• 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!

Ventura sues over body scans, pat-downs

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,595
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The lawsuit, which also names Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and TSA Administrator John Pistole as defendants, argues the searches are "unwarranted and unreasonable intrusions on Governor Ventura's personal privacy and dignity . and are a justifiable cause for him to be concerned for his personal health and well-being."

I don't see Jesse being successful in his lawsuit, since the state always finds some sort of justification to keep Big Brother alive.

Ventura sues over body scans, pat-downs | StarTribune.com
 
What's actually interesting to me is the sheer amount of bi-partisan support that such measures have received.

Many on the left (in Congress) openly disapprove - but their decisions not to reverse the actions may prove they passively support said measures.
 
Many on the left (in Congress) openly disapprove - but their decisions not to reverse the actions may prove they passively support said measures.

Thats because its token opposition, the left waits for the right to do something and then supports the opposite. In reality the left supports Big Brother as well.
 
nope... which is why I'd choose the scanner. Problem solved.

Then you had better change your name to Johnny Wad. You might have a chance at making some money off the porn that the government is creating. :mrgreen:
 
Hopefully Ventura is successful. The last time I checked the 4th amendments does not only apply when you are inside your home with the curtains closed. and doors shut.
 
Ventura? isn't he also one of those "truther" nutters? shows what damage steroids can do to your brain
 
Whether he is or isn't is, it has nothing to do with his lawsuit.

but it does. it goes to his frame of mind and general distrust of anything run by the govt.
 
I don't see Jesse being successful in his lawsuit, since the state always finds some sort of justification to keep Big Brother alive.

Ventura sues over body scans, pat-downs | StarTribune.com

He definitely won't be succesful on the grounds of the constitution. He may be successful about having the policies rewriiten for better options after you recieve a red flag for "dignity" etc

But any fight that falsely claims that the TSA policies violate the constitution will always fail as it should.
 
What is Ventura hiding?

None of your business. :D

[isn't privacy great? In case you didn't get it [being my point], privacy == "hiding something," one can't believe in or utilize privacy and claim to have "nothing" to hide, it's like making the claim that P ^ ~P ≡ True when P ^ ~P [ALWAYS] ≡ False, for those of you into discrete mathematics and logic ]


And man, OscarB63, attacking the person not the claims? IMO the lawsuit should be heard, and I hope it goes far. We made it almost 107 years without it, minus 9-11, which was an issue both with intelligence agencies and the policies of what is/isn't allowed. Why the hell now is it so important to people that they ignore this and somehow are believing that making the pat downs less intrusive and removing the scanners will put them in peril without any logical substance to support the idea?
 
Last edited:
None of your business. :D

[isn't privacy great? In case you didn't get it, privacy == "hiding something," one can't believe in or utrilize privacy and claim to have "nothing" to hide, it's like making the claim that P ^ ~P ≡ True when P ^ ~P [ALWAYS] ≡ False, for those of you into discrete mathematics and lgoic ]


And man, OscarB63, attacking the person not the claims? IMO the lawsuit should be heard, and I hope it goes far. We made it almost 107 years without it, minus 9-11, which was an issue both with intelligence agencies and the policies of what is/isn't allowed. Why the hell now is it so important to people that they ignore this and somehow believing that making the pat downs less intrusive and removing the scanners will put them in peril without any logical substance to support the idea?


dude, just sayin...anyone who buys into that 9/11 truther crapola has to have a screw loose somewhere. that should be taken into consideration.

"consider the source" ring a bell?
 
but it does. it goes to his frame of mind and general distrust of anything run by the govt.

this is sad, it used to be a general tenet of conservative thought to mistrust the government. and that was for good reason. now you can be conservative and support all sorts of nasty oppressive government plans.
 
dude, just sayin...anyone who buys into that 9/11 truther crapola has to have a screw loose somewhere. that should be taken into consideration.

"consider the source" ring a bell?

the only thing i've heard from ventura on 9/11 is him asking for answers to obvious discrepencie, ie. why can't we see any photos of a plane hitting the most secure compound in the world? that doesn't seem to be a nutty thing to be curious about considering the implications of the event in question.
 
Hopefully Ventura is successful. The last time I checked the 4th amendments does not only apply when you are inside your home with the curtains closed. and doors shut.

Last I checked the fourth amendment doesn't apply to searches where consent is given, as is the case in these TSA scans.

Sorry, but there is still no Constitutional violation here.
 
Last I checked the fourth amendment doesn't apply to searches where consent is given, as is the case in these TSA scans.

Last I checked the validity or constitutionality of the TSA scans / pat downs were just entering our legal system.

And last I checked, cohersion doesn't make full consent.
 
Last I checked the validity or constitutionality of the TSA scans / pat downs were just entering our legal system.

There is a difference between bringing a lawsuit and having a good case. There is a lawsuit, yes, but the argument that the TSA searches are a Constitutional violation of the fourth amendment is so specious as to border on frivolous.

And last I checked, cohersion doesn't make full consent.

I don't see anything coercive about these searches. They are no more coercive than metal detectors. Nobody is forcing anybody to fly. There is full consent here. End of story.
 
There is a difference between bringing a lawsuit and having a good case. There is a lawsuit, yes, but the argument that the TSA searches are a Constitutional violation of the fourth amendment is so specious as to border on frivolous.



I don't see anything coercive about these searches. They are no more coercive than metal detectors. Nobody is forcing anybody to fly. There is full consent here. End of story.

for those who like the court to have their say, that's exactly what this lawsuit is about. ventura is claiming that he has to fly for his job. i like how this guy claims to be a libertarian and support this police state. shows how misinformed glen beck has made certain sections of the population.
 
for those who like the court to have their say, that's exactly what this lawsuit is about. ventura is claiming that he has to fly for his job. i like how this guy claims to be a libertarian and support this police state. shows how misinformed glen beck has made certain sections of the population.

I am not defending anything. Quite the contrary I am merely stating facts. There is no constitutional claim here.

As you observe, I lean libertarian. So allow me to school you on libertarianism. Your post betrays a fundamental lack of understanding as to how libertarianism works, and what libertarians object to. There is a coercive element in this situation, certainly. But the airline is the party being coerced into changing its policy, not the passenger being coerced into a search. The passenger consents, or else he doesn't partake an optional service. That is not coercion. The airline must implement the TSA policy or else be subject to penalty. That is unlibertarian coercion.

The argument that one "has to fly" for a job is just plain bunk. Making an argument like this betrays a poor understanding of what "consenting to a search" means in our legal system.

So really all I'm talking about here is facts. What should be doesn't enter into it. The fact is there is no constitutional violation here.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom