• 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
Exactly. I'm an Authoritarian and always have been. Since our culture and society are either unwilling or unable to maintain a standard of decency, who is left but the government to enforce one?

Again, I've got nothing to hide. Personally, I'd do away with a fair number of the Amendments to the US Constitution, but that's just me.

such as?

.......
 
I have yet to hear a valid replacement to the current TSA practices that are within your ideas of what the constitution would legally allow.


If you want to use Israel's security practices... if they ask someone who they are, where they are going, etc... one can plead the fifth. Should these people then be allowed on the flight? And if they refuse to have their bag checked should they be allowed on the flight?

And what about your constitutional right to own a gun? Does the constitution also preserve your right to bring a gun on the flight?



Frankly I'm surprised that anyone would defend the idea that your bag should not be searched before getting on a flight filled with hundreds of people.


And to suggest that since I support TSA searches then I in turn am required to support being searched before I enter my car to drive somewhere... I don't even know what to say anymore. This "argument" is just ridiculous.

Give me a "constitutionally legal" and effective way of ensuring safety, and I will likely agree with you... until then, I support the TSA
 
The TSA's procedures are a ridiculous affront to civil liberties, and serve no purpose whatsoever other than security theater. I mean, does anyone REALLY think that some dude wearing rubber gloves grabbing your crotch is going to prevent terrorism? I mean, really?

Your odds of being a victim of a terrorist attack (on a plane or anywhere else) are tiny. I ride the metro every day without so much as passing through a metal detector, and I don't even think twice about it. The amount of time, money, and liberty spent on the idiocy at our airports is completely disproportionate to the miniscule threat.
 
What probable cause do TSA agents have on which to base their molestation of airline passengers?

Let's start with the most basic one.... The fact that many of them wish to refuse to submit themselves to the current scanning technology that the TSA uses. That right there is as good as an admission that they have something to hide, in my mind. More importantly however, is the realization that after that checkpoint, no individual has the right to possess any form of self-defense item, and therefore it is the responsibility of the TSA to ensure that nobody carries one beyond that point. If I'm going to WILLINGLY leave my 18 best friends at home, then the TSA had damn well better make sure somoeone else isn't bringing theirs along for the ride.

Perhaps you'd be happier living someplace, then, like China or Cuba or Iran, where you can enjoy a level of rights and freedom more in line with what you deserve.

I've looked at several of the Middle Eastern countries over the years. Maybe someday.

such as?.......

The 5th, 19th, and 21st for starters.
 
Jucon said:
If you want to use Israel's security practices... if they ask someone who they are, where they are going, etc... one can plead the fifth. Should these people then be allowed on the flight? And if they refuse to have their bag checked should they be allowed on the flight?

I'm down with mimicry of Israel's policies. They never get messed with.
 
I'm down with mimicry of Israel's policies. They never get messed with.

I'm waiting for the underlying point to be addressed. Clearly there are many who appreciate the Israeli form of security, yet forcing people to answer their questions also violates constitutional rights, does it not? And if one refuses to have their bags scanned should they be removed to a back room for further interrogation?
 
Last edited:
Let's start with the most basic one.... The fact that many of them wish to refuse to submit themselves to the current scanning technology that the TSA uses. That right there is as good as an admission that they have something to hide, in my mind. More importantly however, is the realization that after that checkpoint, no individual has the right to possess any form of self-defense item, and therefore it is the responsibility of the TSA to ensure that nobody carries one beyond that point. If I'm going to WILLINGLY leave my 18 best friends at home, then the TSA had damn well better make sure someone else isn't bringing theirs along for the ride.
First, the technology they use isn't all that great. It cannot tell if a metal object is inside or outside the body - replaced knees & hips and ortho repairs often involve metal parts. Many of us who have metal replacement parts refuse the X-ray not because we have something to hide but because we've had plenty of exposure to radiation in our lifetime already and know from experience that we are going to be patted down anyway because the X-ray will show a large piece or pieces of metal.

Second, Having been thru multiple pat-downs, I have no doubt whatsoever that I could very easily get a small gun on a plane undetected under the current TSA checks. Realizing this is one of the reason I quit flying much. (And no, I'm not going to discuss how this would be done. I'm not giving how-to tips to terrorists)
 
I think I'm gonna give myself a hernea if I continue in these threads - having gotten out of the outright stupidity that is another discussion on this matter on CNN.

But I will post some convenient talking points that come up in this discussion, and my opinions. [OPINIONS] These are not quotes, but just paraphrased arguments I hear all the time.

"But it only takes [insert time here]"

Irrelevant, time has nothing to do with this.

"But the airlines have the right to do whatever they need to..."
"But when you bought your ticket, you agreed to..."

No.

First off, to anybody who feels the need to repeat points like this, how can I take you seriously when you keep arguing things that outright ignore the clarified, and established-again-and-again point that the TSA is a GOVERNMENT AGENCY and has nothing to do with the airlines themselves? Second, when I bought a ticket, I never saw one thing about airport security [hint hint, govt. agency works there], and even so, they'd have to obey the law.

"But what are your alternatives?"

IMO, some use this to discount the complaints or issues - and strictly as a counter-point, a red herring since the issues with the pat down exist, regardless of whether one has a fix for them or not. No matter how much you repeat them, this does not discount, or negate the existence of issues with a specific system at all.

"[inser some argument about making security laxer, etc]"

We only had these measures in for what, 2 years? That leaves 80 or more years, even 8 years after 9-11, where we didn't have them, and in the U.S the most serious of them was 9-11, but that's it. Removing these patdowns, the body scanners, will not make flying any more perilous, especially with alternatives in place. And guess what? They - the scanners specifically - have a flaws - the current ones so far, anyways. Things in body cavities [rectal, oral, etc] don't get picked up, nor do things in fat folds necessarily.

"So you support racial profiling?"

Strawman - that was never argued. Alternatives could be, for example, bomb sniffing dogs, making sure the agents are properly trained, they and any non-passenger are properly screened... logically implemented behavior profiling by properly trained people.

Just because race is a means of profiling doesn't mean that all profiling is racial - there is, for example, as I mentioned before, behavioral profiling, which IS a key component in Israeli security if I remember correctly.

"I have nothing to hide."

- Humans desire privacy
- Privacy is exercised consciously and subconsciously all the time
- Privacy is a form of concealment
- You are human

therefore
in the absolute sense of the term, since I am responding to a statement made with an absolute, you can not have "Nothing" to hide - and "hiding" things is not bad inherently - that's the whole concept of, *derp*, PRIVACY *facepalm*

"But who cares if they see you naked?"

I DO you putz - because I control who sees me naked, and there has never ben enough grounds yet, evidence, to me, to show that the administrative search right at the airport extends THAT FAR to begin with.

"But the TSA is not breaking the law"

Says who? It's still trundling through the legal system - for the now, the only reason the scanners are still legal are because of the patdown alternatives, but the more legal issues that sprout up over the pat downs, the more both aspects will be scrutinized.

If this were a private citizen, or a private company, I'm sure they'd be arrested - listened to people talk on Hannity about this last year or so - COPS came on the phonelines and said they'd be FIRED if not ARRESTED or INVESTIGATED for doing what the TSA gets away with.

"But the scanners can not save or store the images in any way whatsoever"

[inserts long winded, detailed, and verifiable explanation about how this is impossible based on computer system architecture theory and practice, followed by a conundrum of deleting evidence, and then needing it if something happened because they missed something]

"But the images are not detailed"

Usually, not always, it seems like the ones arguing this base their opinion based on images the DHS, TSA release, which look like the brightness / contrast have been meddled with. Find me some unmodified, unaltered, full resolution images, then we'll se WHICH side is right - the side saying they're detailed, or the one that isn't - I mean, logically, they;d have to have some degree of precision the images we DO see don't show, right?
 
Last edited:
not sure I can answer the poll but ill answer your question.

Ill give you some opinions and facts.

Opinions:
"In general" I dont like the TSA, the need for them and their policies
I think its sad we need the TSA
If a person wants debate their policies vs effectiveness have at it.
I dont like the poorly trained personnel

Facts:
no laws are broken by TSA Policies, they do NOT violate the constitution.


Conclusion:

While Im not a fan, I fly frequently and am not phased by the TSA, they dont bother me and Id rather have them than not. Before, during and after my searches I think about them very little beyond conversations that I come across.

Just wanted to reply to myself so I can thank people for the likes they gave me and that the facts obviously needed repeating.

Evrytime a TSA thread comes up theres always about 3-4 lost souls that falsly claim the the constitution is being violated LMAO and yet they can NEVER proove it ever. They never offer ONE shred of evidence that any amendments are being broken.

The dramatic dishonest words like kiddie porn, rape, molestation, child abuse, sexual assault etc etc

then make false dramatic parallels like I guess its ok for perverts to touch your mother, sister, kids or If i touched you in public like that Id get arrested or maybe you should get pat downs to leave your house and drive your car LMAO

Its all appeals to emotion and pure dishonesty, thats why theres no proof of their false claims. It based off of EMOTION and NOT LIKING the TSA and not waiting to HAVE the TSA which is ALL FINE by me. Complain about them, think they suck, want them gone etc etc I dont care but as soon as you say it violates the constitution you are wasting your time. Things you dont like should be fought with logic and facts not fantasy.

If someone can please prove TSA Policies violate the constitution.
 
If someone can please prove TSA Policies violate the constitution.

Well the Constitution prohibits "unreasonable search and seizure." Can we agree that this is, at the very least, search and seizure, and that the dispute is over whether this is "unreasonable"? If so, I would submit that what distinguishes an unreasonable search and seizure from a reasonable search and seizure, is due process. In order for the police to search someone, they need to obtain either a warrant, probable cause, or consent. Are we still in agreement?

So if you like, forget all the stuff about whether *you* would get arrested if you touched someone like this in another circumstance. Instead, ask yourself this: Would it be lawful for a *police officer* to search someone like this in any other circumstance, without a warrant, probable cause, or consent? I can't think of any such circumstance. The police can't rummage through your bags or randomly frisk you on the street. So what makes the situation at an airport different?
 
Last edited:
Well the Constitution prohibits "unreasonable search and seizure." Can we agree that this is, at the very least, search and seizure, and that the dispute is over whether this is "unreasonable"? If so, I would submit that what distinguishes an unreasonable search and seizure from a reasonable search and seizure, is due process. In order for the police to search someone, they need to obtain either a warrant, probable cause, or consent....

The TSA will not and cannot force you to undergo a pat-down, body-scan, or have your bags searched.

But if you refuse to have these searches done, you cannot board the plane.

See? No one is being forced to do anything they don't want to do.
 
The TSA will not and cannot force you to undergo a pat-down, body-scan, or have your bags searched.

But if you refuse to have these searches done, you cannot board the plane.

See? No one is being forced to do anything they don't want to do.

Goalpost shifting: 1st: The issue is not with bag searches, and not with screening all together, but the methods, and 2, you are forced to submit yourself to this government intrusion to use a PRIVATE service. On that alone my BS meter is off the charts.
 
Goalpost shifting: 1st: The issue is not with bag searches, and not with screening all together, but the methods, and 2, you are forced to submit yourself to this government intrusion to use a PRIVATE service. On that alone my BS meter is off the charts.

a private service that is under Federal authority & regulation.

inter-state travel...inter-state commerce. get it?

don't want to be searched? don't fly a plane.

:)
 
The TSA will not and cannot force you to undergo a pat-down, body-scan, or have your bags searched.

But if you refuse to have these searches done, you cannot board the plane.

See? No one is being forced to do anything they don't want to do.
So I'm free to refuse my pat down, be refused admission to the plane and then kayak to Hawaii to see my granddaughter and her kids.... this is so good to know. :roll:
 
So I'm free to refuse my pat down, be refused admission to the plane and then kayak to Hawaii to see my granddaughter and her kids.... this is so good to know. :roll:

yes, you can. it is your right to refuse the patdown and scan. but you can go no further through the airport.
 
But what's "elevated threats" Haven't we been at the same color ever since this happened? Habeas Corpus can be suspended during war, but that requires a declaration of war to officially be at war. Another thing we should probably re-institute since it seemed to help limit the wars we got into.

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."
 
The TSA will not and cannot force you to undergo a pat-down, body-scan, or have your bags searched.

But if you refuse to have these searches done, you cannot board the plane.

Not 100% accurate. Once you step in line they're going to search you even if you change your mind. But more importantly:

See? No one is being forced to do anything they don't want to do.

OK, so you're arguing that people are implicitly consenting to a search simply by buying the ticket and entering the security line in order to get on their plane, correct? If that's the case, would you be willing to apply that same principle to other spheres of life? For example: "The police won't randomly frisk you, if you stay in your house and don't walk down a public sidewalk." Or: "The police won't listen to your telephone calls without a warrant, if you simply don't use the phone." Or: "The police won't search your car without a warrant or probable cause, as long as you don't drive."

If you are not OK with those things, what is qualitatively different about those situations versus the airport security line?
 
..OK, so you're arguing that people are implicitly consenting to a search simply by buying the ticket and entering the security line in order to get on their plane, correct? If that's the case, would you be willing to apply that same principle to other spheres of life? For example: "The police won't randomly frisk you, if you stay in your house and don't walk down a public sidewalk." Or: "The police won't listen to your telephone calls without a warrant, if you simply don't use the phone." Or: "The police won't search your car without a warrant or probable cause, as long as you don't drive."..

an airplane is a machine that can be used as a weapon that can kill tens of thousands of people.

that said, I think its only prudent that we make sure passengers are not bringing bombs or other weapons onboard an airplane.

I'm sorry, but 9-11 changed some things. And as a NYer who breathed in yellow crappy air for 2 months and stared into the eyes of thousands of 9-11 family members last Sunday, I'd rather have people deal with the displeasure of being searched for weapons than another horrible terrorist attack.

but that's just me.
 
Look, when you go to many clubs, you get a pat-down which can include having a big & ugly bouncer run his hand up your thigh and get a little feel of your junk. Such is life. They consider the safety of their customers to be more important than your pride..or lack of it.

We live in a dangerous world and while security searches should be reasonable, they are very needed.

Maybe when the whole world gives up guns and everyone loves the USA, we can go back to pre-1941 security levels.
 
an airplane is a machine that can be used as a weapon that can kill tens of thousands of people.

that said, I think its only prudent that we make sure passengers are not bringing bombs or other weapons onboard an airplane.

I'm sorry, but 9-11 changed some things. And as a NYer who breathed in yellow crappy air for 2 months and stared into the eyes of thousands of 9-11 family members last Sunday, I'd rather have people deal with the displeasure of being searched for weapons than another horrible terrorist attack.

but that's just me.

The lives of a lot people are more important than an "embarrassing" pat-down. I think it is kind of selfish when people say they would rather risk the lives of thousands of people all cause you do want to be patted down.

I think earlier Thundercat said that he did not classify the pat-down as molestation. Which someone claimed it was. I am sure molestation is a sexual act. I am sure the TSA guy is not getting a boner from patting you down. If you notice he is pitching a tee-pee, politely ask for another TSA person to pat you down.
 
Well the Constitution prohibits "unreasonable search and seizure." Can we agree that this is, at the very least, search and seizure, and that the dispute is over whether this is "unreasonable"? If so, I would submit that what distinguishes an unreasonable search and seizure from a reasonable search and seizure, is due process. In order for the police to search someone, they need to obtain either a warrant, probable cause, or consent. Are we still in agreement?

So if you like, forget all the stuff about whether *you* would get arrested if you touched someone like this in another circumstance. Instead, ask yourself this: Would it be lawful for a *police officer* to search someone like this in any other circumstance, without a warrant, probable cause, or consent? I can't think of any such circumstance. The police can't rummage through your bags or randomly frisk you on the street. So what makes the situation at an airport different?

I agree with your question the problem is that has NOTHING to do with FLYING and TSA policies :shrug:

the answer is EASY
to fly you agree to the searches, they are a packaged deal, everybody knows to fly you must get searched so there is CONSENT.

Now we can debate on whether this is right, emotionally or PC wise etc etc BUT that doesnt make it a violation of the constitution. TO violate the constitution we must talk about the legality of the matter and in dealing with legality there is consent and there is no force so the constitution is no violated.
 
Back
Top Bottom