• 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

nope... which is why I'd choose the scanner. Problem solved.

Not everybody has such a choice. People with prothesis, ostomy bags, and other medical conditions have been scanned, then subjected to an invasive patdown when the scanners saw these devices. Surely by now everyone has heard of the cancer survivers who've had to remove their prosthetic breasts, the poor man who had his ostomy bag ruptured and had to fly in urine-soaked clothes, and the mensuating woman whose panty liners set off the scanner, forcing her to remove her sanitary pad and show it to a TSA official.

Don't forget, these initial patdowns are done in front of other passengers, who are able to watch you being groped. The more intimate measures, like yanking out a prosthetic breast or examining ostomy bags are done in "private"... with only 2 or 3 strangers watching.

Not too many men would enjoy having their testicles and penis squeezed in public. I think these TSA invasive procedures need to be toned down considerably, and TSA needs to re-evaluate the interaction of their agents with the traveling public. Too damned many of these low-paid TSA agents are thugs and bullies who seem to enjoy making the experience as humiliating and degrading as possible.
 
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.

100% correct
dont like the TSA policies thats fine but they do NOT violate the constitution
 
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.

common sense WINS again, most people get it
 
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.

True, I won't win the lawsuit. However, the lawsuit might draw more attention to the manner in which the TSA is interacting with the public. Right now, TSA seems to stand for Thugs Squeezing Asses.
 
True, I won't win the lawsuit. However, the lawsuit might draw more attention to the manner in which the TSA is interacting with the public. Right now, TSA seems to stand for Thugs Squeezing Asses.

Again I have no problem with people not like the TSA policies or forcing the TSA to have a zero tolerence for workers who dont follow those policies or people that want the TSA policies change. thats fine and dandy with me. I may even agree.

My only issue is with people that cry about it and say it violates the constitution when the fact remains it does not. People that compare it to rape and assult and molestation when the fact remains it is not.

Hate, fight it, protest it etc etc thats all good by me, bring up that it violates the constitution and you look like a fool, not saying YOU did just making a general statement
 
Ventura? isn't he also one of those "truther" nutters? shows what damage steroids can do to your brain

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Whether or not is his a birther-tard or a truffer-tard is irrelevant to the law suit concerning strip searches and invasive pat downs.
 
100% correct
dont like the TSA policies thats fine but they do NOT violate the constitution

So if police wanted to stop you and strip search you while you were out driving or walking it would not be a violating of the constitution? I could be wrong but there is no fine print that says the 4th amendment only applies inside your home with the curtains closed and door locked.


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.
 
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Whether or not is his a birther-tard or a truffer-tard is irrelevant to the law suit concerning strip searches and invasive pat downs.

While I do agree with this in general there is one way that can make it relevant. If he brings up the constitution it shows a repeated state of delusion.
 
True, I won't win the lawsuit. However, the lawsuit might draw more attention to the manner in which the TSA is interacting with the public. Right now, TSA seems to stand for Thugs Squeezing Asses.

My ecounters with the TSA have been nothing but professional except for one instance. I thing this is all overblown with Vetura just wanting some plublicity. Why don't people quite whining as we all have the same equipment and just be done with it and get on the GD plane.
 
So if police wanted to stop you and strip search you while you were out driving or walking it would not be a violating of the constitution? I could be wrong but there is no fine print that says the 4th amendment only applies inside your home with the curtains closed and door locked.

what does this have to do with TSA policy? oh thats right NOTHING LMAO
if the police stop me and want to search me I can say no and with out CONSENT or PROBABLY CAUSE they cant search me but if I do give them consent they can

when you fly you give implied consent so your example is meaningless to the debate at hand.


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.

True to bad in reality that has NOTHING to do with flying and TSA policies LMAO
 
My ecounters with the TSA have been nothing but professional except for one instance. I thing this is all overblown with Vetura just wanting some plublicity. Why don't people quite whining as we all have the same equipment and just be done with it and get on the GD plane.

bonus points for using an argument that defends both the TSA and any serial rapist.
 
My ecounters with the TSA have been nothing but professional except for one instance.

Doesn't negate the negative experiences that people had.

[and all my experiences recently have been professional, etc]


And centrist, if you're gonna claim this is constitutional, please instead of effectively repeating in a circular/infinite "it is because it is" type, prove your claims.
 
Doesn't negate the negative experiences that people had.

[and all my experiences recently have been professional, etc]


And centrist, if you're gonna claim this is constitutional, please instead of effectively repeating in a circular/infinite "it is because it is" type, prove your claims.

Told you before I have proved my claims and they are SIMPLE to prove LMAO
its common sense

since no amendment is violated that means there is no violation of the constitution.

Like Ive told you and others before, please state the amendment that you THINKTSA POLICY violates and I will gladly show you why you are wrong.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Like Ive told you and others before, please state the admendment that TSA POLICY violates and will gladly show you why you are wrong.

I'd like to see at least one solid attempt at an argument that there is a fourth amendment violation. If the people complain about this being unconstitutional actually learned the law and applied it to the situation they would see how cut and dry this whole thing is.

The burden is on them to put forward an argument. Even an bad argument would at least be something to discuss. But so far I haven't even seen anyone try.
 
what does this have to do with TSA policy? oh thats right NOTHING LMAO
if the police stop me and want to search me I can say no and with out CONSENT or PROBABLY CAUSE they cant search me but if I do give them consent they can. when you fly you give implied consent so your example is meaningless to the debate at hand.
What would stop them from saying when you drive or walk on sidewalks you give implied consent? You don't have to drive, you do not have a constitutional right to drive. You don't have to walk on the sidewalk you can find some other way to get to your destination.

True to bad in reality that has NOTHING to do with flying and TSA policies LMAO

Strip searches and invasive pat downs without reasonable cause or warrant are a violation of the 4th. You going to an airport is not probable cause. You do realize the constitution is a restriction on what the government can and can not do? TSA is a government agency.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to see at least one solid attempt at an argument that there is a fourth amendment violation. If the people complain about this being unconstitutional actually learned the law and applied it to the situation they would see how cut and dry this whole thing is.

The burden is on them to put forward an argument. Even an bad argument would at least be something to discuss. But so far I haven't even seen anyone try.

me too but there arent any ;)
 
My ecounters with the TSA have been nothing but professional except for one instance. I thing this is all overblown with Vetura just wanting some plublicity. Why don't people quite whining as we all have the same equipment and just be done with it and get on the GD plane.

the guards at auschwitz behaved extremely professionally, let's give them a pass. [/sarcasm]
 
What would stop them from saying when you drive or walk on sidewalks you give implied consent? You don't have to drive. You don't have to walk on the sidewalk.

Public roads and sidewalks are public, you have a right to walk along a public sidewalk without being subjected to a search. That is not true about private airlines. You do not have a right to fly.

Thus, your analogy is a failure. A better analogy to the TSA matter would be a privately owned roads or privately owned sidewalks that required a search before you could use it.

Strip searches and invasive pat downs without reasonable cause or warrant are a violation of the 4th.

Not if you consent to them they aren't.

You going to an airport is not probable cause.

Irrelevant.

You do realize the constitution is a restriction on what the government can and can not do?

Right, and the government isn't overstepping any boundaries here. The government has regulated airline policy, and private airlines have implemented the TSA policy. The passenger does not have the right to fly, and thus give their consent to any search required to fly (and if they refuse they suffer no penalty beyond the fact that they don't get to fly on the privately owned airline).

Is there anything else I can clear up for you?
 
I'd like to see at least one solid attempt at an argument that there is a fourth amendment violation. If the people complain about this being unconstitutional actually learned the law and applied it to the situation they would see how cut and dry this whole thing is.

The burden is on them to put forward an argument. Even an bad argument would at least be something to discuss. But so far I haven't even seen anyone try.

i mentioned ventura's exact argument earlier, and you didn't bother to argue back against it. maybe you don't see the argument because you don't want to? i think you're better off sticking to the 'if we don't do this the terrorists win' argument.
 
What would stop them from saying when you drive or walk on sidewalks you give implied consent? You don't have to drive. You don't have to walk on the sidewalk.

you mean besides common sense and the constitution? LMAO

easy you are NOT partaking in a service in which you imply consent, like I said common sense

Strip searches and invasive pat downs without reasonable cause or warrant are a violation of the 4th.

yes they are WITHOUT consent

You going to an airport is not probable cause.
correct, nobody said it was nor is probably cause used to search you, sorry you are misinformed

You do realize the constitution is a restriction on what the government can and can not do?
yes I do and you are correct to bad that is not being infringed on LMAO

seems you have a HUGE disconnect about REALITY and what actually is going on
 
thus give their consent to any search required to fly (and if they refuse they suffer no penalty beyond the fact that they don't get to fly on the privately owned airline).

actually these are all publicly owned airlines. the private ones generally don't put their passengers through this, mostly because they're rich enough they can afford to charter a jet for themselves. but it's pretty acceptable to have a two tier society these days. one set of rules for the elites and one for the rest of us. glad to see you support serfdom, it'll help me to understand your mindset in further discussions.
 
i mentioned ventura's exact argument earlier, and you didn't bother to argue back against it. maybe you don't see the argument because you don't want to? i think you're better off sticking to the 'if we don't do this the terrorists win' argument.

I've already dealt with Ventura's argument. It is utterly bogus!

The idea is that he "has to fly" because his job requires it, therefore he is essentially being forced into the search. However this fails to meet the legal standard of coercion. Legally, the standard for coercion requires that one be placed in fear of imminent harm. He'd have a good argument for coercion if somebody was holding a gun to his head and telling him he had to fly. But not because his job depends on it. That just isn't how it works.
 
actually these are all publicly owned airlines. the private ones generally don't put their passengers through this, mostly because they're rich enough they can afford to charter a jet for themselves. but it's pretty acceptable to have a two tier society these days. one set of rules for the elites and one for the rest of us. glad to see you support serfdom, it'll help me to understand your mindset in further discussions.

You may notice that nothing I have written is in support of any of this, merely a statement of fact that there is no Constitutional violation.

In fact I do not like these regulations. But I am capable of separating my emotional reaction from a rational understanding of the law of the United States Constitution. We are not discussing an opinion; we are discussing law. And the law says that the TSA regulations are not a violation of the fourth amendment.
 
Last edited:
actually these are all publicly owned airlines. the private ones generally don't put their passengers through this, mostly because they're rich enough they can afford to charter a jet for themselves. but it's pretty acceptable to have a two tier society these days. one set of rules for the elites and one for the rest of us. glad to see you support serfdom, it'll help me to understand your mindset in further discussions.

wow talk spinning things that are meaningless

anyway the airplane is just like any service.

I can open a club tomorrow and have TSA policies for you to gain entrance, no search no entry/service.

where your rights are, is the right to CHOOSE not to go to my club, just like you can CHOOSE not to fly

or to use your silly twisted TWO TIER example, if you were rich you could open you own club ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom