Well, some people do consider HK a terrorist, but he's unlikely to blow up your airplane.

Score one for TSA. I loathe the organization, but Kissinger isn't exactly the sort I will shed tears over.

Just to be clear, Amy, I am 100% behind you in your war on TSA. That woman clearly violated you and she deserves precisely what she gets.

However, I wish the idiotic talk would stop. "Oh, boo-hoo-hoo...we're surrendering our Fourth Amendment rights." Those who think there's some kind of constitutional crisis going on simply don't know what they're talking about. The courts have ruled that since flying is voluntary, every search conducted by TSA is also voluntary.

That's how the courts have ruled. You have no recourse in the Constitution. Your alternative, Amy, is to do precisely what you're doing now.

"The courts have ruled that since flying is voluntary, every search conducted by TSA is also voluntary.

That's how the courts have ruled. You have no recourse in the Constitution."

Well that's just stupid. If we had no recourse once the courts decided something was constitutional we'd still have slavery.

The problem is Patrick, their version of what is 'voluntary' can easily change, it won't be narrowly construed forever... now they are starting to look as bust depots and rail... how long will it be before they decide your car is voluntary and a privilege... that you no longer need?

Amy boo-hooing doesn't mean much UNLESS she has standing, which she will with the 4thA.

I'm surprised Kissinger stood for it, but we may hear a certain diatribe from him later over it... leastwise, I hope so.

So...only "good" people have Constitutional rights?

Gee, Patrick.

What mode of travel IS your right?

Somehow, I can't seem to get an answer.

Look up the Lemuel Penn case for some help.

Walking down the street is also "Voluntary" Patrick. Does that mean the 4th amendment does not apply to sidewalks, public parks, public roads?

It's very easy for courts to rule something constitutional if you believe that the constitution can mean whatever you want it to mean.

'Rights' have similarly been dropped from their place of primacy in common law.

That so many people have accepted that the status of legal/constitutional has no independent meaning, is the cause of the problem. We're hoping to turn the tide, not to shut up and join them.

@Patrick: You are absolutely right. The courts have ruled that "administrative searches" are Constitutional. That doesn't mean that the courts are correct, however, there is essentially nothing that normal citizens can do to reign in the increasingly creative interpretation of the Constitution.

We will see TSA at bus stations. New York and other cities already have "stop and frisk" policies that allow police warrantless searches of pedestrians. There are already checkpoints on the roads, where you can be pulled over for no reason.

This will only get worse, and realistically there is nothing we can do about it. The only result of public protests has been the recent rash of setups: the government stopping terrorist plots that its own agents initiated, in order to convince the public that the government security apparatus really is essential.

As Claire Wolf said more than a decade ago: "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

Kissinger negotiated the Paris Peace Accords which helped bring an end to the Vietnam War.

Of course, arguably Henry K was guilty of war crimes. Hotly debated I know, but in my view he was a lot closer to it than George Dubya ever was.

However...indict him for that then. A groping pat down should not be the way to handle it. I hope he makes a fuss.

The United States will not be happy until the TSA inspires home grown terrorists. The idiots in Washington do not seem to understand that terrorists tend to be born under oppression, and that the more they oppress the American people the more likely it is for a terrorist A.K.A. "Freedom Fighter" to be made by the oppression. The real terrorist threat is not from over seas, it is being created here by the U.S. government. Slowly, by inches maybe, but it is happening.

Rad, what part of "the Courts have already ruled" do you not understand? That was asked rhetorically. I really couldn't care less about your limitations with the language beyond the educated yourself on the meaning of that phrase I put in quotes and bother me when you've done so. Not a second before.

Mom4: Well that's just stupid. If we had no recourse once the courts decided something was constitutional we'd still have slavery.

Oh, excuse me. We'll just start a Civil War where hundreds of thousands (proportionately tens of millions) die, then enact three Constitutional Amendments, problem solved.

If you have any more sub-idiotic suggestions to make, I'd love to hear them.

A Random Guy seems to understand what the rest of you don't: you're arguing with the messenger. The courts have ruled upon this; that's all I'm saying. Yet, somehow, some of you, particularly Radwaste, are trying to argue with me, as if I'm the courts.

All I'm saying is that the courts have ruled. Unless SCOTUS is willing to get off their self-important derrieres and hear this case, you're STUCK as far as the law is concerned.

And thus you give credibility to my post.

And just to be clear it is strictly a numbers game. The more citizens the U.S. Government screws, the more citizens get a grudge. Fuck over a million people, how many do you think are going to react ... pooorly? 1% of a million is 10,000. You tell me if it adds up....

BTW: I've got way too much to lose to be a physical trouble maker, I just see it coming.

ok, Patrick. I think I will start a civil war. Either our rights are our rights and worth defending with our lives, or they're not. There is no "the courts ruled.." bullcrap.

How many courts have to rule against gay marriage before you stfu and take it? Hmm? Why should we be any less vocal on OUR rights that actually ARE enumerated in the Constitution?

British courts ruled over the colonies plenty, too, but we didn't sit back and take it in the 1700s. Why now? How pussified are we?

Patrick,

What bothers me is that you appear to agree with that ruling.

If not, say so.

Meanwhile, please name a method of travel which IS your right. That would be the one at which you are not presumed guilty for moving.