn the difference between a Constitutional "right" and actions that are "legal". It is legal to drive and fly, but you are not guaranteed them as "rights" under the law.
That's good to know. I don't drive anywhere, I walk everywhere. I don't use the roads & highways and, therefore, am not exercizing my non-right to do so. I'll write that down as a tax exemption in next April 15th, right Scott? *eyes are rolling and rolling and rolling*
Driving is not a right, it is a priviledge. And since you walk everywhere, you are not paying the taxes (ie gas tax, car tab tax, or road tolls) that are used for road maintenance, so no you can't claim an exemption.
Take a minute to try to understand the difference between a "law" and a "right". The "law" states that persons over a certain age, that have completed prescribed training and have paid the appropriate fee, may apply for a certification (license) to drive a motor vehicle.
Certainly, you could fail the test or not have the money to pay for the license. Does that mean that your "rights" are being violated? No. Because having a license isn't a "right". Additionally, some states have tougher requirments and more expensive fees for getting a license than others. If driving were a "right" that would mean that this "right" is being applied unevenly throughout the populus. Unscroupulus state leaders could use these prerequisites and fees as a way of denying certain segments of the population their "rights".
The Constitution gives American citizens "inalienable rights". These are things that you don't have to pay for, so that everyone has them, regardless of your age, race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. These are things that can't be taken away from you (unless you are convicted of certain crimes).
You are correct, to an extent. The Constitution of the United States does not list driving as an inalienable right. So, now that I would do well to learn the difference between a "law" and a "right", I'd be interested in your views that demonstrate that the government has the legal basis to abridge the constitutional provision protecting us from unwarranted search and seizures - as described in the 4th Amendment.
The 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
"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 TSA and Government is in full and flagrant violation of this. Please note the term "probable cause", among other clearly defined limitations. While I may spout off occasionally I try not to do so without support in fact. This was a rare moment where I was getting frustrated with the whole system and process. But rather than take the factual and more lucid comment concerning the constant violations of the Constitution of the United States, you chose to go after the more silly and easy argument. It is people like you who so valiantly yet ignorantly defend the system rather than the people or our founding documents. In fact, here is a disturbing interview from MSNBC that illustrates this very failure, even by the former head of the NSA!
(#at=40)
So there. You can rest easy knowing that yes, you have to pay for the "privilege" to drive. In the same light and argument, hopefully you will acknowledge the constitutionally illegal actions being sanctioned and undertaken by the TSA when it comes to invasive and offensive procedures.
i find it fallable that driving is a 'privilege'... is receiving the tax revenue i pay to fill that tank or on the purchase of the vehicle a 'bonus'? do they not count on and or expect a certain amount of income based upon actuarial review of prospective citizens upon a certain age?
If i pay a fee or a tax, then i have an expectation of receiving a certain 'benefit'...
the rules and laws are written to be able to control private citizens and their actions .. it's all about presentation, in that how laws are written and when... and under what 'mood' the general populace is in... this is why roe v wade is always under contention... in the hopes that the general mood of the public changes.. it is also why pot is illegal but tobacco and booze is legal...
if someone can write a law and or support in current commen sense/perspective, then it will get approved... i.e. 'medical marijuana'... duh, it has 'medical affects'.. of course it does.. it makes you relaxed... and sometimes having something to relax you can be beneficial...
if sucking thumbs was illegal, someone would say that under certain stressful periods, a good thumb sucking could relax and soothe a person, so sucking a thumb for 'medicinal reasons' would be ok...
so, only those with a medical note from thier Dr. would be allowed to suck...
it all depends on how much govt we are willing to accept... and so far not enough people are willing to contest the issue of driving is a privledge issue... as there are 'bigger issues' to worry about
If you read the numerous posts I've made in this discussion, you'll see that I have clearly responded to what you've asked for above, but in a quick nutshell, you don't have protection under the 4th ammendment because, by buying your ticket, you've waived certain rights.
Additionally, if you re-read the 4th ammendment, you'll see that it has two parts to it:
1. the part about protections from unreasonable search and seizure
2 .the part about probably cause
You've gone out of your way to point out that probable cause part, but what it says is that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause". This means that a judge cannot issue a search and seizure WARRANT against you, unless probable cause is shown. This section is completely irrelevant to the search you undergo at the airport because no one is issuing a warrant for the search.
That brings us back to just #1 above, which, in effect states that you CAN be subject to search and seizure as long as it is not "unreasonable". As I said in another post, we can certainly debate at what point you get to "unreasonable". But, given that history has shown terrorists and hijackers bringing explosives and weapons aboard planes in their baggage, in their shoes and in their underwear, is it really that unreasonable for the TSA to screen your bags, your shoes and your underwear?
@jumpintoconclusions
Honestly, I found most of you last post, just ramblings about how you feel about government in general, with not much (if any) real basis in law or fact. But, when you say:
The simple response is that there are fees and taxes you pay everywhere that don't benefit you directly. There is no legal basis for you to expect that each tax will benefit the individual that pays it.
You will pay real estate taxes on property you own and a portion of those taxes will go to run the school system in your town/city, but if you have no children, then you get nothing from that portion of the taxes you paid.
Now, back to the point. Privledges can be taken away, rights generally can't. You may have to pay money for a priveldge (like attending a fine ivy league school), but you don't pay money for a right.
Driving is a privledge.
yes, the more personal an issue is for the more likly i may rant, i apologize.
if i pay a real estate tax and ahve no children, i do 'indirectly benefit' in that the community is smarter, (I hope)... but that again is an indirect benefit...
but when i pay a sales tax on a purchase i buy, like an automobile, that money is used for road improvement and traffic safety and other incedentals... i therefore should be able to drive... period.
If they want to waive that 'tax'/fee and then assess one for me to drive if i am granted the priviledge, then fine.. but it dont work that way...
and this doesnt mention the fuel taxes i pay to continue to drive
the driving priviledge is only there to be used as an enforcement issue only... period... not much else can be said that will make me believe otherwise...
they could say wearing a raincoat is a privilege and or a beer privilege or a fast food, whatever... the difference is only there is no reason to punish anyone for wearing a coat, and or to teach them a lesson for preventing them from wearing a coat...
@jumpintoconclusions
Well, now it seems that you want to have your cake and eat it too. If you agree that paying taxes for education, even when you don't have any children, does give you an indirect benefit, then why can't you see that paying taxes that improve/maintain roadways also gives you a benefit, even if you don't drive.
These examples are actually much LESS indirect than the education example you cited earlier.
It really is a bit short-sighted to think that because YOU aren't the one driving that you get no benefit from having new and maintained roads.
Why would you be paying sales tax on an automobile and fuel taxes if you don't have a license in the first place?
Again, you don't have the "right" to a license.
And, what happens 200 years from now, when we no longer use automobiles, but rather people use their jet-packs to zoom off where they will? Will you just all of sudden have a "right" to fly a jet pack, just because it's been invented? Where does it say that in the Constitution?
"Where are you flying today?"
"Before I answer, describe in detail the sexual perversions you practice with your wife."
One innocent question deserves another!
for me id just prefer to know if a non-american, that is quite simply someone not born here, or who has not went thru the process of naturalization, is flying with me, if so, i wont be on it, simple, if they implemented that, id fly, as it is now, nope.
I think you might be confused. They aren't telling the passengers how the questions were answered so the passengers can decide if they want to fly, they're trying to determine if someone is acting "suspiciously" so they can decide if they will allow them onto the plane.
Have fun swimming across the oceans, because I doubt you'd find any transatlantic or transpacific flights free of non-American passengers.
You should instead avoid flights with any Tea Partiers - no one hates America more!
Drezz -- As it is now, I'm kind of glad you're not flying. You think all terrorists are foreign-born? Do you think that all foreign-born people are terrorists? Are they all Arabs? Are they all dark skinned? I'd guess that you're not likely to be flying anytime soon, either. Too many foreigners in America -- that's really the problem, isn't it?
Timothy McVeigh.
Yup, there sure is.
Pack 'em all up on the nearest taco wagon and ship 'em out, south of de border.
Nice one harrybrown. You must be SO proud of yourself for that not even close to veiled generalize categorical racial statement. Give yourself yet another pat on the back! NEXT!
Thanks, backendreceiver.
You know you should really watch out sticking out that back end of yours. Somebody may kick it.
lol...
@harrybrown
I know a Native dude who is all for shipping those European foreigners and their progeny back where they came from.
Tell us all about it, kemosabe...
lol...
@sawyer-3217666
all terrorists foreign? no, just 98% of them. and id love a 98% chance of bein safe then no idea at all what chance. and its too many non-naturalized foreigners as i said. a terrorist isnt likely to go thru the process of immigration and naturalization. i have no issues with legal immigrants, thats what our country was built on and thats what will continue to diversify us.
LOST: Home of the Free, Land of the Brave if found please return to North America.
It's Land of the Free, Home of the Brave. Sheesh!
Get hung up on semantics much, Bunny? We got Shawn's point, but thank GOD that you so selfishly stepped up to play Semantics Hall Monitor. I know I feel better! (eye roll here)
land of the brown
nose of the hook
stink of the garlic
You've one vote "up" Brownie, and it was likely cast by you FOR you. TOUCHY!
Hey at least one person out there likes it, backendreceiver.
lol...
Oh and a "!" for you.
more lol...
This kind of profiling is assinine. I was considering a vacation up that way, but i'll just go somewhere else and not fly at all. Boston isn't worth it and neither is anywhere else.
So what type of profiling do you think is productive? I've heard that the TSA should profile from people, but now that they might be doing that, it's assinine.
Are they gonna have the authority to beat the crap outta women here too??
Seriously, this is what is done in Israel, and has been for a VERY long time. And Israel hasnt had a plane hijacked in a very long time! Is Israel better than the US at this?? YUP! We should have Israel training these guys!
Israel hasn't had a plane hijacked since a long time doesn't mean their security is better or effective. It just mean that they are not a worthy target yet. Before 9/11, we don't have any security.
You can put as many locks on the doors as you like, but the thief would break-in the windows. The hijackers can easily slip in the knifes through staffs or supply deliveries for the various restaurants and shops in the airport. I doubt that they would run all the hamburger patties or frozen pizza through the x-ray.
Israel isnt a worthy target?????? LMAO! Islamic terrorists would LOVE to blow up an Israeli jet liner with 2-300 people aboard!!!!! Worhty target..... LOLOL
Q: Where are you flying today?
A: Home (Yawns widely)
Q: Where is "home"?
A: At my house.
Q: Where is your house?
A: On a street.
Q: Where is the street?
A: In my home town.
Q: Where is your home town?
A: Land of the free.
Q: Where is the land of the free?
A: You're standing on it. Where do you think it is? And what on earth did you have for lunch?
Talking in circles is fun. I could do this for hours.
welcome to the united police states of america!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!keep arabs in the desert and we can end this bull@!$%#!!!!!!!!!!!
the point here that most folks should understand is that there is a 'science' that is being invoked/utilized but TSA, that is now being declared... that science and other 'sciences' like it are and have been been used by TSA, and police and anyone who wants and can afford to employ it.
I can guarantee that the police utilize this science and i would n ot be surprised if larger security firms and other companies that are sensitive to security issues use it as well.
we speak to a lot of folks each day and some are using whatever science or method they want to to 'dig deeper' into your peronsal life then you understand or will admit...
we are nothing but suspects to anyone/everyone who cares or is paranoid to want this protection.
the fallacy as is pointed out by many posters here is that there is many other ways to be threatened where no science or effort is expended to protect us... the only concerns are the ones that they can try to covertly affect us to giving up our freedoms...
I will now never open my mouth to a cop other then to tell them i am not complying with anything other then basic information... along with an appreciation for their effort and goals, albeit misdirected...
How ?? Pray tell when did this become a science project by the TSA ? I guess someone who shakes with Parkinsons Disease is going to catch the eyes of one of these BDO's and going to be interpreted as a suspicious act. Some people have medical conditions that unexpectedly happen, will that be a problem for the TSA ???
Why are people assuming that the concept of a BDO is some completely new phenomenon that the TSA is pulling out of their ass?
It isn't even something the TSA has created. And it certainly is nothing new.
We've had TSA BDOs in training since before 2008.
Israel has used them for decades. Most countries, including ours, send their BDO supervisors to Israel to learn how Israel has been successfully using this tool.
Israel has Parkinson's patients - and I haven't heard of them being targeted by BDOs.
Israel has people nervous to fly - and I haven't heard of them being targeted by BDOs.
Behavioural sciences are not cold sciences like chemistry, but they are far from simply an art form.
The techniques used have been honed and used for decades in countries all over the world with many differing types of governments.
You probably will never even recognize it when you are questioned by a BDO.
ROFLMAO!!! They propose to take a bunch of unhirable botom feeders (until TSA came along) and turn them into intuitive agents that can tell by your body language and conversation if you're a terrorist or not. Weep for our poor, poor country.
Just look them in the eye and say: "You don't want these droids. They're not the ones you're looking for."
 So when are we going to stand up and ask Congress why the Bill of Rights says search and seizure cannot be done without a warrant or probable cause and these TSA croanies can search us and our stuff without a warrant or probable cause?
Congress has directed that TSA violate the law, period. I won't stand for it, and neither should any other US citizen. Why make a law if you won't enforce it and you deliberately direct the disobedience of it? What's next?Â
The Insane Shadow, because the bill of rights are a joke now. ALL they have to do is use the Patriot Act and they can search your home, your car and your person and not even tell you why. They can come into your home day or night and even remove your stuff without telling you. They can hold you without benefit of council and NOT even tell you what you are charge with, in fact they don't have to charge you at all.
YOU won't see this in your media but if you dig enough you can see where many Americans have been arrested or just held under the Patriot Act. Wake up, the days of you having rights are long gone.
I think most of you spouting "it's unconstitutional!" have never even read the Constitution.
The 4th Amendment was intended to combat "writ of assistance" documents that were being abused previously during the American Revolution to search houses without cause.
Terry vs. Ohio states that law enforcement and those working under the guise of government can do pat-down searches simply based upon "unusual conduct" without probable cause or getting a warrant.
Additionally, a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in an airport. There are few people in the US who do not know that boarding an airplane requires passing through security which may involve pat-downs.
The 4th amendment also states that questioning an individual in a public place does not constitute a seizure.
Then you have the exigent circumstances part, where it says that if there is a need to protect lives or property, searches can be done as long as the original intent is not to arrest the people.
All in all, the 4th amendment is really concerned more with whether or not evidence found during searches can be used against the person searched. That is, if an illegal search is conducted, then the results of that search cannot usually be used in court.
It is unconstitutional and I've read the constitution.Why are you an expert?It's called Illegal search and seizure madam, without probable cause! Get your facts straight!
As far as the state of Ohio look at words unusual conduct.Most passengers going through an airport do not exhibit unusual conduct UNLESS THEIR FRUIT CAKES!Learn to read between the lines.
Then your talking about seaches to save lives and property.That is in emergencies madam.Plus the fact going through an airport does constitute saving lives and property.Get your facts straight again.Nobody is being threatened at an airport.Not in the normal everyday sense because you'd have airports and planes blowing up all over the place.This not happening.
One more time the TSA is nothing more than an organization of hustlers, goons, and scam artists.It's a dog and pony show full of Clowns.IT DOES NOTHING FOR YOUR SAFETY,ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
You madam ar3e a cheeleader for the TSA!That's all you are!
Cassivella sounds like much more of a constitutional scholar than you, Gloria. She(?) stated specific case law even.
I laugh when someone tells me that I have my facts wrong and their post is filled with grammatical errors.
I've already addressed the issue. Probable cause is not required for pat-downs.
You are welcome to your opinion on the matter, however it means nothing legally. The only peoples' opinions that matter in this case are those of the Justices who have presided over the previous and future case law.
I've provided those opinions to you, but you choose to ignore them. You instead choose to parrot inflammatory statements someone else told you without providing any factual or legal evidence to back them up. Quoting parts of the Constitution or judicial cases would qualify; saying "their [sic] fruit cakes [sic]" does not constitute evidence.
Perhaps you can go to law school and become a judge so you can make a dissenting opinion (which would be overturned on appeal). But, unfortunately, I have heard that law schools take skills such as reading and writing into consideration when they look at prospective students.
Or, you can do as I have already suggested and take your argument, sans screaming, to your local congressperson to be heard.
Complaining on newsvine does not further anyone's issue.
Thank you, RandomB.
It is nice to hear when people actually read my TL;DR posts. LOL
You can laugh all you want I really don't care.Case law?Read between the lines on the case law!She's no expert. there's a loop hole everywhere, you just have to find it.You really think you're an expert Cassivella?Here's a News Flash! YOU'RE NOT
Oh and your local congressmen?Freaken Worthless!That's how gullible both of you are are.
Why won't you knuckleheads stop talking about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and READ THE BACK OF YOUR AIRLINE TICKET?
You are entering into a contract when you purchase a ticket and part of that contract is that you agree to follow all safety and security procedures. This is why it is legal you deny you passage if you don't comply.
Listen, I don't care for the enhanced security either, but come on people, we live in a society where everyone "thinks" they have a God given right to everything and, in fact, do not.
These posts are proof of that.
It's not illegal search and seizure if you consent to the search is it? Beacuse when you purchase an airline ticket, that's exactly what you are doing. It is you who doesn't have their facts straight. The Constitution has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on this conversation. You bought the ticket, you conscented to potential searches.
At an airport, when you've purchased a ticket (and therefore waived many of your rights by agreeing to follow the security policies and procedures), a pat-down would not need probable cause.
But, if you are talking about outside of an airport in a public place, where you haven't waived your rights, then probable cause is most certainly required. You cannot be walking down the street and have a police officer pat you down without probable cause because a pat down is a form of search.
Ah yeah Scotty it does have a big bearing on the constitution.By the way you're consenting under duress.In other words Scotty old boy if you have no other choice but to fly you're forced into situation that you don't have any choice in.Again against the 4th amendment.Again contract is only as good as the paper it's written on.Depends on who interprets it.
There's all kinds of answers against your retorts.Hey Scotty you can retort till the cows come home it still isn't the right answer.
No other choice but to fly? Gloria, you have all the right in the world to set off on two feet if you wish to walk anywhere you choose. You can try to swim across the ocean, too, if you want. Now, as far as flying sometimes being the only practical choice... you have the right to get a pilot's license, buy your own plane, and fly yourself wheresoever you choose.
Think I'm being unrealistic? The same applies to driving. The law says you must have a license and insurance to operate a motor vehicle. Yes, there are other options to driving, but in many cases it is the only practical choice, and if you need to do it, you'd better get yourself a license.
Bottom line, no one is making you fly on their airline. That is your choice when you purchase a ticket, and by doing so, Scotty is correct, you enter into a legal contract that involves surrendering some of your rights.
this will be challenged and challenged and over turned and supported over and over again depending on the fundamental politics of those deciding the case, period.
arbitration agreements given to you for approval/signature at a doctors office just prior to being seen is another seemingly willful contract agreement but it isnt.. you are sick. you need help and treatment and if you dont sign you dont get help...this is not only duress, but torture..
but like the tsa issue, this will be challenged over and over as well
Scott,
There are situations in which probable cause is not required for a pat-down out in the "real" world also.
For example, DUI checkpoints, Terry vs. Ohio related "stop and frisk" due to unusual conduct not approaching probable cause, and at US borders.
First of all, quit wasting taxpayers money on useless positions......BDOs !!!! Come on people !! The FAA is hiring more TSA personnel and for what reason ?? !! So they can get more money allocated to them !! The government can't pay them anyway !! Besides, do these BDO personnel have a BA, MS, PhD, degrees that qualifies them for that position ?
Behavioral Science is something that takes years to learn & understand at a medical college or university, not at a 5 week course at a TSA training facility.
Cassivella, you seem hell bent on supporting the TSA's position on this matter and judging from most of your comments you sound like a lawyer. You can quote all you want about how much you know about the Constitution of the United States, but the bottom line here is how much longer do the people of United States have to endure this kind of wasteful & insane Bulls@@t by the US Government.
Can you name one act of terrorism done on US soil since 9/11 that supports the TSAs position to legitimately hire these BDOs to screen for Domestic flights ?? If you can, PLEASEEE give us your words of wisdom, so we can all sleep better at night knowing the airports of this country are secure for all of us and that Grandma & Grandpa are spending their retirement days flying all over the country because they have bombs on them and in their luggage and plotting acts of terrorism....just because they have nothing else better to do !!!
In my opinion...if these BDOs positions are warranted...wouldn't they serve a greater purpose if they were positioned at the International Port of Entry flights, rather than Domestic flights ??? My bad I forgot !! There's the Canadian & Mexican borders where entry into this country is easy. But isn't the reason the TSA was formed, to prevent terrorist from moving freely about this country ??? Where were these BDOs then and in years past ???
Don't we all live in a Country that claims it's "THE HOME OF THE BRAVE AND LAND OF THE FREE " , but the TSA claims they have the right to according to the government of United States and are required by the FAA to search you if they, the TSA, deem you look suspicious in anyway because the BDO says you do.
The Constitution of the United States is constanly being amended and scrutinized by Presidents, Congressmen & Senators of this Country all in the name of an ill advised Patriot Act by G.W. Bush allowing the local Police forces, the FBI, the CIA and all branches of the Military to detain and hold you without probable cause until the day you die, even if you can prove that you have nothing to hide or plotted to do harm in a vicious and callous manoror to overthrow this government, thus allowing illegal search and seizures by any means neccessary.
"CAN"T WE ALL JUST GETALONG "!!!
While I agree with your sentiment, you are actually incorrect here.
You don't have a "right" to get a pilot's licence or a driver's license or go wheresoever you choose. It is legal to get these licenses and to operate these vehicles within the applicable laws, but you can also be denied these licenses for a variety of reasons, which means that they are not "rights".
Yes, but what you fail to mention is that in lieu of probably cause, reasonable suspicion must be present and the only difference between the two being that probable cause is what you call it when an arrest is being made and reasonable suspicion is what you call the same thing when an arrest hasn't happened yet.
I think you're splittin hairs here and getting away from the larger point that when you agree to purchase an airline ticket, you waive your rights relating to search and seizure.
Hesham Mohamed Hadayet
Joseph Stack
Two men who committed terrorist acts, originating at US airports, since the inception of the TSA.
Either one of the men could have been stopped by a BDO, but we really can't know that.
Of course, there are probably countless terror/criminal acts committed each year where a criminal uses an airport to travel to commit his/her act. These acts would not be under the purview of the TSA, but TSA BDO officers could apprehend them. So it really isn't only airline security that could be affected.
The fact remains that air travel has been pretty safe since 9/11. We can't know whether this is because criminals are not trying (however we have caught them trying), or if the TSA is having a deterrent effect, which is difficult to quantify.
I could say that a town doesn't need more than 5 police officers since they only arrested 10 people total last year. However, the officers have an intangible effect on the community, and reducing the number of officers will likely cause the crime rate to increase.
We already have BDO officers at International Ports of Entry. This is how Customs and Immigration officers are trained. We even have our own BDOs in Canada's airports.
The fact remains that airport security is a process. The TSA implements changes such as these BDOs trying to marry the security needs of the country with the comfort of the traveler. That is why we do not have the same security processes as we did on 9/12 when there were people with machine guns in our airports.
The US instituted the 3-1-1 process due to reports of plans to carry liquid explosives onto planes. Canada simply banned carry-on baggage, including purses. Which would you prefer? Canada's way was much simpler and easier, but the US felt it should put passengers' feelings into consideration.
See here's the difference between your posts and mine. I've told you exactly why what I'm saying isn't my piont of view, but fact and you just make a statement of your opinion and expect others to take it as a fact.
WHY does it have a big bearing on the constitution Gloria?
Another statement with no meaining. I haven't consented to any point you've made and to infer duress is to infer pressue. I have no pressure on me.
If you don't have any choice, then you are forced into a situation you don't have any choice in. Um Ok. Here's one: if you are married, then you have a spouse. This is just babbling. What are you trying to say? Is someone forcing you to get on a plane? Who is it? Are they doing it now? Should I get help for you? Now, I'm in my mid 40's and I can't remember anyone (besides my parents when I was 8) forcing me to get on a plane, but I'm pretty sure they weren't violating my Constitutional rights.
Being "forced" to fly violates:
In what way? Now, I'm assuming you aren't talking about the being "forced" to fly by some ficticous entity here, but rather the TSA screening procedures. Have you read the 4th ammendment and the worthless paper its printed on? Do yo see the part there about "unreasonable" searches and seizures and how it is separate from the passage about searches and seizured happening with probable cause and a warrant. Do you not understand that the first part talks about the people not having to endure "unreasonable" searches and seizures in general and the second part talks about a warrant for a search and seizure requiring probable cause.
Now, when you get your bag checked at the airport, do they have a warrant? No. That's because they don't need one and the Constitution says so. It says you CAN be subjected to a search as long as it's not "unreasonable". Now, we can debate at what point you get to unreasonable, but if you read this and couple it with the waiver you give the airline when you buy your ticket, it's clear you have no idea what your are talking about and that you are just talking.
I'd agree with that and just say that these contracts are written by thousands of people who understand the law a hell of a lot better than you and I and who's interpreting them is the Federal Goverment.
Now, I guess I'll have to show you what the definition of "retort" is. I've been doing nothing but providing you with facts and ways for you to verify what I'm saying. You've been providing nothing but denials and insults.
I'm done with you Gloria. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, but yours is beyond closed for business.
Scott, I know it was a bit up the chain, but didn't want it to go without being said, I didn't mean to claim getting a driver's or pilot's license was a "right". Just that it was another path one could try to take.
Scotty your done with me?No sweat off my nose.Great, because it was a waste of time anyway!
 Can you hear the boots on the ground YET????
TSA Agent: "Hello, may we inspect the contents of your rectum?"
Me: "Absolutely, as long as it's performed by a 20-something hottie with warm hands!"
Little fat guy with a badge
Wants to know how I diddle Madge
Lucky I don't fly no more
Cuz the economy has made me poor
Behavior Detection Officer: Sir, before I waste my time trying to grope you, does your junk hang to the right or the left and how often do you have to adjust?
I hope they plan on hiring some people with IQ above 90. From the looks of that old out of shape guy in the article photo, we are in a world of trouble. I think from the looks of him he can hardly tell if you a person or a statue or a mirage. I think SHamigua and Tamiqua are starting to look good to me now. WTF and holy Sh@?>.
To add to some comments here; 1. Are the TSA agents that are inappropriately touching us certified by any medical board? Because even the nurses that take your temperature and weight had to have some medical certification! 2. This new psychological profiling, it's being done by students who graduated in some, any field of psychological medicine, yes? No. The answer is no to both questions. Why are we entrusting our supposed "national security" in the hands of people who are not board or college certified in any of these fields? Even if, IF, you wanted to make a case for any of this bs organization, why not employ students who have already graduated with tens of thousands of dollars in debt and are lucky to get a job at Walmart or McDonald's these days. Why not at the very least feign investing in jobs and help the 100's of thousands of college grads who are struggling and paid into the Student Loan bubble only to find no job was waiting for them.
It wouldn't sooth my conscience on the wholesale rape of our constitution, but at the very least it would look better by advertising that our newly formed TSA was being employed by graduate students in the fields of medicine and psychology, make an attempt to make it look legitimate.
[Sigh]
Uh, no. And, since they aren't performing any medical procedures, why should they be?
I don't think you understand what the term you've made up actually means. To "psychologically profile" someone would mean to use phsycic powers to select suspicious people since profiling takes place away from the crowd with no interaction with that crowd. Once the profiling has determined a target, interaction begins. Of course, I believe that what you meant was that some may feel psychologically violated by the TSA and do the TSA personnel have any certifications in psychology. Again, I ask, why should they because they aren't trying to "psych" anyone out, they are just asking questions.
But, to your larger point, YES the TSA agents do undergo specialized training for the jobs that they do and many don't make the cut.
And PLEASE stop invoking the Constitution. The Constitution grants you no rights here.
READ THE BACK OF YOUR AIRLINE TICKET!!!!
Ringy Ringy Scotty that doesn't mean that contract has any validity to it when it interferes with the Constitution.Plus the fact the government has got it's hand up the Airlines Asses.You see Scotty Flying comes under the Auspices of traveling!In tis country a person is allowed to travel whether it be by plane train autombile,camel bicycle jackass, you name it Freely!Unlawful search and seizure Scotty unless there's probable cause.Passengers are not criminals Scotty.
The TSA is an organization of Clowns and Goons Sanction by the U.S. Government. It is also one of the larghest wasters of taxpayer money!
The airlines are all (at least in the US) publicly owned corporations, not government entities.
The constitution actually doesn't mean anything on an airplane, which is private property.
You have not right to free speech on an airliner. You only have the right for the government itself to not infringe on your speech. The airline can infringe all it wants.
You have no right to bear arms on an airline.
These are the same whether you are on an airline or at your non-government office. Just try walking into your work with a loaded shotgun and see what the reaction is.
Airlines do have to follow applicable laws, however. That is why the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prevents airlines from refusing to carry people based on race, for example, applies.
You can call me whatever name you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about because you can voluntarially give up certain rights and you do every time you buy an airline ticket, a movie ticket, or a concert ticket. There's no interference because you are voluntarially complying.
A perfect example of this is anyone serving in any branch of our millitary. They must agree to give up certain Constitutional rights, which is why millitary law is different than civilian law.
This is a fact and, despite how loud you whine about it, it is true. If you would just educate yourself a bit, you'd know this.
Again, you are completely wrong because you don't understand or haven't actually read our laws. You are free to go to any public place in the US, but the Constitution does not guarantee you the right to do that travel using various modes of transportation.
Again, simple proof is that you are not allowed to just build your own rocket, jump it, and fly off to another part of the country. The "mode" of transportation is governed by many laws and enforced by various agencies, like the FAA and DMV.
Have you ever gone to a concert? A sporting event? How about any of the public museums in Washington, D.C.? Disney World? Why do you think you are required to present your purse/napsack/duffle bag, etc. for inspection as a condition of entry? Because, when you bought the ticket, you were waiving your rights about search and seizure - - it says so on the back of your ticket!
Now, you can respond with sarcasm or name calling, but none of that will change the facts and the laws.
The real problem is that there are too many people like you who don't know enough about the country that you live in and belive that you are entitle to so many things that you aren't.
Nobody called you any names Scot or Scotty. What the hells the difference, It's the same name?Sarcasm yes, because your information about traveling is Bogus.
Go to Concerts in my town all the time.We have some of the biggest names in town.However nobody ever searched anything including myself when I walked through the door.Sports events?No Boring!
Presenting your purse or knapsak is a hell of a lot different than being groped and molested.Don't buy the airline ticket thing either.
Don't know about the country I live in?Hell Scotty I could run rings around you.Your problem?Your too brainwashed and dummied down to get the hint.That's ashame, because you seem preety bright otherwise.
Well, for someone who isn't calling names, you sure do alot of it.
Back to the point. The fact that you are "buying" the whole travelling thing, may be your belief, but it is certainly not a fact and all one must do is read our Bill of Rights and Constitution to find out what you are and aren't entitled to.
Now, if you wish to think that by doing so, you will become "brainwashed" like me, then, please, don't and we'll see which one of us winds up in jail first.
Oh Scott !! I guess your here to remind us of all we give up as a human beings and citizen of this Nation only because we didn't read the small print on our tickets and contracts. Bravo , Bravo, Scott keep rubbing salt in the wound you arrogant bastard.
Cassivella, WTF !!! Now your a Corporate Lawyer ???!!!!! OH !!! Wonders never cease !!! Just keep on spewing out your wonderful logic to all of us inept non-readers who take lifes pleasures for granted. I bet you didn't know when & if you were flying about in country on these airlines you were paying more instead of less & should have gotten a discount on your ticket purchase, or did you forget to read the small print.
Something the airlines didn't want you to know.
Uh, that's not true at all. You don't lose your Constitutional rights when you step onto private property. In fact, there are only two ways to lose your Constitutional rights:
1. You can waive them (or some of them) formally as you do when you enter the private property of a movie theater or sports arena or join the millitary.
2. You can have them taken away when you are imprisoned.
No US individual or corporation may infringe upon your Constitutional rights, unless you have waived them (as you do with your right to search and seizure and your rights to free speech when you buy an airline ticket). The airline must still abide by all other Constitutional rights its passengers have not waived.
Explain to me how I am arrogant because other people don't understand the terms of contracts that they enter into?
Explain to me how I am arrogant because I'm trying to inform others of what the Constitution actually says, rather than what they think it should say?
Explain to me how I am an arrogant bastard, when I am not insulting anyone and you are swearing at me?
Actually Bad Dog, I know very well that I pay more for my tickets than a leisure traveler or a corporate purchaser.
That is why the airlines treat me better and give me more perks.
But, since I don't pay for the tickets, and because my customers don't seem to care how much they spend, it doesn't really matter.
It is humourous seeing the people lash out at posters who make rational arguments.
The US Constitution and case law histories are available for everyone to read.
If you choose to live in ignorance, that is your own fault. However, don't take your ignorance out on the people who bother to learn the laws of the country in which they live.
It's like listening to 6th graders make fun of the kids who actually bothered to follow directions on the homework. You may feel better about yourself by putting people like Scott and me down, but it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.
Scott,
The majority of the Constitution deals with what our government is and is not allowed to do to its citizens. Heck, even until after the civil war, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to state laws, and states were allowed to do things like establish their own state religions. It wasn't until the 14th amendment and the incorporation doctrine that this was changed.
If you come onto my property, I can interfere with you practicing your religion. The government cannot interfere with you practicing your religion wherever you are.
I can prevent you from owning firearms while on my property. The government cannot prevent you from owning a legal firearm (unless you are a criminal/mentally ill).
I can prevent you from peaceably assembling on my property.
If you look at the Bill of Rights, the majority of those amendments don't even apply to a situation involving two citizens or a citizen and a company.
When a company is sued because Muslims are not allowed prayer time, the statute cited is not the 1st amendment (which only prevents the government from establishing a religion - freedom FROM religion), but rather the Federal Civil Rights Acts (and any state ones). The company gets sued because the plaintiff feels that Muslims only are not allowed to practice their religion and that other faiths are, i.e. the company is discriminating against Muslims, which are a protected class under the Federal Civil Rights Act.
@Cassivella
You seem to have some peripheral knowledge of the Constitution's content, but unfortunately you also seem to belive much about law that is incorrect and you are getting laws and rights confused.
The Government actually can interfere with me practicing my religion as it has done many times when it tells various government and state employees to take down religious parephenallia that they have put on on Goverment and state property.
You cannot prevent me from owning firearms while on your property. You can ask me to leave your property because I have a firearm, and if I refuse, you can have me arrested for trespassing, but not for having a legal firearm. This is the difference between my "right" to carry a firearm and your desire to have me leave your property, which, if I don't, is where a "law" (trespassing) comes into play.
No private citizen or company my revoke any right granted in the Constitution unless that right is waived, as it is when you purchase an airline ticket.
@Scott:
As you already have discredited the arguments made from your own expert opinion of things, I won't try and further this argument. Lawyers are able to do the same thing, equivocate the finest details of any document or case until someone gets to go free simply because an "i" wasn't dotted or "t" crossed on a name, even though clearly the right person was apprehended. While you may pity me and others for our lack of understanding between rights and laws and even the constitution, I pity you for being so willing to argue any cause that, rather than correct us with information that would better support the notion that we live in a country of freedom and laws (something that I'm obviously delusional on) you would rather shoot down any notion that the government is overstepping it's bounds in regards to how it treats it's own population.
Am I fully versed in the finer points of of the thousands of laws and US Code, etc? No. Am I fully versed in all the court cases that supply precedent to judges when decisions are made in court? No. But I am at least trying to become more educated. Unfortunately rather than be shown where my logic can be corrected to better support my growing mistrust of the government I used to champion, you seem more bent on merely proving that logic wrong. Kudos to you and all those like you who would rather watch this country burn and become as militant as the countries and groups of people we waste billions of dollars fighting rather than help us take a stand before it's too late. But you go on ahead and do what you do.
I do appreciate your willingness to respond and try to help make corrections to misunderstandings, but I don't appreciate your willingness to turn a blind eye to the fact that many people are simply not OK with the idea that the government is on an unrestricted and far-to-oft unchallenged path to a police state where we are stripped of dignity and told that any measure of privacy must be remitted to their tender care so that we can be protected from ourselves.
"No private citizen or company my revoke any right granted in the Constitution unless that right is waived, as it is when you purchase an airline ticket." - As opposed to the government when Hurricane Katrina hit and both FEMA and the police went and stripped ALL citizens of their firearms? There was ample news coverage of the police chief stating that all citizens will be disarmed. People in their homes were intruded upon by armed forces and had their weapons taken from them.
Or are you referring to something else, as where the Supreme Court of the US stated that, upon "hearing" something amiss, police can break into your residence. So without any way to prove or disprove what a police officer heard in a court of law, it's just the way it is.
Or are you referring to the right where the state of Indiana a couple months back struck down citizens rights to refuse illegal (not legal, but illegal) entry into their homes by police officers, stating that if there was a grievance that they could later redress it in a court of law. There was even an issued statement by one of the County Sheriffs there that they were excited about this new power and planed to conduct random house to house searches (without the need for a warrant any longer), claiming that it would make the people feel safer because people would be afraid to have illegal things there because now they could randomly and without warning be searched, so they would never have to worry about their neighbors.
You mean these rights?
It's all well and good to state that we don't know the difference between rights and laws, but there also comes a time when we need to stop following the government just because they say so. Consenting to a reasonable search when buying an airline ticket is one thing, but having someone thoroughly touch my genitals would be considered sexual assault anywhere else. This is not reasonable in any way.
If nothing else I have welcomed the time to think about some of what you have said. While my current ability to counter-argue my points against yours may be below par for you, but it is better than what it used to be. And I hope that scores of regular Americans continue to learn how to better argue against people that seem bent on oppressing us until we manage to restore some measure of humility and decency to our government.
I accept your challenge and will continue to do better in the future in my arguments. Heaven help us though if your arguments constantly posted to refute others is a reflection of your belief in the government rather than helping is see the flaws in our arguments themselves
I think you've actually stated the problem quite clearly right here. I haven't stated ANY OPINIONS at all, I have linked to and quoted the Constitution and clarified the difference between a "right" and a "law".
This seems to have upset you because you feel that I am taking "sides" with the government and agree with everything they do. The "side' that I'm taking is "FACT". We cannot have debates and move forward in this country if we don't understand the facts of our situation.
The main issue here is that there are those that have contributed to this debate, who have said that our Constitutional rights are being violated by TSA when we fly. This is "FACTUALLY" incorrect. I have explained that when you purchase a ticket to fly, you are waiving certain rights and agreeing to more stringant security procedures.
When those who have posted the text of the 4th and 5th ammendments (without reading them) as eveidence of their claims to freedom from search and right to remain silent, I have pointed out (with the actual wording) that they have misread these passages. For example, 2 posters here have said that you can't be searched without probable cause and cited the 4th ammendement as their resoning for that. But, upon actually reading what the 4th ammendment says, you will see that there are two protections listed and the one about probable cause relates to what a judge needs before they can issue a warrant, which has no bearing on the search you undergo at the airport, because no one is gettting a warrant in this case. This is not my OPINION of what the 4th ammendment means, it's the FACT of what it says.
Then you haven't understood a single thing I've written here. The reason I've been trying to explain the FACTS of what the Constitution says (and doesn't say) and the FACTUAL difference between a "right" and a "law" and the reason I've posted links to the Bill of Rights and Delta's passenger agreement is because I'm trying to get people to understand that YOU ARE AGREEING to go through these TSA screenings when you buy your ticket. It's a choice YOU make. And when you make it, you are freely giving up certain rights at the expense of everyone's safety.
These are all FACTS. None of it is my opinion. Like it. Don't like it. It has nothing to do with me.
Too bad the police can't stop and ask the same questions to all the quislings walking around the streets in America...........they have to wait till they get to the airport.....
The problem with this method is that it relies on “trained” human agents. There are two solutions that will give Americans the peace of mind knowing that any terrorist trying to get on their plane will be caught. One is the Hirschberg Anal Sphincter tension indicator. It is very sensitive to strong emotion, particularly hostility and is much more reliable than agents asking citizens questions. Everyone who comes to the airport would be required to wear one. The second is a promising development out of the Sandusky Project. Micro-Sublingual Meters can be injected under the tongue. As all humans inaudibly vocalize their thoughts through words, the device is the next best thing to mind reading. With a simple injection, every American over the age of two can have one put in place. Once and for all we can all be free from crime and terrorism.
I just think they have solved the social security money problems. They will make you work for TSA from 65 to 99 years old at minimum wage and then the social security will kick in at 100. If we run out of old people then we can throw the disabled and the retarded followed by the 2000000 imprisoned criminals. All economic problems solved just around TSA and OSAMA.
This was mint! : ) Good form!
This whole fiasco has convinced me to run for office some day. I promise I won't rest until each TSA officer is behind bars. No law lasts forever, and the TSA's protections can change with the political winds. No lawyer will be able to get them out, and may God help them if they think they'll get anywhere with a jury.
Although I disagree with the target of your anger, I appreciate that you are the first person to propose actually combating the problem with a rational solution that you can actually at least try to implement yourself.
I understand some may disagree with me being angry at min wage workers. However, I feel like we as a country have learned that "I was just following orders" is never an excuse. It is an unfortunate necessity that the TSA agents themselves must be prosecuted to prevent future min wage workers from being tempted into harassing their fellow countrymen.
They are just a bunch of poor saps trying to get a paycheck. Don't blame them, it's the government that dictates what they do. WalMart cant hire all of them.
Well, let's all hope you don't wind up representing us when you make it to office. Because, your comments just show that you are willing to label EVERY TSA agent the same way and blame them for the laws passed by others.
Hey he wouldn't be blaming them if they didn't work the Dirty Jobs they work,now would he?Sorry Scotty you don't have answer for eveything.By the way Scotty I just bet you work for the TSA, don't ya?
By Gloria's comments, I should be able to target all christian ministers because I disagree with the religions.
I should be able to go into any church, during service while the ministers are trying to work, and yell and curse at them.
I should be able to insist that they get put in jail because I disagree with what they stand for.
After all, the ministers are doing the dirty work of the church! They didn't have to take that job! They deserve what they get!
I don't even understand what you are trying to say. People blame others (incorrectly) all the time. That's the reason we have a judicial system and trials. If we didn't, then anyone who is accused would just go to jail. Are you saying that this is the world you would like to live in?
No, I don't. Nor, did I say that I did. What I did say was that you are incorrect, when you describe what you think the Constitution says and how it is applied.
No, I don't. And, I'm not a fan of having to deal with the inconveinience of security in today's airports. I am a very pragmatic person and one that can separate "fact" from "fiction". You've been spouting "fiction".
Go open a book and you'll find that you aren't entitled to much of what you think you are.
Really I'm spouting fiction and you're pragmatic?That's a new one.No you're the one spouting fiction.So you say you don't have the answers to everything and yet you're telling me I'm incorrect about about the constitution?Kind of contradicting yourself aren't ya.
What goes on at the airports in not an inconveniece Scotty it's criminal.I'll say it again Scott old boy your problem is your brainwashed and yes you are dummied down.What a pity!
Cassivella you're talking in circles!
Ugh, let's settle this...
Here is a link to the US Bill of Rights and Constitution:
Please just show me where this says you have the right to get on a plane without following security procedures.
Here is a link to Delta's ticketing agreemnt:
Please read rule 35 (REFUSAL TO TRANSPORT)
If you really think that someone saying that they don't have the answers to everything is the same as saying that they don't have an answer for anything, then I'd say you are talking in circles.
??? Except that if you understood what criminal meant and what the laws are, you'd know that it's actually not criminal.
Enough of your diatribe. Can't you just read and educate yourself?
You need to separate what you "feel" to be wrong vs. what is actually "illegal" and by the way, I "feel" that TSA procedures are intrusive and inconveinent too, but I "know" that they are not illegal.
Gloria has not made a factual statement in this entire thread.
Spouting "it's criminal!" does not make it so. Yelling it louder does not work either. Adding "your [sic] brainwashed" to the end really doesn't help, especially when you know not the difference between plural and possessive - ironic when you are trying to call someone dumb!
If you want us to read your comments, why don't you try a little harder.
You can start with "It's criminal BECAUSE..."
What is funny is that Gloria notices that my example is illogical, yet she cannot accept that fact in her example, even though the two examples have parity.
The links didn't post in my earlier message:
Bill of Rights/Constitution (add www. to URL): archives.gov/exhibits/
Delta ticketing agreement: images.delta.com.edgesuite.net/delta/pdfs/contract_of_carriage_dom.pdf
I am rather sorry to have been the start such a war of words. Some of the comments have moved me......your forgiveness for those who have wronged you is admirable, and perhaps in the short term it is best to forgive them for what they have done and lay blame with the original policy makers (some of whom are already out of office).
Still, I believe if we are to stay off the slippery slope of vanishing civil rights, we must alter the law. A constitutional amendment is not out of the question. I believe some prosecution is warranted to remind future generations of the perils of following orders without regard to their contents. Beyond that, I also intend to dedicate part of a museum to the TSA during this period of fear in our country. It would be in a line of exhibits whose nearest example in history would be the question of "better red than dead" (which similarly asks if it is better to trade safety - real or perceived - for liberty).
Please note two things: first, I am making a purely moral argument here. If there are still those who believe the TSA's methods are effective, safe, and economically viable - I respect your opinion and we can debate that another time. Second, this is not just about flying. Far from it actually. I believe this problem will resolve itself sooner than we can with the law. A newer technology will come along, either in the form of a newer, less invasive, security approach, or another form of transportation altogether that does not need this security or cannot be legally regulated as such.
Still, if we do not act on this I am curious what mechanism people think might exist to prevent us from losing more liberty to the cause of safety......what about trains or buses.......getting into your own car........being searched each time you enter or leave your neighborhood. I know our current security measures were in response to attempted acts of terrorism, but with 7 billion people in the world, eventually there will be enough examples of extremism to prevent us from doing anything without being searched. Already we are developing drones to patrol our cities. What will stop us from heading too far in this direction?
@University of Chicago Student
I think you've missed the point and it wasn't you that started this conversation (but you did ignite it).
As I have repeatedly stated and as anyone who can simply read on thier airline ticket purchase agreement (which I've posted a link to), when you buy a ticket to fly on a mode of transportation (really almost any mode of transportation), you are entering into a contract whereby you agree to follow certain policies and procedures. Some of those policies and procedures require you to undergo a search that, without your conscent (and that's the key here), could be unconstitutional. But, you are giving conscent, and so it's not.
There is no law to change, because no law has been created or changed. You are conscenting to being subjected to TSA security procedures when you buy your ticket.
If you want to find a place to direct your frustration and anger, you have the right to peacfully protest what these procedures are in the hopes of getting them changed. But, these procedures are not laws in and of themselves, they are procedures that TSA has created that, as long as you buy your ticket (essentially agreeing to TSA procedures) are perfectly legal.
If cooler heads could prevail, and folks would just READ, rather than spout opinions as if they were facts, we'd certainly be able to have a much more productive discussion about this or any topic.
No, I understand perfectly. Which is why I propose a constitutional amendment to ban the practice of being able to give up your right to be secure in your person and possessions to appease any organization or governmental entity. What if you have to sign a waiver to live in a particular kind of community (and eventually - perhaps all of them) that searches you each time you enter and leave. It's true you can consent to this. But at what point does it become coercion? When there is no where else to live? Perhaps flying should be a right the constitution protects. In either case, I'm of the opinion we should stop the practice before it really gets going.
I understand what the current laws are, and I think it's clear from my post that I acknowledge that. This is why I propose to make changes to the constitution (i.e. new amendments). It is also worth pointing out, however, that we are not on equal footing as it is. I can choose to get searched to fly, or I can simply be richer than most and hop in my Cessna and fly where I like while you stand in line to be searched. Is it fair (or good security practice) that I may fly whenever I like from a small private air port in my own property while you must be searched? If you are content with the situation, so be it.
Some very spirited thought on this thread. It's good to see logical, thought-out comments (Gloria excluded; I keep expecting her to start calling people "poopyhead" in her retorts). I'd be saying more myself, but Scott, Cassivella, and Student are all making excellent points.
LOLZ @RandomB