• 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
We are in "war." War on terror. As much BS as it sounds, thats what they call it. It seems more like "hide and go seek of terror."

No we're not, no formal declaration of war has ever been made. It not only sounds like BS, it is BS.
 
if the police have a reasonable suspicion that you may have an ABC weapon, they have the right to search you on the street or in your car, without a warrant.

And where is their reasonable suspicion to search you at an airport?

Oh wait, they have none!
 
because Id like to participate in OBJECTIVE LOGICAL and RATIONAL debate.

Trying to saying walking down the street is even close to the same ball park as flying is pure dishonesty. :shrug:

In other words, you have no rational response. Gotcha.
 
I think private/charter planes aren't subject to TSA.
You have to go thru a checkpoint to get to the boarding area at airports so unless you are also taking off at a private airport, you are subject to the search. If you know of any private airport capable of landing a plane large enough to carry the fuel required to fly from the west coast to Hawaii, feel free to share.
 
And where is their reasonable suspicion to search you at an airport?

Oh wait, they have none!

you are more than welcome to sue to the TSA and argue your case that their searches at airports violate the Bill of Rights.
 
Yeah there is a heavy public element to it. I guess part of me just doesn't feel right with being lax when it could result in many, many deaths. I really don't want that in the back of my mind when I check my baggage next time.

I know those who give up...meh, you know what he said...but I just don't have too much of a problem with getting shuffled through the line and being put at ease while doing so.

I'm sorry if people think their bodies are temples.

My body may not be a "temple" of sorts; but it certainly is my property. In that light, I have right to secure it against unreasonable search and seizure; particularly where the government is involved. If these advanced techniques significantly increased safety, there could at least be an argument there even if I don't agree with it. But there is no large increase in safety due to it.

I'm not saying that there should be no security checks at airports; but rather that I want to limit it to that which is useful and actually provides benefit and limit large, aggressive search measures against everyone.
 
Ikari said:
I'm not saying that there should be no security checks at airports; but rather that I want to limit it to that which is useful and actually provides benefit and limit large, aggressive search measures against everyone.

That's the thing though - I think a lot of these people making it sound like they were groped or given the equivalent of a cavity search are just being sensationalists. If some TSA punk was getting his jollies through giving out a honk to all the ladies passing by, I'd say can him. Having said that, running hands down the length of legs and checking the front/back in decent matters is fine. There are some people that cry foul if you even get within brushing-up distance of any "private place". Those are the people that are making this more newsworthy than it needs to be.

When some creep tries to tune in Tokyo on your chest radio, we'll discuss a new effective plan.
 
you are more than welcome to sue to the TSA and argue your case that their searches at airports violate the Bill of Rights.

Actually, there are quite a few lawsuits wending their way through the courts right now.
 
That's the thing though - I think a lot of these people making it sound like they were groped or given the equivalent of a cavity search are just being sensationalists. If some TSA punk was getting his jollies through giving out a honk to all the ladies passing by, I'd say can him. Having said that, running hands down the length of legs and checking the front/back in decent matters is fine. There are some people that cry foul if you even get within brushing-up distance of any "private place". Those are the people that are making this more newsworthy than it needs to be..
First, TSA pat downs are done by same-sex officers.

Here is what happened to me in the Honolulu airport. I have a metal rod in my right leg and a bunch of metal ortho stuff in my hip. I set off metal detectors so I'm going to be patted down. I was offered an X-ray scan but declined as prior X-ray scans had resulted in a pat down anyway. This seemed to upset the TSA agents. The lady that patted me down patted me from ankle to ankle somewhat slower than normal and seemed to be giving special attention to my 'lady place'. She then pulled out the lower band of my bra and reached in to feel around in my cleavage (I am rather buxom). Finally, she told me to bend forward and pull my buttock cheeks apart and patted down my butt-crack.

Those watching were gasping and pointing and talking about what the agent did. Several came up to me on the plane and said how sorry they were that I had been put thru such an ordeal. It is my understanding that someone videotaped what happened to me and it floating around somewhere on the net, but I have never seen it. Several people have told me they've seen it, including two from my church. I think I would burst into tears if I watched it.
 
Last edited:
I think I need a cigarette.

I think the point is that these pat downs are quite as non-invasive as you try to make them out to be. Perchance TSA really is going over the line. We haven't had a terrorist attack in 10 years, and not all that is due to TSA. Most is due to the properties of terrorist attack which were already infrequent on our state soil proper.
 
Oh I agree that TSA does not deserve a great deal of credit for the lack of success by terrorists, but I think its mere existence does act as a deterrent.

And yeah, I'd say what happened to FD was excessive, specifically given the lack of threat from a little old granny (no offense). Having said that, I think this is the exception and not the rule. I've seen lots of women essentially scream rape if they were touched on the shoulder.

Is this the straw breaking the camel's back which leads to pretty much non-existent airport security in my book? No, not even close. I'd like to see there be more ethical ways to do these searches, but I'm not about to cough up security to do so.
 
Start walking up the White House lawn and see if you don't get the Habib treatment.

I think the difference is that I would have no justifiable reason for being on the White House lawn, whereas I would have a justifiable reason for being in the airport (i.e. I want to catch my flight).

Searches like this are based on magnitude of threat. "Walking down the road" does not count, but if you're in the air with hundreds of innocent travelers or on the property of the leader of the free world, you're going to get watched a little more carefully, and rightfully so.

So do you believe that everyone should be carefully searched in every situation where they are around hundreds of people? Shopping malls, sports stadiums, crowded plazas, trains, metros, Times Square, etc?

Damn you people today. You think everything is a right.

Damn you people today. You think that the Evil Bearded Man is lurking on every plane just waiting to kill you.

Get searched or get out. Nobody said choice had to involve multiple favorable alternatives.

It's not the fact that the alternatives are unfavorable that I object to. It's the fact that the alternatives are stupid and grossly disproportionate to the threat faced, and don't even work that well. And the most reasonable alternative (a basic metal detector that takes no more than 5 minutes to pass) isn't even available to many airline passengers.
 
In other words, you have no rational response. Gotcha.
\

nice try but 100% wrong.

Walking down the street is not a parallel to flying to any rational objective honest person. If you can see that well you might not be in that category.

Its pure dishonesty.
 
Anybody else have anything new to try and prove the constitution is violated?

Remember if it is the task should be easy.

All you have to do is prove force and lack of consent in legality. :shrug:

Anybody have anything on this yet.
Please no emotion just honest points.
 
Anybody have anything on this yet.
Please no emotion just honest points.

I say the Constitution is not being violated by TSA searches, since one can choose to not fly a plane..and one can choose to leave the airport and not be searched.

You can wait in the security line for an hour, have it be your turn, and then decide that you don't want to be touched by a TSA agent. You can turn around, go home, and take Greyhound.
 
I say the Constitution is not being violated by TSA searches, since one can choose to not fly a plane..and one can choose to leave the airport and not be searched.

You can wait in the security line for an hour, have it be your turn, and then decide that you don't want to be touched by a TSA agent. You can turn around, go home, and take Greyhound.

Im willing to bet that if you wait in line for an hour and then bail out when its your turn, they will then force a search on you because you just gave them probably cause. I know I most certainly wouldnt trust you if you did that lol

If I was in line by you I would WANT you searched lol

either way though you are right there is no violation
 
I say the Constitution is not being violated by TSA searches, since one can choose to not fly a plane..and one can choose to leave the airport and not be searched.

You can wait in the security line for an hour, have it be your turn, and then decide that you don't want to be touched by a TSA agent. You can turn around, go home, and take Greyhound.

This is simply factually incorrect.
 
I say the Constitution is not being violated by TSA searches, since one can choose to not fly a plane..and one can choose to leave the airport and not be searched.

You can wait in the security line for an hour, have it be your turn, and then decide that you don't want to be touched by a TSA agent. You can turn around, go home, and take Greyhound.

The fourth amendment actually works in limiting what the government can do, not so much guaranteeing you the right to choose. What they can't do, within the constitution, is stop you from getting on the plane for refusing to be searched. Without some proof that there's reason to suspect you specifically of criminal wrongdoing, they aren't allowed to detain and search you. It's the same standard required for a cop to pull you over in your car.
 
The fourth amendment actually works in limiting what the government can do, not so much guaranteeing you the right to choose. What they can't do, within the constitution, is stop you from getting on the plane for refusing to be searched. Without some proof that there's reason to suspect you specifically of criminal wrongdoing, they aren't allowed to detain and search you. It's the same standard required for a cop to pull you over in your car.

I would agree. The 4th amendment does not say "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 unless there is a choice."

It in fact says simply "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."

There's no requirement on "choice".
 
are you sure about this?

yep because now you've gone from choosing to fly and consenting to a search to changing your mind in a very suspicious fashion. Like I said I certainly would want you searched.
 
Anybody have anything on this yet.
Please no emotion just honest points.

I've already asked these people for a "constitutionally legal" and effective alternative three times in this thread and they all have just happened to miss all of these posts.

I've given up on them. I'm willing to listen if they speak up but I'm not going to push them anymore if they are unwilling or unable to back up their thoughts.

I can see how some people could view the TSA tactics as unconstitutional... however that depends on your definition of "unreasonable searches".
 
Back
Top Bottom