Posted on 11/22/2010 7:51:15 AM PST by jmaroneps37
The final judge is time, but in the interim good citizens must stand against evil law and policy. These searches are intolerable, and I say, evil.
Yet as a cretin skilled only at shallow legalism applied meanly, I would never hope to convince you. Instead I only speak to put you in your place.
That being a cretin with a love of petty tyrants.
BVV, save your energy for someone who doesn’t think you aren’t a blithering, freaking moron.
That includes the back-scatter scanners and the grope-and-change "pat downs".
No, not like that at all. It's not the "buying of the ticket" that gives consent. It's the physical standing in the line and attempting to board.
If that is correct legal doctrine, then the law is truly an ass. The attempt to use a common contract for conveyance, in the law's eyes, is a voluntary surrender of the fourth amendment.
You could put your knowledge of law to good purpose, instead you use it to sad purpose. What motivates you, cretin?
Right, because the government has absolutely no interest in keeping armed terrorists off of commercial flights. I mean, what's the worse that could happen. And, it's not like one of these yahoos is going to strap a pound of high explosive to his junk. What are the chances of that happening - oh, wait.
Please, common sense is our friend.
"The attempt to use a common contract for conveyance, in the law's eyes, is a voluntary surrender of the fourth amendment."
Please re-read what I said. It IS NOT the purchasing of the ticket, it is the standing in the line. The airport boarding area(s) as well as the airplane itself are "sterile" areas - that is the term that is used in the case law and statute law. If you wish to enter the "sterile" area, then you must consent to be searched. The TSA aren't going to come to your home to search you once you've purchased your online ticket. Why? Because the operational limitations of the "administrative search" would not be allowed precisely because of 4A limitations.
As I mentioned in a prior post, it's an administrative search that has limiting parameters. If fact, some lower courts have held that when submitting to a TSA search, you are NOT waiving your 4A rights, and that you may only be prosecuted for the specifically forbidden contraband items - like explosives and weapons and the like. These cases have not yet been fully litigated, so that part of the law has yet to be settled. I imagine that some of those cases will prevail, and the Supreme Court will actually narrow the accused's exposure to criminal prosecution in this regard.
Yeah, some people think that. I win anyway.
Thank G-d I have won more than I have lost against cretins, petty tyrants, crooks, murderers, perverts and bullies.
Your “common sense” is to deny yourself liberty in the name of security. Ben Franklin had some wise words on that score.
You need to reread what I said, too. The attempt to USE the purchased conveyance is what puts the traveler in the government’s queue.
Inherent in your “sterile area” point is the idea that these searches are applied uniformly, to all people. They are not. Unless such searches are applied to all, the area is hardly “sterile”.
Further, the TSA has announced it has the power to fine you and have you arrested for refusing to be screened and attempting to leave the screening area. How is that limited? You cannot opt out of the “enhanced screening”, under penalty of incarceration and fine.
Your defense of these policies disgusts me, FRiend. We will not agree on this, I am sure.
Listen, you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. Last time, "purchasing conveyance" has NOTHING to do with these searches. I'm not sure who said on this thread first, but they were and are wrong. There are some specific instances when un-ticketed escorts or guardians may accompany ticketed passengers. These people have purchased nothing, yet are still subject to being screened. Gee, why is that?
It is about, and only about, the security of the sterile environment. Now, if you think that "Unless such searches are applied to all, the area is hardly “sterile”, that's fine, it's your opinion. Personally, I think it's idiotic, but hey, that's my opinion.
There's no such thing as an infallible screening process. You apparently think that there is and that is the one that we should be using.
I'd love to hear how President MortMan would do - keeping in mind that you're the President and not the king, so whatever you do must pass constitutional muster.
The balancing issue of the purported invasion of privacy will likely be outweighed by the public good of keeping terrorists off of airplanes.
The courts will hold that since the images are not kept by the TSA and the machines "hide the junk" (at least in v. 2.0). Therefore, the countervailing interest of public safety outweighs the purported invasion of privacy.
Plus, as has been stated in this thread, the doctrine of informed consent comes into play.
Hmmm... These unticketed individuals are all accompanying a ticketed passenger, for the purpose of that ticketed passenger using their purchased conveyance. You may state your opinion as loudly and frequently s you want to, but it does not change the fact that the reason why people are entering the so-called "sterile area" is for the purpose of using (or supporting the use of) a purchased conveyance.
It is about, and only about, the security of the sterile environment. Now, if you think that "Unless such searches are applied to all, the area is hardly “sterile”, that's fine, it's your opinion. Personally, I think it's idiotic, but hey, that's my opinion.
As a lawyer, are you required to establish your credentials before you represent someone in court? If so, would it bother you if only one-tenth of all lawyers had to do so, before entering the court room to represent someone?
My objection to the method of applying the enhanced screenings has to do with the pseudo-random methodology, which is highly ineffective.
I also object to the methods themselves - taking nude pictures, or being groped.
I'd love to hear how President MortMan would do - keeping in mind that you're the President and not the king, so whatever you do must pass constitutional muster.
From what you have written thus far, there isn't much that DOESN'T pass constitutional muster, provided it's an "administrative search". We do agree on one thing - no screening method is infallible. I would prefer that an intelligent method be used, instead of the nudie/feelie pseudo-random abomination now in place. You know - like putting someone whose father reports is intending to commit a terrorist act on a no-fly list, so they can't get on an airplane in or outside the United States?
The push for the backscatter scanners or the second-base pat down is offensive because it is very invasive. If what I understand about the scanners is correct, they cannot detect the type of explosives that the underwear bomber was using.
You appear very willing to trade your freedom for the illusion of security. I am not.
Terrific. I'm not going to debate conveyance ("purchased" or otherwise) with you. Frankly, it bores me. Ignore the passengers and the people who may be accompanying them and instead think about the flight attendants, pilots, janitors, restaurant workers etc, that ALL have to pass through the TSA screening checkpoints (either public or private checkpoints). Even though they are vetted employees, they all still must be screened to some degree (passing through the magnetometer and package x-ray, at a minimum) before entering the sterile area.
If so, would it bother you if only one-tenth of all lawyers had to do so, before entering the court room to represent someone?"
No. Perhaps the threat of felony conviction and imprisonment. But, that's just me. People don't try to practice law without a license because court's check credentials. They don't try because just trying, gets you prison time.
"My objection to the method of applying the enhanced screenings has to do with the pseudo-random methodology, which is highly ineffective."
Based on what do you assert this "highly ineffectiveness"? There is a component of randomness in the program, as well as a purposeful intent to some of those screened that meet certain criteria. It seems to me that a competent based on a random selection is "highly infective", but rather prudent.
"I also object to the methods themselves - taking nude pictures, or being groped. "
Here's the best part. I'm pretty sure the "man" isn't coming to your home, holding a gun to your head and making you get on a plane. You can drive, walk or even swim to your destination. That might best for everyone, in your case.
"I would prefer that an intelligent method be used, instead of the nudie/feelie pseudo-random abomination now in place."
Oh, the old "Israeli Method". You know, the one where they interrogate the passengers prior to allowing them board - Where are you going, why are you going there, who are you going to see, etc., etc.", because that's just what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they envisioned freedom of movement
Where I'm headed, and why I'm headed there is NONE of the government's damn business. But, making sure I don't have a weapon, or two-pounds of plastique strapped to my johnson, is.
"The push for the backscatter scanners or the second-base pat down is offensive because it is very invasive. "
Any more "invasive" than answering questions, about your purpose for travel, your religion, your race or your opinion of the government?
"If what I understand about the scanners is correct, they cannot detect the type of explosives that the underwear bomber was using. "
I'm not any kind of authority on this technology, to include its limitations detecting explosives. I do know, however, that PETN is very difficult to detect with canines and electronic sniffers, only because I have had some conversations with the guards at my home courthouse who use the electronic sniffers and dogs. PETN, if handled and packaged correctly gives off very little if any detecatable "scent".
But, what I do know is that the backscatter screeners are very effective at seeing materials - like composite, non-ferrous knifes - that are completely undetectable by magnetometers. I would not characterize them as without value, of any kind.
"You appear very willing to trade your freedom for the illusion of security. I am not."
Which is why I lock my doors at night, and you apparently don't, I would guess. Prudent protective measures in the face of clear and present danger isn't a abandonment of freedom. It's the sating the Constitutional requirement of protecting the homeland from enemies both foreign and domestic. The minute someone rolls up a Rapidscan next to my front-door, I'll start to worry.
Here's my question: Will bill some poor unsuspecting client for the time you spent researching your comments?
I know this is settled law. You're right. Why using Terry would be like, well like losing the Kelo case, which 0 hey wait a minute we DID lose the Kelo case.
If you want to keep making personal attacks please come after me on freep mail. I love eating up “tough guys” who make “oh so clever” remarks about my ability to read. We can compare resumes and if all you have is a J.D please stay home where it is safe. Now get back to work. Either your boss or some poor client is paying you for your “work’ and that doesn't include your childish attempts at being “tough.” People like you probably would have complained that the there were no toilets on "the trains" as the law required.
If you wish to think that, more power to ya.
"If you want to keep making personal attacks please come after me on freep mail."
WTF? Let me remind you what you initially said to me...
"Maybe you are the one who might do well to keep closing houses and making wills and leave real life security to the professionals. "Perhaps you need a little thicker skin. But, you can't be surprised when you serve up something personally insulting, that someone will respond in-kind.
Logic is clearly not your strong suit, FRiend.
I guess that’s what being a lawyer is all about, eh?
May your chains rest lightly.
Your argument breaks down when presented with this question: Where in the Carriage Contrat do I consnt to this search?
Also the arguement that you consent to the pat down by refusing the scan is bogus as the scan is an invasive search as well, is it not?
I did not serve 22 years in the Navy to have my liberties trashed. As Benjamin Franklin said - Any country willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserves neither and will lose both.
“At the airport, you give implied consent to be searched by entering the TSA “search” line.
I’m not saying that the search is reasonable, only that you’ve given your consent by going there.
“
Can you be made to give up your right to vote, then? Maybe your right to the 5th? Maybe...well, just how does trying to exercise one right provide consent to give up other rights?
Just as you must meet certain criteria to vote -register, be over 18, be a resident of the district, etc, the restrictions on flying are not on the act of flying, but on flying on a common carrier.
Oh, I never thought you liked the situation, I hope you understand, I am just trying to impress the idea that a right can only be “regulated” for means of practical ends to protect the rights of others.
People have the right to have the government try to curtail terrorism on airliners but does that mean the procdures by which they do so must violate all other rights or are there ways to do so effectively without violating our rights?
For instance, to prevent child molestation do we all stand naked outside our homes each night and have a roving van use backscatter technology and search our homes for missing kids?
Giving up our rights to help provide a sense of security is silly. We can have airport security and not violate anyone’s rights while doing so. We may suffer some inconvenience, but no rights need be violated.
I fully believe this all has nothing to do with security and has everything to do with corporations selling expensive equipment and making kickbacks to politicians.
Were exactly is that verbage in my purchase contract?
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.