I have no reference why TSA policies are wrong

[Drachasor]

Like I said, they are attempting to stand on a carved out area of extra-constitutionality. (Which, yes, could then be extended to trains, subways, buildings, other search tactics, whatever). If as Katlee noted all government employees are required to take an oath to uphold the Constitution, there is a little problem there.

That's all because "probable cause" doesn't exist. Oh, and after you send them to prison and then they get out and register as sexual offenders, they can go back to working for the TSA if ten years goes by and they are not caught again.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192711&page=10

The problem is you don't understand what the Constitution actually says.

 

[mhaze]

.....None of the other airports I normally fly in and out of have scanners yet.

Here's your list of airports that have them, and of which are getting them soon, how to ID the porno scanners, everything else you didn't want to know.

 

[Drachasor]

Again, this all goes back to the definition of what constitutes a "search" protected by the 4th Amendment. This definition is NOT fixed, and can change with time. 100 years ago, any kind of personal search at a Train Station without a warrant would not have been ok, as I understand (though if it is necessary to go back 200 years, we could do that). That's changed with time. What searches are ok in airports has also changed with time.

By how it is defined, there could be a day when searches in the street without a warrent are ok. I do not like this aspect of the of the Constitution, but it IS there. That said, I don't find the FBS scanners to be out of line given the potential for danger and the limited scope.

Hmm, perhaps this is where people will insert Slippery Slope fallacies.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The problem is you don't understand what the Constitution actually says.

What part of…

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.​

…do you not understand?

 

[Ziggurat]

Again, this all goes back to the definition of what constitutes a "search" protected by the 4th Amendment. This definition is NOT fixed, and can change with time.

You're half-right. Definitions indeed change, but what is changing isn't really the definition of "search", but the definition of "unreasonable".

Also keep in mind that although the 4th amendment deals with search warrants, it doesn't actually require them in order for a search to take place. Warrants are a way of establishing that a search is reasonable, but searches without warrants have long been held to be constitutional under the right circumstances.

 

[Drachasor]

What part of…

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.​

…do you not understand?

You seem to be ignoring the fact that it only grants protection against unreasonable searches. There's case law on this, and you if there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, then no warrant is needed for a search. I've CITED this case law in this thread.

You're half-right. Definitions indeed change, but what is changing isn't really the definition of "search", but the definition of "unreasonable".

Also keep in mind that although the 4th amendment deals with search warrants, it doesn't actually require them in order for a search to take place. Warrants are a way of establishing that a search is reasonable, but searches without warrants have long been held to be constitutional under the right circumstances.

That's why I said a search as far as it is protected by the 4th amendment. Reasonable searches aren't restricted by the 4th, whether that reasonableness comes from a warrant or another means.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

 

[mhaze]

You're half-right. Definitions indeed change, but what is changing isn't really the definition of "search", but the definition of "unreasonable".

Also keep in mind that although the 4th amendment deals with search warrants, it doesn't actually require them in order for a search to take place. Warrants are a way of establishing that a search is reasonable, but searches without warrants have long been held to be constitutional under the right circumstances.

That would require a law enforcement agency, and the TSA is outside of those rules and bounds. So you have NO safeguards such as those which are part of the well known history of law enforcement restricting the TSA.

Each and every restriction of the TSA would appear to have to be after the fact, and in the form of court challenges or congressional law.

There's no way getting around this problem - you have an administrative agency which is not a law enforcement agency, operating as exactly that.

 

[Drachasor]

That would require a law enforcement agency, and the TSA is outside of those rules and bounds. So you have NO safeguards such as those which are part of the well known history of law enforcement restricting the TSA.

Each and every restriction of the TSA would appear to have to be after the fact, and in the form of court challenges or congressional law.

There's no way getting around this problem - you have an administrative agency which is not a law enforcement agency, operating as exactly that.

Incorrect. The Constitution applies to all levels of government, law enforcement or not.

You might as well say the Police aren't bound by the Constitution because if they violate it then they don't get punished except in court. When in reality, it is the very fact that they can get challenged in court on constitutional grounds that reveals how they are bound to it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that it only grants protection against unreasonable searches. There's case law on this, and you if there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, then no warrant is needed for a search. I've CITED this case law in this thread.

With the exception of the random pervert and deviant here and there, the vast majority of people consider their genitalia to be something over which they have a strong expectation of privacy, and any uninvited examination or fondling thereof in the absence of fairly extreme probably cause to be unreasonable.

The voyeurism and sexual molestation being perpetrated by the TSA fall very far outside of what most people would consider “reasonable”. This is quite far outside the authority of government, and well into the realm of sexual criminals.

 

[Drachasor]

With the exception of the random pervert and deviant here and there, the vast majority of people consider their genitalia to be something over which they have a strong expectation of privacy, and any uninvited examination or fondling thereof in the absence of fairly extreme probably cause to be unreasonable.

The voyeurism and sexual molestation being perpetrated by the TSA fall very far outside of what most people would consider “reasonable”. This is quite far outside the authority of government, and well into the realm of sexual criminals.

Except of course they aren't fondling people's genitals, molesting them, or imaging them.

If you want to make up stories that's fine, but I'm not going to pretend they are true.

When you have to make up inflammatory language, it is a sign that you aren't being very honest about reality.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Except of course they aren't fondling people's genitals, molesting them, or imaging them.

If you want to make up stories that's fine, but I'm not going to pretend they are true.

When you have to make up inflammatory language, it is a sign that you aren't being very honest about reality.

They aren't?

She felt along my waistline, moved behind me, then proceeded to feel both of my buttocks. She reached from behind in the middle of my buttocks towards my vagina area.

She did not tell me that she was going to touch my buttocks, or reach forward to my vagina area.

She then moved in front of my and touched the top and underneath portions of both of my breasts.

She did not tell me that she was going to touch my breasts.

She then felt around my waist. She then moved to the bottoms of my legs.

She then felt my inner thighs and my vagina area, touching both of my labia.

She did not tell me that she was going to touch my vagina area or my labia.

 

[mhaze]

They aren't?

Suppose that you objected to the groping and were arrested, and you were in line for the administrative fine of $11,000. Suppose that the TSA groper was a convicted sexual molestor or convicted rapist.

What would happen?

You'd have to arrange some way to defend your case in the administrative court in a remote city or just pay the fine.

When and how would you meet your accuser?

Likely never. You wouldn't have the normal legal rights that exist in a court hearing. You would not have a right to pre trial discovery.

What evidence could you present and what evidence could they present at such a hearing?

They'd have video tapes from some angles of everything but no audio. They'd present them if it suited their case and otherwise wouldn't. You wouldn't have recordings, because their procedures did not allow you to record them while they did their grope-fest. So it's a rigged "he said she said" with the "court" being employees of the TSA just like the groper.

How would you figure out that the TSA agent was a convicted felon and a sexual molester?

Likely you never would. You wouldn't have the right to information about the accuser in order to do a background check and discover this information. In the process of the administrative hearing, the TSA might discover those facts. They would then simply send you a letter that they were going to abate the fine.

Case closed.

It's actually quite a bit like Soviet courts.

 

[Drachasor]

Suppose that you objected to the groping and were arrested, and you were in line for the administrative fine of $11,000. Suppose that the TSA groper was a convicted sexual molestor or convicted rapist.

Suppose they have unicorns magic people.

The TSA doesn't hire convicted felons. (They've had one exception to this that I know of, regarding someone who committed a robbery at 17 -- juvenile record, but they've since changed their hiring policies).

What would happen?

You'd have to arrange some way to defend your case in the administrative court in a remote city or just pay the fine.

Or you could hire a lawyer and take them to court. Nothing stops that.

They aren't?

That frankly seems like someone freaking out over a pat down. I'll grant that's an issue of concern, but that's rather unavoidable, generally speaking. It is unfortunate Dayton doesn't have the new scanners yet, but this is a temporary issue. Also, that most definitely was not any sort of sexual assault. You may check the Ohio laws on the matter if you don't believe me.

It's important to remember that just because someone freaks out, doesn't mean what happened was wrong.


Edit: I'll grant the 11k fines seem excessive to me, but I am not sure of the context on them (and you guys tend exaggerate things out the wazoo). They certainly don't seem to be remotely illegal or unconstitutional.

 

[mhaze]

...Or you could hire a lawyer and take them to court. Nothing stops that.

Suuuurrreee.

Federal court. Average cost to bring a case $50-100,000.

Any other brilliant suggestions for the little guy?

...Edit: I'll grant the 11k fines seem excessive to me, but I am not sure of the context on them (and you guys tend exaggerate things out the wazoo). They certainly don't seem to be remotely illegal or unconstitutional.

There is no particular "context". It's the set number for fines from a number of US Gov. agencies. And (to state the obvious) your OPINION on what's excessive isn't relevant. What's excessive varies a huge amount between people.

Suppose they have unicorns magic people.

The TSA doesn't hire convicted felons. (They've had one exception to this that I know of, regarding someone who committed a robbery at 17 -- juvenile record, but they've since changed their hiring policies).

You are referring to a case not where they wouldn't hire convicted felon, but where THE TSA FORCED THE AIRPORT TO HIRE HIM although that conviction was less than 10 years old.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/1666...eatens-airport-to-issue-top-secret-clearance/

Generally speaking, for the statement you made which I bolded to be true, you have to append "with the offense less than 10 years old" to your statement.

Transportation Security Regulation (TSR) 1542.209 (d).

For most SIDA access, I've got no problem with 90% of the logic behind these regulations. Maybe convicted felons would be good at spotting terrorists, who knows?

The specific issue being discussed is new. It pertains to the porno-scanners and grope-rape by TSA with the new "enhanced" protocal.

And that issue is that convicted rapists and child molesters are not prevented from viewing porno-scan and are not restricted from being paid to grope-rape within current TSA protocol.

Most people - fortunately - would see a huge problem with that.

 

[thaiboxerken]

They aren't?

Accusations are not proof. I doubt this woman's story to be true.

 

[Drachasor]

Suuuurrreee.

Federal court. Average cost to bring a case $50-100,000.

Any other brilliant suggestions for the little guy?

Well, then, we should get rid of the FBI, police, and a lot of other things too. Are you arguing against having a government at all? Any government will have abuses here and there, a good government provides a method to seek redress and the USA certainly provides that.

Also you could see a lawyer that is willing to work a promising case for free based on getting a cut of the settlement or payment for damages.

There is no particular "context". It's the set number for fines from a number of US Gov. agencies. And (to state the obvious) your OPINION on what's excessive isn't relevant. What's excessive varies a huge amount between people.

Correct, so you can go with polling numbers to get an idea of what people think about what is reasonable (since that is in spirit with how the courts handle it as far as reasonableness goes). People generally think the scanners are certainly reasonable, I'll look to see if there is polling on patdowns -- but if patdowns are deemed generally unreasonable, that would place greater emphasis on using the scanners, of course.

You are referring to a case not where they wouldn't hire convicted felon, but where THE TSA FORCED THE AIRPORT TO HIRE HIM although that conviction was less than 10 years old.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/1666...eatens-airport-to-issue-top-secret-clearance/

They don't hire convicted felons at all now. Before they could hire them if the felony was committed as a minor, now they don't do that. Their regulations explicitly say that as part of the background checks.

For the sake of argument, though, if they hired convicted sexual predators, murderers, and the like, then I'd say that hiring practice should stop immediately and all those people should be terminated. There's no backing for the statement that they do that however, the best you can point it is someone with a sealed juvenile record for robbery who got hired and they've since changed their practices to stop even that.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

That frankly seems like someone freaking out over a pat down. I'll grant that's an issue of concern, but that's rather unavoidable, generally speaking. It is unfortunate Dayton doesn't have the new scanners yet, but this is a temporary issue. Also, that most definitely was not any sort of sexual assault.

Intentionally touching a woman's breasts and genitals without her consent is sexual assault.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Intentionally touching a woman's breasts and genitals without her consent is sexual assault.

The TSA gain that consent when the person consents to the pat down.

 

[deepatrax]

Every time a TSA guy gives me a pat-down, I just ridicule the guy...or I moan loudly and offer to tip him when he's done.

In the end, he feels worse than I do. job well done.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The TSA gain that consent when the person consents to the pat down.

Consent isn't consent is it's coerced. If one is prevented from being able to travel, unless one “consents” to one's choice of being sexually assaulted, or having pornographic images taken and shown to strangers, then that isn't consent at all.

In any other context, this criminal activity would be fully recognized for what it is. There is nothing special about the TSA or the conditions in which they work that gives them any excuse for this conduct.