Breaking: Libertarians Call For Arrest Of TSA Agents

reply to post by EartOccupant


Good idea. Let's ad full body cavity searches to the list.

And I do mean that's a good idea. When everyone is royally ticked off that they are body cavity searching you. You will see some change really fast.

Nothing gets the people riled up like a FBCS!

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Uhm yeah.. Because they are not comissioned, they are not subject to the same requiremnets as law enforcement is. Which includes the 4th amendment.

If you dont want to go through the security checkpoint, dont fly.

Your choice.

This limits my ability to freely travel (a right) and to find and maintain gainful employment (another right). Kind of a Catch-22, isn't it?

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
That does not matter. In your thinking, a security officer can't violate rights. That is wrong thinking.

Its not, but is dependant upon the state you live in. Some states allow private security to enforce certain alws, and because of that go through training to comply with the law.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
It is not voluntary. It is under duress. Either you go through the screening, or you get arrested and fined.

You arent arrested at your house and forced into a car. Your not driven to the airport nor are you forced out fo the car. Your not forced to check in, and your not forced to walk towards the security checkpoint.

Your not forced to fly. Your not forced to go through the checkpoint. You have the option of another form of travel if you dont care for the methods to get onto an airplane.
Its by consent.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
And I am free to not own a weapon as well. That does not negate the Constitution or the rights of people.

correct, and by extension using your argument, there is no 4th amendment violation because your giving consent by agreeing to go through the security checkpoint.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Let's ask the people at the airport if they are forced to go through the checkpoints.

You arent arrested at your house and forced into a car. Your not driven to the airport nor are you forced out fo the car. Your not forced to check in, and your not forced to walk towards the security checkpoint.

Your not forced to fly. Your not forced to go through the checkpoint. You have the option of another form of travel if you dont care for the methods to get onto an airplane.
Its by consent.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Holding me against my will = seized

You arent arrested at your house and forced into a car. Your not driven to the airport nor are you forced out fo the car. Your not forced to check in, and your not forced to walk towards the security checkpoint.

Your not forced to fly. Your not forced to go through the checkpoint. You have the option of another form of travel if you dont care for the methods to get onto an airplane.
Its by consent.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
So anyone can walk down the street and pat me down or xray me. I could always take another route home. Right?

Care to compare apples to apples insted of apples to tibet? You claim to be a cop so you know better than to use a bogus example in order to confuse people who cant think for themsleves.

A street / road is a public right of way that is covered under various laws, including supreme court rulings that deal specifically with methods of travel on those roads and what law enforcement can or cant do.

Grow up would you please.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

A 4th amendment violation would occur if you are forced into a car at your house, forcibly brought to the airport, forcibly placed into a screening line and forcibly searched.

Agreed. Notice the bold.

Yup, and since you arent foricbly placed into the screening line, its voluntary = consent.

Not hard to comprehend... Although by your bs attempt at obfuscation above im not sure exactly what you are trying to argue anymore.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
How about no difference.

No there is a difference. You should take some refresher course if you dont beleive me.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
So one can claim the Constitution as a defense on one hand, but not be held to it on the other hand?

Actually so you dont sound like a moron when trying to make an argument using the constitution and making comparisons that are even close or valid.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
I think not.

and this is why you and others are in here whining insted of actually doing something to fix it.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
It is an Ad Hominem. Please discuss the facts. Not the personal lives of the people debating you.

Then maybe you shouldnt invoke your past profession as a basis of your counter arguments. As I said, you are out of practice and behind the times with con law and case law.

Thats your problem, not mine.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

--By far the most common and destructive problems ATS moderators have to deal with are insults, epithets, name-calling and other forms of personal commentary,also known as ad hominem attacks. -

edit on 7/4/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)

Care check on aisle 2. You and the others need to think long and hard before attacking law enforcement and members of law enforcement in a blanket manner, and then complaining when its returned in kind.

If you dont want a personal attack, then dont start with them.

Don't try to argue with Xcathdra , he's like John Yoo, justifying the unjustifiable with legal talk.

Fact is, the TSA are wrong, the government is wrong, and people have rights, are born with it and no government can take them away, doesn't matter what the lawyers say.

Doesn't matter what is ``legal`` or not. The real question is, what is right and what is wrong. Being molested by the TSA is WRONG no matter what.

Xcathdra, you could have gotten a job in the Bush administration, with the task of justifying torture, and I bet you would have found some twisted ways in your head to make it legal.... people like you end up at the Hague when they get too much power...and that is if they are lucky, if they are not lucky, they end up with a rope around their neck.

Ok enough already. Please please PLEASE stop using the pathetic argument comparing air travel to visiting a mall!!! As I have already pointed out on page two, airports (the type used in commercial air travel) are not private property. So just stop using the argument of TSA and private property.

It should be clearly understood that the searches by TSA, which is an agency of the United States government, are the sort of governmental action covered by the Fourth Amendment. They are not allowed to perform unreasonable search and seizures. Ok? Are we clear on that? There is over 200 years of case law out there defining exactly what is "reasonable". You know what they are? Probably cause or consent to search.

The issue here is if we really have the right to refuse to give consent. What we are told is, refuse consent and you will not be allowed to fly. Period. People in here keep asserting that we are simply free to refuse these enhanced searches. The TSA crossed that legal threshold in San Diego when a man refused the search. He refused the search and "withdrew his consent" by agreeing to leave the building. But the TSA would not allow this. A supervisor was called and the man (Kenneth Tyner) was threatened with a $10,000 fine for refusing the search.

Yes, right now as it stands, the TSA can and will deny you the right to enter the "secure" area of the airport, thereby denying your ability to fly. Yes, right now your only legal option is to just not fly. Is that right though? Absolutely not and that is the point that needs to be addressed.

I think people would have less of an issue with the TSA if they weren't forced selectively to enter a radiation trap that shows themselves naked to who knows who, or to be felt up by some TSA agent. Especially when their track record has shown that they are completely incapable of actually catching the real criminals, or stopping deadly weapons from entering the so called "secure zone". The TSA is a flat out incompetent agency and its only goal is to scare us into compliance. They have zero track record for averting any sort of real crisis. In fact the only track record the TSA has is having its "agents" be criminals, stealing personal property and having a history of legalized sexual molestation.

I'm not going to get into the "what is legal and what is not" because right now the TSA is walking a very fine line, and for some reason the powers that be see their actions as OK. Even though the vast majority of this country feels it is not. Right now the issue is clearly right versus wrong. And it is clearly obvious that what the TSA and by association, the Department of Homeland Security is doing is completely wrong. But then again look who used to run them (Chertoff) and who currently does (Janet Napolitano). Are we currently any different than Nazi Germany? We sure seem to be headed that way.

reply to post by grey580


The flaw ion your argument, and by the way I agree with your interpretation of searchs and law enforcement, is the fact that TSA is not classified as Law Enforcement, either at the state level or the Federal Level.

Since you are freely going to the airport, and freely checking your luggage, and freely getting in the security line, you are consenting to the TSA screen.

If people dont wish to submit to the screening, thery are free to do so, but will need to find an alternate method of travel that meets the individuals concerns.

Look at it this way.. If you remove the TSA from airportd, and say replace them with individual security gates based on airline, they can keep the same standards the TSA has. The counter argument made to those who object is going to be find another mehod of travel if you dont want to comply with our security checks.

Since its not being forced, a person must consent to the security check in order to have some type of legal standing in court. The catch 22 is you consented to the search and was not forced into it.


On a seperate note directed at some others in the thread -
Just because I take an oppsing view point doesnt mean I support that view. If I didnt provide the opposing argument, these threads would be nothing but people complaining and not knowing why. I would have thought some people would ahve taken my arguments and the info provided and used it as a base to actually organize and make an actual effort to make some changes.

Either you want to make changes, which is going to require not only an understanding of the opposing view as yours, but the motiviation to move beyond the complaining and bellyaching stage.

Whats the point of coming in to these forums and complaining about how bad something is if you have no intent on trying to effect change?

What does that solve?

reply to post by XLR8R


Valid questions...

We had private security in place when 9/11 occured.

What the TSA is doing may be 'wrong' but that's not what this article was about. It's about the legality of what they are doing. When you buy a plane ticket you do it with the knowledge that you may be searched at any time in any form...If for some reason you did not know of the security process than you could refuse to be searched and the airline would refund your ticket (most likely). They are not searching anybody without their permission.


Also, why would you try and take legal actions against TSA agents....They are doing what they are paid to do....You would do the same or you would lose your job....

It'd be like someone trying to sue me for price gouging because I work the cash register at concessions in a movie theatre.

reply to post by verylowfrequency


and I agree with most of what you say. However, the issue and a few others face is the real world is how the courts have ruled in comparison to how you think it should be.

If people dont like the way something is, coming in here and constantly complaining and stereotyping anyone and anything peope dont like changes what?

The best way to form a desfense, and then to go on offense os to understand the game plan of the opposing team. Since people liek to use quotes today, I leave you with this one.

To know your enemy is to know yourself
- SunTzu

Would it not be easier to defeat an oppoenent if youve read and understand his game book? Why is this so lost on people in these forums?

reply to post by Vitchilo


No doubt, right and wrong or good and evil. What the TSA is doing is evil.

I'll be burning my TSA effigy tonight in celebration of independence day.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
99% change starts with complaint, in case you didnt know.

and yet all we have in these forums is 99.9% of the people complaining..

I was not aware the TSA, federal government or anyone who could effect changed used ATS as their homebase.

If people want change, they are going to ahve to move beyond their comfort zone of ATS. Absent that, its just what it is, complaining for no reason at all.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Wait, what did I complain about? You seem to have missed something here. I am simply pointing out that you have about 3 arguments that you use in all of these threads:
1)You are a cop hater
2)You do not know the laws, because you arent a cop
3)You need to research terry stops.

How many threads have you posted these exact things in? Dozens? Hundreds?

You use these arguments even while trying to state that they dont apply to the people in question.

I'm sorry that you dont like the right of americans to dissent. Doesnt mean they need to stop, and it certainly doesnt mean they are in the wrong.

You are jsut as lost as the others. Go back and read my responses to others. You might learn something.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Your right to travel is a consitutionally guaanteed right.

The method however is not.

walk if you dont want to go through airport security.

reply to post by Vitchilo


Like I said, if I want to learn something about Canada, your my first stop. When I want to know how my country and laws work, your not anwhere on my radar screen.

Thanks for the opinions and thoughts though.

Care to back up your "claims" with supporting law and case law?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Its not, but is dependant upon the state you live in. Some states allow private security to enforce certain laws, and because of that go through training to comply with the law.

So you admit that TSA (as a security outfit) must comply with the law. The law of the land is the Constitution.

Well played sir. I appreciate you proving my point.

I will not bother responding to the rest of your posts, or anymore on this thread. Game over for you. Have a good one

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

No doubt, right and wrong or good and evil. What the TSA is doing is evil.

I'll be burning my TSA effigy tonight in celebration of independence day.

yeah.. because thats going to solve the problem.

This is exactly what im talking about. You guys complain yet do abolsutely nothing to attempt to fix the problem.

I still think these TSA agents shall be shat upon!

Originally posted by Josonic
What the TSA is doing may be 'wrong' but that's not what this article was about. It's about the legality of what they are doing. When you buy a plane ticket you do it with the knowledge that you may be searched at any time in any form...If for some reason you did not know of the security process than you could refuse to be searched and the airline would refund your ticket (most likely). They are not searching anybody without their permission.


Also, why would you try and take legal actions against TSA agents....They are doing what they are paid to do....You would do the same or you would lose your job....

It'd be like someone trying to sue me for price gouging because I work the cash register at concessions in a movie theatre.

edit on 7/4/2011 by Josonic because: (no reason given)

Well that is a big problem. The people don't realize that yes, they are (the airlines) required to refund you the entire price of your ticket if you refuse the security check. I'm sure many people would refuse if they were assured that they can get their money back.

The refund process is defined in all airlines "conditions of carriage". For example, here is American Airlines Condition of Carriage that defines refunds:

Involuntary Refunds

In the event the refund is required because of American’s failure to operate on schedule or refusal to transport, the following refund will be made directly to you -

1)If the ticket is totally unused, the full amount paid (with no service charge or refund penalty),
or
2)If the ticket is partially used, the applicable fare for the unused segment(s).

You can actually sue an airline and win damages if an airline has this in their Conditions and still refuse a refund.

However, people should note that not all airlines have this. You should check before you fly if they do.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
So you admit that TSA (as a security outfit) must comply with the law. The law of the land is the Constitution.

Uhm no.. learn to read please. I said some states allow private security to enforce certain laws, and when that occurs they are required to go through certain training. I did NOT say TSA, but nice try on twisting words in an effort to support your argument. Sad that is all you have left.

Yes, the law of the land is the Constution, followed by the Federal body of law, followed by state law and then local law. Since we dont use a plaintest reading of the constitution, your continued attempts to cut out the federal body of law and anything beneath that level again reinforces my point that you need refresher courses.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Well played sir. I appreciate you aloowing me to twist and misquote your sentence because I have no other way possible to show im proving my point.

right.. fixed by me in bold.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
I will not bother responding to the rest of your posts, or anymore on this thread. Game over for you. Have a good one

Thank God... One less person I will have to correct who has no clue what their talking about.

ooh... hang on a sec... yup.. ok here you go.. You forgot to grab your ball to take with you on your way back home.

Xcathdra, I think you have explosive underwear. I'm going to pat search you.

Oh, I grabbed your package. Gee, I'm sorry. I was only checking for explosives.

How about your wife? How about your kids?

Does nothing about this issue bother you? If nothimg does then the only thing left is pervert.

What about a pre-pubescent girl just starting to grow breasts. How do you feel about someone feeling her up?

I call it child molestation.

This country has its blinders on. Sort of eerily pre-WWII.