TSA: "You have your law, I have mine."

progunner1957

Moderator
Here it is, folks - the ugly truth about life in America in 2005. Your rights guaranteed by the Constitution are NULL AND VOID at the airport.

Read it and weep!


This Is America?
Published in Ideas on Liberty - July 2002
by James R. Otteson

I have long had an uneasy relationship with airport security. Before September 11, I resisted the demand that I produce a government-issued ID, believing that it smacked too much of the “Papers, please” of the former Soviet Union that Hollywood movies used to mock and we free Americans used to laugh at.

I also used to withhold permission to search my bags. On one occasion before September 11, in the Birmingham, Alabama, airport, the security guard was nonplussed when I answered no to her perfunctory request for permission to search my briefcase. I told her, and then her supervisor, and eventually a man who identified himself as the head of security at the airport, that I am protected by the Constitution from unreasonable searches and seizures. I showed him the Fourth Amendment in the copy of the Constitution I always take with me when I travel. It meant, I said, that unless they had either a warrant or probable cause to suspect me of some crime, they had no right to demand to search my bag. They admitted that they had neither, but, in what was then a shocking revelation and now seems only to have been ahead of its time, the chief of security said: "Well, you have your law; I have MINE."

That was before September 11. Since then, all sanity—not to mention quaint notions like individual liberty, rights, and privacy—is fast going the way of the Edsel.

Several weeks ago in the airport in Traverse City, Michigan, my wife, my children of 8, 5, and 3, and I were all “randomly” selected for a complete search of all our belongings. I have never been subject to more humiliating treatment in my life. We all—including my three-year-old son—had to take off our shoes, and hand them over for “inspection.” I had to take off my sport coat and belt as well; and I had to hand over my wallet for it to be—well, who knows?

I made my usual protest about protections from unreasonable searches and seizures, but they fell on deaf ears. “We’re just following orders,” I was told. That was the defense Nazi war criminals used, I said. Following orders does not relieve you of responsibility for your own actions. “Are you calling me a Nazi?” one demanded. “You call me a Nazi again and you’re never getting on that plane!”

Whose orders are you following? “The FAA’s.” The FAA has instructed you to detain and search innocent American citizens and their families? “Where have you been lately, buddy? Haven’t you heard of what happened in New York?” But wasn’t that tragedy, like most terrorist activities against America, perpetrated by people who were not native-born American citizens, and who were not traveling with their wives and small children?

By this point I was surrounded by approximately half a dozen security guards and several armed National Guardsmen. I was informed that if I did not “shut up,” I would be made to “go Greyhound the rest of [my] life.” I asked whether I was suspected of a crime. I was informed that asking so many questions “about the Constitution and all” was making me suspicious. “This is America now, buddy. You better shut up and get used to it!”

I asked whether they now intended not only to violate my right to be free of arbitrary searches and seizures, but also my right to free speech. I was then told—through clenched teeth—that if I said “one more word,” they were going to “lock me up” and make me “go Greyhound the rest of [my] life.” “I have that power,” one security guard growled at me ominously.

My children were frightened and on the verge of tears, and my wife, also growing uneasy, implored me to simply let them do what they wanted to do. So after a tense moment I stood aside, escorted by two armed National Guardsmen, while several security guards searched through our bags. I had to stand by silently while all of our things were taken out and examined, no doubt with extra thoroughness to punish me for my impudence. My shirts, pants, and socks were unfolded. A man with no gloves on rifled through my wife’s intimates; he even fingered through her feminine products.

After some 20 minutes of searching, they finished, and allowed us to go up the one flight of stairs and walk the 50 feet to our gate, where one of the very same people who had searched us downstairs now searched us again before we were allowed to get on the plane.

Security Reduced

What has become of us? A once free and proud people lets itself be subject to this kind of totalitarian treatment? Searching my children, my wife, and me does not increase security one iota: as anyone with any common sense could see, we are obviously not a threat. Indeed, wasting time searching people like us squanders the opportunity to check people who actually are likely suspects. So it might in fact reduce our level of security.

I flew again just recently. During yet another “random” search of my briefcase, the security guard found a leather thong with weighted ends that I use to hold books open while I read them. (I am a college professor, so this comes in quite handy; my mother gave it to me as a gift many years ago.) The guard decided it could be used as a “blackjack”—apparently a device used to hit people on the head—and called his manager over.

I explained to the manager, as I had explained to the guard, what I use it for. I even got a book out of my briefcase and demonstrated. The manager said, “That’s fine. Let him through.” “But,” the guard protested, “he could use it to knock somebody out!” And he provided his own rather dramatic demonstration of how one might use it. The manager replied, “It’s no different from a fist—are you going to cut his arm off? Let him through.” I thanked the manager for her common sense.

Thus there is still some of that in airports—but it is increasingly uncommon. And the new security measures being adopted, which do not increase security and instead serve only to inconvenience law-abiding Americans, are quickly stamping out the last vestiges of reasonableness—not to mention liberty—at our airports.

The terrorist threat is real. As September 11 showed, it is all too real. We should not let our political sensibilities trump our good sense when actual lives are at stake. And we should not let our precious liberties—the very liberties that make this country worth dying for—be usurped by petty tyrants who are “just following orders.”

The invasive and unconstitutional tactics of such airport security are an alarmingly large step toward creating just the kind of totalitarian society our enemies hope to create. We must not let it continue.

James Otteson is a professor of philosophy at the University of Alabama.
 
It meant, I said, that unless they had either a warrant or probable cause to suspect me of some crime, they had no right to demand to search my bag. They admitted that they had neither, but, in what was then a shocking revelation and now seems only to have been ahead of its time, the chief of security said: "Well, you have your law; I have MINE."

Professor whatshisname doesn't know what he's talking about. I'd hate to be stuck behind this jerk-off at the airport. If he's hanging his hat on the 4th. Amendment as written in his pocket copy of the constitution, nowhere does it say anything about law enforcement requiring a warrant or probable cause to search. The 4th. Amendment is very concise. It says that people will not be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures and that warrants will not issue without probable cause. Society recognizes as reasonable the right of an airline to refuse service to someone who won't let the government agents search his carry-on luggage. Society also recognizes as reasonable the right of the government to conduct certain searches without probable cause and without warrants. Border searches for one, and administrative searches for another.

Secondly, he had a choice. If he didn't want to submit to the search of his closed container, he didn't have to take the flight. No one was MAKING him consent to the search or submit to it. The airline is not obligated to accomodate people who refuse to submit to a search of their carry-on luggage.


Third: I'd like to see how hard this guy protests when he's in line behind some Arabic-speaking guy in a Muslim prayer cap with a set of worry beads in his hands who is shouting "Alahu-Akhbar" and demanding to get on the plane with a package that he doesn't want searched. Professor numbnuts doesn't have any more right than the guy I just described to get on that plane with his packaged unsearched. I hope he missed his flight and his wife was pissed.



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.
 
::Round of Applause:: for not easily succumbing to this tyrannical loss of dignity. I too disagree the searches... and it is all but a coincidence that I get the random bag check... is this because I have had a national background check done to purchase a firearm??

However (to play devil's advocate), we do have the right against searches and siezures that are unlawful, however... we do not have the right to fly on a commercial airplane. Since we do not have that right, we must follow policies, the same concept of having the right to a concealed weapon with a permit. If WalMart explicitly follows govt. regulations and posts a "No concealed weapons" sign, we must disarm, protest all you like, we don't have a right to enter WalMart.

Frank I do beleive your words are a bit harsh, don't ya think?
 
Frank Dreblin said:
Society recognizes as reasonable the right of an airline to refuse service to someone who won't let the government agents search his carry-on luggage.
Refuse service...perhaps. But threaten someone with lockup or placement on the No-Fly List for simply pointing out the COMPLETE, UTTER, OUTRAGEOUS, MORONIC, BUNGLINGLY BUREAUCRATIC use of their power? I hope that is NOT the America most of us accept.

It was not long ago that one could challenge authority without threat of lock-up. When one could actually carry and quote the Constitution without being labeled a "Dangerous Fellow". Are those days so quickly forgotten?

This family did not refuse a baggage X-Ray. They simply balked when they learned they were singled out for EXTRA SPECIAL examination. It's a common practice at airports today. Anyone who has ever found themselves on the wrong side of Airport Security, whether under the presently Brain-Dead TSA Regime or the days when Non-Citizen Foreign Nationals made the rules up as they went along, knows just how violative these pogues can be.

Good on ya, Mr. Otteson.
Rich
 
With Wal-Mart we have a choice. If Wal-Mart gets stupid, I can go to United, or K-Mart, or Sears or any other number of stores which provide the same service as Wal-Mart.

Wal-mart is not an arm of the US gov't. Wal-Mart isn't under the command and direction of the Executive Branch of the US Gov't.

Airport security is. Airport security is a branch of the Federal Aviation Agency, under the command and direction of the Executive Branch of the US Gov't, and thus is bound stictly to the United States Constitution.

If I, acting as a agent of the Executive Branch, cannot ask every third person to strip during routine traffic stops, then the same holds for any other agent of the Executive Branch.

If the airlines want to use the Wal-Mart argument, then they need to hire private security officers, who report only to, and are paid by, the airlines.

TSA officers are held to the same damned Constitutional strictures as any other officer, and Congress best get to reminding them of such.

LawDog
 
LawDog-
An elegant and outstanding point. I never looked at it that way. As govt officials, they really don't even speak for the airlines; yet they suddenly have the power to determine who may and may not be allowed to purchase a given good or service, based on "customer attitude".

One helluva a precedent, I'd say. And make no mistake; it IS a precedent.
Rich
 
Respectfully, I weigh in with FrankDrebin on this one. I too think it's entirely reasonable to have random and even extensive searches at airports. One man with a relatively small bomb can bring an entire plane full of people down, and several men did much worse on September 11th.

I think FrankDrebin's point on the Muslim man with the prayer beads is a great one. It also underscores the need for truly random searches. If we only search guys with Osama-style headgear, the terrorists will just go looking for a John Walker Lindh type convert to do the job.
 
asked whether they now intended not only to violate my right to be free of arbitrary searches and seizures, but also my right to free speech. I was then told—through clenched teeth—that if I said “one more word,” they were going to “lock me up” and make me “go Greyhound the rest of [my] life.” “I have that power,” one security guard growled at me ominously.
Yeah he does have that power and you have the power to own everything he did when you sue him. The airport may be considered private property and as w4klr pointed out they don't have to let you fly their plane if you don't follow their posted rules. Even public property has these draconian rules in Washington D.C..
 
It would be entirely reasonable to do searches at airports if the searches were being done by private agents of the airline companies and/or private agents of the airport.

It is not reasonable, and it is a violation of the Constitution, for the government to do searches without Probable Cause, supported by affirmation, and particularly describing what is being searched for.

Period.

What the TSA is doing is exactly equal to me walking into the Government housing section of my city, and telling every third person to strip, and randomly searching every third apartment, in the name of the War on Drugs and without warrants.

Hell, yeah! Give me TSA authority, and I will cut the drug problem in my city by 75% at a minimum! Guaranteed.

This is America, folks. The Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, puts limits on Government. All government, and all agents of government.

As long as airport security is in the hands of the Federal Govenrmnet, the Federal Government is bound by the Constitution and each and every Amendment thereof.

Well, supposed to be, anyway.

Airports want random, intrusive, warrantless searches, they need to have non-government people doing them.

Period.

LawDog
 
LawDog, I agree with you wholeheartedly, I'm just trying to play the other side of the story.

On the executive branch side... then one could argue that the Secret Service could not search a person entering the White House for a tour... They are under the executive branch, so clearly, any person should be able to enter the White House without a search unless there is a something to warrant the search.

But wait... WHO defines unreasonable? Where does my right to not have my bags searched begin, and where does John Q.'s right to fly in an aircraft where people have been screened and searched to affirm there is a minimal chance of a weapon or explosive on board?

Are you a qualified person to judge what is unreasonable? Am I? I beleive in this case the concept of being unreasonable applies to the safety of the public.

(I'm not in support of airline searches at all... I like to play the advocate)

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 last time I was at the White House, nobody strip-searched my furry butt.

No male officer got himself a nice hand-full of my lady-friends breasts.

I have little problem with walking through a metal detector. I have little problem with having my luggage pass through a flouroscope.

I have a bloody great problem with having to remove articles of my clothing to take a transnational flight.

I have a bloody great problem with a male TSA officer feeling up my lady.

I have a bloody great problem with TSA rummaging warrantless through my luggage.

If metal detectors and flouroscopes are good enough for the White House, they're bloody good enough for Dallas International Airport.

And I damned sure have a bloody huge problem with TSA thinking their pissant little agency rulings override the Constitution!

LawDog
 
Don't get me wrong but I do agree with your sentiments and I am only playing devil's advocate as well.
Fluroscopes were not good enough for the white house after 9/11. Probably becasue they thought it too invasive to strip search people, they stopped all White House visits for a year or two.
 
I haven't flown much at all, so maybe I have no idea what I am talking about, but I find the story a little hard to believe, considering their responses.

as anyone with any common sense could see, we are obviously not a threat

I don't know that. Maybe the enemy has gotten smart and started to put family people on the plane, in hopes of making it through easier.

I'm not supporting the gov't. I just have a feeling that the guy is not telling the whole story, or adding things to the story.
 
From my experiences and from the stories of other it sounds like he didn't add anything to their responses. TSA thinks they are gods and that they have been given the right to do or say whatever they want. I have actually heard worse stories. Some of them abuse their powers whether it is on purpose or unintentional.
 
I find the story a little hard to believe
I could go back 5 or 6 years to pre-TSA days. Let's stay current:

My white-Anglo-Saxon, always smiling, 5' Nuthin' lady was singled out and frisked by a male about a year ago. I was not there. I wish I was.

Palm Beach International: less than six months ago, I was taking my deaf, 85 year old Dad to CT: we surrendured his wallet and watch. The attendant, on the Authority side of the metal detector asked me to remove his shoes and glasses. Standing there, blind and deaf, smiling with fear, trying to locate my face less than 3 feet from his, this WWII Vet made the mistake of putting a hand on the Metal Detector gateway for balance while I attempted to remove his shoes....85 years old; no chair or assistance available.

The detector started beeping and the female Moron-in-Uniform continued to repeat her command to let go of the magnetometer in increasing volume. Dad never heard. When she reached thru to grab his arm, I simply smiled up and said in as even a voice as possible: "Has it occurred to you that he can't hear or see you?"

Once thru the machine, I asked to use one of the chairs 5' to my right to put his shoes on (where they check assisted people). I was told "sorry that's a 'sterile area'" as they lifted the rope to let a completed check thru. "Sterile"? We were in the EXACT SAME STERILE AREA. So, I walked my 85 year old, deaf, blind, unshod Dad some 50 feet around the corner and to the concourse where we waited for a chair where I could dress him.

Did I mention that I forgot to leave my prohibited "Don't-You-Know-What-Happened-Nearly-Four-Years-Ago" Zippo Lighter in the car and Morons 1-3 were so busy trying to determine just how dangerous this Old Guy was, they allowed me to pick it up from the little serving dish, with my cell phone and watch after they'd "screened" them? No lie: I forgot. They missed.

I feel safer already. :rolleyes:
Rich
 
Tsa

The solution is simple--Don't Fly--. I haven't flown since 9/11. If I can't get the by car I don't go. Some hardships yes I missed a Family wedding in
Germany. My relative was marrying someone in the Army. Did I miss out, yes but if I can carry so much as a P-38 canopener)I'm not going to fly.

Bob
 
I fly all the time and I do sympathize with people who are irritated and offended by some of the attitudes behind the X-Ray machine. I do believe screeners have a duty to be respectful and courteous, and I can understand how people get so frustrated with a lot of what goes on. But for me that's a matter for more sensitivity training or the like, not something that should modify the ability that airport security has to search passengers.
 
And now they are wanting to extend this BS to private pilots. I don't have my rating yet, but now they want me (actually others that own planes) to be "checked" also. Because our planes can be used for an attack. Listen you stupid TSA BS agent, my plane is secure because I'm armed, can't you get that through your thick government skull? :barf:

I don't have my license yet, yet I carry armed while in the plane, as does my instructor (great guy, old timer that makes me worry everytime that we go up :eek: ) and his thinking is the same as mine, why are we able to buy and take a plane up but yet don't have the means to protect it. It's not like 911 will respond at 10,000+ feet!

Been keeping this a secret, don't tell my Mom, she will freak out. The plane is an old C-130 type with instrument aided components added. Unless I get better, I will probably add to the heart attack on the old geezer if I don't get the air speed and line up with the runway right :(.

Wayne
 
This isn't the United States that the WWII vets fought for. It looks, tastes, sounds, smells and feels like the US but somehwere in the last 30 years it has morphed into something of less worldy significance as the rest of the world around us grew up and got more in-touch with itself....and we were too occupied and busy trying to "better life for our children" that we missed this simple fact.

I guess though it was all too inevitable because the world couldn't remain on unequal playing levels (as it was 40 years ago) for its entire existence.
 
Back
Top