• 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!

Ventura sues over body scans, pat-downs

The fact you use your own transportation or someone else's is irrelevant,especially when the government is mandating that you be subjected to strip searches and invasive pat downs in order to travel on privately owned air plane using public airspace. A airline is just a giant bus and cab service. The police can not say in order to use a privately owned bus,cab or train you must let us a government agency strip search and do an invasive pat down and the owners of that cab,bus or train have no say in it.

LMAO!
hahahahahaha
no its NOT irrelevant
its actualy what is the MOST important because if its yours theres no longer implied consent by partaking in said service

your right the POLICE could not say that, which AGAIN has NOTHING to do with the TSA

again I ask how old are you and are you just making this stuff up
 
Again just like you do not have to use a plane and do not have a right to fly, you do not have to drive and you do not have a right to road travel.

thanks for clearing that up LMAO

again it means absolutely nothing to the debate at hand
there is absolutely NO PARALLEL to the gibberish you are stating and the reality of the TSA
since you driving your own vehicle and are not partaking in a said service with implied consent it is 100% DIFFERENT

WOW not only do I think you are probably young are you also foreign? LMAO
 
Last edited:
Again I have no problem with people not like the TSA policies or forcing the TSA to have a zero tolerence for workers who dont follow those policies or people that want the TSA policies change. thats fine and dandy with me. I may even agree.

My only issue is with people that cry about it and say it violates the constitution when the fact remains it does not. People that compare it to rape and assult and molestation when the fact remains it is not.

Hate, fight it, protest it etc etc thats all good by me, bring up that it violates the constitution and you look like a fool, not saying YOU did just making a general statement

Then we are clearly in agreement. The TSA searches and patdowns, while clearly invasive (in my opinion, overly so) are simply not unconstitutional. We may disagree about whether some of these searches press the limits of sexual molestation... but constitutional violation? No. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Then we are clearly in agreement. The TSA searches and patdowns, while clearly invasive (in my opinion, overly so) are simply not unconstitutional. Some searches may fall within the parameters of violating sexual assault laws... but the constitution? No. :mrgreen:

LOL funny but "technically" it doesnt violate those either since the same premise applies, consent.

What I find funny is what about the TSA agent that has to look at scans and feel up the 400lb boy/girl who hasnt showered in a week.???? that must be so fun. :D
 
LOL funny but "technically" it doesnt violate those either since the same premise applies, consent.

What I find funny is what about the TSA agent that has to look at scans and feel up the 400lb boy/girl who hasnt showered in a week.???? that must be so fun. :D

LOL! I know, I reworded my post ala edit to be more accurate to my beliefs... but damn! You are fast on that reply button!
 
A airline is just a giant bus and cab service. The police can not say in order to use a privately owned bus,cab or train you must let us a government agency strip search and do an invasive pat down and the owners of that cab,bus or train have no say in it.

That's a great analogy. But you reach the wrong conclusion. If the government wanted to institute scans before getting on a bus or a cab, that wouldn't be a constitutional violation either.

The government can even perform a mandatory search when you are using your own car. Don't believe me? Check your driver's license and you'll see you've already consented to a search of your bodily fluids (breathalizer test) whenever a police officer should so demand. And it's 100% Constitutional.
 
Last edited:
That's a great analogy. But you reach the wrong conclusion. If the government wanted to institute scans before getting on a bus or a cab, that wouldn't be a constitutional violation either.

The government can even perform a mandatory search when you are using your own car. Don't believe me? Check your driver's license and you'll see you've already consented to a search of your bodily fluids (breathalizer test) whenever a police officer should so demand. And it's 100% Constitutional.

That's because the search is for a specific purpose, as required by the Constitution, and probable cause has been established. There is no probable cause establish when you walk up to a bus.
 
Last edited:
That's because the search is for a specific purpose, as required by the Constitution, and probable cause has been established. There is no probable cause establish when you walk up to a bus.

Again not needed if you consent.
 
Again not needed if you consent.

And since when did what would be a constitutional violation suddenly become not a violation just because of consent?
 
And since when did what would be a constitutional violation suddenly become not a violation just because of consent?

If you consent to a search you are effectively saying "please search me." The Fourth Amendment only protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. If you give your permission to allow somebody to search the fourth amendment doesn't even apply.
 
And since when did what would be a constitutional violation suddenly become not a violation just because of consent?

LMAO there you go generalizing again, who said thats all it took for all of the constitution?

oh thats right NOBODY LOL

too easy please stay on topic and provide something to the debate at hand. Im still waiting for what amendment is being violated you have yet to provide one :D

like I said fish in a barrel
 
like I said fish in a barrel

I really wish it wasn't like this. Seems like people have such a hard time wrapping their minds around what exactly the fourth amendment protects.
 
I really wish it wasn't like this. Seems like people have such a hard time wrapping their minds around what exactly the fourth amendment protects.

I agree, its because for many its a VERY emotional issue and that emotion gets mixed in with their logic.

I do agree with them that it IS emotional though and I do think the Policy MIGHT go to far, it is prone to abuse with out proper training/regulation/auditing and its real effectiveness CAN be debated. But again with all that said it does NOT violate the constitution and for whatever reason they (well like 2-3 people) dont get it. They think since I say FACTS that Im 100% for the policy, im not, I just have a clear understanding of what it is and it isnt. :D
 
I really wish it wasn't like this. Seems like people have such a hard time wrapping their minds around what exactly the fourth amendment protects.

As technology changes, certainly there is some expansion though to keep up.
 
Last edited:
I agree, its because for many its a VERY emotional issue and that emotion gets mixed in with their logic.

I do agree with them that it IS emotional though and I do think the Policy MIGHT go to far, it is prone to abuse with out proper training/regulation/auditing and its real effectiveness CAN be debated. But again with all that said it does NOT violate the constitution and for whatever reason they (well like 2-3 people) dont get it. They think since I say FACTS that Im 100% for the policy, im not, I just have a clear understanding of what it is and it isnt. :D

bless us with your superior understanding and tell us what court ruling says that being a client of an airport is the same as giving consent, just so we can see how twisted this **** is.
 
bless us with your superior understanding and tell us what court ruling says that being a client of an airport is the same as giving consent, just so we can see how twisted this **** is.

nothing twisted about it LMAO nor do I need a court ruling on it, its common sense. It is a service you CHOOSE to partake in and the airport has SECURED areas which you are CHOOSING to enter and if you want to enter said areas or partake in said services you are fully aware that you are subject to be searched so doing either one is implied consent, you CHOOSE the search it isnt forced on you LMAO
 
nothing twisted about it LMAO nor do I need a court ruling on it...

Uh... yeah, you do. "common sense" and what the law states/allowes/doesn't allow are not mutually inclusive after all.
 
Uh... yeah, you do. "common sense" and what the law states/allowes/doesn't allow are not mutually inclusive after all.

LMAO like i explained very cleary but you conveniently decided not to quote that part because it makes you look more foolish.

read it slow: It is a service you CHOOSE to partake in, the airport has SECURED areas which you are CHOOSING to enter and if you want to enter said areas or partake in said services you are fully aware that you are subject to be searched so doing either one is implied consent, FACT, you CHOOSE the search it isnt forced on you
LMAO

guess all those people standing in line looking at metal detectors and scan machines, watching the person in front of them get searched, right next to the security and or search signs THINK they are standing in line for a roller coaster HAHAHAHA They had NO IDEA they are subject to search, then they were just tackled and forced into the search by surprise! :doh

Do you see how retarded that sounds and how void of logic it is, its basicly your whole argument.

Still waiting for you to man up and let me know what amendment is being violated? you still havent but its because you cant because there isnt one :D
 
Still waiting for you to man up and let me know what amendment is being violated? you still havent but its because you cant because there isnt one :D

Precisely. I think if the people claiming that there is a Constitutional violation make a serious attempt to articulate what that violation is, then they will inevitably see there is no such violation at all.

As a libertarian I feel that these scans go beyond the minimal government intrusion that I would personally support, but what I personally support is not the issue. The law is the law. Personal moral standards are not the same as legal standards.

I see the phenomenon crop up all the time though. People will pick a side for personal reasons and then look desperately for any legal argument in favor of it, even if the legal argument is entirely frivolous, such as is the case here. What these folks should really be doing is advocating for a change in the law, rather than contorting the law on the books to suit their personal tastes.
 
Precisely. I think if the people claiming that there is a Constitutional violation make a serious attempt to articulate what that violation is, then they will inevitably see there is no such violation at all.

As a libertarian I feel that these scans go beyond the minimal government intrusion that I would personally support, but what I personally support is not the issue. The law is the law. Personal moral standards are not the same as legal standards.

I see the phenomenon crop up all the time though. People will pick a side for personal reasons and then look desperately for any legal argument in favor of it, even if the legal argument is entirely frivolous, such as is the case here. What these folks should really be doing is advocating for a change in the law, rather than contorting the law on the books to suit their personal tastes.

exactly, very good post
 
Back
Top Bottom