So everyone is subjected to this pat down? I don't think so.
No, everyone is subjected to a machine search, with what machine is determined by what's available in the airport. Based on other issues at that time that give probable cause for further searches, they may be done. For example, with regards to pat downs, if someone is unable to be searched with the machine...for example due to medical issues or due to refusing it...then an alternative method must be presented. Another example is if a Behavioral Detection Officer believes someone to be exhibiting suspicious behavior which can cause them to be flagged for additional screening. However, every passenger recieves the same basic baseline screen potential. It is only with EXTRA actions on their part that they would recieve additional forms of screening.
Ok, so you'd be fine with it if it were say at a toll stop and posted before hand?
Perhaps you should just read my previous posts, but for the sake of hoping this time maybe you'll pay attention I'll do this again. I would think in general there wouldn't be anything legally wrong with it in theory. However I believe it would be a far more questionable situation depending on the type and extent of search being conducted, due to there being a LARGE difference with regards to national security involved since incidents on the highways have not shown themselves to have anywhere near the severe impact on our National Transit System and our economy as Plane Travel does.
Un huh...think of the Airport line as an Interstate, and apply the same logic. Here I'll show you what I mean...
"So it would be entirely unreasonable for you to simply be pulled over and given an extensive search simply for being in an airport in the current system.
But you're not pulled over and given an extensive search simply for being in an airport. ALL individuals are given the same search when trying to access the secure portion of an airport, with additional or alternative searches being done or offered based on circumstances at that time that merit or require it.
That is different then randomly pulling someone over and going "I'm giving you a search".
I see, so the people turning down the x-ray machine and subjected to a search are being disruptive?
No. I mean that if someone blows up their car on the highway, causes a wreck on the highway, or does some other sort of disruptive action on a highway the national impact is relatively low. Wrecks happen frequently, FAR more cars travel on a daily basis in a single Metro area than fly over the entire US, and historically incidents happening on a Highway haven't had an impact on the economy or the transit system. On the flip side, plane traffic is fewer which makes disruptive situations have a bigger impact on the entire system. When a large scale disruption happens with a plane it affects the entire transit systems as flights are grounded in that area or nation wide. History has shown us that, unlike auto-incidents, incidents on planes can negatively affect the amount of individuals using that method of travel in the aftermath that affects the economy.
The affects on the national transit system and the economy of a dangerous disruption on a highway is less than that of an airplane. Thus, they are not exact analogs in what is "reasonable".
You still have failed to provide any domestic instances where an American was a threat to Air travel to prompt this.
Why would I need to provide that? What basis does that have to do with my reasoning in the least? Are you suggesting that we should have no airport security except for non-citizens?
Oh I grasp it just fine....Do you?
Since its my own logic...yes, yes I do.
And I disagree. That is allowed isn't it?
Well, yes...its allowed. And its retarded. I mean, you're fully ALLOWED to utterly and entirely misrepresent my statements, misstate what my "logic" says, and try to argue against a strawman you've built up on your own. Its just rather dumb to do so.