The Obama Approved (Nazi)TSA sexual assault of former Miss USA

[xsited1]

That of course is not the case at all as an American citizen I take a great deal of exception to our Government employing what amounts to Brown Shirts to Illegally Search our Population who is doing nothing more then traveling to a destination under the pretense of protecting our population from an event that took place 10 years ago

That is correct. The only reason some of the people here are defending the TSA is because they are Obamabots and since Obama says this is okay then it must be fine. Most likely they were up in arms when Bush introduced the Patriot Act (as was I), but since he was a Republican it had to be bad. (Of course, since Obama continued the Patriot Act, maybe they're okay with it now. ) Anyway, I guess we'll still have to be the sheepdogs for all these sheep in America. At least until Atlas shrugs.

The Patriot Act is an entirely different subject.

No, it's not, but keep telling yourself that.

 

[Valerie]

Government Goose Steppers are hilarious and pathetic at the same time. And i mean all of them. Both the Neocons & Socialists/Progressives will defend all humiliations the Government forces on the People. They've been conditioned for so many years to express that knee-jerk defense of the Government. I can't blame them entirely though. The propaganda & indoctrination on Government Goose Stepping is very powerful. The indoctrination process begins at childhood. That's all most people know unfortunately.

These are the people who learned nothing from Wikileaks. Their Government lies to them on a daily basis for God's sake. Defending these humiliations only encourages the Government to create more. And that is what they're going to do. The Police State is here people. Are you going to just go along and be a Goose Stepper or will you stand up against it? The choice is yours. I sure hope you make the right decision.

Another drama queen with no basis in facts! ^^^

 

[xsited1]

That of course is not the case at all as an American citizen I take a great deal of exception to our Government employing what amounts to Brown Shirts to Illegally Search our Population who is doing nothing more then traveling to a destination under the pretense of protecting our population from an event that took place 10 years ago

That is correct. The only reason some of the people here are defending the TSA is because they are Obamabots and since Obama says this is okay then it must be fine. Most likely they were up in arms when Bush introduced the Patriot Act (as was I), but since he was a Republican it had to be bad. (Of course, since Obama continued the Patriot Act, maybe they're okay with it now. ) Anyway, I guess we'll still have to be the sheepdogs for all these sheep in America. At least until Atlas shrugs.

More lies and mischaracterizations.

Then set the record straight. Did you vote for Obama? Do you approve of the job he's doing? Did you or did you not support the Patriot Act when it was first introduced?

 

[JBeukema]

So no video has surfaced?

Everyone here is just talking out their asses with nothing to go on regarding what actually did or did not happen?

 

[xsited1]

So no video has surfaced?

Everyone here is just talking out their asses with nothing to go on regarding what actually did or did not happen?

Yeah, pretty much. I find it reprehensible that some women on this board do not want to believe this woman's story. Why is that?

 

[signelect]

you all have vivid sexual fantasies about TSA agents.

thanks for the dose of pathetic.

this says it all, blaming Ms. USA. Her point was that it did not have to be done. You can become a TSA agent without a high school diploma, we are not hiring the brightest light on the tree. I don't mean to belittle the agents who are all working under a lot of stress but if this procedure is such a BFD then we should be working with highly trained professionals. I haven't seen many of those at the airports.

I did get search recently because of two bullets I stupidly left in a bag and forgot them. I was treated with professionalism but thoroughly searched included my bags but I was not fondled.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Poor Goose Stepping schleps. They learned nothing from Wikileaks. Their Government has all kinds of humiliations planned for them in the future. But I do understand how Neocons & Socialists/Progressives feel they need to defend the Government at every turn because that's all they know. This is especially true when their guys are in power. Now all the Hopey Changeys just love all these Government humiliations. And when the other guys get back in power,they'll pretend they oppose them. This works both ways. But Neocons & Socialists/Progressives both agree on Government domination in the end. There are no real differences between the two. We need real change in this country. Time to dump the Neocons & Socialists/Progressives.

 

[Valerie]

That is correct. The only reason some of the people here are defending the TSA is because they are Obamabots and since Obama says this is okay then it must be fine. Most likely they were up in arms when Bush introduced the Patriot Act (as was I), but since he was a Republican it had to be bad. (Of course, since Obama continued the Patriot Act, maybe they're okay with it now. ) Anyway, I guess we'll still have to be the sheepdogs for all these sheep in America. At least until Atlas shrugs.

More lies and mischaracterizations.

Then set the record straight. Did you vote for Obama? Do you approve of the job he's doing? Did you or did you not support the Patriot Act when it was first introduced?

Not that it matters, but I did not vote for Obama and we all recognize the 4th amendment concerns with the Patriot Act...


Why do you support anti American liars who pretend our government is out to get us because of airport security screenings...?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sure, I try and try yet you refuse to see who really clings to PCism here...



Administrative searches are not an "argument" but indeed the facts of a legal precedent which stands to be shot down any time now... Or not...

And, according to the citation you gave, are only permissible when they search luggage and carryons.

Federal courts upheld warrantless searches of carry-on luggage at airports.

Can you explain how we get from a search of luggage and carry ons for weapons and explosives to patting down everyone who gets on a plane?

Is that what's really happening? I doubt that would be PC...

How convenient for you that you can completely ignore the point I made and refuse to actually explain how a pat down of anyone is an administrative search of luggage.

 

[High_Gravity]

Government Goose Steppers are hilarious and pathetic at the same time. And i mean all of them. Both the Neocons & Socialists/Progressives will defend all humiliations the Government forces on the People. They've been conditioned for so many years to express that knee-jerk defense of the Government. I can't blame them entirely though. The propaganda & indoctrination on Government Goose Stepping is very powerful. The indoctrination process begins at childhood. That's all most people know unfortunately.

These are the people who learned nothing from Wikileaks. Their Government lies to them on a daily basis for God's sake. Defending these humiliations only encourages the Government to create more. And that is what they're going to do. The Police State is here people. Are you going to just go along and be a Goose Stepper or will you stand up against it? The choice is yours. I sure hope you make the right decision.

You nailed it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I love how people keep going back to the administrative search argument, and then ignore the fact that these searches are both more intrusive than necessary given current technology, and are not confined to luggage.

Want to try again?

You do know the princess in the OP refused to go through the scanner?

And? How does that invalidate my point that the searches do not meet the guidelines of administrative searches which are actually only permissible of baggage? Does the fact that she opted out of getting radiated give anyone the right to sexually assault her?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Things are going to get worse. It's just too bad the Government Goose Steppers are still caught up in their little 'D' & 'R' Game to stand up for what's right. It is very sad but it is what it is. The People will suffer. Have a nice day.

 

[xsited1]

More lies and mischaracterizations.

Then set the record straight. Did you vote for Obama? Do you approve of the job he's doing? Did you or did you not support the Patriot Act when it was first introduced?

Not that it matters, but I did not vote for Obama and we all recognize the 4th amendment concerns with the Patriot Act...


Why do you support anti American liars who pretend our government is out to get us because of airport security screenings...?

Thanks for answering 2 out of my 3 questions. I do, however, find it hard to believe that you didn't vote for Obama unless you just didn't vote.

I don't consider anyone who questions what the TSA is doing to be anti-American or liars. I believe the TSA is overstepping their bounds and should be stopped.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is that what's really happening? I doubt that would be PC...

That is exactly what is happening.


just for some thought.

You need a judges order to let LEO search your home and it must show exactly what they are searching for.
Even if you are pulled over by a LEO for breaking some law, he cannot search your car unless there is probable cause TO search your car...and even then it must hold up in court.

No, I've already thought about it plenty and in fact there is a BIG legal difference between an administrative search for weapons prior to boarding a commercial jetliner vs a search by LEO of your car or your house...

Only in the mind of people who think that the government should have the power to ignore the Constitution when it is inconvenient.

 

[Valerie]

And, according to the citation you gave, are only permissible when they search luggage and carryons.



Can you explain how we get from a search of luggage and carry ons for weapons and explosives to patting down everyone who gets on a plane?

Is that what's really happening? I doubt that would be PC...

How convenient for you that you can completely ignore the point I made and refuse to actually explain how a pat down of anyone is an administrative search of luggage.

There is no mandatory pat-down.



The language you quote is from the description of the legal precedent prior to the ATSA which is based on the search being "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives".

Even prior to the passage of ATSA and the Federalization of the screening work force, Federal courts upheld warrantless searches of carry-on luggage at airports. Courts characterize the routine administrative search conducted at a security checkpoint as a warrantless search, subject to the reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Such a warrantless search, also known as an administrative search, is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, " confined in good faith to that purpose," and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly. [See United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)].

While the searches at the airport will be conducted by private screening companies, such searches will continue to be subject to the Fourth Amendment requirements of reasonableness because they are conducted at the instigation of the federal Government and under the authority of federal statutes and regulations governing air passenger screening.

 

[xsited1]

Is that what's really happening? I doubt that would be PC...

How convenient for you that you can completely ignore the point I made and refuse to actually explain how a pat down of anyone is an administrative search of luggage.

There is no mandatory pat-down.



The language you quote is from the description of the legal precedent prior to the ATSA which is based on the search being "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives".

Even prior to the passage of ATSA and the Federalization of the screening work force, Federal courts upheld warrantless searches of carry-on luggage at airports. Courts characterize the routine administrative search conducted at a security checkpoint as a warrantless search, subject to the reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Such a warrantless search, also known as an administrative search, is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, " confined in good faith to that purpose," and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly. [See United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)].

While the searches at the airport will be conducted by private screening companies, such searches will continue to be subject to the Fourth Amendment requirements of reasonableness because they are conducted at the instigation of the federal Government and under the authority of federal statutes and regulations governing air passenger screening.

And therein lies the problem: reasonableness. That's the issue. Some believe what the TSA is doing is unreasonable while others believe it is reasonable. And quoting a 1973 case when you know full well that the searches have become much more invasive since then is disingenuous at best.

 

[Robert]

Is that what's really happening? I doubt that would be PC...

How convenient for you that you can completely ignore the point I made and refuse to actually explain how a pat down of anyone is an administrative search of luggage.

There is no mandatory pat-down.




The language you quote is from the description of the legal precedent prior to the ATSA which is based on the search being "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives".

Even prior to the passage of ATSA and the Federalization of the screening work force, Federal courts upheld warrantless searches of carry-on luggage at airports. Courts characterize the routine administrative search conducted at a security checkpoint as a warrantless search, subject to the reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Such a warrantless search, also known as an administrative search, is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, " confined in good faith to that purpose," and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly. [See United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)].

While the searches at the airport will be conducted by private screening companies, such searches will continue to be subject to the Fourth Amendment requirements of reasonableness because they are conducted at the instigation of the federal Government and under the authority of federal statutes and regulations governing air passenger screening.

I think what truly blows my mind is that you don't even question this crap taking place the searches today are being done under the guise of a terrible event that took place 10 YEARS ago yet just now this administration thinks its a get idea to fondle our Nations citizens. Why don't you ask to what effect this is being done for. It damn sure isn't going to stop another attack so what exactly is the point of it

 

[Ravi]

If it is reasonable to expect that terrorists are going to try to blow planes up, then it is reasonable to search people boarding planes.

You rightwingloons asked for this and now you whine about it.

Delicious.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

and therein lies the truth of the matter.


two words... timothy mcveigh.

Why do you keep mentioning Timothy McVeigh? He blew up a truck.

because he is a white christian all-american home-grown terrorist. you all think terrists only come in arab-flavor. and THAT is why the constant and repeated tantrums.

so you think it's ok for someone to make disgusting allegations without filing charges?

and you repeat those unfounded charges because you have an agenda. i personally, think that's incredibly wrong.

but it's the old 'if you say something often enough, it becomes true' BS.

I think that? Where did I ever say anything like that? If you actually pay attention to what I say you will see that not only do I not think that, I have pointed out that the El Al method will not work in the US. I have, however, advocated a opt in plan where people can choose to give up some privacy, allowing the airlines and government more access to their information in exchange for avoiding the hassles of security at airports.

You mentioning McVeigh only serves to prove that you are not the one who is paying attention and thinking things through. You are more likely to be killed by lightning than in a terrorist attack, yet you are not advocating that the government run around during thunderstorms posturing to keep people safe from lightning.

I understand you do not see the connection here, but that is because you are afraid of those Arabs you are claiming you support. I happen to know that most terrorists are actually incompetent, poorly trained at best, and that even if they succeed in blowing something up, they only win if we let them. I choose to keep them in the category of losers.

FYI, Muslims and Arabs are not equivalent.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, I've already thought about it plenty and in fact there is a BIG legal difference between an administrative search for weapons prior to boarding a commercial jetliner vs a search by LEO of your car or your house...

There is no difference in my opinion.

as much as i like you, syrenn, on this issue, you simply don't like reality. and as much as i am always interested in your opinion, in the eyes of the law there is a huge difference between a person's home and the limited search done before boarding an airline. the 4th amendment does not prohibit searches. it prohibits UNREASONABLE searches. i don't know why the persistent refusal of the anti-TSA propagandists to accept this. What is UNREASONABLE in the eyes of the law is clearly defined in the CASELAW. Why do people persist in leaving out the word UNREASONABLE when talking about the issue?

You have no right to fly. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in your baggage or person when you board a plane. The reasons for that are too many to list. But once again, for you and anyone else who has an issue with this, feel free not to fly.

As for me? I don't want to get on a plane where there TSA hasn't done its job.

But keep letting every questionable propaganda thread that is posted on this issue by certain people be given far more weight than it ever deserved and form the basis for more continued irrationality on this issue.

Why do you get on planes at all? It is obvious that the TSA never does the job you think it does, otherwise we would not have had two separate bombs making it onto planes since they were created by an act of Congress.