TSA molests 3-year-old boy in a cast & wheelchair [video]

[Bunnykid68]

Your right.

As long as its only the rights of others that are being burned in the ovens, this whole thing is much ado about nothing.

They came for the Jews........I was not a Jew...........

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

When "we the people" decide that enough is enough and stand up to these modern day brown shirts the lunacy will end...and not a moment before.

The fact that people 'make it through' is ridiculous. If anyone's rights are trampled, all of our rights are in jeopardy.

 

[J_Wales]

When "we the people" decide that enough is enough and stand up to these modern day brown shirts the lunacy will end...and not a moment before.

The fact that people 'make it through' is ridiculous. If anyone's rights are trampled, all of our rights are in jeopardy.

Exactly.

Well said Sir.

 

[IndyDave1776]

When "we the people" decide that enough is enough and stand up to these modern day brown shirts the lunacy will end...and not a moment before.

The fact that people 'make it through' is ridiculous. If anyone's rights are trampled, all of our rights are in jeopardy.

It won't let me rep you again, so this is as close as I can get!

 

[Kedric]

This is infuriating and needs to be stopped. I feel so bad for that father. That was 2 years ago.... and things just keep getting worse.

 

[wally05]

Congratulations. Still doesn't change the fact that we have (part of) one of the largest power grabs in history not only being invasive philosophically but also physically, and too often directed at small children. Laws against child molestation exist for one and only one reason: The proscribed behaviors are injurious to the children. I fail to see how rubber gloves and/or a government-issued ID card make the aforementioned behaviors any less injurious to the children. If we are going to go down this path, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to permit rape so long as it's done by a government employee.

Flying isn't a right. Get over it or stop flying. I'm not a big fan of TSA or what they do, but everyone talking like it's a God given right to fly...

Playing Devil's advocate, but what if a person does hide an explosive device on their child? What if they came out and said that no one old, young or disabled would be searched. A smart criminal would utilize that.

 

[dukeboy_318]

My wife and I flew to CA(yeah, yeah I know), while trying to go through security in San diego, I got a 10 minute butt chewing because there was a tiny, half-dime shape ball of lint in one of the pocket on the side of my carpenter jeans, the guy was a prick.

I'm glad I turned down thier job offer 3 year ago.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Flying isn't a right. Get over it or stop flying. I'm not a big fan of TSA or what they do, but everyone talking like it's a God given right to fly...

Playing Devil's advocate, but what if a person does hide an explosive device on their child? What if they came out and said that no one old, young or disabled would be searched. A smart criminal would utilize that.

Try again. The Fourth Amendment states:

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.

This has nothing to do with arguing the merits of any real or perceived right to fly. It is a matter of my person being protected from unreasonable searches and siezures regardless of where it may be located at any given time.

 

[IndyDave1776]

My wife and I flew to CA(yeah, yeah I know), while trying to go through security in San diego, I got a 10 minute butt chewing because there was a tiny, half-dime shape ball of lint in one of the pocket on the side of my carpenter jeans, the guy was a prick.

I'm glad I turned down thier job offer 3 year ago.

It really does make you want to request a conversation with the speaking end of the horse, doesn't it?

 

[J_Wales]

Try again. The Fourth Amendment states:

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.

This has nothing to do with arguing the merits of any real or perceived right to fly. It is a matter of my person being protected from unreasonable searches and siezures regardless of where it may be located at any given time.

Well said Sir. Well said indeed.

 

[rambone]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTq833b6Dxs[/ame]

 

[IndyDave1776]

In Soviet Amerika, the Law violates YOU!

Indeed fitting, as is the video!

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

Congratulations. Still doesn't change the fact that we have (part of) one of the largest power grabs in history not only being invasive philosophically but also physically, and too often directed at small children. Laws against child molestation exist for one and only one reason: The proscribed behaviors are injurious to the children. I fail to see how rubber gloves and/or a government-issued ID card make the aforementioned behaviors any less injurious to the children. If we are going to go down this path, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to permit rape so long as it's done by a government employee.

Im not saying I am ok with it, but to compare it to molestation or rape is pretty ridiculous.

With that being said, I am not going to change the way I live my life simply because I do not agree with one particular aspect of the trip.

I would much rather spend an extra 15 minutes at security for my 3 hour flight instead of driving 16 hours.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[JetGirl]

Two by two...hands of blue.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Flying isn't a right. Get over it or stop flying. I'm not a big fan of TSA or what they do, but everyone talking like it's a God given right to fly...

Playing Devil's advocate, but what if a person does hide an explosive device on their child? What if they came out and said that no one old, young or disabled would be searched. A smart criminal would utilize that.

Try again. The Fourth Amendment states:

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.

This has nothing to do with arguing the merits of any real or perceived right to fly. It is a matter of my person being protected from unreasonable searches and siezures regardless of where it may be located at any given time.

Actually, he's correct. Flying (in the plane owned by a private or even publicly traded company) is not a right. Further, if you own your own plane and fly it, you are not, IIRC, subject to TSA's .

The problem comes in when government agents are used to provide security by legal mandate for those private companies. If the airlines had their own employees doing that job, the 4A would be inapplicable. As it stands, however, you are not compelled to be searched; as others have said, no fly, no search. Part of the "contract" to which you agree is that you will pay for passage on their plane and submit to a security screening (appropriate name, considering it's little more than a theatrical performance) and in exchange, they will fly you where you want to go.

To put it in better perspective, let's say you want to go to dinner at Jim Brady's Expensive Steakhouse. If the JBES has a metal detector and a couple of security guards at the entry and demand that you be searched prior to dining there, you can turn around and leave or submit to the search. If you want their food badly enough, you'll submit. If you defend your rights more than you want the food, you'll eat elsewhere. If JBES had government employees performing the search, you still have a right to eat elsewhere, but at that point, a 4A case at least has some relevance. (darn little, but some.)

IANAL, this is just my "read" on it.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[IndyDave1776]

Actually, he's correct. Flying (in the plane owned by a private or even publicly traded company) is not a right. Further, if you own your own plane and fly it, you are not, IIRC, subject to TSA's .

The problem comes in when government agents are used to provide security by legal mandate for those private companies. If the airlines had their own employees doing that job, the 4A would be inapplicable. As it stands, however, you are not compelled to be searched; as others have said, no fly, no search. Part of the "contract" to which you agree is that you will pay for passage on their plane and submit to a security screening (appropriate name, considering it's little more than a theatrical performance) and in exchange, they will fly you where you want to go.

To put it in better perspective, let's say you want to go to dinner at Jim Brady's Expensive Steakhouse. If the JBES has a metal detector and a couple of security guards at the entry and demand that you be searched prior to dining there, you can turn around and leave or submit to the search. If you want their food badly enough, you'll submit. If you defend your rights more than you want the food, you'll eat elsewhere. If JBES had government employees performing the search, you still have a right to eat elsewhere, but at that point, a 4A case at least has some relevance. (darn little, but some.)

IANAL, this is just my "read" on it.

Blessings,
Bill

This is a government mandate. The 4A is absolutely applicable. If we travel down the path you have described, you could just as easily argue that you forfeit your rights by leaving your home, of course there have been no shortage of violations within people's homes. Ultimately, you are going to arrive at a point at which there are no such things as rights considering that when you attach conditions to the government's specifications, they cease to be rights and become privileges. Another issue that is a problem for some and would not be too much of a stretch for the rest of us would be subjected to the sudden, arbitrary, and thorough searches to which owners of NFA weapons are subject. Before you point out that this is generally infrequent, that is the case to the extent it is because they choose not to visit, not because they can't. It simply doesn't pass muster to argue that you can be required to surrender rights for any reason, including being in selected public places, particularly on account of government mandated infringements.

If whatisisname wants to place security restrictions on his steakhouse, that is his business, his private property, and his terms--not a government (supposedly bound by the Constitution) mandate being carried out in a place supported with my tax dollars (like the airport, for example) and violating the sanctity of my person. In your example, I would also point out that a metal detector is far less invasive than being felt up or having the X-rated body scan.

 

[J_Wales]

Im not saying I am ok with it, but to compare it to molestation or rape is pretty ridiculous.

With that being said, I am not going to change the way I live my life simply because I do not agree with one particular aspect of the trip.

I would much rather spend an extra 15 minutes at security for my 3 hour flight instead of driving 16 hours.

Your mileage may vary.

Liberty is not always convenient.
Liberty is not always easy.
Liberty is often very expensive.

One must decide for himself what he willing to give for Her.

You are correct. My mileage does indeed vary; a great deal.

 

[J_Wales]

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
-Samuel Adams

 

[Ted]

Actually, he's correct. Flying (in the plane owned by a private or even publicly traded company) is not a right....

I'm going to disagree with this statement, but for the simple fact that people have a qualified right to travel. I state qualified, simply because of those measures in place to assure a reasonable measure of safety.

If a person doesn't have the ability to exercise the right to freely travel, utilizing whatever technology available, then what kind of liberty do we truly enjoy? While the Framers of the Constitution couldn't have foreseen planes, trains, and automobiles, certainly they wouldn't discounted one particular means as a mere privilege.

 

[MilitaryArms]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-t7UtcNjV4[/ame]

Meanwhile people can walk straight through their full body scanners with weapons unmolested.

The TSA is a gaggle of incompetent clowns...