Skip to comments.Let's Talk - Are Politically Correct "search" procedures Unreasonable Search?
Posted on 11/14/2010 7:28:07 PM PST by BereanBrain
Ok, so the government wants to "search" everybody, very intrusively (backscatter Xray, "feeling up" pat downs), INSTEAD of searching the PROFILE of the sort of people who are the terrorists.
So, if you are looking for example for fish, why would you search on the land? It would be unreasonable....Yes, fish can be found out of water, but most of them are swimming in water as we speak......So it would NOT be reasonable to put as much emphasis on looking on land as you do water.
So THIS is the DEFINITION of UNREASONABLE search - it's not reasonable to search the people who have not caused the problem.
THerefore, PC based searches are BY DEFINITION, in VIOLATION of the BILL of RIGHTS!!!!
Now, which lawyer has the *guts* to take this on?
X-rays are wrong.
Orly Taitz is ideally-suited to make this argument.
Do they look under Muslim Female Head dress? Do they feel their Crotch? Just wondering.
no they are only allowed to check from the neck up.
No — it violates no law.
Airlines are 100% private enterprises and subject to administration by the government.
There is no “rights issue” here, except for the usual “my RIGHTS are being violated” chattering class who don’t know what a “Right” is.
OTOH, the TSA may be extra-Constitutional and having different screening methods for different people may (do) IMHO) violate most Equal Rights laws.
Additionally, X-Raying constantly at the Government insistence is an example of a specific avoidable harm that may have significant legal repercussions.
I am a frequent flyer.
I often see granny’s in wheelchairs and small kids get the 3rd degree, while GROUPS of people in muslim garb are not even give a passing look.
If you *really* want to see why, take a look a pictures of Dulles airport.....Do you recognize that architectural style?
Such things can be concocted on board out of the guy's cellphone.
I'd agree it's an UNREASONABLE SEARCH ~ but profiling is a REASONABLE SEARCH since there's evidence it works.
Frankly, none of that bothers the Napolitano gal ~ she's happy enough knowing people are getting groped,
sorry, not dulles, Ronald Reagan airport
The govt is doing the searching. It is a rights issue.
Whether the airlines are private or public, they are not involved. The government took over the job of providing them with security.
Doesn't mean the airlines couldn't supplement the government's efforts ~ which they do ~ but to get the government to do profiling is going to take some big changes in the laws in this country. Congress should no doubt begin that immediately.
What if the “reason” for searching EVERY car going down the road for clandestine Liquor is that over 1,000 people die from drunk driving every year.
Obviously it’s NOT reasonsable to stop every car.
Just because it’s flying and you may *feel* patriotic, is no reason to not defend our rights against unreasonable search.
WE lost a lot o rights when “fighting” the drug trade, let’s not loose the rest of them fighting the terrorists.
Let’s kick their ass so hard THEY are afraid to get on a plane and sneeze.
That;s the only way to be safe.
Same as in the old days when they wanted to hijack airlines — when they started shooting them they quit.
Bingo, you are correct. This has nothing to do with the airlines, it is all about the government denying you access to a publicly funded facility (the airport).
I will tolerate a magnatometer and/or the puffer, but NEVER Xray and sexual assualt on my person in the name of “security”.
Fully 75% of the people with access to the aircraft never go through these enhanced searches. No one on the line, no bag-smashers, no fuelers, no catering,no gate agents, no poop suckers, and surely no mechanics.
and I was chatting with a CLEARED PERSON who works in a terminal (foodservice) at DFW.
I asked where she was from (due to heavy accent).
She said she was from SYRIA and had been here all of 3 WEEKS!
And they wonder how to improve security! HA!
Caused the problem? No, people are being routinely subjected to searches before any crime occurs. Not because of any specific crime or even a specific threat, but precisely because there is no specific threat.
America could do with a little less mamby-pamby paranoia.
Flying on commercial airlines is still the safest way to travel, even in the Middle East.
Those who will give up a little freedom for security will have neither - Ben Franklin
You - Unreasonable searches - no big deal.
>>What if the reason for searching EVERY car going down the road for clandestine Liquor is that over 1,000 people die from drunk driving every year.
Obviously its NOT reasonsable to stop every car.<<
You clearly have never come from San Diego to Los Angeles. They stop EVERY Car.
And have you never heard of a DUI Checkpoint. They stop EVERY Car.
The only reason they don’t stop in your theoretical case is because it is too much hassle.
>>Just because its flying and you may *feel* patriotic, is no reason to not defend our rights against unreasonable search.<<
No, I just don’t want people to conflate this with a Constitutional argument. It isn’t. The 4th Amendment protects you in your house, your car, even on the street. But when you volunteer to waive it to board a private conveyance, it is on you. You need only choose another conveyance.
>>WE lost a lot o rights when fighting the drug trade, lets not loose the rest of them fighting the terrorists.
Lets kick their ass so hard THEY are afraid to get on a plane and sneeze.<<
That;s the only way to be safe.
Same as in the old days when they wanted to hijack airlines when they started shooting them they quit.<<
I wish I wish I wish. After 9/11 for many years, the first thing I did when sitting down (I always get upgraded to 1st given my constant flying) was choose “my posse” — who would do what if someone was stupid enough to attack the cabin.
Nut please don’t confuse stupid decisions by the previous and current administrations with “Rights” issues.
They just aren’t.
Obama needs to prepare us for his marxist state.
Buying an airline ticket has no effect on my God given right to unreasonable searches. There is not an even improbable cause to search me.
The only reason it is done is to “not discriminate”.
Been to Reagan and Dulles. What am I looking for?
Sooner or later, you’ll realize you’re fighting the poor fight. We all are just waiting for you to fag out.
Personal feeling is that DUI checkpoints should also be ruled illegal.
Although I agree that there is a wavier of rights by buying a ticket to fly, that waiver should still be as narrow as possible.
>>Although I agree that there is a wavier of rights by buying a ticket to fly, that waiver should still be as narrow as possible.<<
That is probably the best argument I have seen tonight.
It removes the trite and unfounded “MY RIGHTS DANGIT!” yelling while applying a more reasonable standard.
I am too tired to keep going back over the same material, particularly when I am as outraged as most on this TSA policy and am defending a perspective, not the practice.
Thanks for a better way to frame it should I return to these threads or similar.
>>Sooner or later, youll realize youre fighting the poor fight. We all are just waiting for you to fag out.<<
I am fighting the good fight, but yeah, you guys wore me down.
I am pretty tired, it is late, I can only repeat myself so many times and I can’t teach the world about something that is there for people to see.
And my Steelers are losing which takes a spring out of my step.
First, they are not trying to search everyone.
Secondly, a search to prevent the introduction of weapons aboard aircraft is not unreasonable.
Third, you have no constitutionally guaranteed right to board an aircraft. You have to meet certain reasonable criteria. You have to have a ticket. You have to be clothed. You have to be free of obvious dangerous communicable diseases. You have to be willing to not operate certain electronic equipment. You have to be willing to be searched in some way, electronic or otherwise, to ensure you do not have a weapon.
It's like accepting a driver's license and driving a car is a consent to a test for alcohol or a customs search a condition for entry into the country.
P.S. This is all very settled law.
G’nite, freedumb2003. Thanks for your maturity and kind words.
Wrong, we have the contitutional right to do whatever we please as long as it doesn't hurt other people. Once we buy a ticket we have the right to board the aircraft. Searching people who are not likely to have a weapon, and, BTW, not allowing weapons is also a violation of my rights, is unreasonable. Searching rah heads on the other hand, due to their history of killing people and blowing things up, is reasonable. It is a rights issue and TSA should be abandoned. Israel doesn't do all this intrusive BS and they have no problems on their planes. Why do you suppose that is?
Post 29, sorry misspelled Constitutional.
I flew the other day and didn’t see a single female go through the scanner...only males.
I wonder what the ratio is and is it balanced?
Moreover, is it legal???
Some rights can’t be waived. -Like a child’s right to not be sexually molested. Parents agreeing or not simply doesn’t matter.
2, re; Israel. Have you ever tried to board a flight in Tel Aviv? Some of the tightest security in the world.
Please do not pass on incorrect legal or practical information.
This whole thing would be moot if the USA would adopt Israeli type tactics for detecting terrorist, which works quite well for them. Why do you suppose that is, Mr. defender of tyranny in our airports?
Sounds great, but actually, you have no such right.
First, that phrase is listed nowhere in the constitution.
Secondly, that "as long as I don't hurt anyone" has no point in law. A drunk driver can be arrested although he has hurt no one nor caused any accident. I can shoot a burglar in my home. I don't have to wait until he steals something.
Weapons on a/c are a bad idea. We can take reasonable steps to prevent it.
BTW, I often fly with a Glock model 27, fully loaded, on my person. I do so because in my airplane, because the pilot, me, says I can!
Perhaps they should have a line up of those that work for the TSA. Females must be X cheerleaders males chosen for looks and we get to pick the one that gives us the pat down...If no one is handsome or cute enought in the line, we get a free pass...
A few more things. It is ruled law that TSA, customs, some drug, entry into government builgings and other searches are not unconstitutional.
From the Appeals Court:
"More than 700 million passengers board commercial aircraft in the United States each year.1 The Transportation Security Administration (ÂTSAÂ) is given the task of ensuring their safety, the safety of airline and airport personnel and, as the events of September 11, 2001, demonstrate, the safety of the general public from risks arising from commercial airplane flights.
To do so, the TSA conducts airport screening searches of all passengers entering the secured area of the airport.
We have previously held such airport screening searches are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches.
Today we clarify that the reasonableness of such searches does not depend, in whole or in part, upon the consent of the passenger being searched."
BTW, I would remind you that airport searches were not begun after 9/11 or for Arabs. They began in the 1960s when nice, White, preppy college boys were hijacking airplanes to Cuba to protest the war in Vietnam or extort money from the airlines!
Fondling our wives and sisters at airports is an affront to a supposedly free people.
This issue is low hanging fruit for the new House of Reps. The practice should be statutorily banned. “Profiling” should be the law of the land. Even if such a bill does not pass, it will force the rats to explain why little blue haired grannies get felt up when swarthy young men in turbans pass by.
BTW, the law it too important to be left entirely to lawyers. Having done so is part of the reason we are fast headed down the road to serfdom. The courts are losing respect at an accelerating rate. They deserve the loss.