• 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!

Opinions about the TSA and practices

Pick as many as apply

  • The TSA can do whateverthey want - including strip searches and body cavaty searches

    Votes: 1 4.2%

  • The TSA should have limits on how invasive a search can be

    Votes: 14 58.3%

  • The TSA is ineffective and should not exist at all

    Votes: 7 29.2%

  • The TSA is necessary, but currently ineffective

    Votes: 7 29.2%

  • The TSA is necessary and effective

    Votes: 5 20.8%

  • The TSA should not exist (for reason(s) other than being ineffective)

    Votes: 3 12.5%

  • The enhanced patdowns are excessive and need to be dropped.

    Votes: 11 45.8%

  • The enhanced patdowns are excessive and need to be modified.

    Votes: 6 25.0%

  • The enhanced patdowns are necessary to assure safety.

    Votes: 2 8.3%

  • Less invasive and equally thorough methods are available.

    Votes: 9 37.5%
  • Total voters
    24
jamesrage said:
Would you tolerate the police doing this to people driving cars, riding cabs,trains and buses and people walking down the street?
Click to expand...

YES. Those people are spending their time in public. The government has a job to protect the general public. I have no problem being stopped and asked for my ID at any time by a LEO. I have no problem submitting myself and my vehicle to a search. I have nothing to hide.
 
The ultimate argument and point to be made about this topic in my opinion is simple. TSA is there as a government agency providing security. It is a lot easier for the government to set rules and enforce them with TSA, being since it is a government agency, than regulating private sector security. Or I believe it would be easier. And we do need security in airports. Not just terrorism, but more threats. Yes, it sucks that it may take an hour longer to get to your flight and full body scans. But I think lives are more important that someone taking a look at your goods and waiting in a long line. Or at least that is my way of looking at it.
 
Driving is not an option to some places. I have great-grandchildren and a granddaughter in Hawaii so I will be having a few pat downs to either board a plane or ship to go see them. I have quit flying as much as I once did because of the pat downs and elected not to cruise at all as have many of my elderly friends.

I'm surprised the airline and cruise industries have not demanded something be done about the enhanced pat downs. My spending on air travel went from about $6,000 annually to $840 in the past 16 months and I quit taking an annual cruise. Consider the number of people who have knee or hip replacements that will result in pat downs every time that are taking similar action and you have a lot of lost revenue.

I also have family members with young children who have quit flying on vacations because of the possibility that their child(ren) might be patted downs. Family vacation venues - places like SeaWorld and DisneyWorld - are losing money as well as families quit flying on vacations and therefore vacation closer to home
 
Tigger said:
YES. Those people are spending their time in public. The government has a job to protect the general public. I have no problem being stopped and asked for my ID at any time by a LEO.
Click to expand...
hell NO
(s)he can arrest me or leave me alone. their choice
but i refuse to offer my ID only because the leo wants to know who i am
... and why would i be expected to carry ID for them to look at. there is no such obligation on my part

I have no problem submitting myself and my vehicle to a search.
Click to expand...
again, NO way is that going to happen
i will be civil
but if the leo wants to search my vehicle or residence or business office, they will need to bring a warrant

I have nothing to hide.
Click to expand...
me either
but i have something to protect

my rights. and yours

too many died for those rights to be so easily given away
 
Depending how you interpret the court case involving Japanese internment camps during WWII. The federal government can legally do this. I am assuming since the federal government can suspend habeas corpus during war, they can give you a pat-down during elevated terrorist threats.
 
tcmartin10 said:
Depending how you interpret the court case involving Japanese internment camps during WWII. The federal government can legally do this. I am assuming since the federal government can suspend habeas corpus during war, they can give you a pat-down during elevated terrorist threats.
Click to expand...

But what's "elevated threats" Haven't we been at the same color ever since this happened? Habeas Corpus can be suspended during war, but that requires a declaration of war to officially be at war. Another thing we should probably re-institute since it seemed to help limit the wars we got into.
 
justabubba said:
... and why would i be expected to carry ID for them to look at. there is no such obligation on my part
Click to expand...

One of my roommates felt that way until the day he got stopped by a cop for doing something stupid in public and because he didn't have any ID on him, instead of being told to smarten up and sent on his way, he got to spend four and a half hours at the police station until someone who could ID him was able to show up (because we all have JOBS, unlike him).

So far as I'm concerned, I have a major issue with anyone who doesn't carry ID on them. If nothing else it's utterly STUPID.
 
Tigger said:
One of my roommates felt that way until the day he got stopped by a cop for doing something stupid in public and because he didn't have any ID on him, instead of being told to smarten up and sent on his way, he got to spend four and a half hours at the police station until someone who could ID him was able to show up (because we all have JOBS, unlike him).

So far as I'm concerned, I have a major issue with anyone who doesn't carry ID on them. If nothing else it's utterly STUPID.
Click to expand...

and yours is a fearful position
you have - out of fear - allowed the authorities to compel you to have on your person a document that you are not obligated to possess



man up
 
justabubba said:
and yours is a fearful position
you have - out of fear - allowed the authorities to compel you to have on your person a document that you are not obligated to possess

man up
Click to expand...

I am also REQUIRED by Massachusetts State Law to have my CCW on my person at all times.

I have certain medical conditions that may place me in a state where I am unable to render any aid to myself. It is in my own best interest to ensure that someone can quickly and easily identify who I am. Likewise, as a law-abiding citizen, I have nothing to fear from my personage being known. Hell, more than half of the town cops in the area already know who I am because I have been involved in shooting or running or other activities with them.
 
Tigger said:
YES. Those people are spending their time in public. The government has a job to protect the general public. I have no problem being stopped and asked for my ID at any time by a LEO. I have no problem submitting myself and my vehicle to a search. I have nothing to hide.
Click to expand...

Even an invasive pat down and virtual strip search without a search warrant? If you say yet to that then at least you are consistent.
 
tcmartin10 said:
I bet you would be mad if you missed your airplane cause they had to get a warrant from the local judge.
Click to expand...

The 4th amendment is not about convenience. Its to keep the government and government entities from searching people and their property without a warrant.
 
Tigger said:
I am also REQUIRED by Massachusetts State Law to have my CCW on my person at all times.
Click to expand...
something altogether different
you have sought a specific exemption and you have to document that it was authorized
and i am guessing that were you not carrying you would not also be expected to then possess your CCW documentation

I have certain medical conditions that may place me in a state where I am unable to render any aid to myself. It is in my own best interest to ensure that someone can quickly and easily identify who I am.
Click to expand...
and let's examine this circumstance
you carry your identification for your own purposes ... your own benefit
that is something quite different than expecting any citizen to be compelled to furnish ID to a leo only because they want to be able to know who you are

Likewise, as a law-abiding citizen, I have nothing to fear from my personage being known. Hell, more than half of the town cops in the area already know who I am because I have been involved in shooting or running or other activities with them.
Click to expand...

but your willingness to give up your rights so easily works against the public's protection of the individual's rights
stand for something or fall for anything
 
jamesrage said:
Even an invasive pat down and virtual strip search without a search warrant? If you say yet to that then at least you are consistent.
Click to expand...

Based on ANY form/level of probably cause, definitely.


justabubba said:
something altogether different
you have sought a specific exemption and you have to document that it was authorized
and i am guessing that were you not carrying you would not also be expected to then possess your CCW documentation
Click to expand...

I carry OC Spray on my keychain. In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts one must have an FID (or higher) license to purchase, possess, or use any form of self-defense spray. Literally walking to my car to get the cell phone I left in there in the driveway without my license in my pocket is a FELONY in this state.

justabubba said:
and let's examine this circumstance
you carry your identification for your own purposes ... your own benefit
that is something quite different than expecting any citizen to be compelled to furnish ID to a leo only because they want to be able to know who you are
Click to expand...

Yes it is for my benefit. It also provides me with a lot of good will should I become involved with a LEO and I both have and am willing to provide positive ID (even multiple forms of it) immediately.

justabubba said:
but your willingness to give up your rights so easily works against the public's protection of the individual's rights. stand for something or fall for anything
Click to expand...

In my mind the vast majority of Americans have many more Rights than they truly deserve, bubba.
 
Tigger said:
I think I've been pretty clear where I stand on this. Flying is a PRIVILEGE, not a Right. If you want to fly, you get to play by the FAA and TSA's rules. If you don't want to play by those rules, don't fly. You are electing to engage in a privileged act (flying); not walking around in public; so I would suggest that the 4th Amendement really doesn't apply here. Just as I can REQUIRE you to be searched to enter my place of residence or other private property, the TSA should be able to search you (by whatever means are necessary) before allowing you onto their property (the airlines); so long as they tell you what you will be subjected to before you make the decision to fly.
Click to expand...

That's a load of crap.

You might be somewhere close to having a valid point, if it was the airlines themselves coming up with these requirements, and implementing them of their own accord. If one airline chose to subject its passengers to such outrageous treatment, many passengers would choose to take their business to a different airline, that treated them in a more respectful and appropriate manner.

But even so, certain laws still apply. I don't think, for example, that any place of business legally could get away with having a requirement that you allow their bouncer to punch you in the face as a condition of doing business with them. And by the same token, I doubt if an airline, under any reasonable application of existing laws, could get away with compelling passengers to submit to sexual assault as a condition of doing business with them.


There is no logic that you can use to classify airline travel as a “privilege” that exempts one from the normal protections of the law, that cannot equally be applied to nearly every other normal activity outside of one's home—shopping, seeing a movie, eating at a restaurant, or even just walking down the street.
 
Ikari said:
TSA should be abolished. It doesn't really do anything useful anymore other than get in our way and make us show up 3 hours before our departure time.
Click to expand...

…and provide jobs for legions of perverts who otherwise would almost certainly be unemployable.
 
Tigger said:
YES. Those people are spending their time in public. The government has a job to protect the general public. I have no problem being stopped and asked for my ID at any time by a LEO.
Click to expand...

Intrusive, unjustified searches, assaults, and molestations conducted by unrestrained government agents are among the things against which government has a duty to protect us.


Tigger said:
I have no problem submitting myself and my vehicle to a search. I have nothing to hide.
Click to expand...

So you wouldn't object, then, if police officers insisted on searching your house, tapping your phone, monitoring your Internet usage, and whatever, without a warrant and without probable cause? After all, you have “nothing to hide”, right? Who needs the Fourth Amendment?
 
tcmartin10 said:
Depending how you interpret the court case involving Japanese internment camps during WWII. The federal government can legally do this. I am assuming since the federal government can suspend habeas corpus during war, they can give you a pat-down during elevated terrorist threats.
Click to expand...

I think it has been quite well established by now that the government acted illegally and unconstitutionally in detaining Japanese-Americans during World War Two. I do remember that quite some years ago, the government was compelled to pay some very generous reparations to all the surviving victims of that action.

We really can't cite this action, and assume that is was legal, as evidence that other actions that similarly openly violate the Constitution are legal as well.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
There is no logic that you can use to classify airline travel as a “privilege” that exempts one from the normal protections of the law, that cannot equally be applied to nearly every other normal activity outside of one's home—shopping, seeing a movie, eating at a restaurant, or even just walking down the street.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I'm an Authoritarian and always have been. Since our culture and society are either unwilling or unable to maintain a standard of decency, who is left but the government to enforce one?


Bob Blaylock said:
So you wouldn't object, then, if police officers insisted on searching your house, tapping your phone, monitoring your Internet usage, and whatever, without a warrant and without probable cause? After all, you have “nothing to hide”, right? Who needs the Fourth Amendment?
Click to expand...

Again, I've got nothing to hide. Personally, I'd do away with a fair number of the Amendments to the US Constitution, but that's just me.
 
Tigger said:
jamesrage said:
Even an invasive pat down and virtual strip search without a search warrant? If you say yet to that then at least you are consistent.
Click to expand...

Based on ANY form/level of probably cause, definitely.
Click to expand...

What probable cause do TSA agents have on which to base their molestation of airline passengers?
 
jamesrage said:
In my mind the vast majority of Americans have many more Rights than they truly deserve, bubba.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you'd be happier living someplace, then, like China or Cuba or Iran, where you can enjoy a level of rights and freedom more in line with what you deserve.
 
Jucon said:
So by your analysis of the constitution, the TSA should need a warrant to search or scan your carry-on as well? Or am I reading your comment wrong?

A police office shouldn't need a warrant to check you for weapons or contraband. Nor should a TSA officer who is ensuring safety on flights. If you don't like the pat downs, don't travel. Or drive to your destination. Or just quit looking so suspicious when you fly :roll:
Click to expand...

Actually, the requirement is that they must have a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing to detain and search you without a warrant. It's the same standard as when a cop pulls you over. The TSA does not have that. Simply wanting to fly on an airplane does not meet that requirement. The argument that you consent to these searches by opting to fly is entirely invalid, any more than you're consenting to be stopped and searched simply for driving a car. There is no legal way that the TSA can require these searches, and prevent a person from getting on a plane for refusing them.

Updates after reading the rest of the thread: A warrant would not be necessary for a pre-airplane ride search, but it MUST be backed up by this suspicion evidence. This is a slightly lesser burden than probable cause, but it is still a burden of proof nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
Tigger said:
Exactly. I'm an Authoritarian and always have been. Since our culture and society are either unwilling or unable to maintain a standard of decency, who is left but the government to enforce one?

Again, I've got nothing to hide. Personally, I'd do away with a fair number of the Amendments to the US Constitution, but that's just me.
Click to expand...

You live in the wrong country, then. This nation is founded on principles that are unpalatable to you. Much greater men than you have any hope of ever being fought and died to establish and stand up for these principles. Much greater men than you have any hope of ever being wrote the Constitution, to protect these principles.


“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say ‘what should be the reward of such sacrifices?’ Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”


—Samuel Adams—​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom