PDA

View Full Version : Now TSA will sue those who refuse searches


cpd109
November 15, 2010, 07:25
Here's a link. Talk about a rouge gov't.

But it is for our collective safety. Esp searching the 80 year old grandmas, and 3 year old screaming toddlers.

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/showdown-tsa-threatens-10000-fine-and-civil-court-if-man-who-refused-scan-and-groping-left-security-area_11152010

Here's another clip where a man is randomly selected to get felt up rather than walk through the metal detector like 80% of the other "opt out" passengers.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=228133

carguym14
November 15, 2010, 11:29
If only everyone had learned and used..........................

Submit,Conform,Obey.


Things would go so much smoother and there would be a lot less problems.....

martin35
November 17, 2010, 17:04
There is no basis in law for such a suit and it cannot be legally fabricated by a bureaucracy.

starbuck
November 17, 2010, 19:58
Originally posted by martin35
There is no basis in law for such a suit and it cannot be legally fabricated by a bureaucracy.

Your dealing with criminals. The law doesn't make a lot of difference.

Jaxxas
November 17, 2010, 20:40
BS. IF they have the legal right to search me they don't need my permission.

onebigelf
November 17, 2010, 21:14
The B!tch about it is, it's not about safety. They are searching 98% of us as COVER for searching the ones they are worried about. This current flap is just about a bunch of under-educated neanderthals getting their little-girl panties in a twist because we won't re-spect their ah-thor-uh-tie!

The answer is stupid simple. STOP FLYING! If 1/3 of air travel passengers stop flying the airlines will straighten this out pretty quickly. What are they going to do, pass a law making it illegal to use a car to travel more than 500 miles if you could have flown...?

That would be like making it illegal to use UPS or FedEx to send non-emergency business mail instead of the USPS. Oh, wait...

John

Heat
November 17, 2010, 21:27
Well, tit for tat

Politics
California DA Vows to Prosecute Airport Screeners Who Touch Travelers Inappropriately
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/17/california-da-vows-prosecute-complaints-tsa-screeners-gone-wild/

Beckman
November 17, 2010, 23:07
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

John Culver
November 18, 2010, 00:39
But if the complaint is simply that a TSA screener went too far with a pat-down, "That's not a crime," Wagstaffe said.

Umm yes it is

If I am not suspected of a crime, I do not need a pat down or strip search.

cpd109
November 18, 2010, 11:48
They'd sue, I guess, under some adminsitrative law they would make up.

I think they kind of painted themselves in a corner. The bill of rights prevents the governement from the intrusion. By making the TSA weenies "LEOs", they have now made an act that had been unconsititutional "legal". They should have kept the contractors as non-LEOs so they could have been legal. Why didn't they- glad you asked. They can't control a company as well as a feral employee.

As for the DA, it will be hard to prosecute any TSA POS because it will tend to be subjective rather than objective AND turn into a he said/he said or she said/she said situation which won't meet the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold. However, it should wake up the TSA scumbags in that area to be carefull about how they do their aggresive patdowns. If a warrant is issued, they should at least go to jail, where they may be welcomed by some of the very people they gave a pat down to. One can only hope.....

flopshot
November 18, 2010, 12:22
Originally posted by martin35
There is no basis in law for such a suit and it cannot be legally fabricated by a bureaucracy.

nope. and you can't be fined for not buying an insurance policy either.
the rule of law, liberty and rights mean nothing to the chosen one and his minions.

TideWater 41009
November 18, 2010, 18:13
As I posted before, I do not see any Constitutional violation regarding the searches, since flying on a commercial airplane is voluntary. You are informed ahead of time that you will be subect to search, so if you are the squimish type, or concerned about the modesty of your ol' lady or kids, that would be the time to make other transportation plans.

I travel by airplane regularly. I don't care for the time delay and humiliation of going through security any more than anyone else, but I don't bitch about it, because I could walk or drive to my destination if I wanted to, or fly my own plane, charter a private plane, ride a train, ride a horse, hire a taxi, etc.

V guy
November 18, 2010, 18:35
It's about goddamned time that we institute racial profiling everywhere. Just because some fag judge says that it is unfair is ludicrous.

It IS the muslim male who is doing the bombing. Definitly x-ray them and run the rest of us past the bomb sniffer. I prefer hiring the same guys El-al Airlines uses--- very veyr bad guys.

Likewise, detain all hispanic appearing males who are unable to speak English.

Remember, it the the commies who came up with the idea that the Constitution is a suicide pact and is self extinguishing.

The Constitution actually is only is a guide to better govenment, until a Pearl Harbor or raghead bomb plot or illegal alien murder spree crisis, comes up, and then you kill them.
FDR believed in that method of applying the law and so do I, much to his chagrin.

When the shit starts flying, flush the toilet.
Our libs, instead, lick the toilet and call it candy.

JasonB
November 18, 2010, 18:42
Originally posted by V guy
It's about goddamned time that we institute racial profiling everywhere. Just because some fag judge says that it is unfair is ludicrous.

It IS the muslim male who is doing the bombing. Definitly x-ray them and run the rest of us past the bomb sniffer. I prefer hiring the same guys El-al Airlines uses--- very veyr bad guys.

Likewise, detain all hispanic appearing males who are unable to speak English.

Remember, it the the commies who came up with the idea that the Constitution is a suicide pact and is self extinguishing.

The Constitution actually is only is a guide to better govenment, until a Pearl Harbor or raghead bomb plot or illegal alien murder spree crisis, comes up, and then you kill them.
FDR believed in that method of applying the law and so do I, much to his chagrin.

When the shit starts flying, flush the toilet.
Our libs, instead, lick the toilet and call it candy.


And come down like a bag of hammers on any person or group who ever aided and abetted any of them in any way.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

Cybercop
November 19, 2010, 08:46
Originally posted by cpd109
They'd sue, I guess, under some adminsitrative law they would make up.

I think they kind of painted themselves in a corner. The bill of rights prevents the governement from the intrusion. By making the TSA weenies "LEOs", they have now made an act that had been unconsititutional "legal". They should have kept the contractors as non-LEOs so they could have been legal. Why didn't they- glad you asked. They can't control a company as well as a feral employee.

As for the DA, it will be hard to prosecute any TSA POS because it will tend to be subjective rather than objective AND turn into a he said/he said or she said/she said situation which won't meet the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold. However, it should wake up the TSA scumbags in that area to be carefull about how they do their aggresive patdowns. If a warrant is issued, they should at least go to jail, where they may be welcomed by some of the very people they gave a pat down to. One can only hope.....

Actually they put themselves in a trick box by putting TSA under "LEO" authority. I believe that both the scanner and the "enhanced pat down" would be seen as a "Terry stop" and for that you need to be able to articulate a suspicious activity in order to perform it. I highly doubt a three year old in possession of a sippy cup would qualify. Any action performed by a government actor will be judged under strict scrutiny when it comes to the 4th amendment, LEO or otherwise. In any case it will be interesting to see what happens if someone files paperwork after the thanksgiving (c)rush. I think were going to see some interesting rulings, and even more hilarious explanations.

Jim

Pistolwiz
November 19, 2010, 10:32
Originally posted by TideWater 41009
As I posted before, I do not see any Constitutional violation regarding the searches, since flying on a commercial airplane is voluntary. You are informed ahead of time that you will be subect to search, so if you are the squimish type, or concerned about the modesty of your ol' lady or kids, that would be the time to make other transportation plans.

I travel by airplane regularly. I don't care for the time delay and humiliation of going through security any more than anyone else, but I don't bitch about it, because I could walk or drive to my destination if I wanted to, or fly my own plane, charter a private plane, ride a train, ride a horse, hire a taxi, etc.

So we only deserve our 4th amendment rights if what we do is involuntary? If I wish to visit Grandma 2k miles away and it is considered by others to be voluntary. I have to lose my right to be free from search and seizure?

But if it's involuntary...... Like I have a trial to go to in another state and I don't own a car........ I shouldn't be searched?

Who would determine this? What bureaucrat decides that?

Do you think that the 4th amendment if not the entire constitution only applies at certain times? Or only parts of it?

Should the fedegov be allowed to search anybody traveling at any time without cause nor a warrant to provide for your safety?

I really look forward to your response to see what you think.......


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

juanni
November 19, 2010, 10:40
Originally posted by TideWater 41009
As I posted before, I do not see any Constitutional violation regarding the searches, since flying on a commercial airplane is voluntary. You are informed ahead of time that you will be subect to search, so if you are the squimish type, or concerned about the modesty of your ol' lady or kids, that would be the time to make other transportation plans.



Walking down the street is voluntary.

Or sitting on your couch.

Since when does advance notice void the constitution?

This is a GOVT search and is unconstitutional.



................juanni

Pistolwiz
November 19, 2010, 11:41
What gets me about this whole thing........

The fedgov has published many internal documents on who may be a terrorist. They list folks that support Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin......Oath Keepers, etc, etc...... Those that support and defend the constitution are the most listed type of persons on their lists of possible terrorists.

Why?

Why will the TSA not go after who the fedgov claims are the terrorists to the public? Muslims extremists? Those that are supposed to be the threat in the first place?

Why must we always give up our own rights to be provided what has been proven to be almost useless security procedures?

Why must we give up any of our rights?

Being sued by the TSA for this is a threat. Nothing less. Definitely not more. Why? They don't have a case. The man was released by them to be told later he will be sued for leaving the airport without consenting to a personal search. And he has the entire event recorded!

This IS NOT what I expect in a free country. Some seem to have very low expectations of freedom. And high expectations about the government doing things right.








:confused:

SWOHFAL
November 19, 2010, 13:04
Originally posted by flopshot


nope. and you can't be fined for not buying an insurance policy either.
the rule of law, liberty and rights mean nothing to the chosen one and his minions.

You can now - thanks to Obama, Reid and Pelosi.

AndyC
November 19, 2010, 21:01
Cancer survivor forced to show prosthetic breast to TSA agents during airport pat-down (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1331346/Cancer-survivor-forced-prosthetic-breast-TSA-agents-airport-pat-down.html)

Bama Steve
November 19, 2010, 21:09
Wait for the reports next week.

This is the most travel-busy week of the year and the TSA/Gov ain't backing down - gonna be the tip of the ice-berg.



Make it HARD on THEM not US.

Get it?


Read nix-em land . . .


:rofl:

alant
November 20, 2010, 09:55
Don't want the "enhanced" pat down, okay, there's an alternative "enhanced method" - we'll strap you to this here table and put this towel over your head, then we tip you up and take some water . . .

John Culver
November 20, 2010, 16:29
When asked if putting hands down the front of someone's pants is excessive, The TSA responded that their officers' first priority is safety.

This is WAY out of hand!!! Absolutely criminal

But the head of the TSA says the close-quarter body inspections causing a furor among some passengers and pilots are unavoidable in a time of terrorist threats

alant
November 20, 2010, 17:01
Originally posted by John Culver
This is WAY out of hand!!! Absolutely criminal
Wear an adult diaper. Tell them you've got crabs, are incontinent and have already soiled your diapers. Remember about your herpes only after they've stuck their hand in. Might as well soil your diapers again while they've got their hand in there.

Would this constitute lying to a law enforcement officer and if so what are the penalties?

Munster30
November 20, 2010, 19:23
Originally posted by alant
Don't want the "enhanced" pat down, okay, there's an alternative "enhanced method" - we'll strap you to this here table and put this towel over your head, then we tip you up and take some water . . . You don't think there's a difference between a terrorist illegal combatant and ordinary people just trying to get from one place to another? How about letting your wife or daughter get violated by the TSA?
On the other hand, some lunatics might just enjoy the experience. I heard Gloria Allered say she actually enjoyed it because she had not been touched like that by anyone in years....

alant
November 20, 2010, 23:31
Originally posted by Munster30
You don't think there's a difference between a terrorist illegal combatant and ordinary people just trying to get from one place to another? How about letting your wife or daughter get violated by the TSA?
On the other hand, some lunatics might just enjoy the experience. I heard Gloria Allered say she actually enjoyed it because she had not been touched like that by anyone in years.... The question is does TSA know the difference. To them every passenger is a potential terrorist. If a passenger won't submit to a pat down or full body scan that makes them a person of interest.

Personally I think the "enhanced methods" are security gone amuck. So is X-raying everyone's shoes. The equivalent of changing your computer passwords every hour.