• 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!

What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?


  • Total voters
    59
I'm glad to see this discussion isn't fracturing along partisan lines as it usually does. What we see here is a division between people who are aware of what the law says about protections against unreasonable search and seizure such as myself, and people who are ignorant of it.
 
No, he was responding to my challenge of his brazen assertions of fact and law and has yet show he has any idea what's yapping about, despite repeated requests . . .

A fine example of the sort of unawareness I'm talking about. Kal'Stang already did this:

US v. Hartwell said:
The Court next sustained the search under the theory that it was a “consensual administrative
search[].” Hartwell, 296 F. Supp. 2d at 602 (citing United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893 (9th Cir. 1973)). Finally, the Court stated that “by submitting to the screening process, defendant impliedly consented to the search and was lawfully required to complete the search to determine the cause of the alarm.” Hartwell, 296 F. Supp. 2d at 605. On appeal, Hartwell argues that all three rationales are unfounded. We disagree.
 
A fine example of the sort of unawareness I'm talking about. Kal'Stang already did this:

Considering I don't see anything there about ISPs and the government's authority to mandate they turn over all records, nor anything about contractual waivers of rights, nor anything about the rules of standing for a suit, this has nothing to do with anything I challenged you on.

But it's been obvious for some time now that you have no intention of even attempting to support the claims of fact and law you made concerning those things.

As for the case itself, a learned reading of it will show that the fact pattern involved resembles IN NO WAY the fact pattern in these invasive screenings and overly-intrusive pat-downs, which will certainly test the boundaries of "minimally intrusive." (I bring up that phrase as though you might have any idea that 1) it's even in the opinion from which you quote or 2) what it means as a standard. Ha! :lamo) The holding in this case hinged on the fact that they had an ironclad reason to search further. This case is easily and entirely distinguishable (oooh! Another legal term you'll pooch!) from the current screening methods.

But hey, if you ever actually want to respond to the posts you've been pretending I didn't make . . .
 
Yeah. That's what I thought.
 
I'm glad to see this discussion isn't fracturing along partisan lines as it usually does. What we see here is a division between people who are aware of what the law says about protections against unreasonable search and seizure such as myself, and people who are ignorant of it.

You've yet to show anything to support your position, in the grand universe of settled law, that actually proves your point - which is clearly based entirely in subjectivity.
 
You've yet to show anything to support your position, in the grand universe of settled law, that actually proves your point - which is clearly based entirely in subjectivity.

For a citation that is specifically on point, please see post 302.

But I'm right even without citations. Anybody even passingly familiar with the fourth amendment will agree with me. Don't get me wrong, I like educating people who are ignorant of the law, like Harshaw and yourself, but this stuff is so basic that citations aren't necessary.
 
Last edited:
I'm glad to see this discussion isn't fracturing along partisan lines as it usually does. What we see here is a division between people who are aware of what the law says about protections against unreasonable search and seizure such as myself, and people who are ignorant of it.

There's detectable metal in all explosive devices, no matter where they're hidden. So just improve the detector technology to locate it.

ricksfolly
 
There's detectable metal in all explosive devices, no matter where they're hidden. So just improve the detector technology to locate it.

ricksfolly

A metal detector without consent is an illegal search too. Consent is the issue.
 
Legally, consent with no recourse isn't consent. If you need to get someplace, for business or personal reasons, and they only way you can get there is by flying, and the airport will prevent you from flying if you don't consent to their searches, legally, you would be giving consent under duress. In court, that doesn't hold up as actual consent.
 
Legally, consent with no recourse isn't consent. If you need to get someplace, for business or personal reasons, and they only way you can get there is by flying, and the airport will prevent you from flying if you don't consent to their searches, legally, you would be giving consent under duress. In court, that doesn't hold up as actual consent.

Sorry, that's an incorrect statement of the legal standard for duress.

Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines duress as "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]". It also defines "coercion" as "force or threat of force." Therefore, in court, the passengers going through the scanners are consenting. We've already cited cases on point, see Hartwell above.

Economic necessity might be enough to show a contract of adhesion, but not lack of consent for fourth amendment search and seizure purposes.
 
Legally, consent with no recourse isn't consent. If you need to get someplace, for business or personal reasons, and they only way you can get there is by flying, and the airport will prevent you from flying if you don't consent to their searches, legally, you would be giving consent under duress. In court, that doesn't hold up as actual consent.

then explain why you lose your driver's license for a year in most states if you do not consent to a BAC exam if you are suspected of being drunk. or if you do not provide proof of insurance

reason-you don't have a constitutionally guaranteed right to fly on drive on public roads
 
then explain why you lose your driver's license for a year in most states if you do not consent to a BAC exam if you are suspected of being drunk. or if you do not provide proof of insurance

reason-you don't have a constitutionally guaranteed right to fly on drive on public roads

Even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while ;)
 
Legally, consent with no recourse isn't consent. If you need to get someplace, for business or personal reasons, and they only way you can get there is by flying, and the airport will prevent you from flying if you don't consent to their searches, legally, you would be giving consent under duress. In court, that doesn't hold up as actual consent.

Wow....just wow.....

Just to add to what Guy Incognito, and TurtleDude said...

First, There are always other ways to get to where you need to go. It might not be as fast, but those other ways will still get you there. Other modes of transportation within the US are: private plane, car, truck, pickup, bus, train, motorcycle, moped, bicycle, and the oldest mode of transportation known to man...your feet. And none of them has the security protocols that the airport has. (heck you can even stick out a thumb and get a ride with a stranger if you think that you absolutely need to)

Second anyone and everyone just "has" to get to where they want to go and thinks that should trump everyone elses problems. Hate to break it to you but that is wrong. John Doe's wants/"needs" are just as important as Jane Doe's wants/"needs". And saving even one life is far more important than your want or "need" to get onto a plane.

Edit Note: Oh and if you have to go overseas there are private airplanes which do not require you to go through the TSA's checkpoints and there are ships. So either way you're covered going to another country also. (and if a buisness has enough money to need an employee to go to another country then by god they have enough money to spring for a private plane.)
 
Last edited:
what should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane? Which of the following is okay with you, what is the limit in which you give up your 4th amendment rights?


Invasive pat downs
non invasive pat downs.
Subjected to radiation so you and or your children can be virtually stripped searched.
Real strip searches.
Cavity search.
Walking through a metal detector.
other
Profiling.

.
 
For a citation that is specifically on point, please see post 302.

While I do appreciate your posting that link - it's fair to note that this is a 2006 decision based on much less invasive procedures. I don't think that decision answers the question of whether backscatter imaging devices (sometimes called nudeo-scopes) and the groin checks amount to an unreasonable search.

But I'm right even without citations. Anybody even passingly familiar with the fourth amendment will agree with me. Don't get me wrong, I like educating people who are ignorant of the law, like Harshaw and yourself, but this stuff is so basic that citations aren't necessary.

Yes, citations are necessary - and here's a link any attorney wishing to test this ruling may find interesting. Former TSA Assistant Administrator Mo McGowan admitting that these new procedures are in fact a violation of the 4th Amendment.

 
Yes, citations are necessary - and here's a link any attorney wishing to test this ruling may find interesting. Former TSA Assistant Administrator Mo McGowan admitting that these new procedures are in fact a violation of the 4th Amendment.

All that proves is that Mo McGowan doesn't know what he's talking about either. It's just a mistaken assumption about what the fourth amendment protects, and there is a large segment of the population that has this misunderstanding. But you can't play it fast and loose with definitions like that in the law. Not every invasion of privacy is a fourth amendment violation.
 
then explain why you lose your driver's license for a year in most states if you do not consent to a BAC exam if you are suspected of being drunk.

Horrible laws and practices by an ever expanding government.
 
Wow....just wow.....

Just to add to what Guy Incognito, and TurtleDude said...

First, There are always other ways to get to where you need to go. It might not be as fast, but those other ways will still get you there. Other modes of transportation within the US are: private plane, car, truck, pickup, bus, train, motorcycle, moped, bicycle, and the oldest mode of transportation known to man...your feet. And none of them has the security protocols that the airport has. (heck you can even stick out a thumb and get a ride with a stranger if you think that you absolutely need to)

Second anyone and everyone just "has" to get to where they want to go and thinks that should trump everyone elses problems. Hate to break it to you but that is wrong. John Doe's wants/"needs" are just as important as Jane Doe's wants/"needs". And saving even one life is far more important than your want or "need" to get onto a plane.

Edit Note: Oh and if you have to go overseas there are private airplanes which do not require you to go through the TSA's checkpoints and there are ships. So either way you're covered going to another country also. (and if a buisness has enough money to need an employee to go to another country then by god they have enough money to spring for a private plane.)

So I should accept violations of my rights to use a system I've already paid for through my taxes and where my taxes go to "defend" (pretty sure the Airlines aren't flipping TSA's bill) or I can take other means which are for all practical purposes, not viable. That's pretty much it eh?

You people willing to give up freedom for "safety" will not find yourselves in a good spot. We're not saving "even just one life" (which is about as horrible an argument as one can make, we're certainly ok with many things in which more than one person dies because of the practice), all we're doing is expanding government force against the rights of the people while spending unnecessarily large amounts of money in the process. That's what you'll accomplish. Thanks for wasting my money.
 
I'm beginning to have real second thoughts. After watching Fox News show pat-down after pat-down after pat-down, I doubt this procedure will be in place a year from now. I'm not sure what the answer is.

Maybe we're going to have to accept the fact that in today's world there is a risk to flying....just as there is a risk of driving to the airport. Metal detectors...x-raying baggage....air marshall on every flight...dogs trained to sniff explosives...profiling behavior with well-trained security officers...facial recognitiion software...proof of legal U.S. residency at the checkpoint...perhaps more scrutiny as one actually purchases a ticket...

If these security measures are then deemed not enough, then I think it is only fair that we begin to profile full-blown....create a profile based on every terrorist attack that's happened in the world to date...and subject those people to 4th Amendment rights violations. And we all know who will be targeted.

We're all giving up our rights in order to, in essence, protect their rights. There really is something wrong with this picture, yes?
 
I'm beginning to have real second thoughts. After watching Fox News show pat-down after pat-down after pat-down, I doubt this procedure will be in place a year from now. I'm not sure what the answer is.

Maybe we're going to have to accept the fact that in today's world there is a risk to flying....just as there is a risk of driving to the airport. Metal detectors...x-raying baggage....air marshall on every flight...dogs trained to sniff explosives...profiling behavior with well-trained security officers...facial recognitiion software...proof of legal U.S. residency at the checkpoint...perhaps more scrutiny as one actually purchases a ticket...

If these security measures are then deemed not enough, then I think it is only fair that we begin to profile full-blown....create a profile based on every terrorist attack that's happened in the world to date...and subject those people to 4th Amendment rights violations. And we all know who will be targeted.

We're all giving up our rights in order to, in essence, protect their rights. There really is something wrong with this picture, yes?

That's why I didn't comment to the OP in the other thread. I think juggling junk is going too far, and look at who they're doing it to! Then you hear Muslim women might get an exemption? WTF is that but nutso?

Dogs, sniffer machines, xrays, pat downs sans junk juggling, and profiling.

.
 
So I should accept violations of my rights to use a system I've already paid for through my taxes and where my taxes go to "defend" (pretty sure the Airlines aren't flipping TSA's bill) or I can take other means which are for all practical purposes, not viable. That's pretty much it eh?

Faulty premise. You don't have a right to fly. Thus, it is not a violation of any rights to subject an airline passenger to a screening process so long as the passenger has been informed of that possibility before he purchased the ticket. As a libertarian you should understand that.
 
I'm beginning to have real second thoughts. After watching Fox News show pat-down after pat-down after pat-down, I doubt this procedure will be in place a year from now. I'm not sure what the answer is.

Maybe we're going to have to accept the fact that in today's world there is a risk to flying....just as there is a risk of driving to the airport. Metal detectors...x-raying baggage....air marshall on every flight...dogs trained to sniff explosives...profiling behavior with well-trained security officers...facial recognitiion software...proof of legal U.S. residency at the checkpoint...perhaps more scrutiny as one actually purchases a ticket...

If these security measures are then deemed not enough, then I think it is only fair that we begin to profile full-blown....create a profile based on every terrorist attack that's happened in the world to date...and subject those people to 4th Amendment rights violations. And we all know who will be targeted.

We're all giving up our rights in order to, in essence, protect their rights. There really is something wrong with this picture, yes?

What's wrong is the loss of reasonability in the system. There is risk to flying, yes. Even with terrorists, it is not as great a risk as driving in general. Driving takes out more than 3,000 people a year in our country. We don't bat an eye. How many people die because of guns? Yet we still have them in our society; we have not banned all guns. People incited to riot, but we let other people talk their minds. Free is necessarily unsafe. Necessarily unsafe. The more and more we move towards "safety", the more and more we will encroach upon that freedom. Free is necessarily unsafe.

We don't have to throw open the doors and say "have at it". There are reasonable things we can do. I don't think anyone here is saying "no searches". But what we are saying is that these new forms of searches have discarded our humanity and are treating us in a way the government was never meant to treat us as. They are not the king. Even if they define themselves to be in the right, they are not. These aggressive and invasive tactics taken by the government most certainly do violate my right to keep my person, my property, my papers, and my effects from unlawful and unreasonable search and seizure. I will take the freedom, and I will take all the consequences that comes with it. Even the incredibly small increase in probabilities caused by terrorism. Even then, the chance of anything going wrong to the point that people die is very very very very slim. Much better chance dying driving to work than flying and being taken over by terrorists.
 
Faulty premise. You don't have a right to fly. Thus, it is not a violation of any rights to subject an airline passenger to a screening process so long as the passenger has been informed of that possibility before he purchased the ticket. As a libertarian you should understand that.

Not having the "right to fly" (faulty premise as we have the freedom to move) does not mean that the government is unbridled in their actions towards the exercise of my rights. As a libertarian, you should understand that.
 
Not having the "right to fly" (faulty premise as we have the freedom to move) does not mean that the government is unbridled in their actions towards the exercise of my rights. As a libertarian, you should understand that.

We have freedom to move but not a right to move in an airplane that belongs to somebody else. The person who owns the airplane sets the rules, and in this case they have set a rule that requires body scanners.

You aren't exercising a right when you get on a plane, you are exercising a privilege, and it comes with whatever strings the airline and the government attach to it. If the government forces the airline to implement search procedures, that is between the airline and the government, not the passenger and the government. As a libertarian, you should understand that.
 
Back
Top Bottom