Posted on 03/03/2010 7:52:01 AM PST by La Lydia
Even if we accept that a basic freedom involving activity by law enforcement without probable cause was at stake -- a freedom already tampered with by requiring a private business to admit people with whom it does not wish to do business -- no search in fact occurred. The woman did not wish to be searched, she declined and was not searched. Neither was she accommodated. Everyone was actually satisfied and no right was violated; as you say, there is no "right" to fly in an airplane.
Durus thinks some fundamental Constitutional principle is at stake, but his understanding of both the plain wording of the Amendment and the Founders' intent is simply erroneous. The plain wording of the Amendment is against unreasonable searches. I wonder if he thinks it would be reasonable to require a Federal Judge to be present to hear arguments at every time and in every place where someone wants to get on a plane.
The Founders permitted -- and FULLY INTENDED TO PERMIT -- illegal searches and seizures to occur. Under the Common Law (to which the Ninth Amendment and other parts of the Constitution implicitly and explicitly refer) evidence obtained illegally was fully admissible in Court. The crime committed in obtaining it was a separate consideration. This was the case in the United States until the brink of the Twentieth Century. Only the 5th Amendment injunction against self-incrimination was stronger than the law in England. It was not fully Incorporated against the States until 1961. No doubt Durus considers the Exclusionary Rule a "modern abomination." I happen to like it, and hope that it's here to stay.
Liberals love to quote Franklin's Bromide about security and liberty. There's even a bumper sticker for those who think important legal concepts can be reduced to sound-bytes. If we must do that, I prefer Lincoln: "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." When you find yourself on the same side of an argument as the ACLU you should 1) check your premises 2) check your reasoning and 3) decide if you really are a conservative or libertarian after all.
You ARE being strip searched. If a scanner can see under your clothing, and see the outline of your genitals and private parts, then you ARE being strip searched. But by a machine, instead of a person -- but a person *views* it.
It’s the same way with an x-ray. You consent when you buy the ticket.
Why wasn't everyone going through this.....
Shahrukh Khan, one of the biggest film stars in the world, and a Muslim:
“I'm always stopped by the security, because of the name. And I think its okay: the western world is a little bit worried, paranoid and touchy, I guess – and freely when they're frisking you.
“I was in London recently going through the airport and these new machines have come up, the body scans. You've got to see them. It makes you embarrassed – if you're not well endowed.
“You walk into the machine and everything – the whole outline of your body – comes out.”
He added: “I was a little scared. Something happens [inside the scans], and I came out. Then I saw these girls – they had these printouts. I looked at them. I thought they were some forms you had to fill. I said 'give them to me' – and you could see everything inside. So I autographed them for them.”
Racists!
It's a violation of my rights to be strip searched -- or invasively patted down -- by some random creep at an airport.
But go ahead and be strip searched. Enjoy!
So I guess you never travel outside the US.
We do have the right to travel, but the method of conveyance is not stated. You are free to walk, drive a vehicle, hire a plane or a ship of your own for transport, etc.
She is purchasing transportation from a company that has some rules about what you must go through.
Yep...a terrorist’s duty is to “terrorize”, not necessarily to inflict mass casualties (but that usually helps). Britain is pretty terrified of Islam right now, and we aren’t much further behind. We are spending billions more on “Homeland Security” since 911, making new government agencies, getting hundreds of thousands of new federal security guards, etc., etc.. All the terrorists have to do is slightly adjust their “schemes” (body/internal bombs, etc.) and we are forced to spend millions & billions more and the American citizen loses more freedom (becomes more “terrorized”). Imagine if AQ sneaks across the Southern border (or Northern border for that matter, like 911) and detonates car bombs or multiple “homicide bombers” at a school or schools or several big shopping malls at once? Would American citizens then accept “1 mile vehicle exclusion zones” around all schools and malls? Full body scans for students, parents & teachers before entering the school zone? Full body scans to go shopping or to a concert or sporting event? We need to stop this “one-upmanship” and nip the problem at the source domestically (border control & FBI) and internationally.
I support the Constitution also, so when you can specifically point out where full body scanners are SPECIFICALLY prohibited by the Constitution, then I’ll agree with you.
Read my other reply on this thread. I haven’t flown since June, 2002 specifically because of the BS at the airports.
But I am not claiming it is a Constitutional issue either.
Contrary to your nonsensical attempt to put words into my keyboard, I do honestly believe that the Founders permitted and expected evidence illegally obtained to be used in court. They did permit it: it was not forbidden in any capacity other than the injunction against self-incrimination until 1893. You can't educate me on this matter because you're talking through your hat; please learn a little history. Nothing like the Exclusionary Rule existed in our jurisprudence until 1920. In 1961, when it was incorporated against the States, almost half of the States did not regard evidence illegally obtained as excluded. So much for your understanding of the Founders, the Constitution, and history.
That's right. Not until all this madness dies down. Which I realize might be never.
Why can't they at least use the scanners that convert the images to stick figures? I've read about those. That would be a much less invasive way of invading a person's body. If they ever switch to that type of scanner, then I would have no complaint.
I think the reason they can get away with this is because our society is so over-sexualized (women included). I can't imagine women of earlier centuries complying with such an invasive procedure. But in today's society, anything goes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.