Fliers Claim TSA Have Deactivated Body Scanners

gizmondo ^ | 11/24/10 | staff

[Nachum]

According to tweeting travelers, many backscatter and millimeter-wave AIT scanning machines at airports are not in use at all, making opting out impossible. We've asked DHS/TSA for comment, but you can help us confirm. Not every airport in the country even has the "Advanced Imaging Technology" scanners installed. (A post at FlyerTalk.com has an up-to-date list of airports with the machines, as well as specific terminals.

[CitizenUSA]

You must have me confused with someone else, because I never claimed there was a right to fly. I actually sent you a post on that point, stating “I haven’t read or thought much about a constitutional “right to fly,” so I don’t have an opinion on it.” I don’t dispute the federal government’s authority to regulate interstate commerce, but like I wrote earlier, I haven’t thought much about a citizen’s right to travel.

What I’m concerned about are the illegal searches. Unless I misunderstand your previous posts, you believe the government has the right to conduct these nude scans and genital gropes. If government has actionable intelligence that a particular passenger is a terrorist or a bomb is hidden on a specific aircraft or even that terrorists plan an attack at a specific airport, then I don’t contest the government’s right to request a warrant and do intrusive searches for those precisely limited reasons. I have the right to #1 know why they are searching me and #2 know what they are searching for.

What I’m saying is the 4th clearly doesn’t permit the government to extend probable cause to the point where it’s meaningless. That’s what they’re doing. They can’t search millions of travelers simply because a terrorist group somewhere is contemplating a terrorist attack at some future date or time. The very random nature of these searches prove they aren’t searching for something or someone in particular so much as searching everyone as a deterrent to a few. That’s unconstitutional.

[freedomwarrior998]

If you don’t have a car and want to drive, does the government have the authority to give you a car?

[CitizenUSA]

freedomwarrior998: “Finally, searches based on consent (either express or implied) do not need any probable cause or suspicion whatsoever.”

Ah, do you think the nude scanners and genital gropes are legal because you consider the purchase of an airline ticket implied consent?

[Ajnin]

If you want to go to grandma’s house on the other side of the country, do you first have to call DHS and ask them in which manner you are permitted to travel?

[freedomwarrior998]

I don’t know what you are talking about, because I already posted that the TSA model is broken due to political correctness. I have already made clear that I support the Israeli method, and suggested that we need to adopt the El Al model of airport security. It works and has worked for a long time.

In regards to your comments about “illegal searches” neither Common Law or the Constitution has ever required a warrant for every single search that takes place. There are numerous exceptions to the warrant requirement and there always has been, the most common exception encountered is consent. When you take into account that you do not own the airplanes on which you seek to fly, you must grant your consent to abide by the regulations that are put into place to use someone elses’ property. (Unless you want to suggest that you have a RIGHT to use the airplane that belongs to someone else, which of course would make you a socialist.) Another exception has been the administrative search exception. Airport searches are considered administrative searches.

If you want to look at the criteria for an administrative search, take a look at New York v. Burger. Notice that Justice SCALIA joined the opinion. (I guess the next thing you will be telling me is that Justice Scalia is a liberal too.)

[freedomwarrior998]

If you don’t have a car or plane, are you entitled to one to fly to grandma’s house? Who pays for this plane?

[Ajnin]

If you want to just walk to grandma’s house, do you have to first call a government bureaucrat to get permission?

[freedomwarrior998]

If you want to just walk to grandma’s house, do you have to first call a government bureaucrat to get permission?

We already covered this... Nope. The right to travel is not the same as the right to a specific MEANS of travel. The latter is SOCIALISM. The Former is guaranteed by the Privileges or Immunities clause of Article IV.

[CitizenUSA]

The nude scans and genital gropes are NOT administrative searches. I’m a passenger, not the airline owner. Searching me is not the same thing as doing an inspection, aka administrative search, of a commercial enterprise to ensure regulatory compliance. In other words, the government can search the airport to ensure it has such things as fire extinguishers, restrooms, entry/exit controls, etc. An administrative search is conducted with the intent to ensure regulatory compliance, not uncover criminal activity, i.e. locate terrorists. This doesn’t prevent the state from prosecuting crimes discovered in the course of the inspection. You’re really stretching if you think New York v. Burger permits the federal government to strip everyone down without probable cause or a warrant in the course of inspections to determine airline regulatory compliance.

[freedomwarrior998]

The nude scans and genital gropes are NOT administrative searches.

I'm merely stating a legal fact. The law says that airport screenings are administrative searches. In any case, I already said that I am not in favor of the TSA model, I believe in the El Al model, which is quite a bit more effective, and has a proven track record.

I’m a passenger, not the airline owner.

And you don't have a Constitutional right to be a passenger on any airline. You don't own the airplane. The airline does. So if you choose to use their property, you have to abide by the rules set forth to use that property, right?

Searching me is not the same thing as doing an inspection, aka administrative search, of a commercial enterprise to ensure regulatory compliance. In other words, the government can search the airport to ensure it has such things as fire extinguishers, restrooms, entry/exit controls, etc. An administrative search is conducted with the intent to ensure regulatory compliance, not uncover criminal activity, i.e. locate terrorists. This doesn’t prevent the state from prosecuting crimes discovered in the course of the inspection. You’re really stretching if you think New York v. Burger permits the federal government to strip everyone down without probable cause or a warrant in the course of inspections to determine airline regulatory compliance.

I'm not stretching anything. The Courts have classified airport screenings as administrative searches. That's a legal fact. I personally think a better case could be made for implied consent. Since there is no Constitutional right to fly, you must agree to abide by the regulations set forth by Congress (which has the right to set forth such regulations under the commerce clause) or the airline (which owns the airplane) when you choose flying as your method of travel. If you don't like the regulations, then you are free to either purchase your own airplane on which you can fly in any manner that you choose, OR utilize another travel method.

Think of it this way, if I wanted to ride in your car, and you decided to let me do so, I would be forced to abide by your rules when I choose to ride with you. That would include a search of my person and belongings. If I was not willing to abide by this, then I could exercise my right not to enter your vehicle.

People seem to want a Socialist solution to this problem. That being the discovery of some unenumerated "right" to fly, and then government procedures that support their notion of what the world should look like, even if those procedures would be ineffective.

I'm sorry, that's simply not Constitutional limited government. True Constitutional limited government would respect the private property rights of the airplane owners, and would recognize that the Constitution gives the specific enumerated authority to Congress to regulate Interstate Commerce. Interstate air travel is clearly interstate commerce according to the intent of the Founders. So Congress has a right to act here. This is in stark contrast to the areas in which Congress has NO RIGHT to act, but does so by stretching the meaning of what Constitutes Commerce, for example, Regulating guns, mandating health insurance, setting wage and hour laws, mandating fuel standards, bailing out banks, and most other federal law in existence is NOT the regulation of commerce within the meaning of the clause or the intent of the founders, and Congress has NO BUSINESS in these areas.

[CitizenUSA]

freedomwarrior998: “So Congress has a right to act here.”

True, they have the right to regulate interstate commerce, but one constitutional provision does not negate or override another. I also agree I have no right to force someone else to let me use their aircraft. The airlines could ask their passengers to fly nude, but I doubt they’d get many customers.

On the other hand, the courts haven’t determined that nude scanners and genital gropes are administrative searches. A metal scanner is much less intrusive than the new procedures. Again, it comes down to the Constitution. You’re claiming the government can pass regulations that require a virtual strip search or grope as a prerequisite to travel. I suppose you’d claim administrative searches cover random cavity searches, too. That’s not what New York v. Burger was about, and you nullify the 4th if you claim regulations can require nude searches as a prerequisite for engaging in commerce.

My observation as a citizen? Courts tend to get tied down into minutia, much like some Christians like to pick apart individual verses of the Bible. I think you could also call it missing the forest for the trees. Step by step, they incrementally change the meaning of laws until recent interpretations no longer even resemble original meanings. In fact, it’s gotten to the point where recent rulings CONTRADICT original intent! Justice Thomas is one of the best at getting to the constitutional heart of the matter. Too bad he’s the exception.

Reread New York v. Burger. It didn’t apply to customers, and the searches weren’t conducted to find criminals. In fact, the court specifically ruled against using administrative searches to find criminals. What’s the TSA doing? Attempting to find terrorists, aka criminals. That’s NOT an administrative search to ensure compliance with commercial regulations.

[Yo-Yo]

I would imagine that Bin Laden is also laughing at the thought of you showing off your naked azz on command to strangers in an airport.

Yup, he most certainly is. Between the billions we are spending hiring 75 I.Q. people to "touch our junk" combined with the our own internal fighting over how much junk should be touched, he is accomplishing exaclty what he intended to accomplish: Disrupting our economy, and destroying our unity.

[Yo-Yo]

are your[sic] that dumb or do you assume I am?

We have the right to fly, as I posted - the code doesn't say we have the right to fly into restricted air space...any more than you'd have the right to drive over the White House lawn - or anyone's lawn.

Yup, I is[pun] that dumb. How you construe that a US statute gives you the right to access public airspace automatically equates to TSA patdowns are unconstitutional is beyond me. My point was that yes, you have a right to access public airspace, but in order to exercise that right you have to spend thousands of dollars on flying lessons, become licensed to fly, license your aircraft, and follow the flight directions of Air Traffic Control.

To fly on a commercial aircraft, you have to first follow the directions of TSA.

Now, if you wish to argue that it is stupid to strip search 85 year old grannies and 7 year old boys, we can have that conversation, and I'd be on your side against those things. If you wish to argue that we should be observing passenger behavior and ethnic backgrounds and subject those persons to additional searches, instead of being zombies and treating every single passenger as if they're bin Laden himself, I'd be on your side as well.

But if you wish to argue that Congress doesn't have the authority to pass laws regulating air travel, or the TSA doesn't have the authority to implement those laws by issuing rules and proceedures, then I'm sorry but I'm not on that page.

We've had airport security screenings since the rash of hijackings in the 1970s, but it was the pre-9/11 rules and proceedures that allowed 19 hijackers to bring boxcutters onboard, and it was the pre-9/11 mentality of their fellow passengers and aircrew to just go along with the hijacking instead of fighting back that allowed those aircraft to be turned into weapons of mass destruction.

Since then, we've had the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, and the toner cartridge bomber.

And I've noticed that you haven't even addressed the Constitutionality of the Department of Homeland Security's "No-Fly" list, that prevents a list of persons from even purchasing a ticket to fly. No due process, just a fiat "you can't fly." Is that Constitutional?

So tell me, what's YOUR plan to prevent the next smoking hole in the ground?

[ErnBatavia]

the bend-over media is doing their job saying “there were no apparent protests anywhere”

Yep - there coulda been riots, stabbings and shootings at dozens of airports, but unless you were there as a witness you'd never, ever hear a peep.

[suijuris]

in terms of your logic, one could say that because our children are sent to govt schools, teachers would have the right to molest them.

Actually, in many ways our children are molested in the public schools. How many times have you heard about bizarre searches of children and their belongings sometimes even strip searches of elementary children) that were conducted by school officials without parental consent?

In fact, there was a problem at my daughters middle school years ago with criminal implications for the perpetrator. The school had the police interrogate the children at school, including my daughter, without notifying the parents. The dangers for a child saying the wrong incriminating thing in this situation are obvious. My daughter wisely told them she would not talk not without me being present. They continued to berate and intimidate her. They never bothered to call me and I found out about it when my daughter came home. The next morning I contacted the principal and he told me had the school had the right to do it because while the kids were at school they had loco parentis custody of the child. I told him I did not care what rights he thought the school system had, if it happend again I would sue him personally and failing that he would have a bigger problem with me.

The point is, the public schools do believe they have the right to searches, and in some cases strip searches of children, and do so quite often.

[maine-iac7]

This is where the next attacks are more likely to come from - and the feds know it but are turning a blind eye

There are hundreds of sandal wearing, turban wearing drivers, mostly from Somalia, currently being rushed through truck driving schools to get their big rig licenses.

They whip out their prayer rugs at fuel stops and play stink bug on the tarmac. They are in constant touch with groups in two major cities known to have terror cells.

The govt,for the most part, pays their up to $5,000 training fees.

Major targets, like fuel depots, are totally accessible for trucks to drive straight into - for ONE example of a prime target...then there are the cities.

How many of these hundreds of turban wearers would have to be in command of 18-wheelers, loaded with explosives, to carry out a major attack?

But the feds are not keeping track of them. Too busy sticking their hands down granny's pants.

[suijuris]

When you get a J.D. come back and talk to me then.

Why should he? Most JD's have little concept of constitutional law. When I was in school in the mid seventies they were already teaching that the Constitution was a living, breathing document to be constantly changed to adapt to the new norms of society. I know, I took the courses.

In fact, you do remember that when SC Justice Kagan was dean of Harvard Law School she dropped the constitutional law course requirements for first year law students and replaced them with international law course requirements.

So why should anyone trust an attorney, particularly a younger attorney, to be an expert in constitutional law? The Constitution was written in plane language so normal non-attorney peon types could understand it. It is the attorneys who have consistently distorted the meaning of it.

Check out the Enabling act of 1934 to get an understanding of how we the people have been separated from our constitutional rights.

[AndyJackson]

Take you twisted little mind and go crawl back into your unconstitutional hell hole that you crawled out of.

It is you who cannot f'in read, right where Carroll says that the particular f'in circumstance to which you so pointedly refer, whithout f'in mentioning what the f'in special circumstnaces were, requires still, inter alia (that's Litin), that the arresting officer have f'in probable cause, some f'in reason to believe that that moonshiner was transporting moonshine on that particular day, unlike the f'in moonshine you are trying to preach to everyone around here.

Next time you constitutional lawyer types try to tell us what a case said, try reading it and making sure it says what you said it says, because someone else will read it and prove that about the most useless crowd of folks around are lawyers who spend their time claiming they are constitutional law experts.

Are you such an f'in clueless Nazibootlicker that you cannot comprehend that there is no probable cause against blond 4 year old girls or grannies or old while males in wheelchairs.

Don't answer, you already proved it in spades.

[AndyJackson]

When you get a J.D. come back and talk to me then.

I hadn't even read this little ditty of yours, you arrogant fraud. Most law programs actually require their students to read the cases that they are supposed to study, and when a case says an arresting officer has to have probable cause to conduct a warrantless search it probably means that the arresting officer must have probable cause to conduct a warrantless search.

Unless you got your JD from Georgetown and cain't remember the meaning of "is."

But being a constitutional law scholar, I presume that you can just put your hands over a copy of the constitution and feel the eminations.

[AndyJackson]

The law says that airport screenings are administrative searches

Since you claim to have a JD, do you know how over the top do your bootlicking apologies for this nonsense are? When the Gestapo broke in, demanded papers, and hauled off the Jews they were just conducting an administrative search.