TSA begins random ROAD inspections in Tennessee...

[-Cp]

PORTLAND, Tenn. – You're probably used to seeing TSA's signature blue uniforms at the airport, but now agents are hitting the interstates to fight terrorism with Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR).

"Where is a terrorist more apt to be found? Not these days on an airplane more likely on the interstate," said Tennessee Department of Safety & Homeland Security Commissioner Bill Gibbons.

Tuesday Tennessee was first to deploy VIPR simultaneously at five weigh stations and two bus stations across the state.

Agents are recruiting truck drivers, like Rudy Gonzales, into the First Observer Highway Security Program to say something if they see something.
"Not only truck drivers, but cars, everybody should be aware of what's going on, on the road," said Gonzales.
It's all meant to urge every driver to call authorities if they see something suspicious.

Read the rest at:
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/15725035/officials-claim-tennessee-becomes-first-state-to-deploy-vipr-statewide

[ConHog]

PORTLAND, Tenn. – You're probably used to seeing TSA's signature blue uniforms at the airport, but now agents are hitting the interstates to fight terrorism with Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR).

"Where is a terrorist more apt to be found? Not these days on an airplane more likely on the interstate," said Tennessee Department of Safety & Homeland Security Commissioner Bill Gibbons.

Tuesday Tennessee was first to deploy VIPR simultaneously at five weigh stations and two bus stations across the state.

Agents are recruiting truck drivers, like Rudy Gonzales, into the First Observer Highway Security Program to say something if they see something.
"Not only truck drivers, but cars, everybody should be aware of what's going on, on the road," said Gonzales.
It's all meant to urge every driver to call authorities if they see something suspicious.

Read the rest at:
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/15725035/officials-claim-tennessee-becomes-first-state-to-deploy-vipr-statewide


Your thread title is a lie.

[Nukeman]

Your thread title is a lie.How do you figure??? Is the TSA involved in this operation?? YES!! Is the TSA visible at the truck stops?? YES!! Is the TSA instructing the truckers on what to do and helping in the inspection of said truck?? YES!!

So please tell me how the OP title is a LIE?????

Did you watch the video???? I did, it had TSA Agents doing the inspections at weigh stations along the road randomly!!!!!

[Kathianne]

How do you figure??? Is the TSA involved in this operation?? YES!! Is the TSA visible at the truck stops?? YES!! Is the TSA instructing the truckers on what to do and helping in the inspection of said truck?? YES!!

So please tell me how the OP title is a LIE?????

Did you watch the video???? I did, it had TSA Agents doing the inspections at weigh stations along the road randomly!!!!!

CH probably figures that the truckers are only being inconvenienced, shut up and keep moving. Much like at the airports.

[ConHog]

CH probably figures that the truckers are only being inconvenienced, shut up and keep moving. Much like at the airports.



Nope, I merely noted that the thread title is a lie. TSA agents at truck stops doesn't equal random checkpoints. End of story.

[Kathianne]

Nope, I merely noted that the thread title is a lie. TSA agents at truck stops doesn't equal random checkpoints. End of story.

Sorry, it does appear that you haven't a problem with enforcement of 'laws' legal or not. Not from school boards running roughshod, not from TSA, whether at airports or now truck inspection areas. I mean you profess to be pro-constitution, but is that only about issues that you agree with?

[ConHog]

Sorry, it does appear that you haven't a problem with enforcement of 'laws' legal or not. Not from school boards running roughshod, not from TSA, whether at airports or now truck inspection areas. I mean you profess to be pro-constitution, but is that only about issues that you agree with?

School boards running rough shod? Let's start there, maybe even you split it into it's own thread so as not to further derail this thread. I would like to know why you believe these things about me though.

Am I a law and order type? Yes of course, I spent my entire career in the MPs so it's ingrained in me, but that doesn't mean I believe law enforcement should be able to do anything and everything they want no matter what.

[Kathianne]

School boards running rough shod? Let's start there, maybe even you split it into it's own thread so as not to further derail this thread. I would like to know why you believe these things about me though.

Am I a law and order type? Yes of course, I spent my entire career in the MPs so it's ingrained in me, but that doesn't mean I believe law enforcement should be able to do anything and everything they want no matter what.

I haven't come close to derailing, this is the outcome of discussion, you know, the reason for the board's existence? I am law and order type too. Many of my family is in the law, one way or another-luckily on the right side of it. ;)

I respect authority too, when it is based on principles and the rules for making law. Little things like the Constitution and the legacies we base even meetings upon-the rule of law for instance. Mostly bound within Robert's Rules of Order.

Let's start with the Patriot Act, which many on the Right defended even when it became apparent that once again, ignoring the basic premise of limited government was the wrong thing to do. Like ObamaCare, there were and are systemic problems in executive agencies to coordinate and share information, those problems leave us at risk. The Patriot Act, personified at least at the level of TSA demonstrates its overreach and own set of threat to us.

[ConHog]

I haven't come close to derailing, this is the outcome of discussion, you know, the reason for the board's existence? I am law and order type too. Many of my family is in the law, one way or another-luckily on the right side of it. ;)

I respect authority too, when it is based on principles and the rules for making law. Little things like the Constitution and the legacies we base even meetings upon-the rule of law for instance. Mostly bound within Robert's Rules of Order.

Let's start with the Patriot Act, which many on the Right defended even when it became apparent that once again, ignoring the basic premise of limited government was the wrong thing to do. Like ObamaCare, there were and are systemic problems in executive agencies to coordinate and share information, those problems leave us at risk. The Patriot Act, personified at least at the level of TSA demonstrates its overreach and own set of threat to us.



I didn't mean to imply you were derailing. I merely meant I didn't just wanna see this thread turned into a thread about me rather than the topic in general.

I don't agree with many aspects of the so called Patriot Act.

[Kathianne]

I didn't mean to imply you were derailing. I merely meant I didn't just wanna see this thread turned into a thread about me rather than the topic in general.

I don't agree with many aspects of the so called Patriot Act.

IF I were starting a thread about YOU, it would be in lounge or cage. This was just one of two threads where your premise seems to be that everyone should 'just shut up and take what the authorities are saying to do.'

I haven't a problem with laws, rules, standards, etc. I do have a problem with a person or a body that has enforcement powers and exercises them for personal agendas whether enrichment or 'glory'. I also have issues with laws that are not based upon the Constitution, unless of course I'm in another country, then I must follow their laws. But here? Well we have a right, even a duty to stand up and speak out against laws that we think are unlawful from the get go. Indeed, more so when we can identify a huge mistake, *Patriot Act* that seemed a good idea a decade ago.

No, the idea of giving up liberty for safety? Good idea not to do that. No liberty, no safety.

[ConHog]

IF I were starting a thread about YOU, it would be in lounge or cage. This was just one of two threads where your premise seems to be that everyone should 'just shut up and take what the authorities are saying to do.'

I haven't a problem with laws, rules, standards, etc. I do have a problem with a person or a body that has enforcement powers and exercises them for personal agendas whether enrichment or 'glory'. I also have issues with laws that are not based upon the Constitution, unless of course I'm in another country, then I must follow their laws. But here? Well we have a right, even a duty to stand up and speak out against laws that we think are unlawful from the get go. Indeed, more so when we can identify a huge mistake, *Patriot Act* that seemed a good idea a decade ago.

No, the idea of giving up liberty for safety? Good idea not to do that. No liberty, no safety.



I am still confused as to why you suggested that I am pro school boards running roughshod.

Oh, and yes you DO have a right to speak against laws that you don't agree with in this country, but you still are required to obey those laws or face the consequences.

[Kathianne]

I am still confused as to why you suggested that I am pro school boards running roughshod.

Oh, and yes you DO have a right to speak against laws that you don't agree with in this country, but you still are required to obey those laws or face the consequences.

I agree, what you are missing here is that the woman knew exactly what she was doing. She was following the law, but speaking out. She was not yelling, screaming, or disturbing the peace. She was reciting, first the forth amendment, then when those in the executive branch went beyond their powers, the first amendment. She didn't want to use the 'show me nekked' scanners, but was willing to face the search, as was her right.

Exactly how does that square with your stand?

[ConHog]

I agree, what you are missing here is that the woman knew exactly what she was doing. She was following the law, but speaking out. She was not yelling, screaming, or disturbing the peace. She was reciting, first the forth amendment, then when those in the executive branch went beyond their powers, the first amendment. She didn't want to use the 'show me nekked' scanners, but was willing to face the search, as was her right.

Exactly how does that square with your stand?

What stand? I have PLAINLY said that if your beef is that the TSA complained about her reciting the 4th Amendment, I completely agree with you. They should have ignored her and just did their jobs.

[Kathianne]

What stand? I have PLAINLY said that if your beef is that the TSA complained about her reciting the 4th Amendment, I completely agree with you. They should have ignored her and just did their jobs.

Not 'my beef.' I didn't start the thread, nor do anything but respond to later posts.

I just read the article, analyzed my thoughts about what happened and wrote about them.

[ConHog]

Not 'my beef.' I didn't start the thread, nor do anything but respond to later posts.

I just read the article, analyzed my thoughts about what happened and wrote about them.

And on the issue of the TSA getting worked up over her reciting the 4th Amendment during the pat down. I agree with you. Dumb for them to react in anyway to that.

Even though the 4th is irrelevant when you CHOOSE to be searched.

[Kathianne]

And on the issue of the TSA getting worked up over her reciting the 4th Amendment during the pat down. I agree with you. Dumb for them to react in anyway to that.

Even though the 4th is irrelevant when you CHOOSE to be searched.

One always has the right in a public venue to read aloud, though folks might thing you are a bit 'off.' One can assume that was her bit to pointing out the wrongness of the search, while not going to all out civil disobedience.

[ConHog]

One always has the right in a public venue to read aloud, though folks might thing you are a bit 'off.' One can assume that was her bit to pointing out the wrongness of the search, while not going to all out civil disobedience.



I actually don't care what her reasons were. She wasn't hurting anyone so she can do it if she likes. Good enough for me. She's a fool for doing it, but she has that right.

[Kathianne]

I actually don't care what her reasons were. She wasn't hurting anyone so she can do it if she likes. Good enough for me. She's a fool for doing it, but she has that right.

First you say basically what you say above. Then you agree that one must stand up against bad laws. Then you call the person doing so a fool? I'm confused on where you really stand.

[ConHog]

First you say basically what you say above. Then you agree that one must stand up against bad laws. Then you call the person doing so a fool? I'm confused on where you really stand.



I said she was wrong about the 4th Amendment applying to this situation. I didn't say she didn't have a right to be wrong. Those are two different concepts.

[Kathianne]

I said she was wrong about the 4th Amendment applying to this situation. I didn't say she didn't have a right to be wrong. Those are two different concepts.

I think she got the point across to most. Not so much with all. That's all good.

Have a nice night.

[ConHog]

I think she got the point across to most. Not so much with all. That's all good.

Have a nice night.



If her point was "look at me, I will blab about an Amendment that I don't even understand" then you are correct, she got her point across.


By the way , you realize that if the scanners were an unreasonable search then so to would be metal detectors at courthouses, etc etc. Correct?

[Kathianne]

If her point was "look at me, I will blab about an Amendment that I don't even understand" then you are correct, she got her point across.


By the way , you realize that if the scanners were an unreasonable search then so to would be metal detectors at courthouses, etc etc. Correct?

You are one of those missing the point, obviously missing the connections of what is happening at airports, with cameras, now truck inspection points and the 4th amendment. That's cool with you. Life is great.

AK courthouses have the nekked be scanners? Shit, i thought it was a poorer state. Must be nice.

[ConHog]

You are one of those missing the point, obviously missing the connections of what is happening at airports, with cameras, now truck inspection points and the 4th amendment. That's cool with you. Life is great.

AK courthouses have the nekked be scanners? Shit, i thought it was a poorer state. Must be nice.



first of all AK is Alaska. I live in Arkansas which is AR. Second of all. Are you clearly claiming that the difference between constitutional searches and unconstitutional searches is no more than the difference between a metal detector and a full body scanner?

[Kathianne]

first of all AK is Alaska. I live in Arkansas which is AR. Second of all. Are you clearly claiming that the difference between constitutional searches and unconstitutional searches is no more than the difference between a metal detector and a full body scanner?

:laugh: I've got to get some sleep. Reminds me of writing about Brazilians and Spanish speakers. My bad.

About the scanners, courthouses...are you saying that the courthouse scanners whether in AR or MT came in via the fed? Not talking about Federal buildings here. Are you saying they came under an act like Patriot Act? Which legislative bodies put those scanners in? Who's paying? Who's effected?

[ConHog]

:laugh: I've got to get some sleep. Reminds me of writing about Brazilians and Spanish speakers. My bad.

About the scanners, courthouses...are you saying that the courthouse scanners whether in AR or MT came in via the fed? Not talking about Federal buildings here. Are you saying they came under an act like Patriot Act? Which legislative bodies put those scanners in? Who's paying? Who's effected?



Absolutely, you do realize that there are federal courthouses right? Oh, and the 4th Amendment applies to state government as well anyway since incorporation.

So if you are arguing that metal detectors in courthouses are different than body scanners in airports. You aren't arguing about being searched, or why you're being searched, you're only arguing that the TSA shouldn't be doing the searching.

[darin]

Nope, I merely noted that the thread title is a lie. TSA agents at truck stops doesn't equal random checkpoints. End of story.

Random checkpoints at truck stops. TSA is is doing that. Not just -Cp, but drudge used the headline. Fits, IMO - and citizens should be outraged.

[logroller]

Random checkpoints at truck stops. TSA is is doing that. Not just -Cp, but drudge used the headline. Fits, IMO - and citizens should be outraged.

Random checkpoints for what, exactly-- bombs and weapons?


"sir, do have any bombs on board?"

"No. Well I had like one... and a half, but that was during Ramadan almost two months ago."

"Please step out of the car."

"No please, I'll go straight home. I have Jihad in the morning, I don't want to lose my 72 virgins." :laugh2:

[revelarts]

PORTLAND, Tenn. – You're probably used to seeing TSA's signature blue uniforms at the airport, but now agents are hitting the interstates to fight terrorism with Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR).

"Where is a terrorist more apt to be found? Not these days on an airplane more likely on the interstate," said Tennessee Department of Safety & Homeland Security Commissioner Bill Gibbons.
.....
Read the rest at:
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/15725035/officials-claim-tennessee-becomes-first-state-to-deploy-vipr-statewide

So the TSA at airports now is a waste, and they are going to go away? huh? No?

Random check points in the U.S.S.A , your papers please, for your safety.
That commerce clause comes in handy. Trucks, Buses, Trains and Planes so far.
Incremental Fascist-socialist state Fabian socialist techniques to get there.
My brain is on fire now, this BS needs to be reversed.

which presidential candidate will you vote for that will do anything about the kind of hell "homeland security" "Law and Order or else" types wants to impose?

[LuvRPgrl]

Sorry, it does appear that you haven't a problem with enforcement of 'laws' legal or not. Not from school boards running roughshod, not from TSA, whether at airports or now truck inspection areas. I mean you profess to be pro-constitution, but is that only about issues that you agree with?

Your catchin on Kath. Ive been pointing this out for a while now. His pro COTUS stance ends when it no longer gives law enforcement more power.




Am I a law and order type? Yes of course, I spent my entire career in the MPs so it's ingrained in me, but that doesn't mean I believe law enforcement should be able to do anything and everything they want no matter what.

and yet you havent once agreed in any circumstance that law enforcement was wrong, even when they pepper spray an unarmed and non threatening young lady.

[LuvRPgrl]

I didn't mean to imply you were derailing. I merely meant I didn't just wanna see this thread turned into a thread about me rather than the topic in general.

I don't agree with many aspects of the so called Patriot Act.


No, you didnt imply, you blatantlly said it directly, you know, once you hit the submit button, your words are here for all to read.

"...not to derail this thread any further..."

AK isnt Arkansas? Its AR? I always thought it was ASS....ARKANSAS

[Abbey Marie]

I agree, what you are missing here is that the woman knew exactly what she was doing. She was following the law, but speaking out. She was not yelling, screaming, or disturbing the peace. She was reciting, first the forth amendment, then when those in the executive branch went beyond their powers, the first amendment. She didn't want to use the 'show me nekked' scanners, but was willing to face the search, as was her right.

Exactly how does that square with your stand?

According to the article, the passengers all around her were kind of agog (paraphrasing), and she certainly must have yelled when she asked them all to take out their cells. Much more than a quiet recitation.

But back to this thread:
The title isn't an outright lie, as technically the TSA is acting somewhat randomly.
But to not act randomly, they would have to stop tons of people. I would agree that it is misleading, though, in that it makes one think the TSA is on your local road waiting to randomly strip search you and your car. So far, not the case, lol.

I also try to keep in mind that the people ordering such procedures as are being carried out here know a heck of a lot more about terrorist chatter than we do.

[revelarts]

.....in that it makes one think the TSA is on your local road waiting to randomly strip search you and your car. So far, not the case, lol.

LOL LOL :(

But Based on the comments of the Officail , there's terror on the interstate, If baby formula can potentially bring down a plane why not a car with a full tank of gas. Why not search every person that gets on the highway, for POTENTIAL danger? seems reasonable, How big does the bomb have to be, take off your shoes before you get back in the car Ma-am?


....
I also try to keep in mind that the people ordering such procedures as are being carried out here know a heck of a lot more about terrorist chatter than we do.
trust the government, they know whats best.
very disappointed Abbey.

[jimnyc]

trust the government, they know whats best.
very disappointed Abbey.

Who should we rely on for information about terrorists, Rev? The terrorists themselves, perhaps? Maybe just open up the intel to the public and let us make the decisions ourselves? At some point, you have to rely on those WE voted to take care of such sensitive issue for us. Or are you seriously inferring that we open up our nations intel to some other than our leaders/military?

[Abbey Marie]

LOL LOL :(

But Based on the comments of the Officail , there's terror on the interstate, If baby formula can potentially bring down a plane why not a car with a full tank of gas. Why not search every person that gets on the highway, for POTENTIAL danger? seems reasonable, How big does the bomb have to be, take off your shoes before you get back in the car Ma-am?


trust the government, they know whats best.
very disappointed Abbey.

Yes, so you've said. :salute:

[logroller]

Who should we rely on for information about terrorists, Rev? The terrorists themselves, perhaps? Maybe just open up the intel to the public and let us make the decisions ourselves? At some point, you have to rely on those WE voted to take care of such sensitive issue for us. Or are you seriously inferring that we open up our nations intel to some other than our leaders/military?

I think rev understands, and agrees with, the tenets of a Republic. Just thinks the Republic should limit itself to warranted search- not random inspections.

[jimnyc]

I think rev understands, and agrees with, the tenets of a Republic. Just thinks the Republic should limit itself to warranted search- not random inspections.

Ok, if we as citizens feel a law is unconstitutional, what should we do? A lot of people think abortion laws are unconstitutional, what would we have those that disagree do?

[logroller]

Ok, if we as citizens feel a law is unconstitutional, what should we do? A lot of people think abortion laws are unconstitutional, what would we have those that disagree do?

Most important is to spread awareness of the problem and a realistic solution. Lots of people have concerns, but without a realistic and clear goal (think OWS) most people will dismiss even their own concerns let alone someone else's. Media, like govt, responds to organizations more than individuals. So get involved with an NPO whose mission addresses one's concerns. And it goes without saying, money and resources are vital to any cause's success; and one's time is a resource they can donate. Nonprofits have a rich history in this country; providing many of the services which are I effectively provided for by the market, and inefficiently provided by govt. Some of these are in areas which government has recently tried to exert an illegitimate force- e.g. healthcare! Just google healthcare reform organization; I bet there are hundreds if not thousands. All with different proposals and missions, revenue streams etc. it's that freedom to choose who you want to support that try makes nonprofits like the markets, but they also have transparency like govt- which gives them both less red tape than govt and more socially compassionate than private enterprise. that's why you'll find so many of the über wealthy give heavily to foundations to further their interests, instead of given their money to to govt in the form of taxes. Of course few of us have their level of influence as individuals, but through organization our shared voice can reach the top levels of government, even beyond. My phones about to die, gotta send this- but I can give a few ideas on abortion prevention in another post/ thread maybe, as I'm sure there's already one , I needn'take this into another

[revelarts]

Who should we rely on for information about terrorists, Rev? The terrorists themselves, perhaps? and if they are one in the same ur umm,

So far most thwarted terrorist attacks (such as they were) have happened because citizens have called it. without any need for UNconstitutional actions. Definitively not acts by the TSA.
There NO NEED to "give up some liberties" for faux security. period.



Maybe just open up the intel to the public and let us make the decisions ourselves? At some point, you have to rely on those WE voted to take care of such sensitive issue for us. Or are you seriously inferring that we open up our nations intel to some other than our leaders/military? ..huh..
Why do you keep making up sorta goofy extreme position for me. "Am I INFERRING...?", what the heck, I'm extreme enough, thanks Jim. BUT I'll answer your assertion now that you've got me thinking about it, my position is this.
It Depends. Secrecy has gone to far. Its not good for the Republic in general, except in certain cases. I think you might even agree with that if you pause and consider.

[jimnyc]

and if they are one in the same ur umm,

So far most thwarted terrorist attacks (such as they were) have happened because citizens have called it. without any need for UNconstitutional actions. Definitively not acts by the TSA.
There NO NEED to "give up some liberties" for faux security. period.

..huh..
Why do you keep making up sorta goofy extreme position for me. "Am I INFERRING...?", what the heck, I'm extreme enough, thanks Jim. BUT I'll answer your assertion now that you've got me thinking about it, my position is this.
It Depends. Secrecy has gone to far. Its not good for the Republic in general, except in certain cases. I think you might even agree with that if you pause and consider.

Sorry, but EVERY thwarted terror attack has had intel agencies and government agencies involved. Sure, maybe something got set off by a "citizen", but then intel takes over. You don't like that. Sorry, but the intel community remains in only certain hands for a reason, whether YOU like it or not. Additionally, MANY of the intel actions have relied upon things from within the Patriot Act, which many shitheads also consider to be unconstitutional.

I'm sorry you hate and fear the government, Rev, but WE elect these people and need to abide by the decisions and laws they create. We have a process for things we don't like. We don't need hippies running around the nation doing whatever they like because they don't like decisions/laws. Move to Iraq or Afghanistan if you want little to no respect of laws and the process to remove elected officials and laws.

[revelarts]

Sorry, but EVERY thwarted terror attack has had intel agencies and government agencies involved. Sure, maybe something got set off by a "citizen", but then intel takes over. You don't like that. Sorry, but the intel community remains in only certain hands for a reason, whether YOU like it or not. Additionally, MANY of the intel actions have relied upon things from within the Patriot Act, which many shitheads also consider to be unconstitutional.

I'm sorry you hate and fear the government, Rev, but WE elect these people and need to abide by the decisions and laws they create. We have a process for things we don't like. We don't need hippies running around the nation doing whatever they like because they don't like decisions/laws. Move to Iraq or Afghanistan if you want little to no respect of laws and the process to remove elected officials and laws.

http://gifsoup.com/imager.php?id=2749106&t=o (http://gifsoup.com/view/2749106/face-palm.html)

[jimnyc]

http://gifsoup.com/imager.php?id=2749106&t=o (http://gifsoup.com/view/2749106/face-palm.html)

That's pretty much how I pictured you! I think I saw that guy protesting at a few 9/11 truther protests in NYC once. :lol:

[Gunny]

How do you figure??? Is the TSA involved in this operation?? YES!! Is the TSA visible at the truck stops?? YES!! Is the TSA instructing the truckers on what to do and helping in the inspection of said truck?? YES!!

So please tell me how the OP title is a LIE?????

Did you watch the video???? I did, it had TSA Agents doing the inspections at weigh stations along the road randomly!!!!!

F-ing brownshirts. THIS what we fought to defend? Despicable.

[Gunny]

Nope, I merely noted that the thread title is a lie. TSA agents at truck stops doesn't equal random checkpoints. End of story.

The TSA is unconstitutional. Period. This is NOT what I swore to uphold and defend.

[Gunny]

That's pretty much how I pictured you! I think I saw that guy protesting at a few 9/11 truther protests in NYC once. :lol:

LOL. I saw that movie. Moments I'll never get back.:laugh:

[ConHog]

The TSA is unconstitutional. Period. This is NOT what I swore to uphold and defend.



I don't think it's unconstitutional, but I DO think it's an unnecessary bureaucratic monstrosity. We have WAY too many paramilitary agencies in our government. On THAT we agree.

[LuvRPgrl]

Sorry, but EVERY thwarted terror attack has had intel agencies and government agencies involved..
Of course they have, when a citizen sees something, who do they report it to?
Those agencies are the only ones that CAN thwart a terrorist attack. I mean, we dont have Indiana Jones in the real world.

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px;">



apparently Tennessee wasn't the 1st place this was done it's been done "all over the country"

then we have this,
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bsJbAXnZ-Z8?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640">

Military to civilian use, the whole world is the "battlefield"?
</object><object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2qG368eZ8CA?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2qG368eZ8CA?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

[revelarts]

....
I also try to keep in mind that the people ordering such procedures as are being carried out here know a heck of a lot more about terrorist chatter than we do.

"...Larry Godwin, deputy commissioner of TDSHS, said the checks at the weigh stations were about showing the people of Tennessee the government is serious about transportation safety, and to make sure the state is ready in case something were to happen." VIPR operations today mark the first simultaneous scale check across the state, they are not based on any particular threat," Godwin said. "It is just about working together with different agencies and being prepared and coordinated from Memphis all the way to East Tennessee...."
"
http://www.jacksonsun.com/article/20111019/NEWS01/110190307/Feds-state-check-trucks-Closer-scrutiny-involved-weigh-stations-across-state


But i'm sure that's still OK with some folks

[ConHog]

"...Larry Godwin, deputy commissioner of TDSHS, said the checks at the weigh stations were about showing the people of Tennessee the government is serious about transportation safety, and to make sure the state is ready in case something were to happen." VIPR operations today mark the first simultaneous scale check across the state, they are not based on any particular threat," Godwin said. "It is just about working together with different agencies and being prepared and coordinated from Memphis all the way to East Tennessee...."
"
http://www.jacksonsun.com/article/20111019/NEWS01/110190307/Feds-state-check-trucks-Closer-scrutiny-involved-weigh-stations-across-state


But i'm sure that's still OK with some folks


You do of course realize that semis have been targeted for random checks at weigh stations for decades right? So once again, you are merely objecting to the source of THESE inspections.

[Kathianne]

Ok, if we as citizens feel a law is unconstitutional, what should we do? A lot of people think abortion laws are unconstitutional, what would we have those that disagree do?

Speak out, let your representatives know. Just like the pro-life folks and tea partiers have a right to meet, march, even engage in civil disobedience; there is no protection from anarchy. That is where we agree.

No right to bomb, kill, etc.

However, when the act is to go along, to the point of agreeing to a search with TSA, while reminding the folks with TSA and any others around that the existence of their agency is in violation of 4th amendment that doesn't really qualify for any of the above. All it is an example of free speech.

[ConHog]

Speak out, let your representatives know. Just like the pro-life folks and tea partiers have a right to meet, march, even engage in civil disobedience; there is no protection from anarchy. That is where we agree.

No right to bomb, kill, etc.

However, when the act is to go along, to the point of agreeing to a search with TSA, while reminding the folks with TSA and any others around that the existence of their agency is in violation of 4th amendment that doesn't really qualify for any of the above. All it is an example of free speech.


You seem to be confused. An agency can NOT be in violation of the 4th Amendment simply because they exist.

[jimnyc]

Of course they have, when a citizen sees something, who do they report it to?
Those agencies are the only ones that CAN thwart a terrorist attack. I mean, we dont have Indiana Jones in the real world.

Rev wrote:


trust the government, they know whats best.
very disappointed Abbey.

And then he "thanks" you for your post. If he insinuates we cannot trust the government, then why is it suddenly OK to trust them when citizens report something to them and the intel agencies take over? He cries about 9/11 and intel agencies and politicians, then is disappointed in Abbey for trusting the government.

trust the government, don't trust the government, obey laws, disobey laws, citizens determining outside the judicial system what is unconstitutional. Sounds a little fucked up to me. But if YOU say it's ok to trust those agencies as they are the only ones who CAN thwart a terror attack, suddenly they and your post are OK?

[Kathianne]

You seem to be confused. An agency can NOT be in violation of the 4th Amendment simply because they exist.

You are correct, my point seems to have flown right past your ability of comprehension.

[jimnyc]

Speak out, let your representatives know. Just like the pro-life folks and tea partiers have a right to meet, march, even engage in civil disobedience; there is no protection from anarchy. That is where we agree.

Hasn't even barely touched the surface of the court system yet and a "few" nameless people think it's already OK to toss out laws/regulations and have citizens determine what and what they will not do. If the population of the US acted in this manner on EVERY law they felt was unconstitutional or "reaching too far" - we'd have absolute anarchy. I believe in our judicial system and I disagree with fuckwits trying to make a statement AT THE SEARCH area when they know damn well this was going to happen before they went there. Why go there and make a scene, why not avoid it and file a suit? It's people LOOKING for trouble that make these incidents and 99.99% of them have no desire to see a courtroom and would RATHER make decisions themselves.

The same people who WANT to make scenes are the same dipshits who find stories like this on nut sites and go around trying to pass it off as real, or worse, believe it without confirming, like the OP did.

[jimnyc]

My bad, thought I was in the other TSA thread. The nuts get around in circles and confuse me.

[ConHog]

You are correct, my point seems to have flown right past your ability of comprehension.


I see you're still in a pissy mood. Or rather I see that it is okay when YOU flame........ I can assure you that you can't write anything that I couldn't comprehend. Your words were clear you said "The TSA is a violation of the 4th Amendment" it is NOT. Sometimes the TSA may very well violate someone's 4th Amendment rights, but the agency itself is NOT a violation of the 4th.

[Kathianne]

Hasn't even barely touched the surface of the court system yet and a "few" nameless people think it's already OK to toss out laws/regulations and have citizens determine what and what they will not do. If the population of the US acted in this manner on EVERY law they felt was unconstitutional or "reaching too far" - we'd have absolute anarchy. I believe in our judicial system and I disagree with fuckwits trying to make a statement AT THE SEARCH area when they know damn well this was going to happen before they went there. Why go there and make a scene, why not avoid it and file a suit? It's people LOOKING for trouble that make these incidents and 99.99% of them have no desire to see a courtroom and would RATHER make decisions themselves.

The same people who WANT to make scenes are the same dipshits who find stories like this on nut sites and go around trying to pass it off as real, or worse, believe it without confirming, like the OP did.


I would go along with this perhaps being a false story, it's way too perfect. I for one am not advocating throwing out the laws, willy nilly. As I stated earlier, some aspects do appear to be working out of Patriot Act, they should be kept and privacy, (secrecy) maintained. However, those areas with huge footprints on rights/liberties/movement of US citizens, those should be gone, not willy nilly, but by representative reaction to the people.

[jimnyc]

I would go along with this perhaps being a false story, it's way too perfect. I for one am not advocating throwing out the laws, willy nilly. As I stated earlier, some aspects do appear to be working out of Patriot Act, they should be kept and privacy, (secrecy) maintained. However, those areas with huge footprints on rights/liberties/movement of US citizens, those should be gone, not willy nilly, but by representative reaction to the people.

Yeah, I was referring to the TSA story at the airport that was written by a blogger and all the nitwits in the blogosphere ran with it, and some ran to our board with it, and then it grew legs. Fake as it may be, and written so one sided as it may be, some still feel it would be cool to sing the national anthem while giving and FU to the TSA and ignoring them or the police because "they feel" it's unconstitutional. We have courts and a lot of other avenues to go through before tossing out better judgment. I said 1,000 that I think they are wrong and being WAY too aggressive, but ignoring laws and regs is not the way to fix things.

[Kathianne]

Yeah, I was referring to the TSA story at the airport that was written by a blogger and all the nitwits in the blogosphere ran with it, and some ran to our board with it, and then it grew legs. Fake as it may be, and written so one sided as it may be, some still feel it would be cool to sing the national anthem while giving and FU to the TSA and ignoring them or the police because "they feel" it's unconstitutional. We have courts and a lot of other avenues to go through before tossing out better judgment. I said 1,000 that I think they are wrong and being WAY too aggressive, but ignoring laws and regs is not the way to fix things.

I was referring to the same. Reading the constitution aloud is not a disruptive act, anymore than reading something else aloud, save porno or something. It's covered under the first amendment.

Heck, I was willing to go along with Patriot Act, though over the years had to question it more and more. With what is now coming to pass? No. Some aspects that are working, like under NSA and FBI? Yes. Those like the buffoons playing gods at airports? No. They are out of control and can now see where this will go if folks don't speak up.

[Abbey Marie]

Rev wrote:



And then he "thanks" you for your post. If he insinuates we cannot trust the government, then why is it suddenly OK to trust them when citizens report something to them and the intel agencies take over? He cries about 9/11 and intel agencies and politicians, then is disappointed in Abbey for trusting the government.

trust the government, don't trust the government, obey laws, disobey laws, citizens determining outside the judicial system what is unconstitutional. Sounds a little fucked up to me. But if YOU say it's ok to trust those agencies as they are the only ones who CAN thwart a terror attack, suddenly they and your post are OK?

I was wondering about those "thanks", too. They didn't make sense to me, so I thought in my tiredness, I must have misread something. Guess I didn't.

[Abbey Marie]

Yeah, I was referring to the TSA story at the airport that was written by a blogger and all the nitwits in the blogosphere ran with it, and some ran to our board with it, and then it grew legs. Fake as it may be, and written so one sided as it may be, some still feel it would be cool to sing the national anthem while giving and FU to the TSA and ignoring them or the police because "they feel" it's unconstitutional. We have courts and a lot of other avenues to go through before tossing out better judgment. I said 1,000 that I think they are wrong and being WAY too aggressive, but ignoring laws and regs is not the way to fix things.

The day any crank who decides to read the Constitution is allowed to go through security without being checked, is the day I stop flying. And I can bet you I won't be the only one. Perhaps reading the Koran out loud pre-flight would be next?

[LuvRPgrl]

Rev wrote:



And then he "thanks" you for your post. If he insinuates we cannot trust the government, then why is it suddenly OK to trust them when citizens report something to them and the intel agencies take over? He cries about 9/11 and intel agencies and politicians, then is disappointed in Abbey for trusting the government.

trust the government, don't trust the government, obey laws, disobey laws, citizens determining outside the judicial system what is unconstitutional. Sounds a little fucked up to me. But if YOU say it's ok to trust those agencies as they are the only ones who CAN thwart a terror attack, suddenly they and your post are OK?

I can understand your confusion, but its like this:
I dont trust the govt, but they are the only choice I have to turn to.
I trust the govt, at a certain point, like if I report an arab man carrying a bomb, that they will respond. I DONT TRUST THEM, to obey the COTUS, and not be intrusive on innocent people

[LuvRPgrl]

The day any crank who decides to read the Constitution is allowed to go through security without being checked, is the day I stop flying. And I can bet you I won't be the only one. Perhaps reading the Koran out loud pre-flight would be next?


How many times does it have to be said, she was willing to be searched, she wasnt refusing to be searched.
A much better, and legal alternative would be to have the airlines hire private agencies.

[ConHog]

How many times does it have to be said, she was willing to be searched, she wasnt refusing to be searched.
A much better, and legal alternative would be to have the airlines hire private agencies.

The searches are NOT illegal. Go sue in court and see if you case isn't thrown out because you have no standing. I promise they would be. The AIRLINES would have standing, but guess what ? Oops they have given permission so they aren't going to sue. You can wholly avoid the searches by not flying. It's that simple.

[Kathianne]

The searches are NOT illegal. Go sue in court and see if you case isn't thrown out because you have no standing. I promise they would be. The AIRLINES would have standing, but guess what ? Oops they have given permission so they aren't going to sue. You can wholly avoid the searches by not flying. It's that simple.

No one, including the purported person the article was about, claimed differently. The claim is that the searches are unconstitutional. Now we're all in agreement that is up to someone filing and taking it to the courts. Then up to SCOTUS.

However, there are no laws to prevent someone from reciting from anything they like, including the fourth amendment. If the story is true, the person was pretty much abused for exercising their right to free speech.

[Abbey Marie]

How many times does it have to be said, she was willing to be searched, she wasnt refusing to be searched.
A much better, and legal alternative would be to have the airlines hire private agencies.

A. The story was made up.
B. In this made up story, the imaginary woman, during the imaginary security process, did not go with security to be pat down. Rather, she recited the 4th amendment aloud, and begged bystanders to film it.
C. You are defending something that never happened, and yet with the whole world of imagination at her feet, the author failed to solidly make her point.

[ConHog]

No one, including the purported person the article was about, claimed differently. The claim is that the searches are unconstitutional. Now we're all in agreement that is up to someone filing and taking it to the courts. Then up to SCOTUS.

However, there are no laws to prevent someone from reciting from anything they like, including the fourth amendment. If the story is true, the person was pretty much abused for exercising their right to free speech.



Of course, and at least 3 pages ago I agreed with you that the woman shouldn't have been punished in ANY form for reciting the 4th Amendment. So I don't understand why you keep hammering on that point with me.

[Kathianne]

Of course, and at least 3 pages ago I agreed with you that the woman shouldn't have been punished in ANY form for reciting the 4th Amendment. So I don't understand why you keep hammering on that point with me.

That would be because you keep repeating the same thing, over and over again. She didn't refuse to be searched. She didn't resist the police. She didn't start anything with cameras, until the TSA, then the police began jackboot type behaviors.

In all honesty, if I were witnessing what happened, I KNOW I couldn't have heard what prompted the police actions, so I'd have thought she was in the wrong. However, the TSA folks, then later the cops? They knew what was up.

Do I think this is fabricated? Likely, at least in the main, it's way too perfect. However, assuming the basis, there really is little to argue about who was wrong. Again, real security isn't those scanners, the idea may have been for protection, but that has morphed into a means to destroy liberties, deny due process. You say that forget flying if one feels strongly, I say that the granting of such control by a part of government will only see that power expand, just like all aspects of government. It's the people that need to call for the limits on government power.

[ConHog]

That would be because you keep repeating the same thing, over and over again. She didn't refuse to be searched. She didn't resist the police. She didn't start anything with cameras, until the TSA, then the police began jackboot type behaviors.

In all honesty, if I were witnessing what happened, I KNOW I couldn't have heard what prompted the police actions, so I'd have thought she was in the wrong. However, the TSA folks, then later the cops? They knew what was up.

Do I think this is fabricated? Likely, at least in the main, it's way too perfect. However, assuming the basis, there really is little to argue about who was wrong. Again, real security isn't those scanners, the idea may have been for protection, but that has morphed into a means to destroy liberties, deny due process. You say that forget flying if one feels strongly, I say that the granting of such control by a part of government will only see that power expand, just like all aspects of government. It's the people that need to call for the limits on government power.




You keep assuming the 4th amendment applies to the passengers in this situation and it does not. The 4th would attach to the airlines themselves. The airlines have consented to the searches. You can screech all you want , the fact is the passengers have NO standing here.

Here's an analogy Kath. Let's say the police show up to your house and ask permission to search the premises and you say okay ( bear with me , I know you wouldn't, but let's assume you did.) Now let's assume you happened to have a house guest at the time and in the course of this search your house guest was also searched. Do you think your house guest would have a case of his/her 4th Amendment rights being violated? If you answered yes, you are wrong.

[Kathianne]

You keep assuming the 4th amendment applies to the passengers in this situation and it does not. The 4th would attach to the airlines themselves. The airlines have consented to the searches. You can screech all you want , the fact is the passengers have NO standing here.

Here's an analogy Kath. Let's say the police show up to your house and ask permission to search the premises and you say okay ( bear with me , I know you wouldn't, but let's assume you did.) Now let's assume you happened to have a house guest at the time and in the course of this search your house guest was also searched. Do you think your house guest would have a case of his/her 4th Amendment rights being violated? If you answered yes, you are wrong.

My guest would have every right to recite the 4th amendment aloud. He would not have the right to interfere with the police or my right to give access. You insist on seeing things that aren't there.

[ConHog]

My guest would have every right to recite the 4th amendment aloud. He would not have the right to interfere with the police or my right to give access. You insist on seeing things that aren't there.


YOU are the one seeing things that aren't there. I've never said that the woman didn't have the right to recite the 4th amendment. Quite the opposite, I've said she DOES have the right to do so. BUT she is wrong in applying it to that situation, it doesn't apply. However, in this country we have the right to be wrong. That is ALL I've said this entire thread . The woman, if she were real, is WRONG in saying that her 4th amendment rights were being violated. No they weren't, and neither are anyone's when they are searched at an airport.

I'm not sure if we are just having a communication problem here, or if you are deliberately misconstruing what I am saying. I am going to assume the former.

[Kathianne]

YOU are the one seeing things that aren't there. I've never said that the woman didn't have the right to recite the 4th amendment. Quite the opposite, I've said she DOES have the right to do so. BUT she is wrong in applying it to that situation, it doesn't apply. However, in this country we have the right to be wrong. That is ALL I've said this entire thread . The woman, if she were real, is WRONG in saying that her 4th amendment rights were being violated. No they weren't, and neither are anyone's when they are searched at an airport.

I'm not sure if we are just having a communication problem here, or if you are deliberately misconstruing what I am saying. I am going to assume the former.

Funny that the recitation bothered the TSA folks so much? You are not the final judge of any poster's opinion or what they are thinking. No one is.

[ConHog]

Funny that the recitation bothered the TSA folks so much? You are not the final judge of any poster's opinion or what they are thinking. No one is.


That isn't what I've said either. I am CLEARLY on your side in that the TSA shouldn't have reacted at ALL to her reciting the 4th (again IF this had happened) I said as much on page 2. Why are you putting words in my mouth repeatedly?

[logroller]

You keep assuming the 4th amendment applies to the passengers in this situation and it does not. The 4th would attach to the airlines themselves. The airlines have consented to the searches. You can screech all you want , the fact is the passengers have NO standing here.

Here's an analogy Kath. Let's say the police show up to your house and ask permission to search the premises and you say okay ( bear with me , I know you wouldn't, but let's assume you did.) Now let's assume you happened to have a house guest at the time and in the course of this search your house guest was also searched. Do you think your house guest would have a case of his/her 4th Amendment rights being violated? If you answered yes, you are wrong.

That would depend on whether the guest had a reasonable expectation of privacy. If they think they have privacy in their personal effects, then they do. Guests in my home can expect me not to know what's in their pockets, but I do expect to know their identity; therefore a guest in my home could well be asked to show an officer their ID, but not turn out their pockets. Exceptions exist for a frisk search, limited to dangerous weapons for the officers' safety, not contraband or criminal activity, et al. If something is in plain view, say they are covered in blood or something, of course that's an exception too-- but your premise that a house guest, as a guest in your home, has NO EXPLICIT expectation of privacy is patently false; unless of course, you would expect to be searched when I have you over for dinner-- I think you'd have a hard time convincing a judge or jury that is a reasonable expectation.

With that said, does one have a reasonable expectation of privacy on an aircraft? Well, certainly it is lesser than what one would expect in the house guest scenario; but I think one still exists. The difference, in the OP example, is the woman did have a reasonable expectation of privacy which extended only to the frisk search, not her entire person-- she voiced this expectation. Had she not, then no violation exists-- officials are very crafty in "asking" people to consent to search, because if they do consent-- there is no violation. The overwhelming issue is most people are ignorant about their rights, and police are take advantage of, even try to further this ignorance-- just as you have in your house guest example. My stock response has evolved into, "I would prefer not to", "I would prefer you didn't."-- you might as well add "Bartleby the Scrivener" as my alias. :laugh:

[ConHog]

That would depend on whether the guest had a reasonable expectation of privacy. If they think they have privacy in their personal effects, then they do. Guests in my home can expect me not to know what's in their pockets, but I do expect to know their identity; therefore a guest in my home could well be asked to show an officer their ID, but not turn out their pockets. Exceptions exist for a frisk search, limited to dangerous weapons for the officers' safety, not contraband or criminal activity, et al. If something is in plain view, say they are covered in blood or something, of course that's an exception too-- but your premise that a house guest, as a guest in your home, has NO EXPLICIT expectation of privacy is patently false; unless of course, you would expect to be searched when I have you over for dinner-- I think you'd have a hard time convincing a judge or jury that is a reasonable expectation.

With that said, does one have a reasonable expectation of privacy on an aircraft? Well, certainly it is lesser than what one would expect in the house guest scenario; but I think one still exists. The difference, in the OP example, is the woman did have a reasonable expectation of privacy which extended only to the frisk search, not her entire person-- she voiced this expectation. Had she not, then no violation exists-- officials are very crafty in "asking" people to consent to search, because if they do consent-- there is no violation. The overwhelming issue is most people are ignorant about their rights, and police are take advantage of, even try to further this ignorance-- just as you have in your house guest example. My stock response has evolved into, "I would prefer not to", "I would prefer you didn't."-- you might as well add "Bartleby the Scrivener" as my alias. :laugh:


What you are expected to know and what an officer could search with your consent are TWO entirely different things. IF you give consent to search your home and your guest is IN your home then he is part of that search Or at least he can be.

A quick example. A few years back we served a warrant on a house. Someone who wasn't a resident of the home was detained along with the residents while the house was searched. IDs were collected and it was conclusive that this guy didn't live there. But he was searched along with everyone else. In his pocket was some meth, he was arrested along with the idiots in the house who had meth in their home. During his trial his lawyer certainly tried to get the search quashed as a violation of his client's 4th Amendment rights, but the court ruled, and subsequent appeals confirmed, that the warrant for the house covered ALL occupants whether they lived in the home or not. The owner giving their consent is exactly the same thing as a warrant as far as the law is concerned.

[Kathianne]

What you are expected to know and what an officer could search with your consent are TWO entirely different things. IF you give consent to search your home and your guest is IN your home then he is part of that search Or at least he can be.

A quick example. A few years back we served a warrant on a house. Someone who wasn't a resident of the home was detained along with the residents while the house was searched. IDs were collected and it was conclusive that this guy didn't live there. But he was searched along with everyone else. In his pocket was some meth, he was arrested along with the idiots in the house who had meth in their home. During his trial his lawyer certainly tried to get the search quashed as a violation of his client's 4th Amendment rights, but the court ruled, and subsequent appeals confirmed, that the warrant for the house covered ALL occupants whether they lived in the home or not. The owner giving their consent is exactly the same thing as a warrant as far as the law is concerned.

Sounds correct to me. Like I said at the beginning, I'm all for 'law and order.' I'm all for curtailing the freedoms of 'bad guys,' big or small. My problem is when law abiding folks are considered a threat at best, idiots at worst. (I really hate the government thinks 'the people' are stupid.)

Real intel gathering behaviors would involve profiling. Just no argument on that one. The government though? No, pc rules, so grandma and infants are stripped searched, those acting suspicious get passes. How many times has this led to planes being brought down because the passengers felt a person or persons a threat? Needless to say, the response by FBI has always been, 'no real threat has been confirmed.'

Thus, the nonsense TSA blackboots behavior is to 'reassure' the public of their control.

[ConHog]

Sounds correct to me. Like I said at the beginning, I'm all for 'law and order.' I'm all for curtailing the freedoms of 'bad guys,' big or small. My problem is when law abiding folks are considered a threat at best, idiots at worst. (I really hate the government thinks 'the people' are stupid.)

Real intel gathering behaviors would involve profiling. Just no argument on that one. The government though? No, pc rules, so grandma and infants are stripped searched, those acting suspicious get passes. How many times has this led to planes being brought down because the passengers felt a person or persons a threat? Needless to say, the response by FBI has always been, 'no real threat has been confirmed.'

Thus, the nonsense TSA blackboots behavior is to 'reassure' the public of their control.


Kath, by and large people ARE idiots. You don't think the TSA would LOVE to profile and concentrate their efforts on you know people who are potential threats? you don't think the TSA realizes that grandmas aren't likely threats? But they have their political masters who they have to answer to and those political masters answer to the very liberal idiots who abhor the idea of profiling, so no profiling; even though it has been, continues to be, and will always be a valuable tool to law enforcement. The fools don't even realize that profiling goes on in law enforcement in this country everyday. But suddenly when it's Muslims being profiled, that's a no no? Give me a break.

I've finally figured it out, you're mad at the wrong people. The TSA are merely doing what they are told. Now that isn't to say that some of them aren't doing stupid things, or aren't improperly trained or what have you. We all know that kind of thing is going to happen anytime you have humans involved. BUT from a law enforcement perspective it would be MUCH easier on them if they could profile; AND they would be far more effective. But the bottom line is TSA agents are told that since they can't profile, scrutinize EVERYONE. So that's what they do, they simply are not given the lattitude to decide for themselves who's a threat and who isn't.

It's really rather simple. Set up the scanner, EVERYONE and EVERYTHING goes through it, if you don't like it you don' t get on the plane. PERIOD . IF you also fit certain criteria you face further scrutiny before you're allowed to board a plane.

That's a win win, but there are some who just want to bitch about the scanners never caring that they actually do serve a purpose; and there are those who scream no profiling even though it is a proven weapon. Both sides are equally stupid and are not helping the situation one single iota.

[Kathianne]

Kath, by and large people ARE idiots. You don't think the TSA would LOVE to profile and concentrate their efforts on you know people who are potential threats? you don't think the TSA realizes that grandmas aren't likely threats? But they have their political masters who they have to answer to and those political masters answer to the very liberal idiots who abhor the idea of profiling, so no profiling; even though it has been, continues to be, and will always be a valuable tool to law enforcement. The fools don't even realize that profiling goes on in law enforcement in this country everyday. But suddenly when it's Muslims being profiled, that's a no no? Give me a break.

I've finally figured it out, you're mad at the wrong people. The TSA are merely doing what they are told. Now that isn't to say that some of them aren't doing stupid things, or aren't improperly trained or what have you. We all know that kind of thing is going to happen anytime you have humans involved. BUT from a law enforcement perspective it would be MUCH easier on them if they could profile; AND they would be far more effective. But the bottom line is TSA agents are told that since they can't profile, scrutinize EVERYONE. So that's what they do, they simply are not given the lattitude to decide for themselves who's a threat and who isn't.

It's really rather simple. Set up the scanner, EVERYONE and EVERYTHING goes through it, if you don't like it you don' t get on the plane. PERIOD . IF you also fit certain criteria you face further scrutiny before you're allowed to board a plane.

That's a win win, but there are some who just want to bitch about the scanners never caring that they actually do serve a purpose; and there are those who scream no profiling even though it is a proven weapon. Both sides are equally stupid and are not helping the situation one single iota.

Why should anyone choosing to fly, ride a bus, ride a train, enter a school, enter a major federal building,etc. need to get naked literally or virtually? No, the onus should be on those that mean harm, meaning profiling. May the blanket removal mean that a nutter gets through? Probably, likely. The reasons for the scanners though isn't the deranged, but the plotters, at least regarding TSA.

Those in TSA aren't 'law enforcement', they are minimum wage guys, being paid more than worth. Thus the bellicosity.

[ConHog]

Why should anyone choosing to fly, ride a bus, ride a train, enter a school, enter a major federal building,etc. need to get naked literally or virtually? No, the onus should be on those that mean harm, meaning profiling. May the blanket removal mean that a nutter gets through? Probably, likely. The reasons for the scanners though isn't the deranged, but the plotters, at least regarding TSA.

Those in TSA aren't 'law enforcement', they are minimum wage guys, being paid more than worth. Thus the bellicosity.

First of all, you're wrong. They ARE law enforcement. Their arresting powers are limited, but they are law enforcement.

Second of all I've explained to you, law enforcement LOVE the idea of profiling. The FBI has an entire division that does nothing but, but politically it has been decided that in terms of airport security we won't be profiling. That decision was made FAR above the heads of anyone working at an airport, I assure you of that.

Third of all, EVERYONE is screened because it is pretty damned easy to slip something in someone's pocket, or purse without them knowing it, making them an unknowing threat. Yes it happens, and so precautions have to be taken.

Fourth of all, as has been discussed. Only a caveman would actually think those scanners are dangerous. Everything else is just faux rage. Yes, there is a chance that some buffoon will misuse the images, that's what courts are for.

[Kathianne]

First of all, you're wrong. They ARE law enforcement. Their arresting powers are limited, but they are law enforcement.

Second of all I've explained to you, law enforcement LOVE the idea of profiling. The FBI has an entire division that does nothing but, but politically it has been decided that in terms of airport security we won't be profiling. That decision was made FAR above the heads of anyone working at an airport, I assure you of that.

Third of all, EVERYONE is screened because it is pretty damned easy to slip something in someone's pocket, or purse without them knowing it, making them an unknowing threat. Yes it happens, and so precautions have to be taken.

Fourth of all, as has been discussed. Only a caveman would actually think those scanners are dangerous. Everything else is just faux rage. Yes, there is a chance that some buffoon will misuse the images, that's what courts are for.

LOL! No doubt all decisions are above the TSA guys at ground level, what again are they paid? But like you and LuvRp, they have big cajones. Thus can make life hell for those they are 'charged with.'

I don't need your 'assurances, I'm quite capable of understanding on my own.'

As for the scanners, they aren't really the issue, which you might understand if capable. Seems right now you're not.

[logroller]

What you are expected to know and what an officer could search with your consent are TWO entirely different things. IF you give consent to search your home and your guest is IN your home then he is part of that search Or at least he can be.

A quick example. A few years back we served a warrant on a house. Someone who wasn't a resident of the home was detained along with the residents while the house was searched. IDs were collected and it was conclusive that this guy didn't live there. But he was searched along with everyone else. In his pocket was some meth, he was arrested along with the idiots in the house who had meth in their home. During his trial his lawyer certainly tried to get the search quashed as a violation of his client's 4th Amendment rights, but the court ruled, and subsequent appeals confirmed, that the warrant for the house covered ALL occupants whether they lived in the home or not. The owner giving their consent is exactly the same thing as a warrant as far as the law is concerned.

No, it is not--I'm quite sure that wasn't the opinion of the court in allowing the search; as that would be an unwarranted search, likely executed after establishing probable cause, that is allowed. After you established a probable cause or an exigent circumstance-- eg, were their drugs or paraphernalia in proximity to the person, was the person under the influence of a narcotic, did it smell like narcotics, were they behaving oddly or attempting to flee, conceal/ destroy evidence, etc?-- I'd bet that is why the search was upheld-- not because of the owner's granting permission or that of the initial warrant included every person on the premises.

Besides, what is the connection between a bunch of dopers in a drug house and a person refusing a body scan trying to board a plane--Does TSA have a warrant? probable cause? Is it reasonable to believe every person trying to board a plane poses a significant, or probable likelihood of committing an act of terror?

Of course not. However, there is another cause for search--exigent circumstance:

An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litmus_test) for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law#cite_not e-0)
Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts
Does reading the fourth amendment qualify as 'frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts'...I wouldn't think so, especially when the person was peacefully protesting the legitimacy of the search effort itself. I understand you're likely biased in favor of LE, but don't let the blue code soil LE's legitimacy-- nobody likes a brown shirt.

[ConHog]

LOL! No doubt all decisions are above the TSA guys at ground level, what again are they paid? But like you and LuvRp, they have big cajones. Thus can make life hell for those they are 'charged with.'

I don't need your 'assurances, I'm quite capable of understanding on my own.'

As for the scanners, they aren't really the issue, which you might understand if capable. Seems right now you're not.



Kath, I've stood there and listened to someone tear me up and down claiming I was abusing my power because I was ordering them to do something they didn't want to do. I know exactly how it is. What does how much they are paid have to do with anything? My friend is a deputy sherrif and makes a big whopping $22K a year. Doesn't change the fact that he is law enforcement one iota. Are you suggesting they should replace the low paid TSA agents with higher paid ones? Do you REALLY think that would alleviate the things you are complaining about? It wouldn't.

Oh and I'm quite aware the scanners aren't the issue. The issue is some people just want to fucking bitch about SOMETHING, and the scanners are a convenient scapegoat. As I said there are some people who aren't going to be happy with whatever proposed solution we offer for the airport situation.

Oh let the airlines hire their own people to do the screening. There's a solution, that way Southwest Airlines raises there prices by double to cover the additional expense and we STILL have the TSA because certainly the government isn't going to allow NO oversight to the people doing the checking.

Let's do away with security checks altogether. There's a good idea, until someone blows a plane up. No thanks.

What is YOUR proposed solution Kath, or do you have one? Simply bitching about the system in place isn't helping anyone.

[ConHog]

No, it is not--I'm quite sure that wasn't the opinion of the court in allowing the search; as that would be an unwarranted search, likely executed after establishing probable cause, that is allowed. After you established a probable cause or an exigent circumstance-- eg, were their drugs or paraphernalia in proximity to the person, was the person under the influence of a narcotic, did it smell like narcotics, were they behaving oddly or attempting to flee, conceal/ destroy evidence, etc?-- I'd bet that is why the search was upheld-- not because of the owner's granting permission or that of the initial warrant included every person on the premises.

Besides, what is the connection between a bunch of dopers in a drug house and a person refusing a body scan trying to board a plane--Does TSA have a warrant? probable cause? Is it reasonable to believe every person trying to board a plane poses a significant, or probable likelihood of committing an act of terror?

Of course not. However, there is another cause for search--exigent circumstance:

Does reading the fourth amendment qualify as 'frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts'...I wouldn't think so, especially when the person was peacefully protesting the legitimacy of the search effort itself. I understand you're likely biased in favor of LE, but don't let the blue code soil LE's legitimacy-- nobody likes a brown shirt.

Once again. You are approaching it from the standpoint of the passenger themselves have a right to deny the searches under the 4th Amendment. They do not. The AIRLINES would have the right to deny the search. It is after all their property. They have given permission. Therefor all the talk of probable cause and such is null and void in this discussion. If you are NOT okay with the airlines granting the government to search you before letting you on one of their planes then don't purchase a ticket. It is THAT simple.

[Kathianne]

Once again. You are approaching it from the standpoint of the passenger themselves have a right to deny the searches under the 4th Amendment. They do not. The AIRLINES would have the right to deny the search. It is after all their property. They have given permission. Therefor all the talk of probable cause and such is null and void in this discussion. If you are NOT okay with the airlines granting the government to search you before letting you on one of their planes then don't purchase a ticket. It is THAT simple.

and you are missing, by a mile, the right of the people to say no. No to the airlines that took the path of least resistance. No to giving up their rights.

Yes, you have a valid point, there should be massive resistance to the airlines policies to condone this breach of freedoms. Now, building off the OP and similar scenarios. ;)

Whether true or not, was perfect.

[logroller]

Once again. You are approaching it from the standpoint of the passenger themselves have a right to deny the searches under the 4th Amendment. They do not. The AIRLINES would have the right to deny the search. It is after all their property. They have given permission. Therefor all the talk of probable cause and such is null and void in this discussion. If you are NOT okay with the airlines granting the government to search you before letting you on one of their planes then don't purchase a ticket. It is THAT simple.

Oh they do??? So then there are other airlines which don't allow searches. Did the banks taking the bailouts have a choice too? I suppose I have the right to not pay my taxes too, if i think they are put to illegitimate purposes-- but govt would jail me and take all my stuff. I think you underestimate, or just flat out deny, the degree of influence govt has in the decision making process. Like, say an airline said no-- any guesses what would happen with there commercial airline license? But their free to make that decision:rolleyes:; govt will just close them down. Kinda like Henry Ford on the model t, [You can get it in any color you want, so long as it's black.] -- not exactly free-choice.

[ConHog]

and you are missing, by a mile, the right of the people to say no. No to the airlines that took the path of least resistance. No to giving up their rights.

Yes, you have a valid point, there should be massive resistance to the airlines policies to condone this breach of freedoms. Now, building off the OP and similar scenarios. ;)

Whether true or not, was perfect.



You have NOT given up any rights. You don't have the right to fly. Not with nor without being searched. So what right have you given up? That's the part where I'm confused.

Now I SUPPOSE you could the airlines have lost the right to fly without having their passengers screened first, BUT then one would have to give an example of an airline which actually WANTS to do so.

Can you imagine the campaign for that?

" Come fly JetBlue, sure we can't guarantee your safety, but hey at least you don't have to go through the god damned scanner."

Who would choose to get on THAT plane?

[Kathianne]

H
You have NOT given up any rights. You don't have the right to fly. Not with nor without being searched. So what right have you given up? That's the part where I'm confused.

Now I SUPPOSE you could the airlines have lost the right to fly without having their passengers screened first, BUT then one would have to give an example of an airline which actually WANTS to do so.

Can you imagine the campaign for that?

" Come fly JetBlue, sure we can't guarantee your safety, but hey at least you don't have to go through the god damned scanner."

Who would choose to get on THAT plane?Huh? From what I can glean you're off by tons.

[LuvRPgrl]

A. The story was made up.
B. In this made up story, the imaginary woman, during the imaginary security process, did not go with security to be pat down. Rather, she recited the 4th amendment aloud, and begged bystanders to film it.
C. You are defending something that never happened, and yet with the whole world of imagination at her feet, the author failed to solidly make her point.

Im not going to go back and read it again, but, the posts here seem to indicate she did not resist or refuse any requests other than to stop talking.

[LuvRPgrl]

You keep assuming the 4th amendment applies to the passengers in this situation and it does not. The 4th would attach to the airlines themselves. The airlines have consented to the searches. You can screech all you want , the fact is the passengers have NO standing here.

Here's an analogy Kath. Let's say the police show up to your house and ask permission to search the premises and you say okay ( bear with me , I know you wouldn't, but let's assume you did.) Now let's assume you happened to have a house guest at the time and in the course of this search your house guest was also searched. Do you think your house guest would have a case of his/her 4th Amendment rights being violated? If you answered yes, you are wrong.


It is not as cut and dry as you make it sound. There are a ton of circumstancees thaat can change if a person in your house has a reasonable right to an expectation of privacy., If your guest had spent the night, or given a key, or a host of other circumstances, would in fact give him that reasonable expectation

Not to mention, the area where the search goes on does not belong to the airlines.

Plus the airways are a public concern, not owned by anyone.

[logroller]

You have NOT given up any rights. You don't have the right to fly. Not with nor without being searched. So what right have you given up? That's the part where I'm confused.

Now I SUPPOSE you could the airlines have lost the right to fly without having their passengers screened first, BUT then one would have to give an example of an airline which actually WANTS to do so.

Can you imagine the campaign for that?

" Come fly JetBlue, sure we can't guarantee your safety, but hey at least you don't have to go through the god damned scanner."

Who would choose to get on THAT plane?

As opposed to the current campaign, "We can't guarantee your safety, but we know what you look like naked." :thumb:

Safer maybe; but there is no guarantee of safety! But I sure as shit guarantee I've lost liberty in the process...and some dignity IMO.

[Kathianne]

You have NOT given up any rights. You don't have the right to fly. Not with nor without being searched. So what right have you given up? That's the part where I'm confused.

Now I SUPPOSE you could the airlines have lost the right to fly without having their passengers screened first, BUT then one would have to give an example of an airline which actually WANTS to do so.

Can you imagine the campaign for that?

" Come fly JetBlue, sure we can't guarantee your safety, but hey at least you don't have to go through the god damned scanner."

Who would choose to get on THAT plane?

And here you go again, sounding like the airports is the be all and end all. Well they're not. Nope, going to spread and already has, to trains, subways, even highways. No, one cannot opt out of all those.

[ConHog]

And here you go again, sounding like the airports is the be all and end all. Well they're not. Nope, going to spread and already has, to trains, subways, even highways. No, one cannot opt out of all those.

If and when the TSA stations an agent at the end of your driveway to pat you down, give me a holler and I'll dust off the M16 and lend you hand. Until then, well you're being a drama queen.

[logroller]

If and when the TSA stations an agent at the end of your driveway to pat you down, give me a holler and I'll dust off the M16 and lend you hand. Until then, well you're being a drama queen.

:laugh:...by then, its too late CH. That's the point...we're getting there, one usurpation at a time... and the escalation in the last decade has been quite dramatic. Kath is a queen though...of reason.

[ConHog]

:laugh:...by then, its too late CH. That's the point...we're getting there, one usurpation at a time... and the escalation in the last decade has been quite dramatic. Kath is a queen though...of reason.



It's not getting there. Good grief.