I have no reference why TSA policies are wrong

[PhantomWolf]

You seriously don't see a difference between an electronic scan and having to remove all of your clothes and have your cavities searched physically?

I never said that, I asked you why you treated them differently

While the end result in terms of information gathered might be the same, the methodology and experience is quite different.

Is it really? Do you not think that people could be embarrassed, humiliated, and shamed by strangers looking at what is all but a naked image of them? How would this be any different to having to get undressed in front of that same stranger?

 

[mhaze]

True, which is why I expect we'll have to wait and see what the courts do if there's any serious objection to the new processes.

But I still don't see any objections regarding searches w/out due process or reasonableness.

That's okay if you don't see things that other people do. Of course google is always your friend in such cases.

One problem I'll mention with your views is that the TSA IS NOT A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. You are trying to extend law enforcement rules, guidelines and procedures to the TSA. But that's not the way it is working or how it has shaped up.

The TSA is making administrative rules, not laws. It's an important distinction. That's why there is talk of "$11,000 fines".

Get in trouble with the TSA and they can and they will

• charge you with a violation (no due process),
• set a date for a hearing (no jury, a panel of judges similar to a military tribunal),
• set the place of the hearing at some TSA or FAA administrative office of which there are perhaps a dozen in the USA

So then you have to either go to a far away city for the hearing or they get the equal of a default judgement, eg, you are found guilty and pay the fine. You don't even have the right to a trial in your own town.

I'm sure you see how this is unconstitutional and unprecedented not just in the search part, which blatantly lacks probable cause, but in the method of handling of a person charged of a violation.

Having said this much, I'll wait for your reply. However, I am suggesting that the issues are a bit more complicated and more alarming than your prior take on them.

 

[mhaze]

Sorry if it has been asked previously, but for those that support the new pat down from TSA, when would you start to consider it unreasonable?

When they do a real strip search?
When they do a body cavity search?
When they run you through an MRI to check inside you?

When?

It's a bit like Cruel and Unusual Punishments. It evolves with the attitudes of society. It doesn't have a tightly fixed definition, unchanging with time.* A lot of the Constitution is vague that way.

*Obviously the definition is fixed in a sense, much like the definition of "The Shirt I am Currently Wearing."

Ducking and dodging the question noted.

Is the answer then "when a US government administrative agency promulgates rules that so designate"?

Because that is de facto now.

 

[Drachasor]

I never said that, I asked you why you treated them differently

Because they are objectively different.

Is it really? Do you not think that people could be embarrassed, humiliated, and shamed by strangers looking at what is all but a naked image of them? How would this be any different to having to get undressed in front of that same stranger?

Some people can be embarrassed and humiliated just by being looked at normally from a distance. So I don't think that's a valid measure of what is ok. Again, there's a huge, objective difference between getting physically undressed and virtually undressed. Just like there's a big difference between imagining someone undressed and actually undressing them.

Ducking and dodging the question noted.

Is the answer then "when a US government administrative agency promulgates rules that so designate"?

Because that is de facto now.

I wasn't dodging the question. I thought he was asking about the legal principle at work, which doesn't provide a strict definition of what is and isn't ok, but rather one subjective to society. When he explained that's not what he meant, I then elaborated on my personal feelings (just like I am continuing to do so now).

 

[rwguinn]

That's okay if you don't see things that other people do. Of course google is always your friend in such cases.

One problem I'll mention with your views is that the TSA IS NOT A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. You are trying to extend law enforcement rules, guidelines and procedures to the TSA. But that's not the way it is working or how it has shaped up.

The TSA is making administrative rules, not laws. It's an important distinction. That's why there is talk of "$11,000 fines".

Get in trouble with the TSA and they can and they will

• charge you with a violation (no due process),
• set a date for a hearing (no jury, a panel of judges similar to a military tribunal),
• set the place of the hearing at some TSA or FAA administrative office of which there are perhaps a dozen in the USA

So then you have to either go to a far away city for the hearing or they get the equal of a default judgement, eg, you are found guilty and pay the fine. You don't even have the right to a trial in your own town.

I'm sure you see how this is unconstitutional and unprecedented not just in the search part, which blatantly lacks probable cause, but in the method of handling of a person charged of a violation.

Having said this much, I'll wait for your reply. However, I am suggesting that the issues are a bit more complicated and more alarming than your prior take on them.

To make it better, they stick you on a "No Fly List" (which is kept secret-nobody knows who is on it and who is not), so you have to drive there.

 

[mhaze]

To make it better, they stick you on a "No Fly List" (which is kept secret-nobody knows who is on it and who is not), so you have to drive there.

Yes, that database has some problems which are well known and unfortunately, the extent to which problems are known well illustrates the stupidity of the database.

eg the database containing names without supporting information such as age, dl number, passport number such that anybody with the same name would yield a positive on the no fly list. That's "erring in the direction of greater culpability" which is the exact opposite of innocent until proven guilty, and it is the end result of an incompetent government agency trying to maintain a database.

So it's probably a good thing it's kept secret?

 

[mhaze]

....I wasn't dodging the question. I thought he was asking about the legal principle at work, which doesn't provide a strict definition of what is and isn't ok, but rather one subjective to society. When he explained that's not what he meant, I then elaborated on my personal feelings (just like I am continuing to do so now).

Okay. But there is no "Legal principle" involved in the promulgation of an administrative rule such as is the object of this discussion.

And that's an essential and integral part of the discussion. So we may in a literal sense be dealing with someone in the TSA (or higher up) personal feelings as for what they can get away with or what is okay.

 

[Drachasor]

Okay. But there is no "Legal principle" involved in the promulgation of an administrative rule such as is the object of this discussion.

And that's an essential and integral part of the discussion. So we may in a literal sense be dealing with someone in the TSA (or higher up) personal feelings as for what they can get away with or what is okay.

The TSA is part of the government. Hence it is bound by the limit on unreasonable search and seizure. This does not only apply to Law Enforcement, but all parts of the Government.

 

[funk de fino]

I fly often enough, and I do mind the security measures, because they do nothing to stop a determined attack. The airport I fly out of is sandwiched between 2 interstate highways. The runways run perpendicular to the highways, so planes take off and land over the roads. The airport is in a populated area. A determined terrorist with an RPG can sit on the shoulder of the road, outside of all airport security, and shoot at a plane before it gains any elevation, crashing it into a shopping center. Why haven't they done this? Probably for the same reason they're not sending shoe or underwear bombers on planes anymore. They've got the American government scared of the political ramifications of another attack, and has them jumping through hoops. I don't doubt for a minute that Obama (or any president) would never stop the security measures for just that reason. No matter if the measures would have stopped the attack or not, his political career would be over. Very poor reason to unconstitutionally search me, in my opinion. My bet is that the terrorist groups are enjoying the heck out of the spectacle.

They will stop some attacks though eh? Thats the point. They stop it being easy.

 

[funk de fino]

You're in Scotland. When you fly, do you have to go through a scanner that shows an anonymous person (who probably has less education than you) what you look like naked? Or barring that, have some guy patting you down in such a way that if he wasn't a member of a government agency he could be charged with sexual assault and risk being put on a sex offender's list?

And all in the name of making it look like you're more secure, all the while ignoring the real threats?

I fly all over the world and see my fair share of the TSA. Thousands and thousands of international airmiles. Where do you fly and how often?

Nice put down of people less intelligent than yourself doing a job to put food on the table. Very classy.

Security is a pain but not worth crying about. Especially as we have to do things in other countries because of the TSA rules. I also now have to pay to enter the USA from the UK.

 

[funk de fino]

To make it better, they stick you on a "No Fly List" (which is kept secret-nobody knows who is on it and who is not), so you have to drive there.

There is also extra security list. I have been on it.

 

[Region Rat]

They will stop some attacks though eh? Thats the point. They stop it being easy.

No, they only purport to stop the methods that have already been tried and failed. The bad guys have shown no inclination to repeat the same methods.

 

[mhaze]

The TSA is part of the government. Hence it is bound by the limit on unreasonable search and seizure. This does not only apply to Law Enforcement, but all parts of the Government.

I certainly would not argue with that if 'is bound' was replaced by 'should be bound'.

But that is not what is happening.

 

[Drachasor]

I certainly would not argue with that if 'is bound' was replaced by 'should be bound'.

But that is not what is happening.

It IS legally bound by the Constitution, that's a fact.

You just disagree on what "reasonable search and seizure" is. Your disagreement doesn't make you right, however.

 

[mhaze]

It IS legally bound by the Constitution, that's a fact.

You just disagree on what "reasonable search and seizure" is. Your disagreement doesn't make you right, however.

Untrue, I said...

Okay. But there is no "Legal principle" involved in the promulgation of an administrative rule such as is the object of this discussion.

And that's an essential and integral part of the discussion. So we may in a literal sense be dealing with someone in the TSA (or higher up) personal feelings as for what they can get away with or what is okay.

 

[Drachasor]

Untrue, I said...

Okay. But there is no "Legal principle" involved in the promulgation of an administrative rule such as is the object of this discussion.

And that's an essential and integral part of the discussion. So we may in a literal sense be dealing with someone in the TSA (or higher up) personal feelings as for what they can get away with or what is okay.

There IS a legal principle, the same one that applies to all searches and seizures. It applies to this too.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It IS legally bound by the Constitution, that's a fact.

You just disagree on what "reasonable search and seizure" is. Your disagreement doesn't make you right, however.

If a police officer stopped you while walking down the road and demanded you step into their moblie backscatter X-ray or have an enhanced pat down, would you consider that acceptable?

 

[mhaze]

There IS a legal principle, the same one that applies to all searches and seizures. It applies to this too.

Maybe I'm having some difficulty here getting my point across.

An administrative agency ultimately is bound by constitutional principles, to whatever the current court interpretations of them are.

But how?

The TSA is not comprised of a group of people all sworn under oath to uphold the Constitution. All public elected officials are. I believe all law enforcement officers are.

So you may have a technical argument, but one that doesn't have legs in the real world.

You've seen my prior comments about lack of due process, the court not being in the town of the defendant, and the lack of jury trials. The thread is about the apparent blatant disregard of constitutional rights by the TSA.

There you have it.

Reality.

 

[Kaylee]

The TSA is not comprised of a group of people all sworn under oath to uphold the Constitution. All public elected officials are. I believe all law enforcement officers are.

All federal employees have to make an oath of office, not just the elected officials and the ones in law enforcement. This is the oath per google answers:

I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So
help me God.

Earlier this year I had various part-time jobs working for the US Census. Each time I got a new appointment I had to swear an oath of office. It's been a few months, but I think google answers got the wording right.


I do agree with you that the TSA is violating the 4th Amendment.

 

[Drachasor]

If a police officer stopped you while walking down the road and demanded you step into their moblie backscatter X-ray or have an enhanced pat down, would you consider that acceptable?

No, but an airport is a completely different context.

So you may have a technical argument, but one that doesn't have legs in the real world.

You've seen my prior comments about lack of due process, the court not being in the town of the defendant, and the lack of jury trials. The thread is about the apparent blatant disregard of constitutional rights by the TSA.

If you get a speeding ticket, protest it and demand a trial, you don't get a trial by jury. All trials aren't jury trials. If you get a speeding ticket in Oklahoma, you aren't going to have a trial in your home of Arkansas. These aren't criminal trials here.

I'm sure someone could take the TSA to court if they think they are violating the constitution, but I'm also sure they'd lose the case.