Terrorists Win Big...with the help of liberals

The TSA is a federal government agency and the fourth amendment is still in effect, as far as I know, even in airports.

The body scanners and the groping searches are unconstitutional.

 

Not according to the courts so far.

And what is your alternative?

 

The head of TSA admits the searches infringe upon the 4th amendment:

New Jersey is claiming infringement upon 4th amendment; and at least one lawsuit has been filed against Napolitano.

 

That TSA employee is not the court.

A law suit is not a ruling.

 

What court rulings on the full body scans & pat downs are you referring to?

BTW: I misspoke about McGowan; he's the TSA deputy assistant administrator, not the chief.

 

I did not refer to any particular ruling.

Whether or not they are unconstitutional is a question for the courts.

I believe that I read an article about a recent court ruling which agreed with the TSA that once one begins the security screening process - such as getting in the line - that one can not change ones mind.

Once you start you must go through with the screening and are not allowed to just leave.

 

9th Circuit Appeals court: "requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world. Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by 'electing not to fly' on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found."

Does not imply that intrusive searches are acceptable.

Additionally: "A representative for Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory said the group did not evaluate the advanced imaging machines for passenger safety. 'That was not our role,' spokeswoman Helen Worth said. 'We measured the level of radiation, which was then evaluated by TSA.'"

 

Wasn't suggesting that it said that - merely adding a little information to the discussion.

Then the safety of the scanners may or may not be an issue - something that should be investigated further.

 

There is no constitutional right to fly on a scheduled air line.

 

And, following this logic, one can say there is no right to drive, boat, bus, or bicycle anywhere either.

What's next...strip-search stations on the highway? After all..."we have to be safe..."

 

Based on strictly the Constitution there should be no rules against taking boxcutters on a plane - but there are.

 

so there's no line between a body-cavity search and confiscation of a box-cutter?

 

Were do you get that?

And on what basis are you saying that the TSA is doing body cavity searches?

 

The topic is not the right to fly; the topic has to do with individual rights infringement by government entities.

Private airlines have the right to charge extra fees, hire personal security firms to conduct searches of whoever uses their resources (provided those searches do not violate any state/federal laws), etc., etc.

Government entities are prohibited from violating individual rights as described/defined/identified in the Constitution and amendments.

The topic is, are the searches by the government entity known as TSA violating the Constitution?

If they are in violation, and we condone it in the name of security, then the Constitution has ceased to have any meaning and is no longer of any value.

 

Violating the U.S. constitution is certainly not the answer. If we are going to look to government to take the risk out of flying(and other areas as well) then the cause of liberty is lost in this country(probably is anyway).

I would think that defending the U.S. constitution against government encroachment would be something that libertarians and conservatives, and even liberals in the area of personal freedom, would agree on.

I guess we'll see if this Tea Party movement is all hat and no cattle, or not, based on how it responds to this fourth amendment issue.

 

Amen, and amen!

 

KenH, you have not answered the question - what is the alternative system to keeping terrorists from boarding a plane with the intent to do harm?

 

>The topic is not the right to fly; the topic has to do with individual rights infringement by government entities.

Under the rules . . . you volunteer to fly, you volunteer to be searched. Only prisoners being transported by air have a complaint. <G>

 

Will do so in a separate thread.

 

I usually try to ignore you, because your answers are mostly infantile. However, in this case -- before TSA became a government entity, I would agree with you. The government, however, has to--nay, must--abide by the rules and laws set forth to govern itself. Doing so on the behalf of privately owned airlines does not exempt the government from abiding by its own rules, regulations, and laws.