All searches of persons, luggage and private belongings at airports in the United States by the TSA (Trasportation Security Administration) are patently illegal and unconstitutional.

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. It was ratified as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. The amendment specifically also requires search and arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it.

In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment applies to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has also ruled that certain searches and seizures violated the Fourth Amendment even when a warrant was properly granted.*

Probable cause
In United States criminal law, probable cause refers to the standard by which a police officer has the authority to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest. It is also used to refer to the standard to which a grand jury believes that a crime has been committed. This term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:

â��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.â�� — Fourth Amendment, Bill of Rights.*

*from Wikipedia.

Nude scanning of indivuduals at airports is to be opposed fully, completely and totally. It is an invasion of privacy not permitted without probable cause. Searches of person and property can only be accomplished according to the Constitution of the United States of America. Without probable cause, the nude scanning of individuals is molestation and voyeurism at its very worse.

Rep. Tom McClintock, a California Republican who co-sponsored the legislation however, called the scanning “a virtual strip search” and said security officials can use less invasive methods such as bomb-sniffing dogs to detect explosives.

“It is precisely the same as being pulled into a side room and being ordered to remove your clothes physically,” he said. “In either event, your nude image is being inspected by several security guards.”**

However, another California Republican, Rep. Dan Lungren, who’s been promoting the technology for four years, said the Christmas Day incident should help support his cause when Congress reconvenes in January.**

**from http://www.mcclatchydc.com/nation/story/81412.html.

Note that Rep. Dan Lungren is making an unsubstatiated comment. There is no way that any person, let alone hundreds or thousands, at an airport could be said to be a suspect. Neither is there any implication that, in a court of law, it could be shown that there was probable cause for any of the thousands of searches that the TSA conducts. None.

Only in a fascist, communist run government could there be such wholesale inculpation. Each unlawful and unconstitutional search by TSA and the US government is tantamount to a false arrest and molestation of the privacy of individual citizens subjected to nude scanning. Unchecked or stopped, the current TSA �security screening� is allowing TSA to commit pornographic voyeurism en masse. To allow these types of searches to exist or continue in the United States is moral debasement by citizens and elected officials.

There are alternatives to illegal and unjustified law enforcement; alternatives that do not put billions of dollars into the hands of scanning system salesmen, manufacturers, and nude scanning promoters � all voyeurs, molesters and immoral creeps.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

That’s what he gets for buying Fatima’s Secret brand lingerie.

What happened when his brother borrowed a pair of his shorts…
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/14511/lyao-being-umar-abdulmutallabs-bro/

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@ Davey, let’s hope so, it will surely be a great source of amusement among the faggy boys in the new Illinois prison that we will spend billions on to house Obama’s brothers; rather than building a scaffold for ten thousand.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Skookum—– Would that surgery leave him with one of those permanent Pelosi super grins?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Ditto, Ditto!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

This failed terrorist attack proves that the government learned nothing about 911 and air security. There should have been flags raised all around “airport security” about this scumbag before he even set foot in the airport. The modus operandus was little different from “the shoe bomber” with the main difference being where he hid the expolsives. Will we all have to take off our underwear before each flight?

No luggage.

No passport

He bought the one way ticket with cash.

His father tried to warn the US three different times.

He was on a terrorist watch list, but not the no-fly list.

There is no need to add even more safety procedures. The agents just need to get their bureaucratic heads out of their asses, use the current methods at their disposal (including checking over people who most fit the profile, and NOT so much those who don’t) and above all Obama’s National security agencies need to use some damn common sense.

While they’re at it, FIRE that incompetent, unqualified Janet Napolitano fool.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I understand that AQ in Yemen has already purchased two backscatter machines. Probably to figure out how to get past them. But from what I understand about the forced use method, they already were prepared. When people are scanned the observer has to blur our the genitalia and facial areas. So they wouldn’t have seen the bomb sewn into his underwear any damn how.
Beside, think about how much 3oz of this material is. Ever hear about some drug mule smuggling more than 3oz of drugs? Yeah, it wont be hard for them to get enough PETN on any aircraft even with the backscatter machines.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Just as soon as the ‘back scatter’ detectors are installed, some muslim will surgically implant a bomb and slip past security. Then what, full body x-rays for everyone. Passengers will have to get to the airport 4-5 days early to fly, 7 days for international fights. Then they will start targeting trains. Then buses or malls.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Why the expensive scanners when bomb/drug/lizard/bird/etc -sniffing dogs, in combination with our existing metal detectors, would work just as well without causing privacy concerns?

Scanners (or dogs) are just a deterrent, not a dependable protection. I agree with TSgt Ciz (comment #2): four men could take down an airliner with nothing but their bare hands.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Sorry, but those undies look like the kind my granny wore back in ’46. Do all muslim terrorists cross dress for the occasion of a big blow-up?

Like or Dislike: 0  0