Homeland Security Says They Could Strip Search Every Airline Passenger If They Wanted To
from the what-fourth-amendment? dept
Michael Scott points us to Bob Barr highlighting how Homeland Security, in its defense of airport scanners and patdowns, has said that, if it chose to do so, it could strip search every airline passenger, without any 4th Amendment scrutiny. I guess it's only out of their own kindness that they've chosen not to do so. Of course, this raises some pretty key Constitutional questions. If the TSA can strip search anyone with no reason at all, then does the 4th Amendment really exist? Yes, courts have said that the basic scanning of airline passengers is Constitutional, but it does not appear to have set any real limits on that scanning. And that's part of the reason why security theater at the airports just keeps ratcheting up. But at some point, shouldn't we step back and ask if such a scenario, in which everyone who flies is first strip searched, could possibly match with what the framers of the Constitution meant when they said:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.It's more than a bit troubling that we keep seeing more and more chipping away at the Constitution, as people (including judges and politicians) make excuses about how it's effectively "okay this time, because..." where the "because" can and will be stretched, twisted and distorted to the point that the original Constitutional keystones no longer really exist.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 4th amendment, homeland security, patdown, strip search, tsa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Because of the weaker level of the language, judges/politicians get to weasel out of it.
The constitution is like a dam holding a tide and now judges/politicians/government are punching holes everywhere with their assault rifle.
How long before the dam finally break and we are all swept away?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Does anyone have a link to the actual court transcript so this isn't just someone 'saying' they said it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It definitely is Hamilton's Curse. Aaron Burr didn't happen soon enough, it seems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
* Unless it's a non-Jew**.
** If you're a Christian, change the above to Christian.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They don't build hospitals and schools and homeless shelters and food banks or anything...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's a difference between "Thou shalt not murder Christians" and "Thou shalt murder non-Christians." It's the first, not the second. Learn English.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am a Christian, and George W. Bush does NOT represent me. The crusades and witch trials do not represent me. Those are examples of people doing evil things and twisting religion to justify it.
There are no exceptions to "thou shalt not kill." There are certainly those, whom you have mentioned, that have disobeyed that command. There are those who have used and abused the church to build false authority, and then oppressed others with that power. But they are no less subject to the commandments. It is not Christians or Jews that said "thou shalt not kill" in the Bible. It was God. Yes, the Israelites disobeyed. Yes, people still disobey. Some of the disobedient call themselves Christians or Jews. The disobedience and hypocrisy of people from that point forward just demostrates how distant we are from God.
If any Christian comes to you with an attitude of superiority, of "I am better because I am Christian," then they have entirely missed the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Weak language would be "should not," which would leave room for rationalizations and loopholes. "Shall not" is, by definition, absolute, and it leaves no question that the current activities are unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nice trolling. By that logic, strip searching outside your house is perfectly legal and you can just choose to not leave your house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A strip search outside your house would be unreasonable absent exigent circumstances. The reason searches can occur at the airport is because the Supreme Court says they're not unreasonable. The Fourth Amendment only protects people from unreasonable searches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Thus, it's only right that you're strip-searched AND cavity-searched and given an MRI and drug-tested and DNA tested and psych-profiled the moment you step out your front door.
After that's done, they'll just need to verify your identity against your on-file colonic map and you're on your way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The 4th amendment gives us guidance as to what enables a reasonable search. It's called Probable Cause
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So the government is saying that it is reasonable to strip search everyone inside an airport if they deem necessary without probable cause or suspicion just because they can?
That is not what the constitution of the U.S. says at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Airport searches and 4th Amendment.
Passengers agree to submit to a search of their person and property as part of the contract between the passenger and the airline. TSA is not a party to this contract.
No contract can lawfully require either party to engage in any unlawful activity (such as submitting to sexual contact and/or an act of public indecency) as a condition of the contract.
Nothing in the law or passengers contract of carriage grants TSA any authority to molest or irradiate passengers as a condition of flying on any commercial carrier, quite the contrary. Sexual assault is a crime in all 50 states, and the District of Columbia, as well as under federal law.
TSA employees have a right under federal and state law to refuse to break the law without fear of retaliation. Indeed, any TSA agent who is asked to perform a pat-down can file a sexual harassment action against his/her employer.
The 4th amendment is very clear and unambiguous. Equally clear is government's increasing tendency to ignore all ten amendments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Airport searches and 4th Amendment.
I thought the rationale is that it's reasonable because of the government's/public's interest in ensuring safe travel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
100 mile strip search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 100 mile strip search
Do you really believe that bullshit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 100 mile strip search
He is espousing exactly what will happen when another terrorist attack happens and the politicians whine that "This is the only way to keep you safe!"
Remember: they said it couldn't happen in Nazi Germany (which the United States is moving closer and closer to their fascism) and it damned well did!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 100 mile strip search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 100 mile strip search
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_my_French
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 100 mile strip search
Where are all the small-government Tea Party types on this issue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 100 mile strip search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 100 mile strip search
Now, you're right. There are a lot of racist, anti-government, anti-everything jackasses that call themselves the Tea Party. Just understand that they are there not because Libertarians believe that garbage, but because the movement was hi-jacked by the same neo-cons that it was initially formed to protest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 100 mile strip search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 100 mile strip search
There you go. Article after article, statement after statement on this issue by the guy who is considered the "father of the Tea Party." Unfortunately, most of the Tea Party has become a bit of a rebellious, ungrateful child that doesn't really understand much of what it's father was actually saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My question is meant to differentiate this from strip searching outside your house, because there are a great many other constitutional and statutory rights that I would not be able to exercise without getting strip searched under that regime (e.g. freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, right to vote, right to get an abortion, etc., etc.).
(Such searches would also clearly be unconstitutional under existing Fourth Amendment law, but again, that's not my question.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not really. The issue is that they claim they could require a strip search of anyone seeking to board a commercial plane, not that they claim they can strip search everyone anywhere (at least not yet).
In much the same way you consent to a police-administered sobriety test by the act of driving on a public roadway; you are, in effect, consenting to a search by passing through security at an airport. The ways and means of acceptable search that are used (and what methods should be acceptable, i.e. whether strip searching is OK) can and should be debated, but the fact remains that the choice to fly is giving consent to search you and your stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The government cannot simply ignore the constitution because you buy a plane ticket. (well they can, but they are not supposed to, and we should be able to get this rolled back).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Its sad that not only do so few people understand that, but that the government and the courts continually erode the meanings of these rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I wish we could get a set of public service announcements put on the air, sort of a "Schoolhouse Rock for Citizenry." For instance, this point is covered explicitly by the Ninth and Tenth Amendment. Thirty seconds per Amendment, cycling through all the Amendments on a regular basis, over the course of a few months.
Also, it's useful to remember that the only Amendment that explicitly removed a right from the people was also the only Amendment to be outright repealed by another Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The 17th Amendment took away the right to own slaves. Are you saying it was repealed? (I admit I was busy in the office all weekend.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Suppose that the DHS is correct that mandatory strip searches for all air travelers would not be "unreasonable" under the Fourth Amendment. Would such a policy nevertheless violate other constitutional restrictions on what the government can do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The right to interstate travel is the right to enter and to leave another state, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor, and the right to be treated equally if you decide to move there permanently. Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). The right to travel abroad is a liberty guaranteed by due process. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958).
This right may be regulated within the bounds of due process if the regulation is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The fact that other means of travel are available does not help your position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Especially given the fact that the government is allegedly "of the people, for the people" and allegedly exists "to serve the will of the people".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Searches
> in air travel.
Yes, and the TSA is also doing this to people who choose to ride trains instead. And they're also doing it to people who choose to drive cars instead.
I predict your next idiotic defense of this unprecedented and monstrous violation of the Constitution will be:
"People are free to choose not to leave their homes. What's the big deal? Oh, wait... they're searching homes now, too? Well, people are free to choose not to... not to... hmmm... I'm sure there's something they're free to choose not to do to keep from being searched against their will. Just can't think of it right now."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There you go everyone has a right to travel using whatever means they want and not be harassed by tugs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The answer to that question seems pretty clear. :-(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, and that annoying right to worship part of the first.
DHS searches are kabuki theater. I personally (by mistake) had a box cutter switchblade in my backpack that I went through the X-rays with on 6 round trips. They finally caught it when I forgot to remove a can of soda from my backpack, and the large roundish object attracted their dim attention.
I'll take the pepsi challenge. Abolish the TSA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are no longer chipping away at our rights...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How far is too far?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How far is too far?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How far is too far?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Travel in Fear
And if you're not free from fear from your own government taking the clothes off someone and prodding them while naked just to move from place to place, haven't the terrorists already won?
The real fear I have isn't from an violent attack, it's from my government terrorizing me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Travel in Fear
We become, the enemy, when freedom dies, for security.
Nuclear Assault - 1989 - Handle With Care
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Travel in Fear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Travel in Fear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Travel in Fear
Most assuredly yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Travel in Fear
It should be noted that the DHS is claiming that it could strip search everyone who flies, but not necessarily that it could strip search only some people. For border searches, to some extent it's the non-routineness of a search that triggers a requirement for reasonable suspicion.
(Perhaps a search that might be routine on the Mexican border could be non-routine and require reasonable suspicion on the Canadian border? I don't actually know examples of this, but it seems plausible.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Travel in Fear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL! Classic Mike FUD bomb.
Of course it exists, professor, the question is how you define the word "unreasonable."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would most definitely define being strip searched every time I wanted to fly as unreasonable, wouldn't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
if you work for the above mentioned county it may at that point very well mean "puppies are blue, ocean may originate"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Next story...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except perhaps your employer, you know, the guy that signs that paycheck that you need to have to eat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Get a new employer, you know, the guy that signs that paycheck that you need to have to eat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So, your argument is that it's OK for full strip searches, because you don't HAVE to fly, even if it costs you your job?
Wow...just wow. I really have no rebuttal to such ignorance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Required to travel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Required to travel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Required to travel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Required to travel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Required to travel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nobody is forcing you to walk on the sidewalk - so we can strip search you when you do that.
Nobody is forcing you to go to the mall - so we can strip search you when you do that.
Yup - there are lots of things we do that nobody forces us to do. Oh, and strip searching every driver could make driving safer - so take that argument away.
This has nothing to do with your choice to fly. The question is what is REASONABLE (yup - that pesky reasonable thing in that amendment). And I think people have finally figured out that what the TSA is doing is unreasonable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nobody is forcing you to walk on the sidewalk - so we can strip search you when you do that.
Nobody is forcing you to go to the mall - so we can strip search you when you do that.
Yup - there are lots of things we do that nobody forces us to do. Oh, and strip searching every driver could make driving safer - so take that argument away.
This has nothing to do with your choice to fly. The question is what is REASONABLE (yup - that pesky reasonable thing in that amendment). And I think people have finally figured out that what the TSA is doing is unreasonable.""
We are talking about a goverment entity here, not standard transportation. But nice try though, i had a chuckle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
For goodness sakes, you just cannot realize that the fear of someone committing a criminal act (even a MASS MURDER) does NOT INFINITELY REPEATED mean that the Feds can ignore the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
They just cannot!
These things are not making America safer. They are trying to make it so that Americans see intrusions into their daily lives for no goddamned reason as regular things, so the next time that the feds want to take it further... the people will just take it up the ass and not challenge it because "IT WILL STOP TERRORISM!" (insane person voice here)
Terrorism can ONLY be stopped by the United States not supporting dictators in the Middle East and BUTTING THE FUCK OUT of the Middle East.
All the terrorists today? Created by the United States own actions.
Hell, Bin Laden was once our ALLY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No chance you could become a chuckle choker real quick like eh? A shame some are endowed with the ability to breath much less type.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No chance you could become a chuckle choker real quick like eh? A shame some are endowed with the ability to breath much less type.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> not standard transportation.
The airlines aren't government entities, genius. They're "standard" transportation, just like the train and your car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't give me that crap about how I can choose not to fly.
I'd rather choose to not be a victim of other people's fears.
Now, I'm not ok with the stranger who molested me as a kid. Am I supposed to be allowing a stranger to grope me now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes --- Outstanding line!!!
The supporters of the unconstitutional onslaught are either Cowards or else they are slimeballs with ulterior motives (relating to personal profit or personal power).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And those that accept the onslaught without question are the most unpatriotic of all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chipping away...
By the way, "Security Theater" is extremely accurate describing what the TSA (and other agencies) do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought they already where
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i wonder how long business would put up with it? - forever
and people - bhaaaaa bhaaa - forever
i wonder how long the government would put up with the economy being affected? - Continuity of government. Rex84. Gov and the upper echelon could give 2 shits about our economy. There will be some point when all ppl become slaves to the ruling elite.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35KcYgMPiIM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWaNFLEZODc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aside from my awesome idea, I think it's stupid to have searches at airports. Nothing good really comes from them because they are ineffictive at really securing the airport. Even if they were 100% effective at searching, they can't search inside you. The next wave of aircraft terrorists will just pack themselves with explosives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Clearly a safer, more effective way to blow up a plane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The way the airlines are going these days, they are all probably suicidal and certainly need money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm going to the toilet to drop a bomb.
Oh, okay.
BOOM!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I take a shit every day (some days, two!) and that's as effective as what the TSA is doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
slowly slowly..
home = safe place where you live, typically with parents.
parents = father....
Fatherland security........privatize it to fatherland security services.....hey lets just shorten it to SS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hygiene
Also I wonder if any famous/rich people have been 'skipped' from all the anal jiggery pokery?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hygiene
Me, cynical?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, the legitimate government interest is the safety of air travel, the safety of it's citizens, and the maintaining of the capacity to safely and confidently fly aircraft and citizens from point to point (including all over the world).
The other option is anarchy, you know, anyone can get on the plane, they can carry anything, and most people end up not flying because it is too dangerous.
The only thing "unreasonable" here is people like you who keep harping on it. You would also likely be the first person bitching if you place got hijacked without security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except it's been shown over and over again that these tactics do not improve safety. Additionally this does not allow for the government to overstep it's constitutional bounds.
"the safety of it's citizens"
What we are protecting against here is such a small blip on the things people are in danger of as to not even provoke more than a very minimal response. We had this fixed with public awareness that hijacking was no longer a sit a wait situation and reinforced cockpit doors.
"maintaining of the capacity to safely and confidently fly aircraft and citizens from point to point (including all over the world"
The TSA procedures do not do this in the least bit. Once again even if they were effective (which they're not) that does not grant the government the ability to step beyond their constitutional bounds. Still the deaths from terrorism barely show up over the average death per year from aircraft related accidents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If a terrorist wanted to kill people they are certainly not limited to planes. It's not even the target to have the largest impact.
In fact the stated goal of at least some terrorist organizations is to push America into collapse through security spending. I don't think that will actually work, but we are certainly spending massive amounts of money that does no good at all.
The level of security needed at an airport is roughly the security needed at a mall. Maybe a bit more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am sure the 2000+ dead in the world trade center would agree with your fully.
In fact the stated goal of at least some terrorist organizations is to push America into collapse through security spending.
Citation needed without pointing to a tin foil hat site.
The level of security needed at an airport is roughly the security needed at a mall
Enjoy your flight. Oh, by the way, the guy behind you is packing an AK-47 and didn't take his meds this morning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16971-2004Nov1.html
And the likely hood of some guy with an AK-47 behind me is more likely on an airplane why? It's more dangerous why? Seems to me there are plenty of random asshats and psychos that kill people in any number of situations, but for some reason airplanes get some magical special treatment. It's illogical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right. Should be also remove all the metal detectors from court house entrances, perhaps no longer bother having security around the White House or Congress? Would you like to sleep with your front door wide open tonight? After all, it's just as likely that someone knocks it down anyway.
(/ sarc)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know you were being sarcastic by your use of the sarcmark, but this is a real possibility.
Unfortunately, the odds are probably greater that the people knocking down your front door will be armed Federal agents or local law enforcement instead of thugs or terrorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Safety
> dropping everything the TSA does tomorrow
> wouldn't make flying any more dangerous?
Right now, a terrorist can strap on a bomb (or several guys with several bombs), buy a ticket, and get in the line for security and detonate right there in the middle of the crowd, taking out just as many people as if they'd blown up a plane in mid-flight.
You're an idiot if you think all that dog-and-pony security is making you one whit safer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you so damn ignorant that you don't know that this it the fundamental lying argument that every single demagogue, totalitarian, and dictator of any stripe -- be it communist, fascist, divine right absolutist, or good old fashioned despot, has used since the dawn of time to try to justify abusive treatment of their citizens, and preserve the level of obedience needed to maintain power.
If you don't know this, then many quotes from history can be given to you. But, then if I gave some of them to you now, you'd go all Godwin on me.
What you lack is any sense that the principles of freedom upon which our country is supposed to stand are of absolute prime importance. Those who love freedom judge that freedom is worth taking risk. If that were not so, then our country never would have come to be. Despots on the other hand are inwardly cowards.
If freedom doesn't concern you, and all you care about it order and maintaining authority, then one doesn't need to guess very hard on whose side you would have stood in 1776.
As an aside, I suspect the only reason you are here commenting on Techdirt is to make sure that 4th amendment rabble-rousers don't rain on your COICA parade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Perhaps we can get rid of the police force too. Who needs them? They are just there for the safety of the citizens, after all.
I suspect the only reason you are here commenting on Techdirt is to make sure that 4th amendment rabble-rousers don't rain on your COICA parade
Nope, I have no horse in the race one way or the other. I just find it incredibly comical to see people spouting off about the various amendments without seeming to understand their actual application and the judgements that have happened over the last couple of hundred years that help define them.
Freedom in the abstract is an absolute thing. In the real world, freedom is tempered by balance between the rights of each individual towards each other, and also towards the state. If you think you have freedom, the sad truth is you do not. If you think you do, go drive your car down the wrong side of the highway for a few miles at top speed and let me know how it works out for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If they were truly interested in our safety, why not go around the neighbourhood and tell us to keep an eye and to upgrade our locks and such?
When Montana removed speed limits from highways during the day, the average driving speed actually fell a few miles per hour. That would suggest that the lack of a speed limit made the road safer (based on the false notion that slower speeds mean safer roads).
In most jurisdictions, once you get your driver's license, it's yours for life (subject to whatever fees). If you don't get caught breaking a law, you never ever have to retest for your license. How is that keeping people safe?
You are right about the 'balance' part. Problem is that the government tends to shift that balance in their favour based on the incorrect of 'protecting citizens'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'd like to point out however that if you are going to make the rational risk assessment, then you do not have a winning argument. The number of terrorist attacks and the number of lives lost is minuscule compared to a host of other risks we face every day.
It's not logical when you consider the cost -- both in dollars, and also in lost civil liberties.
As was pointed out elsewhere in today's discussion, I don't want to be a victim of someone else's illogical fears.
As a taxpayer, I don't want the TSA to be adding billions annually to the federal deficit, and as a citizen, I don't want to be subjected to intrusive searches, and most importantly, I don't like the precedent that is being set, wherein the government thinks it is standard operating procedure to use intrusive searches on law-abiding citizens anytime there is a remote risk.
This precedent is dangerous because it delivers to the government precisely the powers needed to establish a totalitarian regime at some point in the future. I'm not way out there arguing that Obama is the next Stalin or Hitler.
I'm arguing that what is being done now will make it harder to resist should someone with those aspirations appear in the future.
To return to my first point in the post above -- what I said about dictators is exactly true. They have ALL insisted that what they were doing was essential to protect the safety of their country.
It is dangerous to unquestioningly accept that the government always knows best because the government is looking out for your own safety.
Our countries founding fathers had principles for a reason. The reason is that they were very familiar with the governmental abuses that had gone on in England and elsewhere in the 150 years the preceded the American Revolution. They were determined to create a system that would be resistant to the failures of the 17th century.
Let's not sacrifice those principles for a little better safety and short-term risk reduction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Safety
> the window, then you remove all the reason
> for speed limits on highways
No, you wouldn't. Despite what they tell you, safety isn't the concern at all with speed limits. It's all about revenue.
> without seeming to understand their actual
> application and the judgements that have
> happened over the last couple of hundred
> years that help define them.
That's the point. Those judgements that have defined the 4th Amendment over several hundred years have not to date given the government the power to strip you down and probe you merely because you bought a plane ticket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you familiar with the term "false dichotomy"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a weak, stupid, strawman argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Warrants
> warrant where the paramilitary police unit
> with automatic weapons and flash bang grenades
> tap on a door two times, yell police and break
> down the door
Yeah, it just ain't fair that the crack dealers don't get enough advance warning to properly flush the evidence and shoot back. How terrible. And it's such a crying the shame that the cops have the stones to actually outnumber and outgun the shitbags that are shooting back at them. You're right. We need to change the law to make it more of a fair fight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Warrants
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-knock_warrant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh piffle!
This comment brought to you buy* the NRA.
*yes that's a deliberate spelling error.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make sure you tell the airlines why you're not flying....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As far as the 4th amendment goes, well...it's been gone for a long time now. If you have something to hide, they will find it, and then they will find a way to legally acquire the information they already have so they can use it to prosecute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you people are ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: you people are ridiculous
However, your cries of 'if you have nothing to hide' fall on deaf ears. Why should I have anything to hide to want my privacy to remain intact? Why should I sacrifice my dignity for your all-important sense of safety?
Who's side am I on? I'm on my own damn side, and that of freedom. Not suppression, oppression, and your damned arrogance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it the parking lot, terminal building, security checkpoint?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/juvenile fun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do away with TSA
the no show people. The airlines would make such a fuss they will have to do away with the TSA. Band together and we can beat them at their own game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We have a long ride ahead before enough people are willing to put their lives at risk to take to the streets and end this charade of democracy and freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re #30...
Yeah, that'd be all fun and games until the airlines start charging you $20 for a disposable seat cover.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give them what they give you!
During their pat downs and such let out as many farts as possible and do not try to hide it from them that your farting at them stick your butt out and proudly fart at them.
Bring along your own gloves and put them on before TSA inspections.
While they pat you down be sure to pat them down at the same time.
You have reasonable grounds to believe pat downs are legal in the airport so pat them down too.
Don't be shy about it their not so give them what they deserve.
Fight fire with fire, fight pat downs with pat downs and burritos!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Department Homeland Security and Police intend to use hundreds of new X-ray Back Scatter Vans and other scanners with long-distance capability to secretly scan and search lawful persons’ bodies—when driving, walking and X-ray Citizens in their homes. DHS plans to mount X-ray scanners on buildings and utility poles to monitor groups of pedestrians. Citizens that drive or walk to work or lunch in monitored areas may be radiated several times a day.
There is nothing to stop government agencies and police repeatedly targeting (persons of interest) on the street and in their homes with X-ray scans that may cause cancer or induce other medical problems—including individuals afflicted by poor health. DHS new scanning will record eye and facial features of pedestrians, so subjects can be identified for covert X-ray scanning. Consequently some Americans may be X-ray scanned every time they set foot on the street.
How could anyone prove his or her cancer was caused by repeated government X-ray scans? Can you think of one U.S. Government agency you would trust to limit the number of times and duration secret Government scanners can penetrate a person’s body with X-ray radiation, when walking, driving; inside their home? Citizens driving or walking to work, that must pass DHS X-ray scanners on buildings and utility poles, could be exposed to radiation several times a day. The press recently reported that X-ray scanners now used at airports are 10-times greater that what U.S. Government told the American People.
Currently Citizens can purchase small sensitive radiation detectors on key chains that set off different sounding alarms for each radiation level detected. Key Chain radiation detectors sell for about $160.00 and some appear capable of detecting government X-ray scanners penetrating their home, or their body when walking or vehicle when driving. It should be expected more pedestrians might start carrying radiation key chain detectors to learn if X-ray scanners on buildings and utility poles are targeting their neighborhood, the streets they drive or walk. Radiated pedestrians and drivers should protest, especially if they are being hit everyday with X-ray scanners.
The U.S. can’t become a total Police State until the 4th Amendment is either terminated or so watered down it has no legal effect. That will be the result if government / police are allowed (without probable cause or warrants) to expose the public to covert X-ray scans and scans at airports; train and bus stops and other check points.
One can’t help wonder if today’s outspoken Americans that lawfully defend the Constitution, e.g., writers and bloggers will be deemed combatants by U.S. Government; constantly stopped, searched, and questioned by TSA and police; forced to endure no warrant searches of their car, body and forced cancer causing X-ray scans. The Nazi Military and Police repeatedly searched and delayed Citizens labeled politically undesirable boarding trains and buses and driving to work to cause targeted Citizens to lose their jobs. Citizens were placed on (Nazi do not hire lists) similar to the lists U.S. Homeland Security started in 2010.
See: TSA, DHS plan massive rollout of mobile surveillance vans with long-distance X-ray capability, eye movement tracking and more at:
http://www.naturalnews.com/031603_surveillance_police_state.html#ixzz1GGDd24RG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA and DHS - Does NOT have the right to strip search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
home lan sceraty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Total Recall Scanners are here
http://www.rockyflatsgear.com/County-Jails-Deploy-Airport-Whole-Body-Scanners.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Total Recall Scanners are here
http://www.rockyflatsgear.com/County-Jails-Deploy-Airport-Whole-Body-Scanners.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Total Recall Scanners are here
"Tatel and Judge Karen Henderson questioned whether the TSA would be within its authority to determine one day that the security threat required that all passengers be strip searched.
Brinkmann said TSA could make such a determination without public input, as it did with the body scanners. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/10/AR2011031003628.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA are pedophiles
Argue over the legality of it ALL you want, don't mean a damn thing to me they are nothing but a bunch of professional pedophiles being paid to molest kids!
If anyone at the airport see's those TSA pedo's grabbing a child in the wrong way scream at the top of your lungs their PEDOPHILES and beat the crap out of him/her for it, and don't stop yelling PEDOPHILE while to beat the bastards!
Did TSA admit to x-ray cavity searches? then accuse them of child porn!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TSA are pedophiles
If you want to get tased, handcuffed, arrested, and charged with a felony anyway. If you don't, best to find some other method of protest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Their gonna do what their gonna do!
Their groping children and now their talking x-ray photos of kids cavity's that's all I need to know, and I would be justified in defending children from confessed pedo's it's not like the TSA is hiding their doings and their intentions!
To threaten me with arrest for making it known I would defend a child amounts to blackmailing me out of fear.
Good thing I don't fear pedophiles because that's what the TSA people are admitting to.
Defense of a child and justification is a good defense in any court!
If I see with my own eye any pedophile groping a child I will have authority of my own accord to defend that child!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Their gonna do what their gonna do!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scanning Service
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]