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

[FrankDrebin]

Funny, in any business I ever owned, I thought just the opposite.
Looks like the "I'm OK, Screw You" generation now dominates. More's the pity for that.

Well, when you can point out any part of the constitution or Bill of Rights that guarantees civility, I'll gladly change my position.

Men targeting women for "enhanced security checks" and then groping them is a violation of their rights. So is strip-searching them in open areas (stairwells) and/or filming the attacks. It's called "assault" - grasp the concept.

I grasp the concept just fine. I don't think by the way I used the word "rude" any reasonable person should have inferred that I was also referring to criminal sexual assault.

"Tossing" luggage, as opposed to mere scans and explosive wipe-downs, in the utter absence of probable cause, consent or a warrant trashes the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments.

Scroll back, I explained that one a while ago. They don't need probable cause for the searches they're doing. Read the fine print at the airport. It's more along the lines of a consent search. Don't want to consent? Don't fly.

Then there's the pilfering, unprosecuted because to do so would supposedly compromise their classified security procedures. I was not aware that theft was a "security procedure." Can you enlighten us on that point?

Can you give me a verifiable instance of a larceny where there was probable cause to believe a particular person committed the larceny and wasn't charged because they didn't want to compromise the security procedure?

Threatening the arrest, expulsion and permanent ban on anyone who questions these outrages is abuse of process.

No it isn't.

Care to tell us again how no rights are being violated?

Sure, as soon as you can point out the amendment that says Northwestern Airlines is obligated to let you fly even when you refuse to go along with their safety procedures, whether those prodecures are being carried out by an airline employee acting as an agent of the government, or a government employee acting as an agent of the airline.

 

[Ben Swenson]

Double Naught,

Let's see, flying isn't a right, but a priveledge and a highly regulated one at that. If Otteson doesn't want to play by the rules, he can drive or walk.

Is driving a right?
Is walking?

Other than the sheer logistical improbability of it, what prevents the kinds of searches that go on at airports from being applied to highways, malls, movie theatres, parks, and so forth?

 

[FrankDrebin]

Is driving a right?

Absolutely not. But I'm glad you brought it up. I would compare airport luggage searches to implied consent laws common with driver licensing.

 

[FrankDrebin]

Other than the sheer logistical improbability of it, what prevents the kinds of searches that go on at airports from being applied to highways, malls, movie theatres, parks, and so forth?

Actually, those kinds of searches are common at sporting events, bars, clubs, etc....Don't want to be frisked when you go to the club in the ghetto? Don't go!!! Don't want to open your purse for the guy at the gate of the concert you're attending? Buy a CD!! Drunk driving checkpoints without probable cause are alreadly legal, as are border searches without probable cause and administrative searches and inventory searches and searches incident to arrest. As far as "What prevents the jack booted thugs from searching me whenever they feel like it": The airline searches are reasonable, because society is prepared to recognize them as such. Go ahead and ask 100 people standing on line to board a plane if they think the TSA's searches are reasonable. Neither the constitution, nor any of the amendments bar searches without probable cause, or searches without warrants. Unreasonable searches are barred. I believe most people think the airline searches are reasonable, and the court agrees. I also think they would think stopping you for no reason other than to search you and your car on the road would be UNreasonable. It's not hard to understand.......if you're a reasonable man......

The reasoning behind drunk checkpoints without probable cause is thus: The right of the public to be free from drunks on the road outweighs the right of the people stopped to be free from the momentary detention. Same goes at the airport. My right to be free from someone carrying a bomb on board outweighs Joe Blow's right to be free from the TSA finding his sex toys and embarrassing him.

 

[Number 6]

State v. Private action

"Sure, as soon as you can point out the amendment that says Northwestern Airlines is obligated to let you fly even when you refuse to go along with their safety procedures, whether those prodecures are being carried out by an airline employee acting as an agent of the government, or a government employee acting as an agent of the airline."

It's NOT any airlines' safety procedures when, as here, said procedures are pursuant to:

1. REGULATIONS;

2. Promulgated by a Federal agency; and

3. Enforced by that agency's employees.

Moreover, when those employees abuse their power to achieve their own ends, it is abuse of that power. When they threaten arrest merely for questioning their (unwarranted and inappropriate) actions, it constitutes abuse of process.

State action makes it a civil rights - read "Constitutional" - issue regardless of your misrepresentation of the facts. But feel free to grovel if that's how you deal with them. :barf:

 

[MTMilitiaman]

It's amazing what some people will call reasonable. It isn't too much of a stretch of the imagination to think of clauses being inserted into leases, deeds, and renter's agreements stating consent to search for all law enforcement officers. With all the "reasonable" searches going on here, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if some people on these forums simply said, "Don't like it? Live in a refrigerator box under a bridge." Sure, being forced to consent to a search in your house is reasonable. After all, the community's right to be free of, say, narcotics or firearms outweighs Joe Blow's right to say, own said firearm, his expectation of privacy in his own dwelling, and his right to be "secure" in his person and possessions

You may laugh at this and call it a stretch, but it isn't, really. Is forced consent really consent? If someone has a job that requires them to fly frequently on a schedule that does not allow for him to drive, does that mean he should automatically be forced to forfeit his 4th Amendment rights? Get a new job? Really? Do you think it that easy for everyone to find a new job? How sad is it if the majority of Americans agree that it is and does this still make it right? If the majority of Americans agreed that civilian firearms ownership was unnecessary and should be banned, would you be as complascent as your rights are stripped away? As this is a firearms related forum, I should hope not. But then, what is it to you that makes your right to own a firearm more important than your right to privacy? How can you balk at the government's "distrust by default" policy in one case and not the other, and claim to love liberty as you turn a blind eye to its infraction?

In order to even feign reason, we have to presume, like gun control, that the laws and procedures in effect are having the desired effect. I personally haven't seen alot of evidence to support this. I haven't seen or talked to alot of people here or elsewhere who feel much safer, if at all, boarding a plane now than they did on September 10th 2001. Right now, I can't see how these searches have provided anything but a major pain in the ass for law abiding citizens in the name of feel-good circle-jerk politics deemed necessary by the same train of thought that gave us ten years under an assault weapons ban and countless other measures done to ensure our "safety" at the growing expense of our personal liberties simply because creating effective legislation is too hard or poltically incorrect.

Here's a concept for you--those same people who fly do so knowing that they are accepting any number of risks that could result in their death. Critical systems on the aircraft could fail. The plane could pass through a flock of geese while landing. Someone in the tower could have opted for de-caf when he needed the real thing and miss the cross trajectories of two aircraft on approach. Any number of scenerios of which terrorists are not involved. What makes the threat of terrorism, as unlikely as it is, so damn important that we must forfeit our rights to parttake in this commodity?

Another concept for you--if flying is a privelage that we can do without--and the choice is easily ours to just not fly, then how come airline companies appeal to the government for help under the understanding that flying is a vital part of the American lifestyle and economy? If it is so vital, then how can we just refuse to parttake in it? Are the airline companies really telling its consumers that if they don't like their policies they can go Greyhound and requesting government aid stating the national importance of the airline companies in a single-sentence? You know what I think is reasonable? No government aid to commercial airlines and no federal employees to mollest "random" people at will. Then the airline companies can hire whatever jack-booted thugs they want and we can simply refuse to fly because, what's this, we aren't already paying for a vested interest in this company for its vital services. When the airline companies fend for themselves and provide all the services by themselves, including security, then maybe we can begin to assign "reason" to these searches--but not until then.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Well, when you can point out any part of the constitution or Bill of Rights that guarantees civility, I'll gladly change my position.

Ummm, Frank, you're reading the Constitution backwards. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution do not enumerate citizen rights; they limit govt power.....which, in the case of the TSA, is unbridled and unconstitutional.

As to a "right" to be treated civilly by civil servants.....you bet I have that right; just as they have the right to be treated civilly by me. It need not be enumerated in the Bill of Rights, for common sense to dictate as much....especially in the case of the "civil" servant.

When an "official's" response to simple questioning of his actions leads to rudeness, threats and abuse of authority, that's most certainly unacceptable in my world. That man is no longer an "official", but a simple pogue or worse. You may be willing to put up with it. I'm not.
Rich

 

[LAK]

If one wants to make comparisons; the military police have a potentially very broad scope of power over anyone subject to the UCMJ. During my service even in times of tension, as during the activities and threats of the Red Army Faction and other groups, we kept a fairly relaxed atmosphere even in places where security was tightly enforced. And there was very little energy wasted or friction created by directing attention, making scenes etc where not necessary, or unless genuinely warranted.

It seems to me that there is more than one reason why the interface between civil servants and the people they are supposed to be serving has become so distorted. One that I can not see any other way is the complicity of the highest levels of government, and people should be asking themselves why. This stuff has been well publicized and even experienced by people who work in and around the higher levels so they can not say they do not know about it, or that there has not been time to address it.

The other is general quality of people and cultural issues. My impression is that in addition to many of these servants being unsuited to their jobs, they are often linguistically or otherwise culturally unassimilated.

Once again going back even to that revolutionary time, the 1960s, flying on the flag carrier of any civilized country was a comparatively wonderful experience. No shakedowns, friction was quite rare, and even the staff of foreign airlines usually spoke near perfect and polite English. Even into the 1990s flying was generally and comparatively kept a pleasant experience even with the increased attention to baggage and boarding gates.

If the government concentrated on removing and keeping out those who should not come inside our borders - and let the airlines control who and what boarded their planes - things would be much smoother and pleasant I am sure.

 

[fwcofficer]

Rich,
1. Yes under certain circumstances, TSA can order further searches.
2. No, I agree that many TSA screeners have terrible attitudes, workplace morale is low among TSA workers. I have seen the attitude of screeners hit an all time low when a passenger makes a big deal out of getting searched. As with any new agency, TSA has many problems within, mostly coming straight from the top. At a certain airport, as many as 40 TSA employees quit every month. The best advice I could give anybody is just cooperate, and file a complaint later. It will just make it easier on everybody.

 

[wingman]

If the government concentrated on removing and keeping out those who should not come inside our borders

True, our government seems more interested in controlling the American public
rather then control who enters. Once again we the consumer hold the key
on all this however it does take sacrifice and I fear it will take a larger loss
of freedom before the average Joe says enough.

The best advice I could give anybody is just cooperate, and file a complaint later. It will just make it easier on everybody.

That is the problem we have been for years. :barf:

 

[tyme]

Actually, those kinds of searches are common at sporting events, bars, clubs, etc....Don't want to be frisked when you go to the club in the ghetto? Don't go!!! Don't want to open your purse for the guy at the gate of the concert you're attending? Buy a CD!! Drunk driving checkpoints without probable cause are alreadly legal, as are border searches without probable cause and administrative searches and inventory searches and searches incident to arrest.

Searches resulting from arrest are completely different, and you know it. Officers have to have probable cause to arrest.

As for companies instituting security measures on "private" property, I have a few problems with that:
1. "open to the public" commercial establishments have reduced private property rights. They're allowing arbitrary people inside; they shouldn't have a right to deny customers such a basic right.
2. I'd be less upset if the security measures weren't enforced by law. I don't agree with refusing to let people with guns into sporting events, but if that's the event organizers' wish, I'd be less upset if that's really who made the decision. The State has no business telling me I cannot take guns into sporting events, into church, etc. Non-compliance should simply be regarded as tresspassing, and then only after the individual is asked to leave. AFAIK it's not illegal to enter stores without shoes or a shirt. They just kick you out. If you can conceal well enough, they'd never know to ask you to leave; that's as it should be.
3. Those security measures don't do any good. Metal detectors and policies alone only serve to create unarmed victim zones. If 7-11 put a metal detector by the door, what good would that do? Is a psychotic, soon-to-be mass-murderer going to be jumped by a 7-11-employed, 9th-dan black belt as soon as the metal detector goes off?

It's not really enough to create an unarmed victim zone and then put one or two armed security guards at the entrance. A sufficiently psychotic loner or duo can kill the guards, and then what's the point of having them at all? Maybe they deter shoplifters.

As far as "What prevents the jack booted thugs from searching me whenever they feel like it": The airline searches are reasonable, because society is prepared to recognize them as such. Go ahead and ask 100 people standing on line to board a plane if they think the TSA's searches are reasonable. Neither the constitution, nor any of the amendments bar searches without probable cause, or searches without warrants. Unreasonable searches are barred.

Thankfully, we don't live in a pure democracy. Definitions of words like "reasonable" are not formed based on majority opinion. I don't care what 100 people standing in line think. How about you ask 100 people who don't fly anymore what they think? Don't you think you're stacking the deck by asking people standing in line at an airport? Either they have to fly, or they want to fly and consider the searches reasonable. People in the second category will obviously agree with you that the searches are reasonable. People in the first category probably go through security so much that they've been conditioned to accept it.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

fwc-
Thanks much for the honest response. Obviously, then, we can agree to the following:
1) Airlines are not the sole designator of search TSA targets.
2) Airlines are not responsible for TSA attitdue.
3) Airlines do not dictate TSA search or action procedures.
4) Airlines do not dictate the Top-Down, Police-State attitude of the Transportation Safety Administration.

Certain TSA personnel have no right to be on the job.....if you don't like your job and treat the customer poorly, quit. If you don a government uniform and your only job gratification is acting like a bouncer at a low-rent strip club, quit. You're no asset to your organization and the people you serve have a "right" to demand better.

Rich

 

[FrankDrebin]

Searches resulting from arrest are completely different, and you know it. Officers have to have probable cause to arrest.

While different, they're certainly not "completely" different. They're both reasonable warrantless searches.

1. "open to the public" commercial establishments have reduced private property rights. They're allowing arbitrary people inside; they shouldn't have a right to deny customers such a basic right.

My right to a bomb-free flight, and the peace of mind, real or imagined, that I get from knowing some gun-toting wacko with an anger management deficit isn't getting on the plane due to a lack of security is more important than their right to a convenient and polite airport.

Thankfully, we don't live in a pure democracy. Definitions of words like "reasonable" are not formed based on majority opinion.

That may be true, but plenty of court decisions relating to search and seizure law cite the concept of "what society is preparted to accept as reasonable". If only 2% of the people thought the searches were reasonable, I don't think they'd be doing searches.

How about you ask 100 people who don't fly anymore what they think? Don't you think you're stacking the deck by asking people standing in line at an airport?

I don't think the difference would be so drastic as to imply that "society" thinks that the current TSA searches are unreasonable.

 

[Number 6]

Disingenuous analysis

"My right to a bomb-free flight, and the peace of mind, real or imagined, that I get from knowing some gun-toting wacko with an anger management deficit isn't getting on the plane due to a lack of security is more important than their right to a convenient and polite airport."

The "rights" issue aside, this is a false argument. NO-ONE is saying there should be NO security checks; the quite valid complaints are about being subjected to arbitrary and pointless "security procedures" by arrogant, insolent and incompetent thugs.

Note that Logan Airport, source of 2 of the 4 aircraft hijacked on 9/11/01, still had illegal aliens - excuse me, "undocumented immigrants " some three and one-half years after the attacks. This, mind you, after the big search and purge of the work force following the attacks. Scores of illegals, complete with appropriated SS numbers and bogus ID's, were found then; more were found last month.

With illegals loading luggage and food, cleaning the aircraft, and working in the terminals, how does strip-searching Grandma and abusing deaf and blind old men ensure that "some gun-toting wacko with an anger management deficit isn't getting on the plane?"

Put another way - when the airlines can secure the facilities themselves, THEN - and ONLY then - can they start subjecting the passengers to scrutiny. :barf:

 

[FrankDrebin]

The "rights" issue aside, this is a false argument. NO-ONE is saying there should be NO security checks; the quite valid complaints are about being subjected to arbitrary and pointless "security procedures" by arrogant, insolent and incompetent thugs.

Arbitrary is just fine with me. With cause is good, random is fine and every 10th person, 5th person, or whatever is fine with me too. I don't care how rude they are with regard to "my rights". While annoying, rude people really don't bother me to the extent that I'd normally even make a complaint. Short of a body cavity search, I really don't care what they searched as long as I was able to make my flight. If I was on a traffic stop and the police started searching without cause or consent, that would be a different story.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

If I was on a traffic stop and the police started searching without cause or consent, that would be a different story.

Given your choice of scales for balancing "safety" and "freedom", remind me to ask you to revisit that statement in 12 or 24 months.

I suspect that random "Papers Please" checks on the highway or at the mall might be much more acceptable to you by that time. After all, it's a dangerous world out there.
Rich

 

[Number 6]

The song of subservience

"Short of a body cavity search, I really don't care what they searched as long as I was able to make my flight."

In other words, you don't care about privacy and your rights thereto. And 65 years ago, you'd have been a good little Kapo, herding the other inmates into line for their "showers"........ :barf:

 

[FrankDrebin]

I suspect that random "Papers Please" checks on the highway or at the mall might be much more acceptable to you by that time.

Why is that? I thought my take on the original situation was pretty reasonable. I guess racial profiling would be OK with you at the airport?

In other words, you don't care about privacy and your rights thereto.

I thought my post was pretty clear. But since you feel the need to paraphrase it differently, why don't you explain what your rights to privacy in your carry-on luggage prior to boarding an airplane are, and how those rights are derived.

And 65 years ago, you'd have been a good little Kapo, herding the other inmates into line for their "showers"........

Could be, you never know. Without you there to protect me I don't know what I would have done to gain maybe one more day of survival in a concentration camp.......And in your little Walter Mittyville, you'd be the brave underground fighter, supplying the heroic villagers with your stockpile of guns and training them in the French countryside, taking a break only long enough to service the beautiful German officer's wife to gain essential intelligence on troop and train movements, right? Yeah, that's you, you're a real "doer".

(Actually, I see you as more of the goverment informant type if the alternatives were either you handing your guns to a SWAT team, or shooting it out with them.)

 

[Ben Swenson]

Frank,
Thank you for your perspective on this.

I do have one question, if you don't mind. Have you ever watched a male security agent grope a female relative or significant other? Does it make you feel better and more secure about the flight?

 

[Lawyer Daggit]

Two months ago I was singled out at the airport for a chemical examination whereby they wiped my shoes with a swab and tested it- as I was travelling in comfortable clothes and the shoes are often worn at the rifle range, not suprisingly they registered positive for gun powder residue.

I wound up being frisked and asked for an explanation- I had shooters licence and gun club ID's with me so everything gelled and they let me go.

We boarded the plane and nobody looked at the cannisters carrying drink for my youngster- I could easily have boarded with nitric acid and glycerine and mixed them in the toilet.

These searches are all well and good at demonstrating bureaucracy is 'doing something' in the face of terrorists but:

1. I do not think it is at all efficient at stopping a well thought out terrorist attack
2. we are doing is enduring inconvenience that provides the terrorist with an ongoing outcome of inconvenience to travellers following 9/11.