Indeed, why would anyone put up with this?

If this kind of screening had been introduced all at once, say, back in the 1960s or 1970s, it would not have been tolerated. Introduced bit-by-bit, each additional invasion of our dignity has been accepted.

Remember the recent poll? One third of Americans are now ready to accept cavity searches.

Well done! Really, one has to admire the results. This has been a masterfully orchestrated campaign by the government, and they have succeeded in getting people to accept anything that the government demands.

I tried to leave a comment on the YouTube video, but - for whatever reason - cannot. The comments implying that there is no "right to fly" are just sad - people really have no idea what their rights are.

Americans have a well-established right to travel, known as the right to "Freedom of movement". The courts have agreed that this means that "U.S. citizens have the right to travel or move within and between the 50 states without the requirement of submitting to a search of one's person or property prior to travel or movement".

Before anyone argues that people could drive, or take a bus, or whatever: The TSA is expanding its VIPR teams, which turn up at bus and train stations. There are also more and more checkpoints on the highways.

Stand up for your rights, or lose them. It's really that simple.

I visit various online forums and I am appalled at the numbers (the majority) of commenters that I recognize as left and right politically are of the feeling of "shut up and hurry up, you're holding up the line".

There is a series on the History channel called "WW2 In Color". You may be appalled to see how easily Hitler took over Austria and Czechoslovakia - with the help of activists in each.
You know how that turned out, I hope.

This isn't an application of Godwin's Law. It's a citation of how gullible the public is. Each generation has imagined itself superior to that before it, while repeating mistakes which turn out to be deadly.

a_random_guy, the Supreme Court may have ruled that we have a right to travel, but the courts are ruling that that doesn't translate into a right to fly specifically.

(Now, watch this! Mental incompetents -- 'Waste and luj, that means you -- on this blog will start screaming bloody murder at me, as if I'm the one who made this decision. Or as if I'm saying that I support this.)

I am the bearer of bad news, not the author of it.

This appellate court made the interesting claim that since these scans aren't to determine if someone has committed a crime, but to protect passengers from a terrorist attack, they are not in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Now, should I take a picture of myself and send it to you, so that you can make an effigy of me and burn it? Or do you favor the more direct approach? I could give you my address so that you could show up at my door with a machine gun.

Now hear this, morons: Nowhere, nowhere, but nowhere did I say I support this. I am merely sharing what the courts have said. Do you understand this now?

Or as if I'm saying that I support this

And yet, you never take the time to state you disagree with the court, and that implies you agree

"a_random_guy, the Supreme Court may have ruled that we have a right to travel, but the courts are ruling that that doesn't translate into a right to fly specifically."

That's true. Courts have tied themselves in a knot on this; you have a theoritical right to travel, but you have no right to engage in any specific mode of travel. You also have a theoritical freedom of assembly, but you have no right to enter any particular place to do it. Got reports yesterday from friends attending the Indianapolis 500 of massive, hours-long waits at the gates due to DHS-mandated searches. Lots of people who got in line hours beforehand didn't make it through the gate in time to see the start of the race.

In what universe do we stop terrorism by hiring a bunch of unskilled workers to violate people's private parts at the airport?

Oh, that's an easy one.

If we didn't hire them to molest people and sleep on the government dime - they'd be on welfare.

And thus ripe for "radicalization" like the 9/11 boyz and the Kabloomov Bros.

So we stop terrorism by making them show up (kinda) on time, clock in, and contribute to their own retirement!

Radwaste:

This isn't an application of Godwin's Law.

Yes it is.

The problem with the shorthand on Godwin is that it too quickly became a "gotcha". But it's exactly on point for anything having to do with government overreach, and it's why Godwin coined it.

But that doesn't mean Nazi observations/parallels are wrong, just that it *will* occur at some point. (It was only later that it became a "gotcha, you lose" by the lazy.)

Amy - I've got a question:

Do you just oppose the physical search? Being touched? Or are you also opposed to the full body scanners?

Lamont, as ling as it is being done by the GOVERNMENT I'm opposed to all of it.

Suppose you want to carpool with me and I tell you no smoking in my car.

Now suppose you want to carpool with me but the governemnt says you first need to have your genitals checked before you ride with me just in case you might be carring something which might be used as a weapon on the off chance you might decide to do something crazy

Keep in mind that statistically you are more likely to be stuck by lighting several times in a row than you are to be on a plane where someone acts crazy, let alone where someone is commiting a genuine act of terrorism

Where the multi-billion dollar agency to protect us from the much more likely threat of lighting strikes?

Cousin Dave:

That's true. Courts have tied themselves in a knot on this...

What I find even more twisted is the court ruling in the link that I posted. From the opinion, written by Reagan-appointee, Douglas Ginsberg (joined by judges Karen Henderdon, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush, and Clinton-appointee David Tatel, which makes the ruling unanimous):

As other circuits have held, and as the Supreme Court has strongly suggested, screening passengers at an airport is an “administrative search” because the primary goal is not to determine whether any passenger has committed a crime but rather to protect the public from a terrorist attack.

How are they protecting passengers from a terrorist attack by intrusively searching all passengers without accusing these same passengers of committing crimes?

"How are they protecting passengers from a terrorist attack by intrusively searching all passengers without accusing these same passengers of committing crimes?"

Right. And the thing is, we all know that if they do uncover evidence of a crime during one of these searches, they will charge you, and the evidence will be admissible in court despite the fact that the search had neither a warrant nor probable cause. The government will argue that I "consented" to the search by flying. But by this reasoning I can be made to "consent" to a search to engage in any mode of travel, which renders the Fourth Amendment a dead letter.

For funsies, let's extend same reasoning to other parts of the Constitution, say the First Amendment. A court can rule that, although you have a right of free speech, you don't have the right to say anything in particular. If you are prosecuted for your speech, it's not a violation of the First Amendment, because, y'know, there are still a bunch of other things you could say; you just can't say that particular thing. Of course, the set of things you can say gets narrower and narrower, until the day comes that your First Amendment rights are purely theoretical.

And yeah, the court decision you cited, and the mix of judges, doesn't surprise me all that much. Back in the '60s there was this perception that developed of the judicial branch being the "conscious of America", overruling unjust laws and decisions made by the grubbier legislative and executive branches. That was always B.S. The judicial branch never did, and isn't going to now, challenge unrestrained growth of government power.

I like the part where the victim apologizes for recoiling from a stranger mauling her breasts.

By which I mean, Fuck. Fucking shit.

I haven't had this particular search but I note down the "agents" names, date, time, etc.. One guy here in LAX asked me what I was doing and I said "writing a to do list". I think women should sob loudly and carry on as long as possible. Make a big fucking scene. It's not illegal.

Oh and does that TSAbian really think there's a bomb belt on that girl's waist? The Mossad issued a very comprehensive manual about what suicide bomber wear. Hint--not a tshirt.

There is a series on the History channel called "WW2 In Color". You may be appalled to see how easily Hitler took over Austria and Czechoslovakia - with the help of activists in each. You know how that turned out, I hope.

This isn't an application of Godwin's Law. It's a citation of how gullible the public is.

OK, since the gullible public is allowing the government to goosestep towards fascism, what should be done to stop this?

OK, since the gullible public is allowing the government to goosestep towards fascism, what should be done to stop this? -- JD at May 28, 2013 5:34 PM

Get with the CxO's of the Fortune 500 companies that are not airlines. Have them put a week moratorium on travel by aircraft if their employees are subject to the TSA. Take a guess what, the airlines would scream.

Get every prosecutor in the U.S. to review the TSA tapes and prosecute every theft and misconduct.

Get the legislatures of every state to pass an assault bill that applies to the TSA.

The biggest thing is find a way to impact the airline's bottom line. Once that happens they will find a response.

Leave the Germans out of this, they're not the ones who created TSA. This is all American.

Hmm. Patrick says I am a "mental incompetent" - while backing the State again, of course.
Gee Patrick. You've demonstrated clearly you have no idea how your own computer works. You've demonstrated time and again you don't care about the Lemuel Penn case.

I'll ask you a question that should demonstrate your own detachment from reality:

Can you name a method of travel that is your right, given that flying on a plane is not one for some reason?

I haven't an answer from Mike Hunter, or Jeff Guinn, as they back being considered guilty for wanting to fly on an airplane.

Establish your own mental competency here. Rather than cite a court, or mouth an official policy. Tell me why the 4th Amendment does not apply to you when YOU buy a plane ticket.

As disgusting as this is to watch and endure, I am glad she gave the TSA hag some resistance. Good for her!