T.S.A. Expands Beyond Airport Security

[Raptor With a Saber]

Ok The Airports are a business they have rules just like every other Business, If you want to use their product you have to ok the ToS, In this case it's letting them search your stuff. Don't want it searched take gray hound and enjoy the smell.

[Orbitus]

Not to be picky... but this is flat out wrong. While I am not really sure the TSA itself is unconstitutional, I simply don't understand how their screening methods haven't been struck down. But until the screening methods are abused, there are no grounds to sue. For their part, the TSA has done quite well staying out of the SCOTUS by backing down on the whole body imaging... and... you know... not actually arresting anyone.

Here's the text of the Fourth Amendment with the relevant word underlined.



Travel bags most certainly fall under "effects".

This text is why police are not allowed to search your car, person, bags without probable cause or a warrant. It's also why New York's Stop and Frisk program was ruled unconstitutional (In fact, Terry Stops in general were, according to the SCOTUS ruling, limited only to searches for weapons on a person whom the police had reasonable suspicion had committed or was about to commit a crime. Cops simply are not allowed to search for drugs or anything else unless they have probable cause or a warrant.). Without probable cause (or even reasonable suspicion), law enforcement is simply not permitted to search your belongings.

With that in mind, I simply cannot understand how the TSA's methods are constitutional.

- - - Updated - - -



Why wouldn't I?

The only difference between a world with the TSA and a world without the TSA is $7.91 billion in savings in the US budget.

- - - Updated - - -



So because you've had no trouble... it's simply not a problem? I certainly hope you realize what we do here with anecdotal evidence.

I bet more than 90% of the passengers on airflights don't have a problem. Its the people that either look suspicious or throw shitfits like you would just by reading your posts. Again as other people have said, if you want to use private company airplanes/airports, you have to give concessions to use their stuff. You have to consent to searches of your stuff otherwise you can use a boat to go overseas, drive or take a bus across country.

[Laize]

Ok The Airports are a business they have rules just like every other Business, If you want to use their product you have to ok the ToS, In this case it's letting them search your stuff. Don't want it searched take gray hound and enjoy the smell.

If the airports were the ones searching the luggage this wouldn't be a problem. The problem is that it's not the airports searching it, it's the government.

- - - Updated - - -

I bet more than 90% of the passengers on airflights don't have a problem. Its the people that either look suspicious or throw shitfits like you would just by reading your posts. Again as other people have said, if you want to use private company airplanes/airports, you have to give concessions to use their stuff. You have to consent to searches of your stuff otherwise you can use a boat to go overseas, drive or take a bus across country.

Again, it's not the airports searching bags, it's the government.

Secondly, I'm sure 90% of women don't experience any sexual harassment in the workplace. That doesn't mean it's not a problem that warrants attention.

[Orbitus]

If the airports were the ones searching the luggage this wouldn't be a problem. The problem is that it's not the airports searching it, it's the government.

- - - Updated - - -



Again, it's not the airports searching bags, it's the government.

Secondly, I'm sure 90% of women don't experience any sexual harassment in the workplace. That doesn't mean it's not a problem that warrants attention.

Keep perpetuating those lies. Sorry but when things like those planes can be used as missiles as we have seen in the past, then I will gladly let them search my luggage or myself if I seem to pose a threat. In order to get on those privately owned planes you have to submit to searches or enjoy trying to get your destination by other means.

[Laize]

Keep perpetuating those lies. Sorry but when things like those planes can be used as missiles as we have seen in the past, then I will gladly let them search my luggage or myself if I seem to pose a threat. In order to get on those privately owned planes you have to submit to searches or enjoy trying to get your destination by other means.

Yeah well I choose not to be scared of evil bogeymen.

I'll compromise though. How about we stop with the useless TSA and use that money to expand the FAMS, hmm? You know, the guys who can carry firearms on an aircraft? The ones who, (if there were enough of them) were they aboard AA Flights 11 and 175, the towers would still be standing?

The TSA has a history of failing to adapt to new terrorist innovations and haven't made a single arrest in... their entire history. On the other hand, Air Marshals have actually stopped incipient terrorist attacks and saved actual lives. The FAMS also cost less than 1/10 what the TSA costs.

So imagine if we eliminated the TSA and took half the money to expand the FAMS. That would be a trillion times better than the TSA.

Also I've spoken no lies. If the airport were privately owned and operated it would be one thing to search everyone. But they're not. Newark International Airport, for example, is owned by the Port Authority of NJ. LAX by the city of Los Angeles.

Government entities are not permitted to search you without probable cause or a warrant. End. Of. Story.

You may want them to be able to search you... and that's your prerogative. But you're going to need to change the Constitution first. The moment someone challenges the TSA's screening practices, they're going to change. Has even one of their screening practices held up in court?

EDIT: There is a case currently being heard in the US First Circuit Court of Appeals as to the legality of the TSA's methods. When they are found unconstitutional (And I'm quite confident they will be), you're going to have to find a new way to violate my rights just so you can feel safer.

Maybe you could try a blankie and a pacifier. That won't infringe on my rights and will likely be more effective than the TSA.

[Mayhem]

Well see, the absence of terrorists shows that the TSA is working perfectly! My rhino whistle has also been highly effective, I haven't seen a single rhino in my apartment.

how much? i life in constant fear of being stomped by a rhino in my apartment

- - - Updated - - -

The TSA has a history of failing to adapt to new terrorist innovations and haven't made a single arrest in... their entire history. On the other hand, Air Marshals have actually stopped incipient terrorist attacks and saved actual lives. The FAMS also cost less than 1/10 what the TSA costs.

ahahahaaa what? iranian air marshals stop terrorist hijackers, for some folks this must be like living in the twilight zone

[Spectral]

With that in mind, I simply cannot understand how the TSA's methods are constitutional.

They're not, and I don't think it's remotely debatable. Unfortunately, our judges are very, very good at playing pretend time to arrive at convenient conclusions rather than what a plain text reading of the Constitution would indicate. For the TSA's actions to be constitutional, one would have to believe that the very act of flying is suspicious.

- - - Updated - - -

I bet more than 90% of the passengers on airflights don't have a problem. Its the people that either look suspicious or throw shitfits like you would just by reading your posts. Again as other people have said, if you want to use private company airplanes/airports, you have to give concessions to use their stuff. You have to consent to searches of your stuff otherwise you can use a boat to go overseas, drive or take a bus across country.

People searching my effects for no valid reason is a problem in and of itself. I've never had an especially bad experience with the TSA, but every experience involving the TSA is a bad experience. It's demeaning, it's a waste of my time, and it's part of an overarching shift towards ignoring the 4th Amendment.

- - - Updated - - -

how much? i life in constant fear of being stomped by a rhino in my apartment

It'll run you about tree-fitty. I also sell an accessory anti-kangaroo buzzer.

[Deleted]

Keep perpetuating those lies. Sorry but when things like those planes can be used as missiles as we have seen in the past, then I will gladly let them search my luggage or myself if I seem to pose a threat. In order to get on those privately owned planes you have to submit to searches or enjoy trying to get your destination by other means.

This happened in how many flights out of how many flights ? 5 out of several millions ? And you know how 9/11 would have been prevented ? Locking the cabin and not openeing it under any condition.

[Elim Garak]

Keep perpetuating those lies. Sorry but when things like those planes can be used as missiles as we have seen in the past, then I will gladly let them search my luggage or myself if I seem to pose a threat. In order to get on those privately owned planes you have to submit to searches or enjoy trying to get your destination by other means.

People who hijack planes and turn them into missiles - PASS ALL THE SEARCHES.

[Invection]

Yeah well I choose not to be scared of evil bogeymen.

I'll compromise though. How about we stop with the useless TSA and use that money to expand the FAMS, hmm? You know, the guys who can carry firearms on an aircraft? The ones who, (if there were enough of them) were they aboard AA Flights 11 and 175, the towers would still be standing?

The TSA has a history of failing to adapt to new terrorist innovations and haven't made a single arrest in... their entire history. On the other hand, Air Marshals have actually stopped incipient terrorist attacks and saved actual lives. The FAMS also cost less than 1/10 what the TSA costs.

So imagine if we eliminated the TSA and took half the money to expand the FAMS. That would be a trillion times better than the TSA.

Also I've spoken no lies. If the airport were privately owned and operated it would be one thing to search everyone. But they're not. Newark International Airport, for example, is owned by the Port Authority of NJ. LAX by the city of Los Angeles.

Government entities are not permitted to search you without probable cause or a warrant. End. Of. Story.

You may want them to be able to search you... and that's your prerogative. But you're going to need to change the Constitution first. The moment someone challenges the TSA's screening practices, they're going to change. Has even one of their screening practices held up in court?

EDIT: There is a case currently being heard in the US First Circuit Court of Appeals as to the legality of the TSA's methods. When they are found unconstitutional (And I'm quite confident they will be), you're going to have to find a new way to violate my rights just so you can feel safer.

Maybe you could try a blankie and a pacifier. That won't infringe on my rights and will likely be more effective than the TSA.

I agree that the TSA is beyond nuts, however in the past it has been a necessary evil. Now we have new technologys emerging that completely eliminate the need for 99.99% of searchs in airports. http://rt.com/news/russia-laser-bomb-detector-947/

[poser765]

A couple of observations about the TSA from someone who deals with them far more than most of the flying public.

First The individual TSOs are decent people for the most part. Sure they have bad days, but most of them are just trying to do the thankless job they are paid to do. The vast majority of them do not abuse what little power they have and just want to move pax through their lanes as fast as they can so people don't miss flights...all while doing their job. Sure you here stories about draconic TSOs acting like cops and shit, or illegally detaining people, but the truth is they are FAR from the norm.

Next. The sole purpose of the TSA, that I am aware of, is to prevent prohibited items from entering the sterile areas of airports and onto aircraft. That's it. They are not police officers. They can't arrest you, and their job is not to find and stop terrorists. Short of preventing firearms or other weapons from getting on planes, that's as much as they do to prevent terrorists or hijackings.

Now, anyone who says the TSA is working because there has been no other 9/11 type terror attack is seriously lacking in basic understanding of what happened on 9/11 and the nature of the TSA. The TSA isn't preventing hijackings. That's largely the realm of federal law enforcement officers. If the TSA was around on september 11 it they would have prevented dick. 9/11 was not the result of a failed screening program. It was a failure of failed understanding of the changing nature of hijacking.

Now, what has gone a long way to prevent another 9/11 is largely the culture of the flying public and largely internal airline security policies. There are some security procedures we aren't supposed to share with the public, but I can tell you the broad procedure has changed everywhere in regards to attempted hijacking. Pre 9/11 the procedure was to comply with the hijackers. End of discussion. That has changed. It's all about flight deck security. People don't breach the flight deck...period. Hijacker could be back there slitting kids throats and he is not getting in. That's our policy. keep the door shut...land the fucking plane.

Constitutionality. I feel like this is gray area. The idea is if you are approaching a security checkpoint, your mere approaching constitutes consent to search. That's the idea the TSA has been working under. Now whether or not that is a violation of the 4th amendment remains to be seen. When you approach a checkpoint you should expect to be searched. If you don't agree to that...you don't approach one. Legal? Not legal? Shit I don't know. Just is what it is for right now.

don't get me wrong. I am not on the side of the TSA. I AM on the side of the individual TSO who is just doing their job. They are the product of a shitty organization. The TSA is largely a joke. They are reactionary. People felt unsafe after 9/11, bam DHS and the TSA...despite the fact the role TSA fills is in no way to blame for what happened on 9/11.

Hell, I'm actually pretty pissed at them right now. The stole my mother fucking tooth paste. I tried to go through security with a bottle of pepsi and all my toilitries while not in uniform. I still had a company issued flight crew ID but the still wouldn't let me take those things through. Now, if I was wearing a white shirt with shoulder boards I could have sailed through no problem with the same items. Lesson learned...I'm not ever going through a check point out of uniform again.

[Duronos]

There is a reason I dislike the Constitution sometimes... It's a crutch for certain people to use so they validate an argument, sorry but airport security is needed. You know why the TSA hasn't really caught anyone? Because most of the people get caught by other countries airport security before they get to US. Sorry but stop saying, "BUT MY CONSTITUTION SAYS THIS!". Even the god damn Founding Fathers knew sacrifices are necessary sometimes.

[c2dholla619]

There is a reason I dislike the Constitution sometimes... It's a crutch for certain people to use so they validate an argument, sorry but airport security is needed. You know why the TSA hasn't really caught anyone? Because most of the people get caught by other countries airport security before they get to US. Sorry but stop saying, "BUT MY CONSTITUTION SAYS THIS!". Even the god damn Founding Fathers knew sacrifices are necessary sometimes.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

[chrisberb]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

The typical go to quote

[Duronos]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Different times, they didn't have threats from other people who aren't associated with a country like Al Qaeda, people have the internet, they can get influenced much easier than before and these hijackings etc. weren't done by a country. Times change and I hate to tell you this but they did things just like this albeit it was a different times so different forms of sacrifices were necessary.

[Invection]

Different times, they didn't have threats from other people who aren't associated with a country like Al Qaeda, people have the internet, they can get influenced much easier than before and these hijackings etc. weren't done by a country. Times change and I hate to tell you this but they did things just like this albeit it was a different times so different forms of sacrifices were necessary.

I suppose the internet is a bit more influential then the almighty word of mouth, or watching people be hanged and stoned to death, or executed locally at dawn. They had plenty of threats and life was uncensored compared to what it is today.