How can we punish the TSA Gate Rapers?

[ponderingturtle]

How about a more severe problem, doctor sex offenders?

Turn your head and cough my #$%. That is assault and we can not tolerate it. When did we give up our constitutional rights? What what about the children?

 

[ponderingturtle]

A 61 year old caucasian, cancer survivor, does not strike me as terrorist material.

Yep we need to focus on the darkies.

 

[ponderingturtle]

For all the talk of "stopping terrorism," let's take it a step back. Ultimately, it's a question of safety. Dying from a terrorist attack isn't really that different from dying in a car accident.

There is a big difference, one is national news, that everyone cares deeply about. The other is maybe a minor local story that almost no one cares about.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not according to this:

Now while this is anecdotal, and the TSA rep said tonight on DFW TV that you simply won't be allowed to board your flight if you refuse, there is the fact that the various directives and rules are not evenly applied, and quite obviously, with the colostomy and urology bags (esp. the latter) the TSA is in effect an untrained rabble pretty much doing what they can get away with. They have power, and a fair number of them are enamored with that, and use it--and yes, that's anecdotal, too. I have experienced it.
Arrogant bastards.

Its called to your research first or pay the fine. Options abound.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Because the second someone does manage to get a bomb on board a plane and kills 300 people there will be hell to pay if anyone can show that there was any sort of technology not implemented regardless of whether it would have helped.

So what about drinking while driving? We do have technology that helps prevent that. Why not have all vehicles installed with breathalyzers, so the car won't start if the driver has consumed an unsafe level of alcohol? According to this site, over 11,000 people die each year from alcohol-related crashes.

When somebody finds out about this, there will be, as you put it, hell to pay.

There is a big difference, one is national news, that everyone cares deeply about. The other is maybe a minor local story that almost no one cares about.

Right. One elicits an extreme emotional reaction, and the other doesn't. You think your tax dollars are making this country safer? Oh, no. They're providing therapy.

 

[mhaze]

Your citation doesn't support your premise. The ACLU didn't mention anything about the legality. They correctly point out that it's not a good policy, but they don't offer any comments about constitutionality of the policies. They say the policies "threaten American values," but that's not the same thing as being unconstitutional. I'm reasonably confident that they would file a lawsuit if there was a legal approach.

Once again, what's the legal premise under which a lawsuit would be filed?

Actually they do it right and do not poison the well by explicitly stating the various arguments. Instead the ACLU says "giVe us your story".

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

So when the TSA retires these procedures and then say, an underwear bomber successfully detonates the plane, I should expect to hear no complaining?

(HINT: IF you want them to catch that kind of thing, they *will* have to need these procedures. The people who want them to catch this thing are the root cause of these procedures. I mean, profiling works but when the terrorists realize they're being profiled...)

 

[Uncayimmy]

Actually they do it right and do not poison the well by explicitly stating the various arguments. Instead the ACLU says "giVe us your story".

Either the policy is or is not constitutional. They don't need "stories" to challenge it (can you say AZ SB-1070?). If anything, asking for stories indicates that they believe it is constitutional. Why? Because stories about colostomy bags, kids with cancer, and nuns getting felt up will create public outrage, which can in turn be used to apply political pressure. You don't need any of that to win a court battle. You just need a policy put in place against which you can file for an injunction.

 

[mhaze]

Either the policy is or is not constitutional. They don't need "stories" to challenge it (can you say AZ SB-1070?). If anything, asking for stories indicates that they believe it is constitutional. Why? Because stories about colostomy bags, kids with cancer, and nuns getting felt up will create public outrage, which can in turn be used to apply political pressure. You don't need any of that to win a court battle. You just need a policy put in place against which you can file for an injunction.

Wrong.

Standing does require wronged party, you incorrectly parallel to an intergovernmental dispute.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

So when the TSA retires these procedures and then say, an underwear bomber successfully detonates the plane, I should expect to hear no complaining?

No. Terrorists are always going to find the way. The solution is to try to develop the highest security measures without making the public uncomfortable or at the verge of feeling like they're at a concentration camp.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Any prior precedent will likely be blown away by post-9-11 security claims.

As opposed to future precedents?

I'm sure this stuff will get challenged in the courts, but once it gets up to Roberts, I strongly doubt those scanners will be removed on 4th amendment grounds.

They've made exceptions to 4th amendment restrictions in the past---sobriety check-points, immigration check-points, and some others. They're supposed to be minimally invasive and only used when a compelling state interest exists (not sure if that's the right phrasing). But these same things also applied to wire tapping, and we saw what happened to all of that.

(That's a lazy way of answering that...)

Thanks, even it was lazy.

Honestly, I'm not so sure that sobriety checkpoints are the best comparison. The reason I say that is because the checkpoints are temporary and typically unannounced. You really have no way of knowing in advance if you are going to get stopped at a checkpoint. Once stopped, you can't opt out. Airport security is very different in that regard. You know it's there in advance, and you can opt out (meaning, of course, you can't fly).

There's a compelling argument that you're giving consent. After all, you don't need to fly within the lower 48. You have alternatives. Interestingly, when it comes to the other two states, you really don't have an option. If you want to go to Alaska, you'll need a passport and go through another country. Unless, of course, you're going to brave the seas. Hawaii is even trickier to get to without flying. Wouldn't it be funny if the court struck it down for those flights only?

I think the policy is stupid, but I'll be damned if I can find a compelling constitutional argument against it based on all the decisions I've ever read. I wish I could.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Wrong.

Standing does require wronged party, you incorrectly parallel to an intergovernmental dispute.

An injunction can be granted before any party is wronged. Anybody with a ticket to fly has standing.

 

[TraneWreck]

Honestly, I'm not so sure that sobriety checkpoints are the best comparison. The reason I say that is because the checkpoints are temporary and typically unannounced. You really have no way of knowing in advance if you are going to get stopped at a checkpoint. Once stopped, you can't opt out. Airport security is very different in that regard. You know it's there in advance, and you can opt out (meaning, of course, you can't fly).

The analogy is only workable if you get as general as possible: 4th amendment suspended by state for a compelling safety reason.

Of course, this is why lawyers get paid. One side tries to generalize, the other distinguishes by getting specific, but given the composition of the Roberts Court as well as the precedent of the post 9-11 security laws, "security" exemptions for 4th amendment protections are likely going to be upheld.

We'll see though. I'm sure the legal challenges have already been filed.

I think the policy is stupid, but I'll be damned if I can find a compelling constitutional argument against it based on all the decisions I've ever read. I wish I could.

I agree. The only way it's going to change is by political pressure, but again, no politician wants to be the person that removed the scanners only to have a bomb go off in the skies.

 

[JJM 777]

I don't see what bad groping or scanning is, if men have their own queues checked by men, and women their own queues checked by women. But without this obvious arrangement, it breaks the norms of mainstream society life. Which happens in medical services too, where separation of men and women would be equally possible, and equally ignored.

 

[Kaylee]

Not according to this:

Now while this is anecdotal, and the TSA rep said tonight on DFW TV that you simply won't be allowed to board your flight if you refuse, there is the fact that the various directives and rules are not evenly applied, and quite obviously, with the colostomy and urology bags (esp. the latter) the TSA is in effect an untrained rabble pretty much doing what they can get away with. They have power, and a fair number of them are enamored with that, and use it--and yes, that's anecdotal, too. I have experienced it.
Arrogant bastards.

Its called to your research first or pay the fine. Options abound.

John "Don't Touch My Junk" Tyner had researched to see whether the airport he was flying out of, San Diego International Airport, had the new backscatter machines. According to the TSA web site, it did not. When he got there, he found out the information was out of date. He was still threatened with the fine.

Link: http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html

 

[Uncayimmy]

We'll see though. I'm sure the legal challenges have already been filed.

Really? You don't think the press would have gotten wind of it?

I agree. The only way it's going to change is by political pressure, but again, no politician wants to be the person that removed the scanners only to have a bomb go off in the skies.

Yep.

 

[fuelair]

By all means, punish the poor paid by the hour work a day guy or gal who has to implement a policy someone else dreamed up. You think it's a picnic for them? To have to touch strangers all day, plus put up with travelers' lousy attitudes, and probaly encounter some pervs to boot.

Tell you what, give us an effective way (that does not involve heavy use of guns and explosives) to get to the guys at the top without making life miserable for those at the bottom firstand it might get tried.

The people who have to get smart and make the change aren't the low paid unqualified persons at the bottom, but they are reachable. The system likes to work that way.

 

[fuelair]

So what about drinking while driving? We do have technology that helps prevent that. Why not have all vehicles installed with breathalyzers, so the car won't start if the driver has consumed an unsafe level of alcohol? According to this site, over 11,000 people die each year from alcohol-related crashes.

When somebody finds out about this, there will be, as you put it, hell to pay.



Right. One elicits an extreme emotional reaction, and the other doesn't. You think your tax dollars are making this country safer? Oh, no. They're providing therapy.

Occasionally someone I normally clash with makes a surprisingly intelligent comment that I have to agree with. And I try to always mention it. This is definitely one of those times. That last para is spot on - well said!!

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

Seems to me it would be possible to take a pistol or three, x ray them, then use that as a density mask to apply etch resist to lead foil. Etch the lead foil so that it shows up like a perfect replica of a pistol, and sandwich it between two pieces of foam surgical tape. Paste one to the small of the back, one to the right hip, one to the left hip, one to the ankle. Do the same thing with a sword, and run the tape down one leg. Maybe a few grenades...

For giggles, you could do the same thing with some human x-rays. Paste the foil to the inside of your luggage, so it looks like you've got a dismembered body inside.

Watch them defecate themselves as you walk through the scanner.

The grenade stickers or small caliber pistol stickers would be small enough to paste on the backs of unsuspecting fellow travellers in the waiting line. Make them have to search EVERYONE.

 

[Kaylee]

<snip> Flying is not a right, never has been. This would be different if health care required a groping, but this is a service offered by a company that has no obligation to offer it. If you find their policies offensive, show that by not using them. People got along just fine without flight, for quite some time, i am sure we can still do so.

If i opened a restaurant that required people to be slapped in the face before entering, i should expect not to get that much buisness. But in the same sense when i tell people that the slap is required, they shouldn't be surprized when they get slapped.

Since you used the restaurant biz as an example ....

Restaurants can require people to wear shirts, shoes, etc in order to be served. But they don't have the legal right to deny a whole class of people, for example African-Americans, service. So even though restaurants are private businesses, there are still legal constraints on how they can treat customers, and people who want to be customers.

As I understand it, commercial airplane flights, like restaurants, offer a service that can't be arbitrarily granted at whim.

Here's some comments from a Wiki article on Freedom of Movement under USA law:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

Domestic Travel:

The U.S. Supreme Court also dealt with the right to travel in the case of Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). In that case, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, held that the United States Constitution protected three separate aspects of the right to travel among the states: the right to enter one state and leave another, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger (protected by the "privileges and immunities" clause in Article IV, § 2), and (for those who become permanent residents of a state) the right to be treated equally to native born citizens (this is protected by the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause).

International Travel:

Freedom of movement is not denied unless a passenger refuses to submit to a search required by law.

In the 1800s people would move and never expect to see their families again. Those days, fortunately, are gone. I think its reasonable for people to expect to be able to freely travel to visit with family, go on business trips, seen new parts of their country and even the world, and for any reason at all.

Out of curiosity, I compared the cost and time of travel options between NYC and Chicago a few days ago. It was easy to find airplane tickets that cost less than Amtrak and Greyhound (major train and bus companies for non-USAsians) tickets. Airplane flights IIRC takes about 2,3 hours. Train and bus rides takes about 17 and 19 hours respectively. (ETA: driving with breaks to stretch your legs, at legal speed limits would probably take about the same amount of time.) Given the time and financial constraints of most people if you want to travel 1000 miles or more, commercial air flights are often the only practical options.

The constitution is written briefly and in general terms. While it says we have the freedom to travel, it doesn't make an itemized list of what methods of transportation are included. But, IMHO, in this day and age, commercial air flight has to be included.

Others have already addressed:

* that we have the right to expect the laws to be reasonable when it comes to submitting to a search.
* that the new procedures will not do anything to keep us safer ( this might have been in another related thread)

I won't bother to repeat what they said. I'll just add that not every scientist believes that the backscatter machines are safe. I personally think X-Rays should just be reserved for limited medical purposes and for scanning our possessions (such as suitcases and carry-ons) only. I think it is extremely unreasonable to expect people to be X-Rayed for non-medical reasons.

Here's some links:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126833083
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ucsf-jph-letter.pdf