• 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
tcmartin10 said:
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.
Click to expand...

men should pat down men...women should pat down women.

any TSA agent who abuses his authority or position should be fired and charged with sexual assault.

that said, we need these security regulations to prevent another 9-11. its that simple.
 
Thunder said:
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.

:)
Click to expand...
To you it means Congress has totalitarian power to do whatever it wants. To people with sense, it doesn't.
 
Kandahar said:
Not 100% accurate. Once you step in line they're going to search you even if you change your mind. But more importantly:



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?
Click to expand...

Appeal to emotion, pure dramatic show and dishonesty.
What logic makes agreeing to pay and partake in a said service on a private plane in which you know there will be searches anywhere near the same as walking down the street or driving your own car.

they arent even CLOSE to the same.
 
Thunder said:
an airplane is a machine that can be used as a weapon that can kill tens of thousands of people.
Click to expand...

OK, so the number of people that could potentially be victimized is relevant to whether or not it's a violation of civil liberties? Fair enough, but then consider this: Someone could be carrying a nuclear weapon in their truck as they drive down the highway. Someone could be carrying a vial of smallpox as they walk down the street. Since these things could also kill tens of thousands of people, and since one could make an equally strong argument that people implicitly consent to searches by using public sidewalks and highways, do you think it's appropriate for police to search them without a warrant, probable cause, or consent?

If not, why?

(I'd also like to point out that the idea of using a plane to kill tens of thousands of people was obsolete by 10 AM on September 11, 2001. Although terrorists may some day succeed again in attacking an airplane, I highly doubt they will ever again be a threat to anyone not on the plane.)

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

Meh. I ride the metro every day without even going through a metal detector, and I don't even think twice about it. I wouldn't mind doing the same thing for planes. But with that said, I don't really mind metal detectors at the airports. Anything beyond that is invasive and a waste of time.

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.
Click to expand...

The TSA's security procedures have taken more money and more hours of human life from us than the 9/11 hijackers did. By several orders of magnitude.
 
Last edited:
TSA is an overreaction to 9/11. If I was a terrorist and wanted to terrorize the country, it wouldn't be an airplane I tried targeting anymore. In 2001, yes, perhaps. Back when you could break into the pilot's cabin and overpower a pilot and take over the plane. Or hold the passengers hostage and make the pilot do something. Today, yeah, you could potentially blow up an airplane or something but that's not nearly as impressive as flying airplanes into buildings. One airplane of people is pitiful for a terrorist.

Instead, I think sporting events is the way to go right now. Of course, I don't think we need full body pat downs to go to a baseball game anymore than I think it helps with air travel. But if we continue the trend, you'll be going through security for sporting events, concerts, public transportation, etc... I hate to use the slippery slope argument, but realistically another terrorist action is going to happen and if it's a subway or a stadium or a shopping mall or whatever, if we overreact on that we'll end up with TSA screening there too. I don't want to go there.
 
Kandahar said:
OK, so the number of people that could potentially be victimized is relevant to whether or not it's a violation of civil liberties? Fair enough, but then consider this: Someone could be carrying a nuclear weapon in their truck as they drive down the highway. Someone could be carrying a vial of smallpox as they walk down the street. Since these things could also kill tens of thousands of people, and since one could make an equally strong argument that people implicitly consent to searches by using public sidewalks and highways, do you think it's appropriate for police to search them without a warrant, probable cause, or consent?

If not, why?..
Click to expand...

if the police have a reasonable suspicion that you may have an ABC weapon, they have the right to search you on the street or in your car, without a warrant.
 
Thunder said:
men should pat down men...women should pat down women.

any TSA agent who abuses his authority or position should be fired and charged with sexual assault.

that said, we need these security regulations to prevent another 9-11. its that simple.
Click to expand...

I was hoping I could be pat down by a pretty college girl with loose morales.

However I do agree that women should be pat down by women.
 
Thunder said:
if the police have a reasonable suspicion that you may have an ABC weapon, they have the right to search you on the street or in your car, without a warrant.
Click to expand...

But that's not the same thing. Assuming they DON'T have probable cause or a warrant (i.e. you're just some guy walking down the street or driving down the highway), should they be able to search you? If not, what makes these situations different from the airport?
 
Kandahar said:
But that's not the same thing. Assuming they DON'T have probable cause or a warrant (i.e. you're just some guy walking down the street or driving down the highway), should they be able to search you? If not, what makes these situations different from the airport?
Click to expand...

well for one thing, walking down the street does not put you under the jurisdiction of the Federal govt., due to the Commerce Clause.

look, we can't have the police checking all 8 million people walking around NYC. it would be impossible to do.

but we CAN check everyone going to board a place. a man with a gun on a plane can end up killing 10,000 people. a man with a gun on the streets of Brooklyn can't kill 10,000 people.

got it?
 
Thunder said:
but we CAN check everyone going to board a place. a man with a gun on a plane can end up killing 10,000 people. a man with a gun on the streets of Brooklyn can't kill 10,000 people.

got it?
Click to expand...

I don't think a man with a gun can kill 10,000 on a plane. Not anymore. How do you think he's going to do it? He might be able to kill a few hundred.
 
vvx said:
I don't think a man with a gun can kill 10,000 on a plane. Not anymore. How do you think he's going to do it?...
Click to expand...

I've seen the pilots leave the cabin door open as folks enter & leave the plane.

and even if they don't do that, all it takes is one pilot who opens the door after the hijacker threatens to cut the throat of is favorite stewardess, or of a 5 year old girl.

what would you do, as a pilot, if a hijacker is threatening to cut off the head of a 3 year old girl, while the mother is begging and screaming to you to please open the door?
 
Last edited:
vvx said:
I don't think a man with a gun can kill 10,000 on a plane. Not anymore. How do you think he's going to do it? He might be able to kill a few hundred.
Click to expand...

He wouldn't be dumb enough to shoot inside the cabin cause he may depressurize it. But if he can get control of the cockpit, all he needs is 10 minutes on Micorsoft's Flight Similator and he knows which way to push ailerons into the closest building. 10,000 may be extreme. But 1 life is not worth some upset passengers.
 
Thunder said:
well for one thing, walking down the street does not put you under the jurisdiction of the Federal govt., due to the Commerce Clause.
Click to expand...

OK, so it's just a jurisdiction issue? Do you think state and local cops have the right to randomly frisk if you walk down the street, or would that still be an unreasonable search and seizure?

look, we can't have the police checking all 8 million people walking around NYC. it would be impossible to do.
Click to expand...

So then your argument is that we can't check everyone, but you aren't opposed to it in principle, and wouldn't view it as an affront to civil liberties if the cops DID check random people?

but we CAN check everyone going to board a place.
a man with a gun on a plane can end up killing 10,000 people. a man with a gun on the streets of Brooklyn can't kill 10,000 people.
Click to expand...

See above re: the idea of using planes as missiles becoming obsolete by 10 AM on 9/11. Incidentally, most of the TSA's invasive new security processes are designed to check for explosives, not boxcutters...weapons which the 9/11 hijackers didn't have, and which would negate the whole idea of using the plane to kill 10,000 people.

got it?
Click to expand...

Incidentally, boxcutters have slipped through TSA security at least twice just in the past year. And those are just the incidents that we actually know about.
Luggage With Box-Cutter And Taped Cell Phone Leads To International Investigation
JFK Box-Cutters: TSA Misses Passenger Eusebio D. Peraltalajara Carrying Box-Cutters Through Security
 
Last edited:
Anybody else have anything new to try and prove the constitution is violated?

Remember if it is the task should be easy.

All you have to do is prove force and lack of consent in legality. :shrug:
 
Ive gotten through security at airports with my Leatherman. And I've heard that small screwdrivers and even small knives are allowed on planes. It doesn't take a large blade to cut someone's throat.

And I could see a situation where the pilot opens the door, rather than having a hijacker cut the throat of a sweet little 5 year old girl, as the mother cries and begs for her daughter to be spared.

hard choice, huh?
 
Centrist77 said:
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.
Click to expand...

So why can't we apply the same argument to other situations? Why can't we assume implied consent to be searched if you walk down a sidewalk, or drive down the highway?
 
Kandahar said:
So why can't we apply the same argument to other situations? Why can't we assume implied consent to be searched if you walk down a sidewalk, or drive down the highway?
Click to expand...

because Id like to participate in OBJECTIVE LOGICAL and RATIONAL debate.

Trying to saying walking down the street is even close to the same ball park as flying is pure dishonesty. :shrug:
 
Thunder said:
Ive gotten through security at airports with my Leatherman. And I've heard that small screwdrivers and even small knives are allowed on planes. It doesn't take a large blade to cut someone's throat.

And I could see a situation where the pilot opens the door, rather than having a hijacker cut the throat of a sweet little 5 year old girl, as the mother cries and begs for her daughter to be spared.

hard choice, huh?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a hard choice myself. Knowing what you are risking it's an easy choice. Yes, pre 9-11 you might think if you open the cabin door a terrorist might just be trying to hold your plane ransom or perhaps diverting your flight to disney land because he had a sudden urge to ride space mountain. I don't think anyone is as aware of the risks now as those that actually work in the flight industry. And it's not a choice only for the pilot, but for all of the passengers as well. Would the passengers even let it get that far? I doubt it.

At any rate, if that's your fear, there is a much much cheaper and more effective solution. If the pilot can't open the door, he won't open the door. No matter what.
 
I accidentally took a backpacking combo-tool which included a four inch knife and a saw blade on a plane last fall. I forgot it was in the front pocket of my carry-on. And as I said earlier, I have been patted down several times and have no doubt at all that I could get a small gun on a plane without detection. If the pat downs were actually keeping us safe, I wouldn't mind them so much. But it is infuriating to be groped knowing that this is a farce.
 
Centrist77 said:
because Id like to participate in OBJECTIVE LOGICAL and RATIONAL debate.
Click to expand...

Right, that's what I'm doing, examining your logic. So correct me if I'm wrong: You're saying that there are certain circumstances where you give your implied consent to be searched (even if you don't want to be searched), because you always have the option of NOT participating in that activity. Correct?

Trying to saying walking down the street is even close to the same ball park as flying is pure dishonesty. :shrug:
Click to expand...

So what's the fundamental difference that makes it an unreasonable search and seizure in the one situation, but not the other?
 
Kandahar said:
Right, that's what I'm doing, examining your logic. So correct me if I'm wrong: You're saying that there are certain circumstances where you give your implied consent to be searched (even if you don't want to be searched), because you always have the option of NOT participating in that activity. Correct?
Click to expand...






So what's the fundamental difference that makes it an unreasonable search and seizure in the one situation, but not the other?[/QUOTE]

no you are not, theres nothing logical, rational and objective about comparing TSA Policies at the ariport to walking out your front door. Then you choose to ignore the reason I have already given by rewording the same questions.

What you are trying to do is play some word game because you cant prove that the Constitution is being violated.

This thread as popped up at least a half dozen times and every time 3-4 people cry that it violates the constitution and every time I ask how and foe proof and every time nobody can. The only offer EMOTIONS and illogical non-parallels. Well Ive spent enough time destroying nonsensical points so Im not interest in games or dishonesty.

SO if you believe that the constitution is being violated please prove so in legality now.
you can either do it or you cant.:shrug:
 
Centrist77 said:
Then you choose to ignore the reason I have already given by rewording the same questions.
Click to expand...

If you won't answer the question then it's rather difficult to have that logical/rational debate you supposedly want. ;)
 
Kandahar said:
If you won't answer the question then it's rather difficult to have that logical/rational debate you supposedly want. ;)
Click to expand...

I did, you want me to change or give a new answer, please see previous posts and you will find all you seek.

The question I asked you need nothing from me, the TSA policy is in place, you know how and on what grounds it works, the constitution is already written and you know how that works.

So do you believe its being violated and if so please prove so.

This is way you are playing a game. I could think its ok to murder somebody because they smile too much but in legality it has no impact on whether its ok to murder someone for that LOL
 
Centrist77 said:
I did, you want me to change or give a new answer, please see previous posts and you will find all you seek.

The question I asked you need nothing from me, the TSA policy is in place, you know how and on what grounds it works, the constitution is already written and you know how that works.
Click to expand...

Oh, so you're saying that people implicitly consent to TSA searches because they know how it works and they've come to expect it? So then in your view, there's not necessarily a constitutional reason why it would be illegitimate for a cop to randomly frisk someone on the sidewalk...it's just that the government hasn't yet made it clear that that's what people should expect when they walk down the sidewalk, and therefore there's no implied consent (yet).

So by this logic, the power of the state to frisk people on the street is just a marketing problem for the government to overcome, rather than an inherent constitutional problem. What this boils down to is that you think that searches and seizures are legitimate simply because the state performs them on a regular basis...so if the state acted even MORE invasively then the Constitution would give it more leeway.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Oh, so you're saying that people implicitly consent to TSA searches because they know how it works and they've come to expect it? So then in your view, there's not necessarily a constitutional reason why it would be illegitimate for a cop to randomly frisk someone on the sidewalk...it's just that the government hasn't yet made it clear that that's what people should expect when they walk down the sidewalk, and therefore there's no implied consent (yet).

So by this logic, the power of the state to frisk people on the street is just a marketing problem for the government to overcome, rather than an inherent constitutional problem. What this boils down to is that you think that searches and seizures are legitimate simply because the state performs them on a regular basis...so if the state acted even MORE invasively then the Constitution would give it more leeway.
Click to expand...

really? is that what I said? LMAO
like I said I have no interest in dishonest debate.
Let me know when you can prove in legality that the constitution is violated :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom