• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

TSA ejects Oceanside man from airport for refusing security check

Interesting bill regarding TSA was just introduced this morning.
111th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 6416


To ensure that certain Federal employees cannot hide behind immunity.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

November 17, 2010

Mr. Paul introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Short title.

This Act may be cited as the “American Traveller Dignity Act of 2010”.

SEC. 2. No immunity for certain airport screening methods.

No law of the United States shall be construed to confer any immunity for a Federal employee or agency or any individual or entity that receives Federal funds, who subjects an individual to any physical contact (including contact with any clothing the individual is wearing), x-rays, or millimeter waves, or aids in the creation of or views a representation of any part of a individual’s body covered by clothing as a condition for such individual to be in an airport or to fly in an aircraft. The preceding sentence shall apply even if the individual or the individual’s parent, guardian, or any other individual gives consent.
Click to expand...
I'll be on the phone to my representative to see that he cosponsors this.
 
MaggieD said:
To characterize TSA pat-downs as fondling is hyperbole-and-a-half. First, the odds of your daughter being patted down are slim to none on any particular flight. Second, these pat downs are not done by pedophiles, for heaven's sake. Third, however you characterize this to your daughter is egzakly how she's going to react. "Standard procedure"? "Groping and Fondling"? Which is it?

Yes! Of course you have the right to protest this invasive procedure. What you don't have is a right to fly.

This discussion has, as usual, taken off into the wild blue yonder.
Click to expand...
You avoided my question. I'm not surprised. :roll:
 
MaggieD said:
To characterize TSA pat-downs as fondling is hyperbole-and-a-half. First, the odds of your daughter being patted down are slim to none on any particular flight. Second, these pat downs are not done by pedophiles, for heaven's sake. Third, however you characterize this to your daughter is egzakly how she's going to react. "Standard procedure"? "Groping and Fondling"? Which is it?
Click to expand...

Perhaps your definition of fondling is different from mine. However, I consider it inappropriate for a glorified security guard to touch or even go near my crotch. You are aware that this is what they do now, right?

Yes! Of course you have the right to protest this invasive procedure. What you don't have is a right to fly.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is arguing that. I would say, however, that the success of the airlines relies on how many passengers they get. If enough people are turned off by these new security protocols and don't fly, they will only suffer in the long run. I think eventually they will go back to reasonable security protocols when they see the backlash that this causes.
 
Boo Radley said:
No I don't, because it isn't the same thing. The partriot act gives too much power to people doing nothing more than being at home or going to work. People at the airport are getting on a plane were something did go wrong, have had a problem, and people have tried to smuggle something on to. A real difference.
Click to expand...

Got it. Your double-standard is noted.
 
theangryamerican said:
Got it. Your double-standard is noted.
Click to expand...

You calling it a double standard doesn't make it one. Like too many you don't see actual differences in things and treat all things as if everything was the same. They are not and you're factually wrong.
 
MaggieD said:
First, the odds of your daughter being patted down are slim to none on any particular flight.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The odds are 100% that she will be manually searched if she doesn't want to go through the Federal Nudie Booth. And it's a lot more than just a "patdown" now.

MaggieD said:
Second, these pat downs are not done by pedophiles, for heaven's sake.
Click to expand...

Who cares? You're OK with someone feeling up kids as long as they aren't turned on by it?

MaggieD said:
Third, however you characterize this to your daughter is egzakly how she's going to react. "Standard procedure"? "Groping and Fondling"? Which is it?
Click to expand...

Hopefully parents tell their kids to scream as loudly as they can and/or make a big scene if the TSA people do anything more than a standard pat-down. And I hope they get it on video and send it to their local TV station.

MaggieD said:
Yes! Of course you have the right to protest this invasive procedure. What you don't have is a right to fly.
Click to expand...

So you're OK with the government spying on people at libraries since they don't have a right to be in a library? You're OK with implementing Federal Nudie Booths at the entrance to all shopping malls, since you don't have a right to be there? You're OK with federal agents installing a GPS tracker on your automobile, since you don't have a right to drive?

MaggieD said:
This discussion has, as usual, taken off into the wild blue yonder.
Click to expand...

Yes it has. Mostly facilitated by you and Boo Radley.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
You calling it a double standard doesn't make it one. Like too many you don't see actual differences in things and treat all things as if everything was the same. They are not and you're factually wrong.
Click to expand...

Your failure to be able to connect the dots doesn't make your opinion more valid. :shrug:

Both the Patriot Act and the security procedures of the TSA give the government the ability to infringe upon areas of citizen's rights that they should have no business being involved in. Both are justified using the argument of "National Security."

Using your own quote:
Boo Radley said:
The partriot act gives too much power to people doing nothing more than being at home or going to work. People at the airport are getting on a plane were something did go wrong, have had a problem, and people have tried to smuggle something on to. A real difference.
Click to expand...

The current invasive airport security procedures are directed at people doing nothing more than going home or being at work. To borrow from the history of another country, the IRA have proved countless times that a terrorist organization doesn't need an airplane to detonate an explosive. A car bomb in the right place does the trick just as well. You more chance of being blown up or shot at your local coffee shop than you do of being killed on a flight in mid-air. The only difference is one you've fabricated to justify your position.

Are you ok being felt up or scanned as you walk in to Starbucks? It's for your security, you know.
 
Last edited:
I have a question.

Who is funding these checks? The airports? I mean, can't you simply go to another airport where the people there don't feel you up?
 
theangryamerican said:
Your failure to be able to connect the dots doesn't make your opinion more valid. :shrug:

Both the Patriot Act and the security procedures of the TSA give the government the ability to infringe upon areas of citizen's rights that they should have no business being involved in. Both are justified using the argument of "National Security."
Click to expand...

Not it the same way they don't. Different things treated differently is not a double standard. People are seeking to get on a public transportation that HAS been use in a terrorist activity, where weapons and exposives HAVE either made it on board or been attempted. This is different than minning phone calls which does more to mask patterns than expose actual terrorist. It is actively going into a private ara and not meeting someone in a public areana engaged in a public activity.

Again, different things should be treated differently.


The current invasive airport security procedures are directed at people doing nothing more than going home or being at work. To borrow from the history of another country, the IRA have proved countless times that a terrorist organization doesn't need an airplane to detonate an explosive. A car bomb in the right place does the trick just as well. You more chance of being blown up or shot at your local coffee shop than you do of being killed on a flight in mid-air. The only difference is one you've fabricated to justify your position.

Are you ok being felt up or scanned as you walk in to Starbucks? It's for your security, you know.
Click to expand...

Going on a public tranport that hasa seen wepaons and explosives either bought on bioard or attempted to bring on board. Again different.

And no one is being felt up. Ask some one to search you. Then ask someone to feel you up. I think you will see a real difference.
 
Laila said:
I have a question.

Who is funding these checks? The airports? I mean, can't you simply go to another airport where the people there don't feel you up?
Click to expand...


It's TSA, not the airports.
 
Last edited:
Laila said:
No, I mean who funds the security. The airports right or is it the State?
Click to expand...

It's federal. But it doesn't matter who funds it; it's a TSA check, not something done by individual airports. You can't just wander off to another airport. This isn't a free market/competition thing.
 
Laila said:
I have a question.

Who is funding these checks? The airports? I mean, can't you simply go to another airport where the people there don't feel you up?
Click to expand...

Nope. It's done by the TSA, which is an arm of the US federal government. It's a nationwide policy now. Either you let federal agents take naked pictures of you, or you let them molest you.
 
liblady said:
tsa is the gov't. and most cities don't have multiple airports, so we're stuck.
Click to expand...

Harshaw said:
It's federal. But it doesn't matter who funds it; it's a TSA check, not something done by individual airports. You can't just wander off to another airport. This isn't a free market/competition thing.
Click to expand...

Kandahar said:
Nope. It's done by the TSA, which is an arm of the US federal government. It's a nationwide policy now. Either you let federal agents take naked pictures of you, or you let them molest you.
Click to expand...

Thank you for clearing that up, I didn't know it was mandatory.

A similar procedure happens in UK. The difference ofc being that I don't have to use British airports as a European Citizen.
 
You do if you want to fly out of Britain.
 
Coronado said:
Please explain to me exactly how a person travels across the Pacific in a timely manner without being forced to "freakin' fly". Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Fly out of Vancouver. Or maybe Mexico City or Lima.
 
Harshaw said:
You do if you want to fly out of Britain.
Click to expand...

One of the perks of being in EU is that with my British passport, I can board flights in any airport in the European Union and i'll simply pick a European country with airports that isn't going to feel me up :shrug:
 
Laila said:
One of the perks of being in EU is that with my British passport, I can board flights in any airport in the European Union and i'll simply pick a European country with airports that isn't going to feel me up :shrug:
Click to expand...

But that would not be flying out of Britain.
 
Laila said:
Thank you for clearing that up, I didn't know it was mandatory.

A similar procedure happens in UK. The difference ofc being that I don't have to use British airports as a European Citizen.
Click to expand...
Basically here in the States, the Federal government has control of aircraft because of its interstate nature. The local jurisdiction polices the airport grounds, but once you are on the airplane, for criminal purposes you are in Federal territory. Any crimes you commit are Federal crimes on an airplane. Also, this is why the air marshals are Federal agents.
 
Diogenes said:
Fly out of Vancouver. Or maybe Mexico City or Lima.
Click to expand...
I think the nearest non-US airport to here is Mexico City, which is something like 700 miles as the crow flies. It is about 20 hours by car from what I hear.
 
Harshaw said:
But that would not be flying out of Britain.
Click to expand...

No, technically true.
Shows how meaningless it is to have a one country policy in EU when there is a free movement policy.
 
Harshaw said:
It's federal. But it doesn't matter who funds it; it's a TSA check, not something done by individual airports. You can't just wander off to another airport. This isn't a free market/competition thing.
Click to expand...
I think she was keying off the language in the bill regarding it's application to agencies that receive Federal funds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom