TSA got you down?

[cbm32]

"In general"....and suspicion maybe but reasonable? Ahhhh there is a term that leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

The point is that unless there is sexual intent it is not sexual abuse or harassment. A person may find it uncomfortable or invasive and not want to have it done but it is does NOT fit in those categories.

People really need to just get over themselves a little bit. I have four children and four grand children. I would MUCH rather have them patted down than have them die as a result of some lunatic or terrorist or whatever getting on a plane with something that would have been found by a pat down or metal detector or any of the other methods being used by the TSA. I suspect that some of the people objecting the strongest to the methods used by the TSA would be the first ones in line to file a wrongful death suit if one of their loved ones died in a plane crash caused by a terrorist.

 

[vladimir]

"In general"....and suspicion maybe but reasonable? Ahhhh there is a term that leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

Yes, but not as much as you might think. I say "in general" to acknowledge the border search exception. There are guidelines for reasonableness set by the courts:

Whether a border search is reasonable depends on a judicial analysis that balances the intrusion into an individual’s legitimate privacy and dignity interests against the government’s legitimate interest in the subject of the search. In reviewing the reasonableness of border-searches under the Fourth Amendment, many courts have distinguished between "routine" and "nonroutine" searches. Customs may conduct "routine" searches without any level of suspicion, while "nonroutine" searches must be supported by "reasonable suspicion". Under this analysis, searches of a traveler's property, including luggage, briefcases, wallets, and other containers are "routine," while searches of a traveler's body, including strip, body cavity and involuntary x-ray searches, are considered "nonroutine."

I would MUCH rather have them patted down than have them die as a result of some lunatic or terrorist or whatever getting on a plane with something that would have been found by a pat down or metal detector or any of the other methods being used by the TSA.

That is a false dichotomy. Those are not the only two choices, and they certainly are not equally likely. Would you rather have them undergo "enhanced pat-downs" regularly or face a one-in-ten-million chance of dying as a consequence of aviation-related terrorism? That is a fairer statement of the choice, though there are still other options. You could persuasively argue that the pat-downs are doing nothing to enhance their safety, so the choice is whether you want your children and grand-children patted down, or not.

I suspect that some of the people objecting the strongest to the methods used by the TSA would be the first ones in line to file a wrongful death suit if one of their loved ones died in a plane crash caused by a terrorist.

Yes, and crying with outrage at the failure of the Obama administration. That's the problem, it takes more political courage than anybody's got these days to say that the government is not a womb and there are certain small risks that we are going to have to accept.

 

[cbm32]

Dead is dead. With the lives of my loved ones no risk is too small if it can be avoided. I think you are really minimizing the increased risk there would be in flying if the TSA was not taking the steps they are.

You are free to make your choice and simply not fly.

 

[vladimir]

Dead is dead. With the lives of my loved ones no risk is too small if it can be avoided.

Do you allow them to ride bicycles? To go outdoors when thunderstorms are predicted? Then you're already exposing them to bigger risks that could be avoided.

I think you are really minimizing the increased risk there would be in flying if the TSA was not taking the steps they are.

Perhaps, but I didn't make it up, I got it from the Economist:

The odds of being a victim of terrorism on a flight are approximately 1 in 10,408,947—rather less than the 1 in 500,000 odds of getting killed by lightning.

You are free to make your choice and simply not fly.

Yes, obviously, and even without your permission, but thanks. As I see it, and as courts have held, I also have the right to travel the way I please without undue interference. What we are discussing (and, at the risk of stating the obvious, you are free to not discuss it) is what constitutes undue interference.

 

[AndrewA]

To give a non-American perspective on this issue: I grew up 30 miles from Belfast at a time when despite the so called "Ring of Steel " arround the city centre up to 60 devices a day were going off! ( I've had a beer in the Europa Hotel: the worlds most bombed hotel), and from my profile you will see I work in the Middle East. So I do understand the "threat"
I have recently arranged a dive trip to the Carribean and one of my main concerns when doing so was to avoid having to use any American airport. The reason for this was my impression from both US and European media reports of the problems experienced (real or percieved) with airport security. That was before the current debate about body scanners etc ! I don't think I'm the only European who has qualms about transiting in the US at this time.

 

[Jeff Toorish]

For me it is simple, if the TSA can't do it's job without irradiating Americans or molesting them, then TSA can't do its job, period.

I am probably one of the most liberal people on this board --but when it comes to civil liberties, there is no compromise for me.

Make no mistake, these new scanners are essentially backscatter radar. The are dosing victims with radiation. In the years to come, we will learn that they cause cancer and the multi-national corporation that has invested millions of dollars in them knew that. I worked with RADAR in the military and I have no doubt that these machines are dangerous.

Declining to be radiated means being touched in a way that would be considered a sexual violation in most jurisdictions in America.

That is simply unacceptable.

This is another slide down the slope that began on 9/11/01 --and it is time for Americans to stand up and say ENOUGH. Any member of congress that does not agree to sign onto legislation banning these machines, made overseas, needs to find a new job.

Oh, and as I understand it, there are scanners designed and built in the US, in Massachusetts that do not radiate people --and they are just as effective.

I want to reinforce my original point, TSA does not have the right or authority to force Americans to make the false choice between being blasted with radiation or molested.

Never trade freedom for security. Never.

Jeff

 

[japan-diver]

Just flew through 4 major airports in the US over the last 10 days with a member of my staff a nonUS citizen and we were not once patted down or put through a body scanner, just the normal metal detector and a few questions. We also transited over 6 international airports over the last 6 months and the procedures in the US were no worse than I have seen at any of other countries airports either.

 

[vladimir]

Thank you, japan-diver, for a much needed dose of reality. As much as I feel that the TSA's efforts are inefficient, mostly unnecessary, and potentially intrusive, I also think that the media has fanned the hysteria for all it's worth, and that the horror stories associated with this are rare and probably exaggerated. Now if we could just douse the lingering hysteria over the 9-11 attacks.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I think you missed the point. Flying is not a right. If you can't accept the rules to fly then don't fly.....OR drop $2,000 an hour on a private charter.

Contrary to what our entitlement minded president and Congress think. You do not have a RIGHT to a big house, free food, a great job, welfare, everything your neighbor has or anything else you don't earn. You do have a right to the opportunity to pursue whatever you want in life. Then through hard work earn it.

I think it's you who missed the point. My 4th Amendment rights as a citizen of this country don't end when I walk into an airport.

If you think this is all about flying, just try to refuse these guys and walk out when they tell you what they're gonna do to you. By law, you cannot refuse. Doing so will cost you $11,000 and a possible jail sentence.

My "entitlement" in this case is spelled out in the Constitution. The Dept. of Homeland Security doesn't have the authority to override that document. Since they're trying to, it's my responsibility as a citizen of this country to say "NO!".

... Bob (Grateful diver)

 

[iztok]

IF being patted down is sexual assault then every cop that pats someone down should arrest himself I suppose. And no, not everyone that gets patted down IS a criminal so that argument wont fly.

Cop has to have probable cause (reasonable suspicion) to do the pat down. Next stupid comparison?