Posted on 11/16/2010 8:54:59 AM PST by DanMiller
The new airport security measures meet the definition of "unreasonable search."
Under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution:
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.More than two hundred years old, the Fourth Amendment and many other parts of the Constitution often get lost or simply ignored in the fog of bureaucracy en route to enhanced governmental authority over United States citizens. That is not a good thing. Unlike much modern legislation, the language of the Fourth Amendment is short, simple and relatively easy to understand. However, the often incomprehensible gloss applied through legislation and judicial interpretation has made the very important word “unreasonable” difficult to interpret abstractly. However, there is no need for abstract evaluation of the current TSA procedures; they violate the Fourth Amendment no matter how abstractly viewed.
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
The Israelis are developing an airport security device that eliminates the privacy concerns that come with full-body scanners at the airports.
It’s a booth you can step into that will not X-ray you, but will detonate any explosive device you may have on you. They see this as a win-win for everyone, with none of this crap about racial profiling. It also would eliminate the costs of a long and expensive trial. Justice would be swift. Case closed!
You're in the airport terminal and you hear a muffled explosion. Shortly thereafter an announcement comes over the PA system . . . "Attention standby passengers — we now have a seat available on flight number 1234. Shalom!"
Just a thought, perhaps the airlines should be in charge of their own security.
They have a vested interest, profile all they like, and they could make it a selling point, "shortest wait in security of any air line".
The only thing they would have to do is successfully argue that an airplane isn't a public accommodation, like a bus.
They think your fourth amendment rights have no standing next to the delicate sensibilities of a muslim.
“It is the invariable habit of bureaucracies, at all times and everywhere, to assume...that every citizen is a criminal. Their one apparent purpose, pursued with relentless and furious diligence, is to convert the assumption into fact. They hunt endlessly for proofs, and when proofs are lacking, for mere suspicions. The moment they become aware of a definite citizen, John Doe, seeking what is his right under the law, they begain searching feverishly for an excuse for witholding it from him.”
-—H.L. Mencken
Sounds like this would also apply to John Tyne in San Diego who the TSA is investigating for not submitting to being scanned.
It used to be that in having the ticket and entering the security zone you gave tacit approval to be searched. There is a big difference between that and giving up your 4th & 5th amendment rights. You can't give up those rights but you can consent to be searched. Some one should explain to the TSO what inalienable means.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Are there any “inalienable” rights you are not willing to give up?
The issue is not one of "getting over it", the issue is that the rules are not applied to everyone. Why do Muslim women wearing a Ha-jib get a pass? Also, the new measures are hypocritical. The TSA has done nothing to close up the security gaps that exist on airport grounds where passengers are never allowed.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/hidden-video-catches-airport-crime-11457563
Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t care if they can see thru my clothes during airport screening as long as it makes flying safer.
Isn’t this the same as wiretapping after 9/11: We agree to give up some degree of privacy to ensure safety. Libs loved to hate wiretapping, but I really don’t care about it. What do I have to hide? (I guess there’s always the risk that fascist people like Obama Thugs use it against citizens).
Can someone plz explain why conservatives who would normally be all for diligence in security procedures are against this?
After all, after 9/11 and with raghead suicide bombers/hijackers, this is a different world.
Or you can read the Constitution and the case law and realize that the 4th Amendment doesn’t apply to standing in line to get on a plane at the airport.
That's also what they said about taking off our shoes, coats and belts.
That's also what they said about putting our toiletries in a clear plastic bag for viewing.
Now, that's what you say about being radioactively strip searched or manually groped.
What are you going to say when TSA agents start snapping on a rubber glove for the new invasive body cavity searches?
A four seat version for those with their private pilots license would work as well.
Yes you do not fly if you absolutely have to get their.
But the point is, we need a free market alternative to basically say up yours Janet that is a lot quicker than 70 mph on the highway.
Something that cruises 125 mph can make a big difference in the amount of time it takes in getting to where you want to go, and if the weather stinks, don't go the whole IFR thing is just to much of a barrier @ this point IMHO.
What would be too much security before you begin to "care"?
Would you be willing to submit to a strip search?
Would you be willing to submit to a body cavity search?
Would you be willing to submit to a TSA background check?
It was just a few years ago when people like you were saying that taking off your shoes, coats and belts was no big deal. That wasn't objected to by folks like you, so now we all get to be groped or electronically stripped. What will be next years new procedure?
At what point would you say that security has gone too far?
The issue is not one of “getting over it”, the issue is that the rules are not applied to everyone. Why do Muslim women wearing a Ha-jib get a pass?
I am under the impression that these rule apply to all passengers. Especially the Muzzies wearing their Ha-Jib or Burkas. I have a Juan Williams moment every time I go to the airport looking for the Middle eastern looking people and I take some comfort knowing these people had to go through the same screening that I went through. If this is not being done for ALL passengerd then that is crap!!
I have been on an air travel strike since 2005. I’ll drive before I fly.
I would love for the TSA in court explain why these searches are ‘reasonable’ or that they have ‘probable cause’. They can’t win either way. And then explain why if it is reasonable to assume all passengers are suspected terrorists, to give muslim women just a head and neck pat down? If we are all equally terrorists why compromise everyone’s safety by not giving a class of person a thorough screening? How is that safe?
This is all bullsh1t.
Privatize the TSA it’s already in the original bill.
Then privatize airports so this nonsense never returns.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.