I would have pitched a muther-effing-fit if that happened to me. This is beyond horrifying.

I probably would have gotten myself arrested. No joke. I would have resisted that entire search process kicking and screaming. I'm really disturbed by the fact all these women did this without much protest.

Holy shit!!!

This has to be a result of what the TSA gets away with daily.

I've asked before, "What mode of travel IS your right?"

Specifically to Jeff Guinn and Mike Hunter, who equate "wanting to fly on an airplane" with "probable cause". Patrick has repeated the findings of courts allowing the TSA to do what it does - oddly without objection. Please point any expceptions out to me.

Now, here's an automobile.

Do you think that YOU cannot be searched in this manner?

Why would you insist that YOU are to be presumed guilty?

You forgot to mention Patrick, Rad

Oh, come on. Texas isn't a fucked-up shithole of rights-restricting bible-thumping gun-crazy jerkoffs who hate human liberty.

Just because Governor Perry did an end-around to push through an anti-women's-rights bill and the state has executed so many people they're having trouble getting lethal execution drugs from the manufacturers and their cops are finger-banging girls on the side of the road and their citizens drag black people to death behind their pickup trucks is hardly a reason to avoid the state at all costs.

There's other reasons to avoid it. Houston, for example.

WTF?

How can they even think it's legal?
What the fuck is the probable cause?

I see some officers that need to be fired, yesterday!

As always, Mutt and Jeff are so very concerned about what I think. It makes me feel guilty that I can return the compliment.

NOT!

(And numbnuts forgot the mention that your consent to be searched is written in your contract when you purchase your plane ticket. You know, that thing you actually signed?)

Regarding this particular incident, they are proceeding as they should. I fear, however, that the public outcry will not be sufficient. Most Americans would happily give away every right they have if they thought doing so would keep them safe.

You can't sign away constitutional rights. The supersede contract law

I also have never signed my name on anything to get an airplane ticket

also if my contract WITH THE AIRLINE has an agreement to be searched it is the AIRLINE who is reposnible to do the searching. Not the federal government.

It should also be the airline resposnible for footing the bill of any such search, not the taxpayers, most of whom arent even flying

Such a shame that the two posters I refuse to speak to have responded to me. I could easily address their ill-informed replies, but when I advised them that I would never respond to them again, I meant what I said.

Oh my! I haven't laughed that hard in a while, Patrick. Thank you.

Mommy, tell Johnny I'm not talking to him

Johnny: You know I can hear you right?

Mommy tell Johnny I know he can hear me byt I'm still not talking to him.

You know Pat, it doesnt matter if you refuse to respond to me or Rad. You abject stupidity in apathetically agreeing to bend over and take it up the ass still needs to be pointed out to others lest they, like you, begin to theink the TSA guy make believing he's a dentist checking molars via the prostate is perfectly rational.

Thats the thing you never seem to grasp Pat

It aint about YOU

Although what is all about you is your odd passive aggressive 'hey, pay attention so I can tell you I'm ignoring you again' behavior cause a few people dared disagree with you on whether or not the feds raping law abiding citizen for no good reason was a bad idea or not. Grow up man

Whichever supervisor and his boss instructed the cops to do this, deserves to be charged, along with the cops, with rape and false imprisonment at the very least.

At some point revolution. Now, tar, feathers and rails are called for.

And a rat box, dont forget the rat box.

I can certainly agree that if an officer comes at me with either a white glove or a needle for blood work, I will be going to jail.

"I can certainly agree that if an officer comes at me with either a white glove or a needle for blood work, I will be going to jail."

And Father Niemoller - Patrick - will remain silent.

Other than to tell you that either you signed a contract, it's something you should do to demonstrate your civility, or some such, and then claim that your inability to understand what he says is entirely your fault.

Repeatedly.

I wonder if Patrick has ever clearly objected to infringement on Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. If so the method has confused the message.

What method of travel lets you keep your Constitutional rights, Patrick?

{crickets}

Just you wait Rad, Patrick is training his crickets to ignore you too. Soon you wont even hear them.

Hello, 'Waste. Just FYI, we do in effect, sign a contract when we buy a ticket. And in that contract, you do consent to searches. If you buy your ticket online, you still, in effect, sign a contract.

Here's some information on it.

Now, try to wrap your brain around this concept. I have not stated whether I support this practice. Therefore, you cannot conclude whether I do or don't.

Please note, again, when it comes to airline tickets, you have, in effect, signed a contract.

And yes, you cansurrender your Constitutional protections on a case by case basis. People do it all the time. People consent to searches without warrants and no probable cause. People under arrest give up their Miranda right to remain silent. What you can't do is surrender your rights for now and all time. You couldn't permanently declare your protection against unreasonable searches for now and all time. You can only do it as often as you want as the need arises.

By the way, "Father Niemoller"? I like it!

Texas is my home, and I love her, but she embarrasses me on occasion. These were two of those occasions. Large checks, with many zeroes, will be written. Given how parsimonious state government is in Texas, I suspect a few of this checks being written will cause this practice to end.

Then, roadgeek, I would say you have no cause to be embarrassed. Overzealous police officers stepped over the line, and it will get the appropriate smackdown. Then it will no longer do such things. It will have learned from its mistake, which is better than Congress has ever done.

Proposed constitutional amendment: "The rights of the citizen of any state to record encounters with law enforcement shall not be infringed, so long as it does not interfere with the execution the duties of said law enforcement."

Oh jeezusss.

I would kill them. I'm not kidding. If I couldn't do it then, I'd track them down later. That's not bravado-some things just should not be borne. Official rape is one of them.

Please don't judge Texas by this. I've been pulled over countless times, and arrested once. Never had a cavity search. Did have one trooper make inappropriate comments about my height. He got fired. My mom sat 2 desks away from his boss, and my stepdad the next desk. I always wondered how many young attractive girls got skeeved on by him who weren't connected in a way that could make his life unpleasant.

This horrifies me. The public roadside. The lack of any shred of probable cause. The twice-used gloves. To have to accept from a cop what would be a felony from anyone else. I can't express the depth of my disgust.

My world keeps getting smaller by the day. I will have to take the long way around when I go to New Mexico this winter.

Texas... this disregard starts in the Legislature and the attitude filters down. It seems worse now that Molly Ivins is no longer riding herd and giving them exposure.

http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/carol-morgan/2013-08-01/lechers-texas-legislature#.Uf2xvDXD_m4

"I have not stated whether I support this practice. Therefore, you cannot conclude whether I do or don't."

Delicious irony: Father Niemoller remained silent, while the secret police took all his neighbors.

Nicely done.

Now, try to wrap your brain around this concept. I have not stated whether I support this practice. Therefore, you cannot conclude whether I do or don't.

Nope, sorry Pat you dont get away that easily. I and others have invited you to say you disagree. You refused. Refusal to disagree is an answer. You agree.

@Patrick "Just FYI, we do in effect, sign a contract when we buy a ticket. And in that contract, you do consent to searches. If you buy your ticket online, you still, in effect, sign a contract."

You have an agreement WITH THE AIRLINE, not with the government. If the government forces the airline to search you, it is a third party violating both your rights and that of the airline. This is not really hard to understand, come on.

Then, Lobster, I suggest you talk to a lawyer the next time you fly. And file your lawsuit when you feel that your rights have been violated.

I doubt very much that you will like what you find out. But at least you'll have found out.

"Just FYI, we do in effect, sign a contract when we buy a ticket. And in that contract, you do consent to searches. If you buy your ticket online, you still, in effect, sign a contract."

The ticket is sold by a private entity, whose every move is controlled by Federal agents.

Take a look at the American Airlines "legal" page.

From their page:

"American may refuse to transport you, or may remove you from your flight at any point, for one or several reasons, including but not limited to the following:

(skip)
3. Refusal to permit a search of person or property for explosives or for deadly, controlled, or dangerous weapons, articles or substances."

But American does not make this refusal. They are held hostage by an organization which is simply unaccountable.

BUT: let us return to the topic.

Does anyone want to tell me they want to enable police to search their bodily cavities on the side of the road "because it makes them "safe""?

I may try this - tell me if there's a precedent:

I'd probably show the toady at the podium my boarding pass to avoid a ruckus. Then walk right past the sheeple and apparati to the gates. What do you suggest if they try to put their hands on me? If/when I make it to the gate having preserved my rights I might expect cops to descend on me. Are they going to buy my explanation that I was under no legal obligation to submit to the search?

I understand I might not get onto the plane but that's different.

Ok, thinking this through a little more carefully, even if I avoid a shitstorm I might eat a plane ticket. I never paid too much notice - the TSA stamps your documents verifying they processed you, amirite?

Why would you insist that YOU are to be presumed guilty?

Posted by: Radwaste at August 3, 2013 7:28 AM
-------

Because the children, and safety. Fingerbangs on the highway make us all safe from pot. Pot is bad mmm'kay. Drugs are bad mmm'kay. Oh and we make mucho money from civil asset forfeiture laws and roping people into the system through fines etc. mmm'kay. So remember, you know, finger bang bang. Its for safety. Maybe the gals should have followed those Colorado rep's advice and vomited or pooped on the cops. Then it would be assault charges I'm sure.

But you know, I have a chip on my shoulder and clearly hate cops. I had to couch my thoughts recently with family who despite knowing there are problems out there, they know a young guy through good friends who "you'd never know he was a cop". Yeah, great the guy is one of the few good ones. I'm supposed to care about his safety over mine? I'm supposed to be upset about the PC BS he puts up with via idiotic gov rules given average cop behavior? That makes it ok for him to have more rights than me for self-defense?

Will he be good with everyone or just family/friends/bluewall? When the bleep hits the fan will he follow his oath to the constitution or shut up to save himself and his family?

History shows us what the answer usually is to those last two questions. Aka, its CYA time. Look at that recent case where the drunk cop put a GUN to a bartenders head, on camera and the cop walked.