TSA Is Threatened By Me

Yes, I know. I blame my iPhone auto-correct.

Mata, I think if you research the cases that have been ruled on prior to the actions now currently being deployed by the TSA, you will find that in each case, the question is the legality of “screening” airline passengers. Now the screeening process at the time involved being required to walk through a metal detectors, the technology of the day. But in none of those cases do they allow the TSA to negate your right to be “secure in your person” and to be physically searched without “probable” cause.

I have a legal expectation of being secure when I get in my truck and drive down the highway. But it is unreasonable to expect that law enforcement, from any agency, can totally protect me from harm. If that were the case, then is it reasonable to say that law enforcement has the right to subject me to a breathalizer test everytime I want to drive.

The TSA’s actions are designed for two reasons: a) to give a false sense of security when flying and b) to randomly check everyone to avoid the accusation of “profiling” which CAIR has been shouting about, i.e. the Flying Imams case. The actions of the TSA are re-active, not pro-active. Total body searches, being intrusive, could be eliminated with the use of dogs. Dogs are apolitical and nonbiased and have the ability to seek out drugs, explosives, etc. The sense of smell is so great in many breeds that they are now being used to locate contraband cell phones in prisons.

The truth of the matter is that Americans have been willing to give up their Constitutional rights for a false sense of privacy. The searches done by TSOs would get any police officer fired. Which brings us to another point; what other inalienable rights are we willing to forfeit for a false sense of security?

Ivan, because you accept the fact that the federal government has bastardized the Interstate Commerce clause in ways it was never intended to, doesn’t mean the rest of us are willing to accept it. Some of us still adhere to the Constitution as written, not how you liberals would like to rewrite it.

“You see, what is Constitutional is not what you say it is, not what I say it is, but what the SC says it is.”

How unlearned you are. The SC is NOT to say what is Constitutional, but to uphold the Constitution. It is not the purview of the SC to be an interpreter, but rather to uphold what is already written. There is where you lefties go wrong.

Why should I move to Canada? So that there are fewer conservatives, and originalists for you left wingers to have to deal with? BTW, our legislation also are not tasked with intrepreting the Constitution, they are tasked with creating legislation that meets Constitutional standards. But everytime someone writes a bill that would require legislation to meet Constitutional muster, the Democrats shoot it down. Now, for most rational thinking people, that says a lot, but I am sure that excludes you.

Seems it is you who knows little about the law, or or form of government. But hey, go ahead and remain complicit while The Won continues to usurpt your inalienable rights. Russia was such a success, that I am sure you can’t wait until we emulate it.

Yeah, perhaps I do have a “tude” toward you, Mata. I find you unbendable, and conceited. You obviously think you are hot stuff because you can ride a Harley. So friggin what? I was riding a rigid ass end ’46 police special when you were still crapping in your diapers. The first new Harley I bought was a DuoGlide, black, sporting Duco windshield and Duco hardside saddle bags. At the time, I weighed 119 lbs. soaking wet. So count me unimpressed with your ability to straddle what is nothing like what we had and has as much in common with my first bikes as a BMW has with a Model T. I doubt if you could have even kicked over those old police specials.

Now, that I have that off my chest, let’s see how really silly you are. Many times the SC “upholds” the ruling of a lower court (the system by which one reaches the SC) although the lower count has not met the Constitutional litmus test. Your beloved 9th Circus Court of Appeals would be one of those who seems to fail to met the Constitutional litmus test time after time. Yet, the SC can “uphold” the Constitition, and reverse a lower court decision. And nowhere did I use the term “uphold” in reference to a lower court. That is just something you threw in to fatten your opinion.

Perhaps quoting Chief Justice Warren will settle the matter. He said that “however the Court may interpret the provisions of the Constitution, it is still the Constitution which is the law, not the decisions of the Court.” IOW, the SC has gotten in wrong, and one of its errors is finding affirmative action Constitutional. It is not. Nor is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.

My point, that seems to elude you, is that although it has taken to doing so, it is not the purview of the Courts to create law. What it boils down to is the two camps. One relies on interpretation and the other on orginalism. I am in the originalist camp.

BTW, I am NOT a bubba. But your arrogance got in the way of you knowing that.

And I am still waiting for you to show me where any case that has gone to court involving the ability of the TSA to “screen” passangers included their right to fondle a person’s private body parts. I noticed you did not repond to that. Ummmmmm, wonder why?

To retire (#50):

Where do you get this “fondle” stuff? This “grope” stuff?” This “poorly trained” stuff? Have you actually gone through these searches? I have — 6 times. So has my wife — 4 times. I think that I’ve probably flown at least 24 times during the past year (one round trip per month). I’ve observed nothing short of competent, polite professionalism. I’ve observed, over this time, thousands of passengers willingly observing regulations which make perfect sense to most of us (and to travelers at airports around the world), notwithstanding the odd strange, humorous, or apocryphal tale.

The suggestion that this is a plot by the Obama administration to “restrict freedom of movement” stands as self-evident testimony of the seriousness (or rather, lack thereof) of the general complaint.

In point of fact, millions of Americans will travel by air this month. Virtually none of them will enjoy the inconvenience of the TSA screens, anymore than international travelers enjoy the inconvenience of clearing customs, while virtually all of them will experience nothing beyond inconvenience and virtually all of them will understand and accept the measures which have been taken to minimize the risks of air travel.

By the way, here’s what goes in so-called “groping.” First, men are screened by men and women are screened by women. Second, the entire process is explained in advance and all questions are politely answered. Third the most offensive part of the procedure includes the agent putting gloved fingertips in the top of the belt line and going around the circumference of the waist. The so-called “groping” part of it consists of the BACK of the fingertips quickly being run up the inner surface of the thighs and the BACK of the fingertips very briefly brushing against the very bottom of the “junk” area, simply to determine if there is a wad of explosives or drugs or whatever. In the 6 times that I went through this, during the past 3 months, I never even felt the examiner’s fingertips against my actual “junk.” This is exactly what was described to me — each time — before the “pat down,” and this is exactly what took place.

There is no reason why the overwhelming majority of travelers, who are far more concerned about safety than about tortured definitions of “liberty” being distorted beyond reason, should be exposed to increased risk to satisfy the political views of people who voluntarily choose to use airline transportation, but who would insist on flying only according to their own personal terms.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

@retire05: Again, you grossly exaggerate the intrusiveness of the procedure (where do you get this “humiliated” stuff? Presumably the same place you got the “groped” stuff and “fondled” stuff and “poorly trained” stuff; i.e. you made it up) and you distort the meaning of “inalienble rights.”

And your point about the ACLU and who they sue and who they don’t sue is a total straw man, which has nothing at all to do with the discussion at hand.

With regard to the question of how many would-have-been terror attacks the TSA has thwarted, that’s a question which can’t be answered. You complain that many TSA actions have not been proactive, but, instead, have been reactive. Fine, but the point is that we had a shoe bomber before the TSA started screening shoes and, since they did, there have been no shoe bombers. We had an underwear bomber before the TSA started screening underwear, and, since they did, there have been no underwear bombers. We had people bringing weapons on board before metal detectors and x-ray screening of luggage. Yes, weapons continue to get through, but the risk of detection has become so great that none of the people who made it through screening with weapons have been actual terrorists, but, rather, people who knew that they wouldn’t be going to prison if they were caught. We had terrorists taking over cockpits before we locked the doors, but, since we started locking doors, there have been no more of that.

Once again, if your political sensibilities are offended by TSA screening, then just don’t fly. But don’t put me and my family at increased risk to satisfy your own sense of righteous indignation.

P.S. Your point about “tons of complaints” is a huge piece of distorted misinformation. As I said, I’ve personally seen literally thousands of airline travelers proceed through screening with me over the past year. Not once did I witness a single episode of a passenger complaining or being treated with disrespect or in any way being treated inappropriately. Does it ever happen? I’m sure it does. You are talking millions of passengers and tens of thousands of employees and millions of encounters. A couple of weeks ago, another driver gave me the finger, when I slowed down to change lanes, so that I didn’t miss my freeway exit. When people interact with people, occasionally one or both of them gets pissed off. That’s life. Sometimes I get a really lousy waiter in a really expensive restaurant. Stuff happens.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

The ranting and ravings of Retire05 only reinforce in my mind why the 4th Amendment is the amendment cowards and criminals hide behind.

He who screams “Fourth Amendment!” is usually the most guilty of something.

I think the Republic would be better off if we did away with that Amendment, as well as the 19th.

@retire05: You persist in exaggerating the intrusiveness of the “enhanced” pat down. What on earth are you worried about? As I said, I’ve been through it 6 times and there was absolutely nothing about it which was “humiliating” and I never once felt as if I were being groped or molested. Anyway, low radiation scanners are being rapidly introduced. They give 1/40th of a chest xray’s worth of radiation. Presumably, you also object to the revealing nature of these scans. If this freaks you out so much, then just don’t fly. Don’t degrade my safety for the sake of whatever it is about which you have such a sense of moral outrage.

With respect to drunk driving, I’d be very much in favor of a system in which you had to blow into a tube in order to start your car. This is simple and sensible technology. Just as important, I’d be in favor of a ban of all mobile phone usage while driving, including hands free. Studies show that this is every bit as dangerous as driving under the influence.

The federal government has, indeed, protected me from a lot of harm. When I grew up, seat belts weren’t mandatory and I used to take naps on the ledge over and behind the back seat of our car and adults used to smoke while driving me around in it. I swam across the Ohio River when I was a teenager, and it was filthy. Today, it’s much better. Los Angeles air was brown in the 1970s and mostly blue today. Airplanes were regularly hijacked in the 1970s but haven’t been hijacked since 9/11. Automobiles are much safer today than in the past, owing to lots of things, but owing partly to government regulations, crash test data, etc. The FDA does a darn good job of keeping both pharmaceuticals and food supply safe. Department of Transportation rules regarding long haul truck operation make the highways safer. South Carolina has more than double the automobile fatality rate than California and Texas has a 35% higher fatality rate than California. Government got rid of smoking on airplanes and most public places. I know what’s in the food I buy, because it says so right on the labels. And on and on.

Government does a spectacularly good job of protecting the health and safety of its citizens.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA