TSA to implement Israeli-style security/interrogations for travellers

[Silverado]

I think its the same issue. The government has no authority to get in my face and ask me questions. Its the same reason they don't have the authority to search my bags. The 4th Amendment. The Israeli method is just another way of violating the same portion of the constitution. Israelis don't have a constitution and they don't give a rip about interrogating their subjects. I have a big problem with bringing those measures here.

The 4th Amendment does not prohibit all searches without a warrant. It only prohibits unreasonable searches. Since the founding fathers put the word "unreasonable" in the amendment, it is only logical to assume that they meant for the judicial branch to determine reasonableness.

I would say that the supreme court, and indeed most US courts, would find that a search for weapons and other contraband as a condition for flying on commercial aircraft is reasonable. A person is forewarned of the search prior to flying, and the government has a legitimate interest in keeping weapons and explosives off of aircraft. One is free to charter a private aircraft if he/she doesn't want to go through a security check, or to find alternate means of transportation.

I don't agree with some of the actions of TSA, but again, that would be an argument over what's reasonable and what's not. I certainly can't just yell "4th Amendment!" without considering arguments for and against the reasonableness of such actions.

 

[dross]

The 4th Amendment does not prohibit all searches without a warrant. It only prohibits unreasonable searches. Since the founding fathers put the word "unreasonable" in the amendment, it is only logical to assume that they meant for the judicial branch to determine reasonableness.

I would say that the supreme court, and indeed most US courts, would find that a search for weapons and other contraband as a condition for flying on commercial aircraft is reasonable. A person is forewarned of the search prior to flying, and the government has a legitimate interest in keeping weapons and explosives off of aircraft. One is free to charter a private aircraft if he/she doesn't want to go through a security check, or to find alternate means of transportation.

I don't agree with some of the actions of TSA, but again, that would be an argument over what's reasonable and what's not. I certainly can't just yell "4th Amendment!" without considering arguments for and against the reasonableness of such actions.

What if I wanted to start an airline that didn't have TSA security checks? Would that be reasonable to you?

 

[Silverado]

What if I wanted to start an airline that didn't have TSA security checks? Would that be reasonable to you?

Wouldn't that be a charter air service?

 

[dross]

Wouldn't that be a charter air service?

I don't know. Can a charter service sell individual seats?

 

[Silverado]

I don't know. Can a charter service sell individual seats?

Beats me.

I must admit, I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the aviation industry. I was simply addressing the tendency of at least one poster to hold up the 4th Amendment like an impenetrable shield against all warrantless searches or seizures, when even the wording of the actual amendment indicates that such is not the intent of those who wrote it.

 

[RockofStrength]

The 4th Amendment does not prohibit all searches without a warrant. It only prohibits unreasonable searches. Since the founding fathers put the word "unreasonable" in the amendment, it is only logical to assume that they meant for the judicial branch to determine reasonableness.

I would say that the supreme court, and indeed most US courts, would find that a search for weapons and other contraband as a condition for flying on commercial aircraft is reasonable. A person is forewarned of the search prior to flying, and the government has a legitimate interest in keeping weapons and explosives off of aircraft. One is free to charter a private aircraft if he/she doesn't want to go through a security check, or to find alternate means of transportation.

I don't agree with some of the actions of TSA, but again, that would be an argument over what's reasonable and what's not. I certainly can't just yell "4th Amendment!" without considering arguments for and against the reasonableness of such actions.

All respect intended, with that logic a judge could determine it "reasonable" to search me as I walk along the street merely because I carry a firearm or belong to INGO. It is not reasonable to search me merely because I am boarding an airplane any more than it is reasonable to pull me over at random checkpoints on the road because I might have drugs.

 

[thebishopp]

Training people to be able to accurately read "micro expressions" would take a lot of time. I'm sure they are going to send half-trained people out to randomly pick folks out of the crowd. I guess it's time to start driving everywhere. The only way this is going to end is by the airlines struggling so badly that they get some lobbyists after the politicians.

Exactly and also this science is totally dependent upon the skill of the interrogator which also entails him/her in getting a solid "baseline" on the subject you are trying to read.

Things like "no eye contact" doesn't necessarily mean that someone is "guilty", in fact some cultures do not make eye contact with those in authority as it is viewed as rude and confrontational. There is no way they can make an accurate assessment of a subject with 3 to 4 questions. It would take an actual interrogation for them to do so.

 

[Expat]

All respect intended, with that logic a judge could determine it "reasonable" to search me as I walk along the street merely because I carry a firearm or belong to INGO. It is not reasonable to search me merely because I am boarding an airplane any more than it is reasonable to pull me over at random checkpoints on the road because I might have drugs.

It is a bit different. You have a right to walk down the public sidewalk. You do not have a "right" to fly on a privately owned airplane. It gets a bit murky just because you have the gubmint involved in handling security for the airlines. If the TSA folks were employees of the airport or airlines then it would be clearer that it is an acceptable act.

 

[RockofStrength]

It is a bit different. You have a right to walk down the public sidewalk. You do not have a "right" to fly on a privately owned airplane. It gets a bit murky just because you have the gubmint involved in handling security for the airlines. If the TSA folks were employees of the airport or airlines then it would be clearer that it is an acceptable act.

If it were the employees of a private airline the 4th Amendment wouldn't even enter into this issue, I agree. But if government officials/officers are doing the searching and interrogating, then I feel that my point still stands. I have the right to be secure in my person from all unreasonable government search and seizure regardless of where I am or what vehicle I am attempting to enter.

 

[dross]

If it were the employees of a private airline the 4th Amendment wouldn't even enter into this issue, I agree. But if government officials/officers are doing the searching and interrogating, then I feel that my point still stands. I have the right to be secure in my person from all unreasonable government search and seizure regardless of where I am or what vehicle I am attempting to enter.

This is where my question comes in. Can I as a citizen, buy a seat on another airplane, or can I as an airplane owner sell a seat to a citizen, bypassing this security?

 

[RockofStrength]

This is where my question comes in. Can I as a citizen, buy a seat on another airplane, or can I as an airplane owner sell a seat to a citizen, bypassing this security?

I thought the airlines permitted TSA to run their checkpoints and security? Unless I am mistaken, which happens rather often, to my chagrin

 

[88GT]

Well there's lots of other reasons to oppose the idea... such as the great capacity for indoctrinating the nation, the fact that its one of the 10 planks of communism according to Karl Marx, the lack of quality education, the waste, the centralized bureaucracy, the anti-self-defense policies, the anti-free-market nature of the system, and on and on.

So let it be known that there is more than reasons that socialist public education hurts the nation; none of which will be changed by not participating.

So because we can't change it by not participating, we should participate?

Competing models of private security. Government out of the picture. That's where I stand. I would avoid an interrogation if I had the choice, and I would choose an service that let me remain armed.

But we aren't talking about free market security. The government taking up the invasive Israeli model is still a violation of the 4th amendment. So this discussion is still relevant, no? I'm not sure why you said I'm protesting the wrong issue.

No, because you continue to harp on an irrelevant aspect. What part of distinguishing between the party asking the questions and the act of asking the questions don't you get? Your entire argument is because the government is asking the questions, but you phrase your responses as if it's the mere act of being interrogated that offends your sensibilities.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the government had zero influence or regulatory control over airline security. Let us also assume that in the wake of repeated attempts, some successful, by evil men to use the airplanes for dastardly deeds, the private airline companies decided to implement a rigorous and intensive interrogatory method of screening would-be passengers.

Is it your position that such a plan would violate the the 4th amendment?

No, it's not. Ergo, it's not the METHOD that you find fault with as much as it is the fact that it is mandated and implemented by a governmental agency creating at minimum a crack of the wall of protection afforded by the 4th amendment.

It's not really relevant WHAT method the government uses to violate the 4th, is it? Would you be less concerned with an alternative method? I think not. The issue isn't how they are violating the 4th then, but simply that they are violating the 4th.

 

[Sylvain]

I really dont know what those questions will change anyway as far as security goes.
Like someone will tell them that they come from a training terrorist center and that they make a living by making handmade bombs?

They already ask me if I am a terrorist anytime I enter the US by plane (real serious question and you have to check YES or NO).
I wonder how many stupid terrorists they caught since they ask this question.
"Of course I am a terrorist ... oh no ... wait wait I meant to say NO.I didnt understand the question right ... no I am NOT a terrorist." )

 

[thebishopp]

I really dont know what those questions will change anyway as far as security goes.
Like someone will tell them that they come from a training terrorist center and that they make a living by making handmade bombs?

They already ask me if I am a terrorist anytime I enter the US by plane (real serious question and you have to check YES or NO).
I wonder how many stupid terrorists they caught since they ask this question.
"Of course I am a terrorist ... oh no ... wait wait I meant to say NO.I didnt understand the question right ... no I am NOT a terrorist." )

Lol I like that last bit...

What it is is a feel good tactic. It makes people who don't really know what "micro expressions" are and what it actually takes to interpret them "think" that just by asking a few questions the super tsa interrogator will magically "know" if someone is a "terrorist".

the reality is that the person who actually knows even a little about the science knows that this is not the case.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

All this talk of "micro expressions" makes me think someone has been watching too much:

 

[rambone]

The 4th Amendment does not prohibit all searches without a warrant. It only prohibits unreasonable searches. Since the founding fathers put the word "unreasonable" in the amendment, it is only logical to assume that they meant for the judicial branch to determine reasonableness.

I would say that the supreme court, and indeed most US courts, would find that a search for weapons and other contraband as a condition for flying on commercial aircraft is reasonable.

Well we all have an opinion about reasonableness; some more progressive than others. If I were on the court you can bet your ass I wouldn't support government checkpoints that stripped American citizens of their guns and dignity.

How should Israel better handle its security?

Create less Gun-Free-Zones and embrace individual rights to bear arms and to protect life. If we truly believe what we preach around here about "More Guns = Less Crime" then it should work in Israel too. I don't feel safe when I am compelled to disarm; and I really really wouldn't feel safe if I were getting guns pointed in my face by my government saviors at a disarmament checkpoint.

But its their problem. I just know I don't want any part of it. Their practices don't jive with the Bill of Rights at all.

Rambone, you keep doggin people who say to not fly, then what IS the solution???

Obviously you have one to be so adimate that everyone else is wrong, why have you not given your opinion on what would work?

I'm not doggin' ya. Don't fly. Just stop telling me the problem is going to disappear. The TSA isn't going anywhere unless Congress undoes the damage that was done during George W. Bush's reign. And they could care less if you fly or not.

The solution? Restore individual rights, adhere to property rights, eliminate government agencies, weaken the Federal government, lower taxes, reduce regulations, abolish victimless crimes and Nanny-State feel-good laws, stop voting for the Establishment, get out of the U.N. and quit fighting for international interests, turn off your TV, eat healthy, arm yourself, harden your bunker, exercise your rights, spread the truth, elect libertarians, stay drug free, don't take the vaccines, resist the New World Order, don't be a slave.

So because we can't change it by not participating, we should participate?

No.

You're doing the right thing by homeschooling. I'm not attacking you.

I'm just tired of hearing that these screwed up agencies are going to disappear if we stop leaving our house. This has been a common theme for as long as I have been debating people. i.e. Don't like government? Don't go to the (Post Office, Airport, Public School, etc). I wish it were that simple. One way or another, these agencies affect us all.

Your entire argument is because the government is asking the questions, but you phrase your responses as if it's the mere act of being interrogated that offends your sensibilities.

The constitution fences in the government by definition. Government straying from the constitution is what the OP was about.

And yeah, unwanted interrogations offend my sensibilities. I'm not fond of being bothered by these people. I'm a person who slams the door in nosy census-takers' faces. I'm one of those guys who would say "Am I legally required to answer that question?" during a traffic stop. I love my right to remain silent. I might even demand a lawyer before answering these Israeli wannabe's questions. I thought it was pretty well-accepted around here that we don't talk to nosy government agents; I certainly am not interested in jumping through their little hoops so I can be treated like a human being trying to catch my flight. My ornery attitude isn't probable cause of a crime.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the government had zero influence or regulatory control over airline security. Let us also assume that in the wake of repeated attempts, some successful, by evil men to use the airplanes for dastardly deeds, the private airline companies decided to implement a rigorous and intensive interrogatory method of screening would-be passengers.

Is it your position that such a plan would violate the the 4th amendment?

No, but such a scenario would mean that companies could compete for my business and I would choose the airline that treated me like a human being.

Private companies have property rights and their security is their decision. Government imposing invasive measures against everyone's will is where the problem primarily lies. I can boycott a company that acts like Nazi Airlines. But I'm forced to pay for the TSA whether I want to or not, and they damn sure better be following the constitution.

Israel, China, Canada whoever. I could care less if these were Guatemalan interrogation techniques. The trouble is that they don't fit with our inalienable rights.

 

[bingley]

In response to people who say stuff like: if you don't like X, then don't use X.

That's a way for a person to avoid the system but does not do anything to correct the system.

It doesn't change the fact that you have to pay for public services that you don't use. Or perhaps you pay twice, once in taxes and once in private school tuition. The avoidance theory doesn't correct any of this.

One thing that's always troubled me about American politics is this whole tax dollar rhetoric. Would injustice be acceptable if it's free? "Beatings by off-duty cops! Free for all! Our volunteers are policemen who have punched out the clock at work, and your tax dollars are not paying them a single cent for this professional quality abuse! Afterwards you can go to the hospital, and if you don't like the medical establishment, don't use it!!!" Why do we need to resort to this rhetoric of the cheapskate in order to make people aware of the various forms of injustices that harm them every day? I'm sure we will not find TSA "security" acceptable even if it's free.

I am also skeptical that airlines should undertake security themselves. Their directive is profit. Profit does not share the same goals as liberty. We might end up seeing worse violations of our civil rights, and just because it's done by a corporation, it doesn't make it any better for the victims. The passengers themselves may not make the best decision for their liberty. Many people have proven that they're often willing to sacrifice their dignity or their rights to save a few bucks. This in turn will compromise the rights of the population as a whole. In matters of liberty, economics should have no role.

Da Bing

 

[ultraspec]

I see more problems arising from this. Is this to supplement the x-ray machines and pat downs or is it to replace those?

God I hate flying. But unfortunately find myself doing more of it these days