Airport Pat-Downs: TSA Says it Can Fine You for Backing Out

[Glocktogo]

So are you suggesting that TSA has foreign intelligence assets, or is that all CIA/NSA/etc. stuff? Because if it's the latter, you don't get to claim that TSA is being proactive based on what other outfits are doing.

As to the "ineptitude," that's pretty much the definition of reactive: learning from what they've done wrong. Seems like we've had more events stopped by alert passengers after the TSA let them through than the TSA has actually stopped. All the TSA has done is annoy those alert passengers, and give a (false) sense of security to the rest of them. Oh, and if the news reports are to be believed, allowed foot-long razor blades through.

Gotta love those professional, competent federal employees. Just wait until they unionize!

The Adam Savage thing is a joke, but glad you believe everything you hear or read. As for the other stuff, I was actually being complimentary to our foreign partners. However, TSA doesn't perform the screening in foreign countries, where most of these people have gotten on aircraft before being caught. Also, you're expecting proof of a negative. How could the TSA tout the prevention of a terrorist attack they don't know they prevented, but was prevented nonetheless? Have any proof it hasn't happened? I didn't think so. If they decide to not try something because they believe it will fail or be detected, that's prevention. Do you have any proof of how many fires you've prevented because you're not careless with matches?

According to your belief, what search would be "... outside the scope of authority ..." if any? And let's hope these mistakes as you call them don't happen to your mother or father, wife or daughter. I'm guessing you might think they were violations of some sort at that point.

You know those 5 or so that you mention that have been violated should have some rights even if 19,999,995 others traveled safely. Hey I know, let's call them civil rights.

Outside the scope of authority would be if they were screening in a public, non-sterile area, screening for something other than prohibited items, or screening beyond the proscribed procedures.

These instances, while humiliating and condemnable if true, do not rise to the level of civil rights violations. If someone you know humiliates you, are they violating your civil rights? You don't just get to make up what you feel are civil rights violations based on emotion. We still use reason in this country, at least some of the time. Seems like a lot more these days, people want to automatically go to the nuclear option first. Someone does something you don't like and they're a racist or bigot or violating peoples civil rights. While you'd probably agree with the ACLU in these instances, how many times would you normally agree with them?

Oh, and I mentioned that two of those 5 instances have already been proven false, yet you managed to lump them back in as "civil rights violations" anyway. It's difficult to have a reasonable discourse on a subject if the other side is unwilling to acknowledge false arguments as false.

Yes, the government infringing on your right to privacy without probable cause is sooooo American!!!

But you're probably one of those folks that thinks the 2nd Amendment is really the only important amendment, right?

Do you also believe the government can pull you over and ask for your ID and registration simply because you're driving? I mean, after all, since you're driving you're probably going to speed...

This entire TSA debacle is yet another great illustration of just how the terrorists have won... Oh and don't forget the government, they've won as well... They're bigger, stronger and even more of a money-pit because of it. Hmmm, that could lead to some interesting questions, but I'll refrain.

Oh and don't forget... Politicians don't have to submit to any of these searches. Shocking, I know. We're all sheep here. Being ruled by wolves. And we're completely okay with it.

BS you're spreading there my friend. I've personally screened Coburn and Inhoffe back in the day. They're not exempt. You're like the sheep fearing the sheepdog here, not the wolves. I see you bagging on the current solution, yet not offering any viable ones yourself nor stepping up to the plate to actually do anything but complain. Nattering naybobs of negativity anyone?

The lack of logic doesn't seem to trouble people as much as being felt up. A simple example, why are pocket knifes and box cutters not allowed on flights? Since 9-11 literally half of the passengers on a flight would have to be terroists. What was done before, could not happen again. Think about it, it took 3 flights, practically simultaneously, before people on the fourth flight figured out what to do. So why not let grandma have a K-bar so she can take care of her 1 terrorist share. The days of highjacking are over. Get past that.

There will be another flight bombed, but it will be because of the watchers, not the watched. Just like prison, the bad stuff will get in, and it will be brought in by the jailers. There is too much money that can be offered and there are too many who would sacrifice others to protect their own. That, I'm sure is being looked at, but that is still the way it will go down.

So your solution is to turn out the jails because contraband gets in? Open the gates with no restrictions prior to boarding because the TSA or airline employee will probably smuggle a bomb on board? That's sure what it sounds like you're proposing here. Enlighten us!

P.S. You're closer to correct than you think. A lot of the airline security regulations are due to an airline employee murdering 42 people in 1987. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_Flight_1771 Funny, we didn't roll over and give up on aircraft security back then.

It's not like its a big secret that you risk being patted down if you fly. If you aren't comfortable with being frisked, don't fly. It really is that simple.

Funny you should mention that. People didn't seem to have a problem with it when it was done before 9/11 and TSA. Perhaps it's because it was very cursory and not at all effective back then? Yet the very same people decry the "security theater" of today. I remember working with legacy equipment back in 2002 that was faulty, well beyond reasonable service life and almost impossible to use effectively. Getting the new equipment was like taking a blindfold off. To think that we don't catch stuff because it doesn't make the 6 O'clock news is foolish. Yet if it doesn't make the news it, apparently didn't happen and vice-versa. I love the incredible double standard here. Everyone here bags on how terrible the media is at doing their jobs these days, myself included. Yet the minute a topic everyone dislikes such as the TSA comes on and suddenly everything the media says is 100% correct. Walk a mile in our shoes and they might not be so quick to judge.

I think I'm going to have to ignore these threads from now on. So everyone can now continue to spread rumors and falsehoods as gospel, think with their feelings rather than reason, and generally have a good old time roasting marshmallows at the witch hunt. Sorry to spoil everyone's fun.

 

[Sixpounder77]

Yes, the government infringing on your right to privacy without probable cause is sooooo American!!!

Do you also believe the government can pull you over and ask for your ID and registration simply because you're driving? I mean, after all, since you're driving you're probably going to speed...

this part will probably come next. As soon and we see a few car bombs in the U.S. then will have to contend w/ road blocks and rolling checkpoints.

And when people complain, we'll be told its for the safety of all and, "If you don't like it, no one is FORCINGyou to drive".

 

[jbarnett]

Yes, the government infringing on your right to privacy without probable cause is sooooo American!!!

But you're probably one of those folks that thinks the 2nd Amendment is really the only important amendment, right?

Do you also believe the government can pull you over and ask for your ID and registration simply because you're driving? I mean, after all, since you're driving you're probably going to speed...

This entire TSA debacle is yet another great illustration of just how the terrorists have won... Oh and don't forget the government, they've won as well... They're bigger, stronger and even more of a money-pit because of it. Hmmm, that could lead to some interesting questions, but I'll refrain.

Oh and don't forget... Politicians don't have to submit to any of these searches. Shocking, I know. We're all sheep here. Being ruled by wolves. And we're completely okay with it.

 

[MaddSkillz]

The answer is that there are no 100% answers. And the question is exactly how much worth is there in riding down that slippery slope by allowing government to infringe on our liberties in the name of keeping us safe - especially when it comes to terrorist acts? You're still way more likely to die in a car crash or even choke on a peanut than to die in a terrorist act. And yet, we're willing to sacrifice the things that make this land great for something so insignificant in the grand scheme of threats on our life?

And to continue along that thought... It may be the "terrorists" that threaten our life in a very small way when compared to other dangers in society, but it's the government that threatens our lifestyle when we allow them to do as they please by not following the letter of the law.

Our way of life is very much under attack by not just these "terrorists" but also by the government that demands they keep us safe in the name of handing over our liberties to them.

Sorry, but that's just the sobering truth.

Also, I think the company that designed these virtual strip-search machines needs to be investigated for ties to terrorist organizations... Just think about how much money they've made, post 9-11... Okay, I kid, I kid... Kinda.

 

[Shootin 4 Fun]

Yes, the government infringing on your right to privacy without probable cause is sooooo American!!!

But you're probably one of those folks that thinks the 2nd Amendment is really the only important amendment, right?

Do you also believe the government can pull you over and ask for your ID and registration simply because you're driving? I mean, after all, since you're driving you're probably going to speed...

This entire TSA debacle is yet another great illustration of just how the terrorists have won... Oh and don't forget the government, they've won as well... They're bigger, stronger and even more of a money-pit because of it. Hmmm, that could lead to some interesting questions, but I'll refrain.

Oh and don't forget... Politicians don't have to submit to any of these searches. Shocking, I know. We're all sheep here. Being ruled by wolves. And we're completely okay with it.

Sorry, but by purchasing a ticket to fly you agree to give up those rights to privacy. There is no infringement, you have other options.

You're probably one of those people that would be happy if a Timothy McVeigh type was able to just waltz onto an airplane and take it over? I mean, after all, he is within his rights to hi-jack a plane and fly it into the White House and checking him for weapons prior to flying violates his rights.

Driving is not an right, its a privilege, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy while operating a vehicle on government funded and maintained roads.

 

[jbarnett]

Pretty soon everyone will be brainwashed and we won't have anything to argue about.

 

[MaddSkillz]

Sorry, but by purchasing a ticket to fly you agree to give up those rights to privacy. There is no infringement, you have other options.

No, I'm buying a ticket for a plane to transfer me from point A to point B. I didn't sign any agreement that the government would keep me safe if I simply agree to hand over my privacy without probable cause. And it doesn't get anymore private than my nekkid body up on a computer screen (in all its glory I might add )

You're probably one of those people that would be happy if a Timothy McVeigh type was able to just waltz onto an airplane and take it over? I mean, after all, he is within his rights to hi-jack a plane and fly it into the White House and checking him for weapons prior to flying violates his rights.

No, I'd be happy if people were allowed to protect themselves instead of the government claiming they're doing the same at the cost of our essential liberties. Really, giving people back their ability to protect themselves and not rely on the cannibals that feast on our liberties that is the government would solve a lot of these problems... But that would cost the establishment money, control, influence and power... And they sure as hell won't be giving any of that up.

Driving is not an right, its a privilege, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy while operating a vehicle on government funded and maintained roads.

Driving a car in and of itself does not mean I'm breaking the law or about to break the law... What's that document say about unreasonable search and seizures?

 

[MaddSkillz]

Pretty soon everyone will be brainwashed and we won't have anything to argue about.

True... I really need to lay off the fluoridated water. haha

 

[bryan007]

I read something recently about the Israeli version of the TSA. As you are walking through the airport, they don't scan you, they don't pat you down. They ask you questions about yourself and where you are going in such a fast manner that to keep a story straight would be impossible. And strangely enough, they have caught many would-be attackers, and have never really had a problem with airport security. If I have no reason to lie about anything, and am just traveling, I would much rather have a chat with an officer than allow myself to be scanned in a machine that bypasses your clothes and takes a picture of your body. The technology may be beneficial, but the way they are using it is a huge violation of privacy. Maybe one of these days they will realize it and we can be comfortable with our security again.

 

[jarhead983]

So your solution is to turn out the jails because contraband gets in? Open the gates with no restrictions prior to boarding because the TSA or airline employee will probably smuggle a bomb on board? That's sure what it sounds like you're proposing here. Enlighten us!

Glock, I wasn't trying to suggest that we throw open the gates, nor was I commenting on the pat downs. I was trying to point out, and obviously poorly, the lack of thought that bureaucrats engage when making rules. It seems that there is little chance that once a regulation is in place, or use the term power, if you will, that there is any going back to reason. The more we give up, the more we will loose and never get back. Surely you can't argue the need to forbid pocketknives any more. While we're on the subject, what is the exact reasoning of scanning the pilots? Surely they don't need a box cutter to take control of the aircraft and crash it.