PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security TSA Harasses Mentally Disabled Man As Possible Terrorist


KILLER_CLOWN
06-10-2011, 01:35 AM
A mentally disabled man was harassed by TSA agents as a possible terrorist on Wednesday night.

Drew Mandy, a 29 year old with the brain capacity of a two year old was harassed and had is toy hammer taken away as a possible weapon.

“Dr. Mandy claimed they asked Drew to place his feet on the yellow shoe line, something he didn’t understand. They proceeded to pat his pants down, questioning the padding which was his adult diapers. When the agents asked Drew to take his hand and rub the front and back of his pants so they could swab it for explosives, his dad stepped in and tried to explain that Drew was mentally challenged”, reported Fox News Detroit.

This is the full scale breakdown of the American will and spirit. These goons are openly harassing women, children, and the disabled while at the same time NEVER catching a real terrorist.

It is time for ALL Americans to demand their local representatives follow the lead of Texas and move to outlaw this outright criminal behavior.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dvkvAC8KTP8?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dvkvAC8KTP8?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

http://theintelhub.com/2011/06/09/tsa-harasses-mentally-disabled-man-as-possible-terrorist/

banyon
06-10-2011, 02:52 AM
Great way to sneak in contraband/explosives, if we can't look.

MagicHef
06-10-2011, 06:24 AM
Great way to sneak in contraband/explosives, if we can't look.

Same goes for colons, vaginas, stomachs, and recent surgical sites. As long as we're violating constitutional rights, we may as well go all the way.

Jaric
06-10-2011, 07:37 AM
Same goes for colons, vaginas, stomachs, and recent surgical sites. As long as we're violating constitutional rights, we may as well go all the way.
This.

Pitt Gorilla
06-10-2011, 11:19 AM
Same goes for colons, vaginas, stomachs, and recent surgical sites. As long as we're violating constitutional rights, we may as well go all the way.Air travel is a right? Is it required by the government?

Jaric
06-10-2011, 12:08 PM
Air travel is a right? Is it required by the government?

I believe he was refering to the 4th amendment.

Rooster
06-10-2011, 12:25 PM
As long as they didn't make GoChiefs late for his flight I see nothing wrong with this.

ForeverChiefs58
06-13-2011, 11:48 AM
If they have a problem with it then they should have drove instead.

vailpass
06-13-2011, 12:01 PM
If they have a problem with it then they should have drove instead.

Yep. As was mentioned, air travel is a privelege not a right. As soon as the bad guys see a loophole they will exploit it.

ClevelandBronco
06-13-2011, 12:09 PM
"Frankie detained" gets to the point more quickly.

JD10367
06-13-2011, 12:15 PM
I don't give a fuck if they cavity-search the special people. If a terrorist wants to blow up a plane, you don't think he/she will try every trick in the book? Fake pregnancy, explosives in a baby's doll, pretend you're retarded, whatever? If you don't like the rules, don't fly. It's a privilege, not a right. I don't give a shit if they make us all fly naked, if it stops me from blowing up in midair I'm fine with it. If you're not, drive.

vailpass
06-13-2011, 12:15 PM
"Frankie detained" gets to the point more quickly.

LMAO

MagicHef
06-13-2011, 12:49 PM
Is it a common belief that 4th amendment rights only apply when the subject is engaging in an activity that is separately protected by the constitution? I've honestly never heard that before, and I think I know why: because it's obviously incorrect.

vailpass
06-13-2011, 12:53 PM
Is it a common belief that 4th amendment rights only apply when the subject is engaging in an activity that is separately protected by the constitution? I've honestly never heard that before, and I think I know why: because it's obviously incorrect.

Your ass can drive too. Those rights are surrendered the minute you want to get on a plane and it had better stay that way.
El Al has the right idea.

What do you care? You live in one of the most killer spots to live in the world. You don't need to fly anywhere.

Simplex3
06-13-2011, 12:55 PM
If they have a problem with it then they should have drove instead.

If you're too fucking chicken you can drive instead.

Der Flöprer
06-13-2011, 12:59 PM
LMAO Fucking pussies.

Jaric
06-13-2011, 01:03 PM
Your ass can drive too. Those rights are surrendered the minute you want to get on a plane and it had better stay that way.
El Al has the right idea.

What do you care? You live in one of the most killer spots to live in the world. You don't need to fly anywhere.

Wha?

I missed the part of the constitution that says "Null and void the moment one tries to get on an airplane."

Is that a recent amendment?

Ace Gunner
06-13-2011, 01:18 PM
damn, that was close........

MagicHef
06-13-2011, 01:20 PM
Your ass can drive too. Those rights are surrendered the minute you want to get on a plane and it had better stay that way.
El Al has the right idea.

What do you care? You live in one of the most killer spots to live in the world. You don't need to fly anywhere.

No.

vailpass
06-13-2011, 01:26 PM
Wha?

I missed the part of the constitution that says "Null and void the moment one tries to get on an airplane."

Is that a recent amendment?

That's because flying is not a constitutional right.

vailpass
06-13-2011, 01:26 PM
No.

Yes. You haven't noticed the TSA searching people?

MagicHef
06-13-2011, 01:29 PM
Yes. You haven't noticed the TSA searching people?

The fact that a right is being violated does not mean that the right no longer exists.

MagicHef
06-13-2011, 01:30 PM
That's because flying is not a constitutional right.

Neither is driving, riding a bike, walking down the street, or eating a sandwich.

vailpass
06-13-2011, 01:32 PM
The fact that a right is being violated does not mean that the right no longer exists.

Fight the power man!!!!!

vailpass
06-13-2011, 01:32 PM
Neither is driving, riding a bike, walking down the street, or eating a sandwich.

And if any of those represented a tangible terrorist threat I would fully expect every preventative measure to be taken.

MagicHef
06-13-2011, 01:34 PM
And if any of those represented a tangible terrorist threat I would fully expect every preventative measure to be taken.

Have you heard of a man by the name of Timothy McVeigh?

vailpass
06-13-2011, 01:36 PM
Have you heard of a man by the name of Timothy McVeigh?

Bang, you got me.
Why don't you mosey on over to the Morrison Inn and have a margarita on the patio. If I was where you are that is what I would do right now.

chasedude
06-13-2011, 01:40 PM
That's because flying is not a constitutional right.
You're right, flying isn't. But the illegal search performed before flying IS.

“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.”

I'm not secure if I've got some dude grabbing my junk without my consent.

|Zach|
06-13-2011, 01:45 PM
Implied consent.

Radar Chief
06-13-2011, 01:48 PM
Terrorists are well known for using the mentally handicapped to get explosives into areas crowded with unsuspecting people.
The explosives in the diaper thing has been done also.

http://scaredmonkeys.com/2009/12/29/the-underwear-bomb-of-northwest-flight-253-the-lengths-that-terrorists-will-go-to-kill-us-allegedly/

Brock
06-13-2011, 01:55 PM
You're right, flying isn't. But the illegal search performed before flying IS.

“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.”

I'm not secure if I've got some dude grabbing my junk without my consent.




You don't have to consent. You can turn around and leave if you like.

ClevelandBronco
06-13-2011, 01:55 PM
You're right, flying isn't. But the illegal search performed before flying IS.

My goodness. You should report this. I'm sure the courts will step in immediately and end the practice.

“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.”

I'm not secure if I've got some dude grabbing my junk without my consent.

You give consent every time you fly, dude.

ClevelandBronco
06-13-2011, 01:57 PM
You don't have to consent. You can turn around and leave if you like.

Or that.

vailpass
06-13-2011, 02:02 PM
You're right, flying isn't. But the illegal search performed before flying IS.

“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.”

I'm not secure if I've got some dude grabbing my junk without my consent.




You consent the minute you buy the ticket.
Would you want to fly on planes whose passengers/luggage were not security checked?

Bwana
06-13-2011, 02:02 PM
http://img.hobowars.com/fn_photos/l_16366__homelandsecurity.jpg

vailpass
06-13-2011, 02:03 PM
http://img.hobowars.com/fn_photos/l_16366__homelandsecurity.jpg

LMAO

chasedude
06-13-2011, 02:08 PM
You don't have to consent. You can turn around and leave if you like.

I don't mind the scanners, leave the intrusion into my personal life to that. A stranger touching me inappropriately without my consent is no excuse.

You give consent every time you fly, dude.

Just because it's so, doesn't make it right.

|Zach|
06-13-2011, 02:09 PM
I don't mind the scanners, leave the intrusion into my personal life to that. A stranger touching me inappropriately without my consent is no excuse.



Just because it's so, doesn't make it right.

Have you been through these security lines?

This is the biggest non issue I have ever seen in my life.

chasedude
06-13-2011, 02:10 PM
You consent the minute you buy the ticket.
Would you want to fly on planes whose passengers/luggage were not security checked?

That's different, my luggage is not part of my body. I have no problem with searches to property, just not my body.

Jaric
06-13-2011, 02:13 PM
That's because flying is not a constitutional right.

I never said it was. However, I'm pretty sure there is something in there about "unreasonable search and seizures" and how the government isn't supposed to do it.

Generally some kind of probable cause is required before we go right to the strip searching, and simply wanting to get on a plane is not probable cause.

chasedude
06-13-2011, 02:14 PM
Have you been through these security lines?

This is the biggest non issue I have ever seen in my life.

I've flown multiple times since the scanner/pat down procedure were implemented. I've had both techniques performed on me.

When do we draw the line? We're heading closer to a Police State than never before.

Jaric
06-13-2011, 02:17 PM
You don't have to consent. You can turn around and leave if you like.

I like that.

In fact, I think we should expand the TSA ability to do body cavity searches.

I mean, what if the terrorists want to blow up your office building? I mean, people go unsearched there all the time, it only makes sense. Lots of people, low security, if I was a terrorist that's the first place I'd blow up. Hell, we already had one terrorist blow up a building like that. I think from now on, anytime anyone wants to go anywhere, they should first have to let some TSA pervert do a nice body cavity search before hand. I mean, if we don't do a body cavity search, how can we know for sure they aren't a terrorist???

And if you don't like it, you can just not leave your house right?

|Zach|
06-13-2011, 02:21 PM
This happens with every TSA argument. It is riddled with outlier examples, drama queen language, hyperbole, and moving the goal posts referencing things that haven't actually happened.

Brock
06-13-2011, 02:22 PM
I don't mind the scanners, leave the intrusion into my personal life to that. A stranger touching me inappropriately without my consent is no excuse.



Just because it's so, doesn't make it right.

You are consenting to it.

MagicHef
06-13-2011, 02:22 PM
My goodness. You should report this. I'm sure the courts will step in immediately and end the practice.



You give consent every time you fly, dude.

I really don't understand the difference between what the TSA currently does and police being able to pull over any car at any time for no reason and execute a full search of the car and everyone inside. Cars can be dangerous. It could even be excused by saying "you give consent every time you drive."

Jaric
06-13-2011, 02:25 PM
I really don't understand the difference between what the TSA currently does and police being able to pull over any car at any time for no reason and execute a full search of the car and everyone inside. Cars can be dangerous. It could even be excused by saying "you give consent every time you drive."What about pedestians? I mean, they might be dangerous too. I think to really be safe we should be forced to be searched whenever we try to leave our houses.

MagicHef
06-13-2011, 02:27 PM
This happens with every TSA argument. It is riddled with outlier examples, drama queen language, hyperbole, and moving the goal posts referencing things that haven't actually happened.

Yeah, that and stupid people wanting to keep their constitutional rights.

Jaric
06-13-2011, 02:27 PM
This happens with every TSA argument. It is riddled with outlier examples, drama queen language, hyperbole, and moving the goal posts referencing things that haven't actually happened.

You forgot the flimsly rationalizions of constitutional rights violations in the name of a false sense of security.

I know for certain the TSA taking away my toothpaste makes me feel hella safer when I get on the plane.

Jaric
06-13-2011, 02:28 PM
Yeah, that and stupid people wanting to keep their constitutional rights.

Hey you're the one that wants to leave your house. Clearly you've waived those constitutional rights when you did so.

|Zach|
06-13-2011, 02:29 PM
Yeah, that and stupid people wanting to keep their constitutional rights.

It isn't our fault you don't understand the constitution.

Donger
06-13-2011, 02:30 PM
I now opt-out of the peep show every time I end up in that line, just to annoy the TSA goons.

Brock
06-13-2011, 02:30 PM
You forgot the flimsly rationalizions of constitutional rights violations in the name of a false sense of security.

I know for certain the TSA taking away my toothpaste makes me feel hella safer when I get on the plane.

The effectiveness of the searches is a separate issue. But no airline anywhere is going to let you on their plane without a search, and it's a condition you agree to when you put your bag on the conveyor belt.

|Zach|
06-13-2011, 02:33 PM
If any of you want to be more than people who show they don't understand the constitution on a message board and want to enact change in a way that doesn't need drama queen rhetoric or total outlier examples...


You should organize and file a legal action seeking to overturn or alter the U.S. vs David ruling by the 9th Circuit Court.

In 1973 the 9th Circuit Court rules on U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908, there are key pieces of wording that give the TSA its power to search essentially any way they choose to. The key wording in this ruling includes “noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.”

U.S. vs Davis goes onto to state “[an administrative search is allowed if] 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.”

U.S. vs Davis was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court in 1986 in U.S. vs Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d 899, 901 with this ruling “To judge reasonableness, it is necessary to balance the right to be free of intrusion with society’s interest in safe air travel.”

Alot of this also has to do with implied consent.

At the security checkpoint once you submit your luggage to the airline agent to be loaded onto the aircraft, you put your bag on the xray conveyer belt, or you walk through the detector you are implying that it is "ok" that the TSA search you and your property. The TSA would have not one right to search your belongings if you did not give the implied consent. When you buy your ticket you know of the TSA and that you are subject to screening before you enter the gate area, every airline is mandated to let you know and if they do not you should bring it up to them. You could walk around the airport a hundred times and the TSA can not bother you before the check point. They are also limited in their searches. Congress authorizes TSA to search travelers for weapons and explosives; beyond that, the agency is overstepping its bounds which has been backed up by U.S. District Court Judge Algenon L. Marbley in a case were some guys got in trouble for having fake passports. That was shown as a violation of their 4th amendment rights.

Implied consent is used for anyone who goes to a Chiefs game. Look at it right there on the back of your ticket and the terms you agree to and rights you waive by purchasing the ticket and entering Arrowhead.

Jaric
06-13-2011, 02:35 PM
The effectiveness of the searches is a separate issue. But no airline anywhere is going to let you on their plane without a search, and it's a condition you agree to when you put your bag on the conveyor belt.

I'm going to go ahead and need you to show me where in the constitution it says the 4th amendment no longer applies when a person attempts to get onto a plane.

Brock
06-13-2011, 02:38 PM
I'm going to go ahead and need you to show me where in the constitution it says the 4th amendment no longer applies when a person attempts to get onto a plane.

I doubt it says anything at all about planes, trains, or automobiles, probably not spaceships either.

|Zach|
06-13-2011, 02:39 PM
I'm going to go ahead and need you to show me where in the constitution it says the 4th amendment no longer applies when a person attempts to get onto a plane.

lol.

Jaric
06-13-2011, 02:40 PM
If any of you want to be more than people who show they don't understand the constitution on a message board and want to enact change in a way that doesn't need drama queen rhetoric or total outlier examples...


You should organize and file a legal action seeking to overturn or alter the U.S. vs David ruling by the 9th Circuit Court.

In 1973 the 9th Circuit Court rules on U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908, there are key pieces of wording that give the TSA its power to search essentially any way they choose to. The key wording in this ruling includes “noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.”

U.S. vs Davis goes onto to state “[an administrative search is allowed if] 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.”

U.S. vs Davis was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court in 1986 in U.S. vs Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d 899, 901 with this ruling “To judge reasonableness, it is necessary to balance the right to be free of intrusion with society’s interest in safe air travel.”

Alot of this also has to do with implied consent.

At the security checkpoint once you submit your luggage to the airline agent to be loaded onto the aircraft, you put your bag on the xray conveyer belt, or you walk through the detector you are implying that it is "ok" that the TSA search you and your property. The TSA would have not one right to search your belongings if you did not give the implied consent. When you buy your ticket you know of the TSA and that you are subject to screening before you enter the gate area, every airline is mandated to let you know and if they do not you should bring it up to them. You could walk around the airport a hundred times and the TSA can not bother you before the check point. They are also limited in their searches. Congress authorizes TSA to search travelers for weapons and explosives; beyond that, the agency is overstepping its bounds which has been backed up by U.S. District Court Judge Algenon L. Marbley in a case were some guys got in trouble for having fake passports. That was shown as a violation of their 4th amendment rights.

Implied consent is used for anyone who goes to a Chiefs game. Look at it right there on the back of your ticket and the terms you agree to and rights you waive by purchasing the ticket and entering Arrowhead.
Remind me again of how airport security was in the 1970s. Where they out harrasing the handicapped and little children?

You see, context is usually pretty important.

MagicHef
06-13-2011, 02:45 PM
If any of you want to be more than people who show they don't understand the constitution on a message board and want to enact change in a way that doesn't need drama queen rhetoric or total outlier examples...


You should organize and file a legal action seeking to overturn or alter the U.S. vs David ruling by the 9th Circuit Court.

In 1973 the 9th Circuit Court rules on U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908, there are key pieces of wording that give the TSA its power to search essentially any way they choose to. The key wording in this ruling includes “noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.”

U.S. vs Davis goes onto to state “[an administrative search is allowed if] 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.”

U.S. vs Davis was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court in 1986 in U.S. vs Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d 899, 901 with this ruling “To judge reasonableness, it is necessary to balance the right to be free of intrusion with society’s interest in safe air travel.”

Alot of this also has to do with implied consent.

At the security checkpoint once you submit your luggage to the airline agent to be loaded onto the aircraft, you put your bag on the xray conveyer belt, or you walk through the detector you are implying that it is "ok" that the TSA search you and your property. The TSA would have not one right to search your belongings if you did not give the implied consent. When you buy your ticket you know of the TSA and that you are subject to screening before you enter the gate area, every airline is mandated to let you know and if they do not you should bring it up to them. You could walk around the airport a hundred times and the TSA can not bother you before the check point. They are also limited in their searches. Congress authorizes TSA to search travelers for weapons and explosives; beyond that, the agency is overstepping its bounds which has been backed up by U.S. District Court Judge Algenon L. Marbley in a case were some guys got in trouble for having fake passports. That was shown as a violation of their 4th amendment rights.

Implied consent is used for anyone who goes to a Chiefs game. Look at it right there on the back of your ticket and the terms you agree to and rights you waive by purchasing the ticket and entering Arrowhead.

Hmm. I will have to look into that, thanks. It seems to me, at first glance, that that ruling is probably a bit too generous in the latitude it gives the TSA.

Also, I believe it is standard practice around here to give a link when you copy large amounts of text from another source, rather than making it look like your own writing.

|Zach|
06-13-2011, 02:46 PM
Remind me again of how airport security was in the 1970s. Where they out harrasing the handicapped and little children?

You see, context is usually pretty important.

Forgive me for trying to supply you with the information as it is. I know you hate dealing with the details when you are busy selling vague fear "BUT WHERE IS THE LINE WHAT IS NEXT!!!"

ClevelandBronco
06-13-2011, 02:52 PM
I'm going to go ahead and need you to show me where in the constitution it says the 4th amendment no longer applies when a person attempts to get onto a plane.

You're not protected by the Fourth because you've voluntarily waived those protections.

It's not a unique concept. People often voluntarily waive the protection of the Fifth by agreeing to provide information that they are not required to provide. Government is allowed to ask you to voluntarily give up your rights.

chasedude
06-13-2011, 02:53 PM
Forgive me for trying to supply you with the information as it is. I know you hate dealing with the details when you are busy selling vague fear "BUT WHERE IS THE LINE WHAT IS NEXT!!!"

I'll remember this if some day in the future I find you Goosestepping past me saying "Here's the line, join in!"

KC native
06-13-2011, 02:53 PM
Quick question for the endorsers of our encroaching police state, how many terrorists have these screening measures caught again?

Jaric
06-13-2011, 02:54 PM
Forgive me for trying to supply you with the information as it is. I know you hate dealing with the details when you are busy selling vague fear "BUT WHERE IS THE LINE WHAT IS NEXT!!!"

I'm not the one advocating we harrass children and the handicapped in the name of safety, yet I'm the one selling fear? Bullshit.

At the time that ruling was issued there wasn't anything remotely resembling the TSA or the current security procedures. So to use that ruling as justifcation for the current MO is nonsense.

Brock
06-13-2011, 02:55 PM
I'll remember this if some day in the future I find you Goosestepping past me saying "Here's the line, join in!"

At least you're not being hilariously over the top and dramatic about it.

Jaric
06-13-2011, 02:55 PM
Quick question for the endorsers of our encroaching police state, how many terrorists have these screening measures caught again?

Not sure, but I'm willing to bet they've got a shit ton of toothpaste over 3 ounces.

Because you know, bombs can't be smaller than 3 ounces...

vailpass
06-13-2011, 02:56 PM
I never said it was. However, I'm pretty sure there is something in there about "unreasonable search and seizures" and how the government isn't supposed to do it.

Generally some kind of probable cause is required before we go right to the strip searching, and simply wanting to get on a plane is not probable cause.

I understand your concern and agree with sticking to the constitution as closely as possible.
IMHO there are situations our framers could never have anticipated and this is one of them. Even in these situations we must use the constitution as a guiding framework but we must be flexible enough to accomodate the needs of the people. It is, after all, a living document.

ClevelandBronco
06-13-2011, 02:56 PM
Quick question for the endorsers of our encroaching police state, how many terrorists have these screening measures caught again?

We cannot know how many incidents may have been prevented. You were going ask that question as well, weren't you?

vailpass
06-13-2011, 02:57 PM
Quick question for the endorsers of our encroaching police state, how many terrorists have these screening measures caught again?

Do you really need the fallacy of your 'logic' here pointed out to you?

|Zach|
06-13-2011, 02:57 PM
I'm not the one advocating we harrass children and the handicapped in the name of safety, yet I'm the one selling fear? Bullshit.

At the time that ruling was issued there wasn't anything remotely resembling the TSA or the current security procedures. So to use that ruling as justifcation for the current MO is nonsense.

No I was wrong. You were not using drama queen hyperbole and outlier example's when discussing this subject.

Bwahahaha

KC native
06-13-2011, 02:58 PM
Not sure, but I'm willing to bet they've got a shit ton of toothpaste over 3 ounces.

Because you know, bombs can't be smaller than 3 ounces...

The answer is 0.

|Zach|
06-13-2011, 02:59 PM
Remember that Thankgiving when guys like Pete were talking about how everyone was going to get pat down's and the whole TSA was going to to look like assholes when the whole air traffic system turned to gridlock?

That was so adorable.

People went through that busy travel weekend in airport after airport without a hitch.

KC native
06-13-2011, 03:00 PM
We cannot know how many incidents may have been prevented. You were going ask that question as well, weren't you?

Ah yes, the predictable faux news line of we can't know how many have been prevented. Cue up Rumsfeld and his known unknowns and unknown unknowns line.

chasedude
06-13-2011, 03:00 PM
I understand your concern and agree with sticking to the constitution as closely as possible.
IMHO there are situations our framers could never have anticipated and this is one of them. Even in these situations we must use the constitution as a guiding framework but we must be flexible enough to accomodate the needs of the people. It is, after all, a living document.

I'm glad we're in a country were we have a constitution that allows us to debate situations like these.

I'm just trying to find an equal standing of protection for all of us, without the violation of our rights from oppressive gov't agencies.

KC native
06-13-2011, 03:00 PM
Do you really need the fallacy of your 'logic' here pointed out to you?

This ought to be good. Proceed.

ClevelandBronco
06-13-2011, 03:01 PM
Ah yes, the predictable faux news line of we can't know how many have been prevented. Cue up Rumsfeld and his known unknowns and unknown unknowns line.

I'm sorry. I would have tried the Air America news line, but I couldn't find it.

MagicHef
06-13-2011, 03:09 PM
Well, I read up on US vs Davis, and the one thing I found really strange was that the deciding factor that is repeatedly mentioned in the decision is that the search of Mr. Davis was carried out by an airline employee and not by a government agent, and therefore the 4th amendment does not apply. Since the searches are now carried out by government agents, I don't really see how this decision is the basis for the current search procedures. Then again, I am not a legal expert.

Jaric
06-13-2011, 03:09 PM
Remember that Thankgiving when guys like Pete were talking about how everyone was going to get pat down's and the whole TSA was going to to look like assholes when the whole air traffic system turned to gridlock?

That was so adorable.

People went through that busy travel weekend in airport after airport without a hitch.

No, they accomplished that when they got caught stealing people's stuff, molesting women and taking children off into booths without their parents.

I know, I know, those are just outliers right!

|Zach|
06-13-2011, 03:11 PM
No, they accomplished that when they got caught stealing people's stuff, molesting women and taking children off into booths without their parents.

I know, I know, those are just outliers right!

They absolutely are. This is a nationwide program do you know how many people travel each day?

Jaric
06-13-2011, 03:15 PM
They absolutely are. This is a nationwide program do you know how many people travel each day?That somehow makes it right?

Jaric
06-13-2011, 03:15 PM
Well, I read up on US vs Davis, and the one thing I found really strange was that the deciding factor that is repeatedly mentioned in the decision is that the search of Mr. Davis was carried out by an airline employee and not by a government agent, and therefore the 4th amendment does not apply. Since the searches are now carried out by government agents, I don't really see how this decision is the basis for the current search procedures. Then again, I am not a legal expert.

Details!

Radar Chief
06-13-2011, 03:21 PM
Ah yes, the predictable faux news line of we can't know how many have been prevented. Cue up Rumsfeld and his known unknowns and unknown unknowns line.

Update your partisan rhetoric, it’s “CNN news line” now.

vailpass
06-13-2011, 03:22 PM
I'm glad we're in a country were we have a constitution that allows us to debate situations like these.

I'm just trying to find an equal standing of protection for all of us, without the violation of our rights from oppressive gov't agencies.

Agreed. It is a fine line and sometimes hard to see.

|Zach|
06-13-2011, 03:24 PM
That somehow makes it right?

If a TSA agent breaks the rules then they should be punished. However to take those situations and paint the whole security system like that is disingenuous.

MagicHef
06-13-2011, 03:28 PM
If a TSA agent breaks the rules then they should be punished. However to take those situations and paint the whole security system like that is disingenuous.

I'm curious to get your reaction to this (as well as my previous posts):

http://www.fox5sandiego.com/news/kswb-man-faces-fine-for-refusing-tsa-scan,0,7222070.story

MagicHef
06-13-2011, 03:32 PM
Here's US vs Davis:

http://openjurist.org/482/f2d/893/united-states-v-davis

Read section 54-58 in regards to the news story I posted.

Jaric
06-13-2011, 03:33 PM
I understand your concern and agree with sticking to the constitution as closely as possible.
IMHO there are situations our framers could never have anticipated and this is one of them. Even in these situations we must use the constitution as a guiding framework but we must be flexible enough to accomodate the needs of the people. It is, after all, a living document.

Look, I get your concern. We don't want terrorists blowing up planes.

I obviously get that.

I'm not even completely opposed to having airport security or bag checks. But groping women and shuffling children off to be searched without their parents present is not congruent with the values this country was founded on.

There is no way that we will ever be able to completely stop terrorism. It's just not possible. To think we can is foolish and to allow fear to make us willingly give up our freedoms for some false sense of security is NOT what this country is about.

It's the constitution that makes us different from other countries. The further we get from that the closer we are to being that which we despise.

People may think the comparisons to Nazi's are over the top, and in many (ok most) cases they are. However, those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. You don't wake up one day and there is a dictator in charge and you're being shuffled off to a camp to die somewhere. It happens slowly. And people are unwilling to accept it because they can't believe it could happen here.

You know what, that's exactly what the German people thought.

If history has shown us anything, it's that those in power are more than willing to abuse that power in the search for more power. That's the entire point of the constitution to limit that power to prevent tyranny.

Which is why I consistantly oppose bullshit like what the TSA does.

Use your logic. How does taking away people's mouthwash and patting down retarded people make you any safer.

SNR
06-13-2011, 03:33 PM
The whole "you give consent when you step into the airport" argument being pedaled here is bullshit.

If you actually gave consent, you would need to sign off on pages of fine print that details all the security measures the TSA can take. I know when a majority of people agree with something like these security measures, it's easy to kind of force it through the Constitutional filter and say, "See? It works!" The easiest way to do that is to use fake consent, which is being done here.

Brock
06-13-2011, 03:34 PM
Use your logic. How does taking away people's mouthwash and patting down retarded people make you any safer.

It doesn't. That's not really the argument, is it?

vailpass
06-13-2011, 03:35 PM
I appreciate your viewpoint Jaric even though I don't share it. Saying "we can't ever perfect it so why should we even try" just doesn't make sense to me. Like Chasedude said though, it is good there are people on both sides of the fence, keeping each other in check.

Brock
06-13-2011, 03:37 PM
The whole "you give consent when you step into the airport" argument being pedaled here is bullshit.

If you actually gave consent, you would need to sign off on pages of fine print that details all the security measures the TSA can take. I know when a majority of people agree with something like these security measures, it's easy to kind of force it through the Constitutional filter and say, "See? It works!" The easiest way to do that is to use fake consent, which is being done here.

The **** are you talking about? Does anybody really not know that you are going to be searched at a TSA checkpoint? Yes, you do give consent to be searched if you enter that checkpoint.

SNR
06-13-2011, 03:41 PM
The **** are you talking about? Does anybody really not know that you are going to be searched at a TSA checkpoint? Yes, you do give consent to be searched if you enter that checkpoint.The searches are invasive and unreasonable.

What was wrong with the previous security measures the TSA took before Napalitano took over?

Brock
06-13-2011, 03:43 PM
The searches are invasive and unreasonable.

What was wrong with the previous security measures the TSA took before Napalitano took over?

Maybe, but the whole "I didn't consent" argument is bullshit. I'm not defending the apes at TSA or saying the searches accomplish anything.

Jaric
06-13-2011, 03:51 PM
It doesn't. That's not really the argument, is it?

Well, it's one argument against the TSA and their "procedures" was that they don't actually accomplish anything.

I brought it up because if safety really was the concern, they wouldn't be concerned about my toothpaste. That's illogical. Hell, it's probably what confused the special guy in the article because even he understood that it made no sense.

CoMoChief
06-13-2011, 04:44 PM
Yup....we need more govt, more TSA and more surveillance because there are those evil scary terrorists out there....(yawn)

Simplex3
06-13-2011, 06:09 PM
That's because flying is not a constitutional right.

Good for us the Constitution limits the government and not the people.

Simplex3
06-13-2011, 06:10 PM
You consent the minute you buy the ticket.
Would you want to fly on planes whose passengers/luggage were not security checked?

Yes.

Simplex3
06-13-2011, 06:12 PM
This happens with every TSA argument. It is riddled with outlier examples, drama queen language, hyperbole, and moving the goal posts referencing things that haven't actually happened.

There are an infinitely small percentage of flights that terrorists have blown up. Where are the outliers?

Jaric
06-13-2011, 06:16 PM
There are an infinitely small percentage of flights that terrorists have blown up. Where are the outliers?

I didn't think of this until now, but "this."

Simplex3
06-13-2011, 06:18 PM
Ah yes, the predictable faux news line of we can't know how many have been prevented. Cue up Rumsfeld and his known unknowns and unknown unknowns line.

You do realize how much that sounds like "jobs save or created", right?

mikey23545
06-13-2011, 06:21 PM
Ah yes, the predictable faux news line of we can't know how many have been prevented. Cue up Rumsfeld and his known unknowns and unknown unknowns line.

As I thought...Your mind is too weak to grasp intangibles, isn't it?

MagicHef
06-13-2011, 06:24 PM
Come to think of it, the wording in US vs Davis is pretty strong. It outright says that the searches are only valid if people are able to opt out of them by choosing not to board the aircraft. Now that the TSA is claiming that it is a Federal crime to refuse a part of the search, are they effectively invalidating their own searches?

Brock
06-13-2011, 06:26 PM
Come to think of it, the wording in US vs Davis is pretty strong. It outright says that the searches are only valid if people are able to opt out of them by choosing not to board the aircraft. Now that the TSA is claiming that it is a Federal crime to refuse a part of the search, are they effectively invalidating their own searches?

A fair question.

Jaric
06-13-2011, 06:29 PM
Come to think of it, the wording in US vs Davis is pretty strong. It outright says that the searches are only valid if people are able to opt out of them by choosing not to board the aircraft. Now that the TSA is claiming that it is a Federal crime to refuse a part of the search, are they effectively invalidating their own searches?
That would be a logical conclusion, yes.

ForeverChiefs58
06-13-2011, 09:32 PM
I guess "bomb" isn't the only word you can't say on a plane:

Airline passenger drops F-bomb, gets boot

An author of alleged “children’s books” needs to wash his mouth out with soap and find a new airline after dropping the F-bomb aboard an Atlantic Southeast Airlines flight.


Unlike the rain in Spain, Sayegh could not remain on the plane.

The Detroit News reports Brooklyn author Robert Sayegh is thinking about suing the Delta Connection carrier.

According to the article, the 37-year-old, was flying from Kansas City to Newark when a flight attendant overheard him ask “What’s taking so [bleeping] long to close the overhead compartments?”

The plane taxied to the runway but returned to have Sayegh forcibly removed.

Sayegh told the Detroit paper he used the F-word twice.

“I’m like, ‘Are they throwing me off the plane? This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever been through in my life. It’s embarrassing.”

Sayegh, who’s also a TV producer, said he is not “a crazy maniac” and that in New York “we curse as adjectives.”

Oh well, at least he didn’t drunkenly flirt his way into the news.

The airline says the incident is under investigation.

Sayegh said would never intentionally disrupt a flight: “My cousin was killed in 9/11. A lot of friends died in 9/11. I would never come close to doing anything like that.”

http://blogs.ajc.com/news-to-me/2011/06/13/airline-passenger-drops-f-bomb-gets-boot/?cxntlid=cmg_cntnt_rss