TSA pulled my 6 year old for additional screening

[sam_gordon]

Horrible philosophy. Why do people still parrot this?

THAT I agree with.

 

[achinfeet]

I think you missed the point. Have the TSA searches been declared illegal or a violation of constitutional rights? Until they do, it's not a violation of your rights, regardless of what you (or some nameless blog) think.

I didn't miss your point - your point was that people should have a system where they can challenge the legality of a procedure in a court of law. And we do and it's being challenged.

The system described above (your point) has allowed allowed many changes to be made to laws over the years, including, but not limited to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_repealed_legislation

 

[achinfeet]

I didn't miss your point - your point was that people should have a system where they can challenge the legality of a procedure in a court of law. And we do and it's being challenged.

The system described above (your point) has allowed allowed many changes to be made to laws over the years, including, but not limited to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_repealed_legislation

And some of these laws were actually a TAD morally defective, even though they were the law-of-the-land.

 

[achinfeet]

Horrible philosophy. Why do people still parrot this?

AMEN BROTHER! I feel so good to see this written.

 

[sam_gordon]

And some of these laws were actually a TAD morally defective, even though they were the law-of-the-land.

Agreed. But have any courts ruled the TSA searches violates traveller's rights? If they haven't, the searches are legal. Again, it doesn't matter what you think should be illegal, until a court says it, they're legal. End of story.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using DISBoards

 

[achinfeet]

Agreed. But have any courts ruled the TSA searches violates traveller's rights? If they haven't, the searches are legal. Again, it doesn't matter what you think should be illegal, until a court says it, they're legal. End of story.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using DISBoards

Sorry - I proposed earlier that TSA security was a joke...and it is. I didn't enter into legality arguments until you proposed an ideal system of courts and judges. I agreed with that system and here we are with a redirected argument about what is legal, which I never questioned.......sigh

We could get into a whole theological diatribe of what's legal and what's right or what is legal and what is a steady erosion of personal freedom, but it could take forever since your world view and mine are obviously pointed in opposing directions and history is REPLETE with examples of outrage that we called "law". It could take years to list them all - instead, let's ponder our magnificent airport security through the eyes of the observer.

Anecdotal? Yes. Disturbing? YES. The Law? Never argued. A Joke? Can't be argued.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_TAoMUVeVg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFoa0LsqVbQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNO-AzPxS4U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAcNulL_G3o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyxmxIMNR_g

 

[kaytieeldr]

He didn't propse an(y ideal or otherwise) system of courts and judges; he pointed out we have such a system in place already, which hasn't determined the TSA processes to be unconstitutional.

Theology pertains to religion, as would a theological diatribe. Both would violate DIS polcies, which prohibit, in part, debates, and religious discussions.

 

[CPT Tripss]

He didn't propse an(y ideal or otherwise) system of courts and judges; he pointed out we have such a system in place already, which hasn't determined the TSA processes to be unconstitutional.

Theology pertains to religion, as would a theological diatribe. Both would violate DIS polcies, which prohibit, in part, debates, and religious discussions.

The double negative aside, neither have courts determined TSA practices constitutional. There have been no decisions as yet on challenges to the most egregious practices of the Airport Security Screeners.

 

[maxiesmom]

Anecdotal? Yes. Disturbing? YES. The Law? Never argued. A Joke? Can't be argued.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_TAoMUVeVg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFoa0LsqVbQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNO-AzPxS4U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAcNulL_G3o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyxmxIMNR_g

Yes you can argue it. I'd like to see your proof that the TSA hasn't made a terrorist think twice. You can't prove it just as I can't prove they have.

I don't think it is a joke. I think you just don't like it, therefore, you have decided it must be a joke.

 

[sam_gordon]

The double negative aside, neither have courts determined TSA practices constitutional. There have been no decisions as yet on challenges to the most egregious practices of the Airport Security Screeners.

So is something legal until it's declared illegal or is something illegal until it's declared legal? I think it's the former.

 

[sam_gordon]

Sorry - I proposed earlier that TSA security was a joke...and it is. I didn't enter into legality arguments until you proposed an ideal system of courts and judges. I agreed with that system and here we are with a redirected argument about what is legal, which I never questioned.......sigh

We could get into a whole theological diatribe of what's legal and what's right or what is legal and what is a steady erosion of personal freedom, but it could take forever since your world view and mine are obviously pointed in opposing directions and history is REPLETE with examples of outrage that we called "law". It could take years to list them all - instead, let's ponder our magnificent airport security through the eyes of the observer.

Anecdotal? Yes. Disturbing? YES. The Law? Never argued. A Joke? Can't be argued.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_TAoMUVeVg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFoa0LsqVbQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNO-AzPxS4U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAcNulL_G3o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyxmxIMNR_g

A "joke"? I've never seen anyone laughing as they go through security.

Is TSA a "knee jerk" reaction to 9/11? Yes. Are they reactive (thanks to the shoe and underwear bomber) as opposed to proactive? Yes. Has their presence prevented attempted hijackings? Don't know. Have strengthened cockpit doors prevented attempted hijackings? Don't know.

Do I think there are "gaps" in their coverage? Yes. Have they "crossed the line" that will prevent me from flying? No.

 

[kamik86]

I think you missed the point. Have the TSA searches been declared illegal or a violation of constitutional rights? Until they do, it's not a violation of your rights, regardless of what you (or some nameless blog) think.

Umm no...

not saying that the TSA screenings are illegal and a violation of constitutional rights. However just because something hasn't actually been declared specifically to be against the constitution in court yet does NOT mean its not against the constitution. Just that the court hasn't ruled on it yet. Someone challenges an action because they believe the action is unconstitutional and then it is decided on however just because no one challenged it yet doesn't make it constitutional.

It was a violation of the person's constitutional rights the first time a black person was treated differently due to the color of their skin. The fact that it took us so long to see it doesn't mean that their rights weren't being violated all along.

Ok off soapbox now we can go back to the TSA topic.

 

[kaytieeldr]

The double negative aside, neither have courts determined TSA practices constitutional. There have been no decisions as yet on challenges to the most egregious practices of the Airport Security Screeners.

None of the suits in that blog is particularly recent. What hasn't there been a finding posted in any one except the whistleblower case?

 

[goofy4tink]

Message # 9 - no pixie dust - sorry

Message # 10 - no pixie dust - sorry

May I ask what your point is?

 

[sam_gordon]

Umm no...

not saying that the TSA screenings are illegal and a violation of constitutional rights. However just because something hasn't actually been declared specifically to be against the constitution in court yet does NOT mean its not against the constitution. Just that the court hasn't ruled on it yet. Someone challenges an action because they believe the action is unconstitutional and then it is decided on however just because no one challenged it yet doesn't make it constitutional.

It was a violation of the person's constitutional rights the first time a black person was treated differently due to the color of their skin. The fact that it took us so long to see it doesn't mean that their rights weren't being violated all along.

Ok off soapbox now we can go back to the TSA topic.

It has been challenged though. The supreme court refused to hear it. Which means it's gone through the lower courts. I got this info from one of the links up thread.

May I ask what your point is?

I think he was trying to get enough posts in order to post a link.

 

[Srbright]

Maybe you have a broader term of what "privates" are. Areas covered by underwear are what I consider "privates". No one touched those areas during my or my children's pat downs.

If that's the criteria for "privates" that's going to cause the TSA some issues. You can go from a mile of tent canvas (aka "grannies panties") down to a triangle swatch of lace between one passenger to the next.

Flying back from Heathrow I got selected for additional screening and as the nice woman with a British accent was running her gloved hands up my legs and across my underwire I asked how people got selected. She pointed to the light display along the top of the scanner. She said every so often the light blinks red and that person gets selected. It is random and based on nothing more than an algorithm in the programming. She said that they can also choose to select people. My guess is the lights blinked when your son went through.

Even while getting patted down I didn't feel that was anything more than the price I pay to fly. I can't drive a car across the Atlantic.

Stacy

 

[Srbright]

She then explained that since my son set off the detector multiple times additional screening was required. But he is a minor so I was chosen to do the screening for him.

The TSA version of a whipping boy?

Stacy

 

[Srbright]

I also flew right after 9/11 and remember the armed guards. My kids are not scared by service members because they come from a family of veterans and and an uncle who currently serves. However, I'm sure that would unsettle quite a few other kids who are not familiar with that appearance. Everyone's experiences are different.

We flew thanksgiving after 9/11, out of La Guardia no less as we lived in Brooklyn at the time. I can tell you my husband will never forget that trip. We get through security with rifle toting guards. We hear "Sir, sir SIR STOP". DH turns around to see a man holding a gun running towards him............ He had left his wallet at the checkpoint and the guy was trying to return it to I us.

Hand swabs and underwire checks are nothing.

Stacy

 

[CPT Tripss]

So is something legal until it's declared illegal or is something illegal until it's declared legal? I think it's the former.

None of the suits in that blog is particularly recent. What hasn't there been a finding posted in any one except the whistleblower case?

Sam, you need to consider the distinction between a behavior or act being legal and a law or government process or procedure being constitutional.

Kay, I'm not sure what blog you mean. There are a number of court cases about TSA practices pending a decision by the court with jurisdiction for many months, in some cases, even more than a year after arguments. My take is the judges are stalling the cases.

As far as recent cases, the case that is used to justify Airport Security Screening is from the early 70s, well before the enhanced practices now employed and pertained to a much more limited procedure, only metal detectors and carry on screening for weapons and explosives.

 

[JulesieV]

It was a violation of the person's constitutional rights the first time a black person was treated differently due to the color of their skin. The fact that it took us so long to see it doesn't mean that their rights weren't being violated all along. Ok off soapbox now we can go back to the TSA topic.

Not exactly... Don't you think the 3/5 compromise is the very definition of treating someone different based on their skin color? I know I do.