• 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

the aclu, like house homeland security, is cited by the serious as SIGNAL

ie, indication of the lay of the land

hello

So when they said the exact same thing in 2004:

Even those who pass successfully though metal detectors and appear unsuspicious may be subject to an intrusive pat-down in sensitive body areas, including breasts, genitals, and buttocks.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) began allowing full-body frisks when it revamped its screening tests on Sept. 22 to ensure passenger safety. Since then, about a dozen complaints are filed each week regarding screening misconduct, many from women who feel they were groped.

Were you saying the ACLU was sending a SIGNAL to the seriouness of the problem then too?
 
Were you saying the ACLU was sending a SIGNAL to the seriouness of the problem then too?

unbelievable

the aclu's stance is not cited as sign of the seriousness of the problem

it's indicative of the political landscape

hello
 
unbelievable

the aclu's stance is not cited as sign of the seriousness of the problem

it's indicative of the political landscape

hello

But their position has remained the same REGARDLESS of the political landscape. They thought it was groping and intrusive under Bush and they think it now under Obama. Where as it appears YOU are shifting based on the political landscape, seemingly suggesting its bad now but wasn't in 2004.

Or was it horrible, unconstitutional, and unexcusable back then as well?
 
no one (but you) cares about my opinion

i don't even care about my opinion

obama cares about ms lee's (and the aclu's), that's the point

ie, it's a LOSER

party on, my personality prone correspondent
 
No J-mac, I'm pulling the "I can lose my job if I post SSI or higher information" crap mixed with stating that its unreasonable to think that since people aren't telling you things that would be considered classified that it means its not happening.

I don't have the luxury to know if there have been attempts domestically, on that you are correct, and I also likewise do not know what it is that you do for a living that would allow you access to this information. You seem to be alluding to having such knowledge. Whether it is true or not I don't know. But of this I do know, I have a little sense inside me that makes my hair stand on end when someone tries to tell me that something is "reasonable" and allows a person with less than two weeks training, to do an invasive pat down on my wife, or children without probable cause, for simply flying while American.

You should too.

Seriously, all you want, you not being seemingly mature enough to understand there are actual restrictions and rules regarding information in some jobs isn't going to magically make me or others divulge stuff.

Don't tell me about rules pal. I know all about them. As for my maturity, I don't think you can asses that simply because you disagree with me, or I you. Also, as a standard of rules, we have those in place that say anywhere else were this to be happening that it would be unconstitutional, and against the law.

Think back to the Bush Administration even. Was there weekly briefings given out to the public explaining every single attack or possible threat that was thwarted by TSA? Are you suggesting TSA did almost nothing while Bush was in office as well?

I don't believe Bush is the question anymore. He is no longer in charge. Remember when liberals were screaming about the Patriot Act, saying that it gave too much power, and other Presidents could abuse that power....Here we are.

The point being that he wouldn't fit this mystical testable stereotype of a terrorist prior to his action.

He would if the security in place were doing their jobs right....

Wiki said:
On December 21, 2001, Reid attempted to board a flight from Paris, France to Miami, Florida, but his boarding was delayed because his disheveled physical appearance aroused the suspicions of the airline passenger screeners. Reid also did not answer all of their questions, and had not checked any luggage for the transatlantic flight. Additional screening by the French National Police resulted in Reid's being re-issued a ticket for a flight on the following day.[13] He returned to the Paris airport on December 22, 2001, and he boarded American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami, wearing his special shoes packed with plastic explosives in their hollowed-out bottoms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_(shoe_bomber)

Again, the point being that just because something hasn't been done before doesn't mean it can't be done in the future.

A lot can be done. The question should be, should it be done? Right?

And thank you for making my point about the media. This "ramp up" you speak of isn't something new. TSA has been "ramping up" its security since its inception. Multiple years ago it upgraded many airports with the "sniffer" machines that puffs air and looks for trace chemicals. It was a number of years ago when the first of the body scanners started to make the news. We had changes with things like the shoes, the liquids on the plane, etc. TSA has been "ramping up" since its inception, its not something new, its not like for 10 years it was completely stagnant and all of a sudden new stuff is being done.

Yep, and there should be a line should there not?

You're right, they're not willing to (potentially since the SCOTUS hasn't said its unconstitutional yet) give up their rights.....they're just apparently willing to give up OTHER peoples rights since so many pushing against this are pushing for something that HAS been ruled on by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional.

So you are more worried about the rights of the actual possible terrorist, than you are about your fellow Americans children.....That's just wonderful.

j-mac
 
That's wonderful. I don't. You think its unconstitutional. I think it is. Its in place and staying there until SCOTUS agrees with you though or the agency volunteerily changes it.

Here's the fourth.

"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".

It seems very clear that this amendment is being violated.
 
Here's the fourth.

"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".

It seems very clear that this amendment is being violated.

Really? Seems pretty clear to me. You're voluntarily entering onto federal property to enter into federal air in a location that if disrupted can have a major affect on interstate traffic and the economy as a whole. Seems entirely reasonable to me.

And last I checked you're not a federal judge, so your belief of it being a "clear" violation of the constitution matters roughly as much as mine...or a house cats for that matter.
 
And last I checked you're not a federal judge, so your belief of it being a "clear" violation of the constitution matters roughly as much as mine...or a house cats for that matter.

I love your reasoning. It doesn't matter what the constitution says, all that matters is what the government says the constitution says.
 
I love your reasoning. It doesn't matter what the constitution says, all that matters is what the government says the constitution says.

I may be crazy here, but I'm pretty sure the constitution essentially vests the Supreme Court with the ability to determine if laws and such are constitutional or not.

Since you know, "What the constitution says" can vary between two random individuals...such as him believing that the search violates the 4th while I don't....and thus there needs to be an arbiter that is the final say.

It definitely matters what the constitution says. The issue is me and him seem to have very different views of how what it says applies in this circumstance, but when it comes down to it, neither of us is a judge and vested with the power in such a way that our statements regarding its constitutionality matters any more than the opinions of a 3 year old.
 
I love your reasoning. It doesn't matter what the constitution says, all that matters is what the government says the constitution says.

Just as you'll trust government employees to grope your more personal areas, and those of others, you'll trust the government to explain and interpret what's written in plain English and which should be understandable to anyone with a high school education.

Having a judge decide what it is you are reading is a step too far. Even Orwell never predicted anything as bizarre as this.
 
Just as you'll trust government employees to grope your more personal areas, and those of others, you'll trust the government to explain and interpret what's written in plain English and which should be understandable to anyone with a high school education.

Having a judge decide what it is you are reading is a step too far. Even Orwell never predicted anything as bizarre as this.

Wait, so you're seriously suggesting that the SCOTUS is not the body that determines if laws or procedures are constitutional or not?
 
Really? Seems pretty clear to me. You're voluntarily entering onto federal property to enter into federal air in a location that if disrupted can have a major affect on interstate traffic and the economy as a whole. Seems entirely reasonable to me.

And last I checked you're not a federal judge, so your belief of it being a "clear" violation of the constitution matters roughly as much as mine...or a house cats for that matter.

By that standard, you would be subject to invasive search anytime you left the house.

j-mac
 
Wait, so you're seriously suggesting that the SCOTUS is not the body that determines if laws or procedures are constitutional or not?

I'm asking you to read with your own eyes what the Fourth Amendment says. You really shouldn't need an interpreter to explain the obvious.
 
the gas station is federal property? My grocery store is federal property?

Come on, let's not over generalize.


I don't think I am, are not the highways (Interstate system) in this country largely Federal property?


j-mac
 
I don't think I am, are not the highways (Interstate system) in this country largely Federal property?


j-mac

Freeways are federal, highways are state, anything else is normally county or city roads.
 
I'm asking you to read with your own eyes what the Fourth Amendment says. You really shouldn't need an interpreter to explain the obvious.

I already did read it with my own eyes. I alway explained what is plainly obvious to me.

Really? Seems pretty clear to me. You're voluntarily entering onto federal property to enter into federal air in a location that if disrupted can have a major affect on interstate traffic and the economy as a whole. Seems entirely reasonable to me.

You disagree. Fine. Guess what. Your opinion means jack ****, which is the same mine means. You're no more a definitive voice on the constitution as I am, and your opinion is valid no less or more than mine. What's "obvious" to you seems ridiculous and idiotic to me. What's "obvious" to me seems the same to you.

You can keep going "open your eyes" all you want, it just makes you look like a broken record when I've clearly stated my views on it based on what's written in the constitution. You agree. Wonderful. To damn bad you don't have constitutional authority to decide what is or isn't constitutional, and since you don't your OPINION of its constitutionality is no better than mine.
 
Freeways are federal, highways are state, anything else is normally county or city roads.


Like I said the Interstate system is federal, so according to Zyph's logic you'd be subject to search without warrant on them. I know that is not the case.

j-mac
 
Like I said the Interstate system is federal, so according to Zyph's logic you'd be subject to search without warrant on them. I know that is not the case.

A few things here...

There is a large difference in legality when you're checking EVERYONE entering into a certain area and when you're simply willy nilly selecting people. There is no universal access point to get onto interstates that are checked where every individual vehicle is given a search and said access point and search is well known and established prior to entering onto it. So it would be entirely unreasonable for you to simply be pulled over and given an extensive search simply for being on a highway in the current system. Additionally, as stated earlier, a single individual performing a disruptive action on a highway has not shown itself to have the same potential for severe disruption of the National Transist System or the severe effect on the economy that disruptions of airline travel can have. This again reduces the "reasonableness" of any searches because the threat for damage to the country is not as high.

Please, don't speak about "my logic" because its obvious you either don't grasp it or simply wish to distort it. This is especially true when I stated CLEARLY in this thread my view on it and its nothing like what you just described.
 
Like I said the Interstate system is federal, so according to Zyph's logic you'd be subject to search without warrant on them. I know that is not the case.

j-mac

Never mind, Zyphlin said it better than I.
 
Last edited:
A few things here...

There is a large difference in legality when you're checking EVERYONE entering into a certain area and when you're simply willy nilly selecting people.

So everyone is subjected to this pat down? I don't think so.

There is no universal access point to get onto interstates that are checked where every individual vehicle is given a search and said access point and search is well known and established prior to entering onto it.

Ok, so you'd be fine with it if it were say at a toll stop and posted before hand?

So it would be entirely unreasonable for you to simply be pulled over and given an extensive search simply for being on a highway in the current system.

Un huh...think of the Airport line as an Interstate, and apply the same logic. Here I'll show you what I mean...

"So it would be entirely unreasonable for you to simply be pulled over and given an extensive search simply for being in an airport in the current system.

Additionally, as stated earlier, a single individual performing a disruptive action on a highway has not shown itself to have the same potential for severe disruption of the National Transist System or the severe effect on the economy that disruptions of airline travel can have.

I see, so the people turning down the x-ray machine and subjected to a search are being disruptive?

This again reduces the "reasonableness" of any searches because the threat for damage to the country is not as high.

You still have failed to provide any domestic instances where an American was a threat to Air travel to prompt this.

Please, don't speak about "my logic" because its obvious you either don't grasp it or simply wish to distort it.

Oh I grasp it just fine....Do you?

This is especially true when I stated CLEARLY in this thread my view on it and its nothing like what you just described.

And I disagree. That is allowed isn't it?


j-mac
 
Don't they have rountine traffic stops in some states. And if you refuse, or try to leave, don't they then pat you down and search your car? I've seen this happen.
 
Don't they have rountine traffic stops in some states. And if you refuse, or try to leave, don't they then pat you down and search your car? I've seen this happen.


You have to give probable cause, and even then, if the search is refused by the detainee, a warrant must be issued before the car can be searched.


j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom