Coffee,Tea,or Should We Feel Your Pregnant Wifes Breasts Before Throwing You in a Cell attheAirport?

lewrockwell.com ^ | 12/18/2002 | Nicholas Monahan

[general_re]

Once they ask, your refusal is taken as justification for the search. This circular logic has been ruled illegal REPEATEDLY by the USSC.

Never heard of Terry searches, eh?

[general_re]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures

A consensual search is not prima facie unreasonable. If you wish to make it so, fire away.

Is this the old, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" argument?

No, merely pointing out that the fact that you are actively committing a crime cannot be used as justification to prevent the police from discovering that crime. Which is essentially what your argument boils down to.

[general_re]

The security won't stop another terror attack; it merely makes using airliners for an attack a little more difficult.

So any measure that isn't perfectly effective should be discarded? What perfect security methods do you propose?

The best security we have is the determination of a free people not to be flown into buildings again.

Why is it wrong to try to protect people from having to make that choice? If the fit hits the shan, I'll be right there alongside you, fighting to take back control of the plane. If that means we go down rather than hitting a building full of innocents, so be it. However, I'd really prefer not to have to make that sort of sacrifice in the first place. In exchange for a reduced possibility that I will be inconvenienced when my plane slams into the ground at 300 mph, I accept the somewhat smaller inconvenience of consenting to a search before boarding. Others may prefer not to be inconvenienced at all - for them, there is Greyhound.

[DAnconia55]

You switched topics.

The government doesn't have the right to disarm you at all, for any reason, any where.
Regardless if they have usurped this power.

I, as a private individual, or company, can tell you not to bring your gun on to my property.

But stormtroopers searching old ladies (while letting the towelheads walk by) with government funding, and government powers are not private exercises of property rights.

[general_re]

My argument boils down to, if i wish to commit a crime, it is not incumbent upon me to give the police the information they need to prosecute me or even prevent the crime from being committed. Being required to submit to a search, when i have done nothing wrong, on the premise that i MIGHT, violates my 4th and 5th Amendment rights.

Huh? So when exactly is a search of your person not self-incriminatory?

[DAnconia55]

Travel is an absolute, unrestricted right? I can travel in any fashion I like, under any circumstances I choose?

As long as you can find someone willing to let you use their vehicle, or you have one of your own, yes.

That silly non-point out of the way .....
Would I be allowed to start an airport that allows people to board without being searched?

Answer: No.

[DAnconia55]

Question: What do all their high-tech toys have in common?

dunno..

[general_re]

As long as you can find someone willing to let you use their vehicle, or you have one of your own, yes.

So I can get good and likkered up, and then speed down the highway at 160 mph while weaving in and out of traffic? As long as I'm not perpetrating force or fraud on anyone - i.e., as long as God smiles upon me and I don't actually hit anyone - I should be okay under the law, right?

[DAnconia55]

The government agents are protecting a vulnerable border

In flights between states?

[americanbychoice]

Greyhound searches too as of late. It is also my choice not to get on the plane if I don't want to be searched. I fly a lot and haven't had any horror stories to tell.
I guess the next time a plane is hijuacked, these same individuals will be screeming bloody murder about Airport insecurity.
When all the airlines go out of business(They soon may), everyone will be upset about the lack of convenience, but never admit that they contributed to it. I guess, it is a catch 22 situation. We can't please anyone.
Go figure.

[general_re]

While the methods would work if carried out against the appropriate groups (muslim males between the ages of 18 and 45) when those groups are excluded and non-risk groups have them applied, its not too different than giving aspirin to a cancer patient and chemotherapy to someone with a minor headache.

And all you have to do is get rid of that pesky equal-protection clause of the Constitution. What was that about the cure being worse than the disease again?

[general_re]

When said search is conducted with a warrant granted only after showing probable cause.

Great. Demand a warrant. You'll still have to deal with a Terry pat-down, and the airline will probably refuse you service and refund your money, but you'll avoid an extensive search that way. Isn't choice wonderful?

[general_re]

It is also my choice not to get on the plane if I don't want to be searched.

Exactly so. If searches offend you, don't get searched. Stay off the airlines. Take a cab, drive yourself, ride a bike, buy a horse.

[DAnconia55]

There are no Constitutional grounds for federal interstates or speed limits.
Or drunk driving laws, for that matter.

States can enact speed limits and drunk driving laws.

But then, you're changing the subject again. This isn't about drunk driving. It's about a federal goverment that is LONG overdue for a reduction.