Irrelevant. My money as a tax payer is also going towards 2 wars. Doesn't mean that I should be able to say how those wars are conducted.
Right, but paying taxes turns the airport into public property... this is important because of the precedent set here as well...
It goes to far when they force you through those check points. Since you are not forced to go through them it is not a violation.
They do 'force' you through... flying in today's society is NOT necessarily a choice. So, if the choice is 'keep your job' or 'keep your dignity' most people will be forced to give up their dignity.
People waive thier rights all the time. As already stated people have the right to waive thier right to have a lawyer present during any court proceedings or any interrogations by police officials. People may also waive thier right for a cop to have a warrant to search private property. In general, a person has the right to waive thier rights.
- Going to court pro se can be an effective legal tactic if you know your rights.
- In an interrogation room, being upfront without a lawyer present is often the preferable choice.
- People also waive their rights to sue the cops for the abuse of power.
What's the difference with your examples : You are given the CLEAR choice.
- A judge will talk you into getting a lawyer
- An officer MUST read your miranda rights.
- If a cop really wants to search he will make your life hell until you let him... now, if you are ignorant of your rights as a citizen then it's all too easy for you to get railroaded... but if you are empowered with the knowledge then you are the one that can remain in control...
Correct. If you are refering to the court case that I think you are it was also determined that the choice to go through the security checkpoint was enough to waive a persons 4th amendment rights away. It was actually a major deciding factor in the case, along with the "reasonable" part of course.
Yes, an the reason why it was 'reasonable' had to do with the machine not being intrusive, that it not impact your being secure in your persons, etc... This new back scatter machine goes beyond the 'reasonable'... let's say it wasn't a machine... stripping down naked to get on a plane IS by any stretch a violation of your rights, it is an act of humiliation and domination. Then, if you decide to stand up for yourself and to NOT succumb to this violation then you are forced to undergo a different violation of an 'advanced pat-down'... just like 'advanced interrogation' is a PC name for torture, this enhanced pat-down is a PC name for 'groping', 'sexual assault', 'molestation' and possibly a few other choice names you could give.
If your 'choice' is between two violations of your rights that is not a choice at all... I remember hearing that choice once before :
You have the choice "give me all your money or I blow your brains out"... that's the type of choice this is approaching.
I don't know about him but I state what I do based on past case law. It is not hard to take that past case law and apply it to this also. It will be interesting to see how the courts eventually rule on this bit. But from past history I doubt that it will be any different from past decisions. Yes I fully admit that I may be wrong on this and that some how the choice of waiveing your rights away is not sufficient to allow these new TSA measures to continue. I doubt that I am wrong, but it is possible.
I know of at least 5-6 cases that are pending against the TSA already...
Is it unwanted when you voluntarily go to the airport knowing what will happen?
This first one, the touching alone wouldn't be called an assault against a security agent, even if they are unqualified and untrained.
Is it unwanted when you voluntarily go to the airport knowing what will happen?
How does a police officer pat you down after you've been arrested :
- Check the legs
- Check your waist
- Pat around your sides
Takes about 15 seconds, no need to touch breasts or genitals... SO, the TSA is going above and beyond what a uniform police officer is ALLOWED TO DO without a warrant.
Further, you don't 'know' it will happen, further down you admit that you don't even know what the TSA is doing.
Is it unwanted when you voluntarily go to the airport knowing what will happen? (BTW since when do the TSA agents touch under the clothes?)
You should have paid attention before commenting on how 'reasonable' this is... go to youtube; search TSA - groping, sexual assault, molestation, under clothes, etc... as separate search terms... I could easily show about 10-15 clips, going through the range of TSA abuses... and YES, this DOES include feeling INSIDE YOUR PANTS and SQUEEZING.
Any more intrusive and it would have to be called a cavity search. On CHILDREN too...
That's funny, when I was arrested many years ago I was touched like that when I was frisked.
A cop cannot legally grab your genitals without being in a VERY specific set of circumstances, and ONLY after you've been actually arrested for something.... but even then, most of the time they will not go that far... If you get thrown into a prison cell, I'm told the search is a bit more intrusive, but that's part of setting the 'who is the boss'....
According to case law once you get to the check point and start going through it you may not refuse to go through the rest of the security procedures. Sorry can't remember the name of the court case atm but in case someone else remembers I am refering to the guy that tried to refuse further security screenings in Hawaii because he had drugs on him. (sorry, am too lazy to look it up again atm)
Ya, there was another case recently, not gone to court yet, but the TSA told him that he could just leave and forgo his flight... he left and police chased him down and charged him civilly for 11000$... That's not so important though... the fact is that everyone at the gut level KNOWS that these machines are a violation, they represent a health risk, they are ineffective (as proven by the fact that TSA searches people with the biggest breasts first, ignoring those with guns), etc... so people refuse to succumb to this one act of humiliation and forced into another act of humiliation.
So, just because there's been no specific precedence, any common sense should tell you that this goes above and beyond any 'reasonable' search... and so is a violation of our rights...
And actually, given your knowledge of case law, it's been found that the right to travel is a cornerstone of a free-society... so if you're desire is to reduce or eliminate that right... well, as I said in the last post, maybe your views are contrary to the views of a free society and so would be preferable for yourself to move to a country that does not give its' citizens any rights... this would allow you to be a slave like you want, and would allow me and others to remain free in this country.
This is correct. But if you do give your assent and then once the cop starts in on his search you decide that you don't want him to continue the cop is legally able to continue his search regardless of you changing your mind and saying no. This is what happens in an airport when you are asked to go through the body scanner and then, on your refuseal, you are required to go through the more invasive pat down. So to sum up 1: you attempt to go through airport security which gives your assent to be searched 2: you refuse to use the body scanner 3: because you already attempted to go through the check point and there by giving your assent to be searched you are required to take the pat down search.
But here's where it goes unreasonable : The wand USED to be a viable option... NOT ANYMORE.
Hell, even taking your shoes off is unreasonable... it's an act of domination. Then the metal detector was reasonable... but now if you set off the alarm instead of getting wanded to see that it was due to a hip replacement, or a knee replacement, it's instantly... Ok what do you want, to be stripped naked or felt up???
And somehow you find this acceptable???
Don't know where you live but people here have a choice of going through airport security. As such they are not "succumbing" to harrassment. They are voluntarily going through the checkpoint. As such it is not considered harrasment. Harrasment is doing something against a persons will.
Where's the way to get on the plane without going through security?? If one does not exist then they are FORCING you through... oh but just travelling to europe, you should have known and taken your car. F*** that noise.
I honestly don't know what "primae noctis" is.
That's where the state (originally the king) has the 'right of the first night' once you get married.
And I wish that whenever someone has a different view point on a political/legal stand point people would stop calling them "anti-American". Ad homs does nothing for your side of the arguement. it actually detracts from it.
The ONLY part of that which was ad hom is the 'scum' part of that... but bottom line, we have rights as individuals in this country... and anyone that would find it preferable to limit / end those rights IS ANTI-AMERICAN. End of story.
If you don't like living in a free society and would prefer to live in a closed / heavily controlled society then you might find it preferable to move to places like China, or the koreas... it's not an insult, it should serve as a wake-up call to what you are supporting, but beyond the 'scum' part of that statement it is not an insult... if you take offense then you should realize what it is you are pushing for...
And if you don't realize, I'll give you a hint of how things started based on another historical precedent : "Papers, please." (Then again, we've been showing our 'papers' for YEARS, probably decades)