TSA agent behaves like human being -- stop the presses!

Of course this makes up for the thousands of instances of bullying, harassment, theft, and sexual assault.

Trumpet it from the rooftops!

I am certain that as individuals and even as a group, TSA Agents act with humanity and help travelers every day.

I think I've written here in the past how great one TSA agent was for me when traveling with my two young daughters and luggage when I realized at security I had left my camera back at the ticketing counter.

Regardless, that doesn't justify the rest of the police state the TSA as an institution is there to create, or the procedures that most of its agents, when not acting outside their scope, subject the rest of us to. And it doesn't justify the enormous waste of taxpayer funds on their scanners or infrastructure.

Was it here, or at another blog, I read that the way to get most things of value past TSA is to claim it belongs to your employer and then demand a receipt when they take it from.

Basically, they will freeze in terror and hand you the item back since they have no process at the moment to produce receipts.

Of course, that raises the question of why they don't have any sort of bagged claim ticket process in the first place for people that would like to reclaim these objects.

Why is the assumption that each and every TSA agent is unmitigated scum and gets a sexual thrill out of violating our Fourth Amendment rights?

Why can't a TSA agent simply be a hard-working decent-minded individual who's just doing a job.Z

This may come as a shock to you, but there is no consensus that the TSA is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. You may insist that it's common sense and that people who don't "know" that are stupid, but you know what? Not even every lawyer agrees with you, and from what I've seen on this board, they already know more about the law and the Constitution than the posters on this blog are even willing to learn.

@ Patrick.
Because they are unmitigated scum. Every day they go to work they reinforce the assault on personal liberty and the rule of law. They make their living feeding on fear and they insist on a compliant population while they undermine our trust in each other.
". . . 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.”
H/T Samuel Adams

"This may come as a shock to you, but there is no consensus that the TSA is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. You may insist that it's common sense and that people who don't "know" that are stupid, but you know what? Not even every lawyer agrees with you, and from what I've seen on this board, they already know more about the law and the Constitution than the posters on this blog are even willing to learn."

Translation: "I've read lawyers I agree with."

At that, this is a major step back for you. IIRC, you once claimed that everything was A-OK because the searches were ruled to be Constitutional.

It's not a shock to me, because I've seen these opinions. Those who support the TSA simply seem to me to not get the whole idea of "liberty", and as we have seen repeatedly on this blog, these people also don't have the slightest idea about risk management.

There is also active denial of the corruption of TSA personnel AND the processes which they use.

Maybe you should read the 4th Amendment out loud. When you do, quit pretending there are hidden meanings and exceptions. Read about the Lemuel Penn case.

Answer the simple question, "What mode of travel is your right?", while keeping in mind that somehow, Patrick has a right to freedom of association, which is useless if he cannot travel at will.

I'm thinking the "Submit" button excites you, as you are apparently eager to be considered guilty until proven innocent by methods that do nothing of the sort, and which demean us all.

@ Patrick
And of course there are lawyers who disagree. Lawyers are professional disagreeers. (Hey, a new word) Hell, John Yoo wrote up a memo as a defense of torture at Guantanamo. It's their job to disagree, even if they have to make weasel-worded arguments. There's nothing magic about a lawyer's say-so.

> those who support the TSA simply seem to me
> to not get the whole idea of "liberty"

☑

And those who work there do not, by definition.

The question has been legally decided. TSA searches are constitutional, because they are reasonable means to reasonable end. The 4A doesn't prohibit all warrantless searches, only unreasonable ones. Of course, your personal reasonableness may vary, but in this case it doesn't matter.

In order to achieve the goal of preventing pilots flying under the influence, the FAA has a random urinalysis program. That means, at the penalty of losing my job, I must pee in a cup on demand, regardless of probable cause.

That program has gone through the courts, and found to be a reasonable means to a reasonable end. It is the reason that no one is litigating TSA searches, because precedent has already been set.

WRT to the subject of this post, it is worth noting that the TSA, quite reasonably, wanted to stop searching for pocket knives and similar objects.

The Flight Attendant unions, quite unreasonably, threw a hissy fit and got the proposal deep sixed.

Patrick,

I want to wish you a very special Christmas day wish. I truly hope that you can see how you have made a change in everyone’s life that has a chance to read your comments here on Amy’s blog.

You have such a special view that no one can fail to notice your comments. These insights show a level of maturity that is unexpected in most people. Your knowledge makes me wonder how I survived without hearing from you before you started commenting here.

You are such a special person that I’m sure your family and friends can’t think of what they would do without you in their life.

> The question has been legally decided.

Remember Dred Scott? His first battles were here. And that's probably the only reason the building is still standing...

…To remind us what it means for something to be "legally decided" and "constitutional."

> they are reasonable means to reasonable end.

Neither.




With so many more lives at risk (and so often and predictably lost) in so many other contexts, you have no interest in such intrusive, incompetent "security" for anyone, anywhere else.

Aside from obvious professional interest, there must be some personal reason that you've chose this position, a private one.

I can't imagine what it would be.

Okay, Jeff - Mr. Legally Decided:

Take the challenge. Answer the simple question, "What mode of travel is your right?", while keeping in mind that somehow, Jeff has a right to freedom of association, which is useless if he cannot travel at will.

"It is the reason that no one is litigating TSA searches, because precedent has already been set."

Wrong. There are several cases making their way through the courts as we speak.

Crid:

The question is not whether you welcome TSA measures, but whether the searches are "reasonable".

You can find this out for yourself. Ask as many people as you like whether they would like to be passengers in an airplane flown by drunks.

I know I'm going out on a limb here, but I'd be surprised if that number drifted anywhere north of zero. Clearly, the consensus is drunk pilots are bad. Now ask those people whether a urinalysis is to great a burden for pilots to bear in order that the flying public not be subject to drunk pilots.

The consequence of those two questions is that it is reasonable to not have drunk pilots, and that urinalyses is a reasonable means to that end.

So if a urinalysis is OK for pilots, on what grounds can one object to TSA security? NB: in the US, rights are individual, not collective, so reasonableness isn't related to the sum of TSA induced bother, but what each individual must endure.

This is why the continuous bleating of Amy et al about TSA searches being unconstitutional is wrong: it completely rejects the possibility that some warrantless searches are reasonable, and it does so by ignoring reasonable searches that are far more intrusive.

With so many more lives at risk (and so often and predictably lost) in so many other contexts, you have no interest in such intrusive, incompetent "security" for anyone, anywhere else.

Aside from obvious professional interest, there must be some personal reason that you've chose this position, a private one.

I can't imagine what it would be.

Your premise is completely undefined, so it isn't even wrong.

As for your conclusion, thankfully my life isn't dependent upon your imagination.

Ask as many people as you like whether they would like to be passengers in an airplane flown by drunks.

Jeff, making a PILOT pee in a cup before he FLIES a plane is NOT the same as searching my daughters and me because we want to get on a plane and fly to Florida to see my parents. Neither my girls nor I are terrorists, by ANY stretch of the imagination. And no one wants to ride in a CAR piloted by someone who's drunk, never mind a PLANE.

...completely rejects the possibility that some warrantless searches are reasonable, and it does so by ignoring reasonable searches that are far more intrusive.

In what world are "warrantless searches" even close to "reasonable"? NOT THIS ONE. "Probable CAUSE" is required for a "warrantless search". Getting on an airplane to go visit family/friends or for business is NOT "probable cause", not even in YOUR wildest dreams.

The denseness of some of the people who think the TSA is necessary scares me.

The problem is actually that Jeff Guinn calls what the TSA does, "security".

It is not – and that has been demonstrated again and again.

No force which employs thieves, thugs and the unskilled, and which does not do background checks on its own people can possibly provide "security".

These are the actions of a professional security force. Not.

I don't think asking a pilot for a urine sample for drug/alcohol (as a condition of continued employment and for airline safety) is the same thing as a TSA grope-fest of a paying customer. Moreover, even making the comparison is specious, at best, and I wonder what line of thinking one wanders down to come to such a conclusion.

A good parallel would be going to the hospital. I work in a hospital that requires me to submit to random drug/alcohol screening as a condition of employment. This is fairly standard practice and not unreasonable to make sure the people taking care of you are not impaired. Because patient care and lawsuits. However, a patient does not expect to receive punitive ‘screening’ unless necessary to avoid undue and preventable harm. That is, it is not reasonable to drug test unless someone appears actively intoxicated, something that increases the chances of a bad outcome (notice how I did not say *will* cause a bad outcome). However, TSA screening is largely punitive and does not prevent harm. The hospital parallel would be screening patients for any tobacco use or remote alcohol abuse because--safety! That is, while I can make flowery ivory tower arguments for why I need to ‘screen’, it makes no real world difference, adds outsized and unnecessary costs to your care and antagonizes patients.

In both the airline industry and in the hospital, we are all about doing things that help us be safer. However, the average person can usually intuit when the scales have tipped from prudent and safe to punitive and stupid. Overall, these searches are obviously unreasonable to the average traveling customer that poses no threat, takes away focus from actual threats and only adds cost and inconvenience.

[Radwaste:] Take the challenge. Answer the simple question, "What mode of travel is your right?", while keeping in mind that somehow, Jeff has a right to freedom of association, which is useless if he cannot travel at will.

That you pose the question this way is clear evidence you don't understand the problem, or paid particularly close attention in any US history classes you took.

[Lisa Simeone:] Wrong. There are several cases making their way through the courts as we speak.

Then make links your friend.

They go like this: [a href="url"]text[/a]. Replace [ and ] with .

Limit one per comment.

Jeff Guinn: That you pose the question this way is clear evidence you don't understand the problem, or paid particularly close attention in any US history classes you took.

Radwaste has a marked tendency to talk over his own head. He's not what I would call stupid (beyond his embarrassingly transparent determination to appear smarter than he is), but he's basically a harmless lightweight.

lujlp, by contrast, is a terrorist supporter. (See his comments here, if you don't believe it. He gives his exuberant support of a terrorist attack in which a TSA agent was killed and three more innocent people wounded.) I find it a bit ironic that the complaints of the thin-skinned get people banned from this blog (which is a rare occurrence, I grant you), but the outcry of traitors like lujlp get the sanctions of these same nancys.

And yet, neither of you has the wit to answer the question – a simple one: what mode of travel is your right?

It is beyond you. It is beyond you for the simple reason that you welcome the authoritarian touch. You cannot even acknowledge that the hiring and operating practices of the TSA simply do not provide security.

Now, you're going to talk to each other about me - a clear signal that you have nothing cogent to say about the issue.

Let me sum up each of your positions. Jeff has basically rested on his assertion that there is no replacement for the existing TSA setup. Patrick has essentially rested on the idea that a Court has ruled, therefore everything is okey-dokey.

And I'm the harmless lightweight? Certainly not by comparison.

That you pose the question this way is clear evidence you don't understand the problem, or paid particularly close attention in any US history classes you took. -- Jeff Guinn at December 26, 2013 1:27 PM

That you won't answer is also telling.

The answer is there is no reasonable restriction on travel, or travel modes outside the restrictions placed on an individual due to criminal (or similar) judgements.

The old line of "Don't leave town," after LEO questions someone has no legal enforcement route. In fact, unless the LEO can form a reasonable suspicion to be talking to you then the question "Am I free to go?" becomes very important.

So please feel free to give up your rights Jeff and Patrick. I want mine.

Jim P. So please feel free to give up your rights Jeff and Patrick. I want mine.

Then feel free to explain to us all what you're doing to retain them. Other than uselessly and self-righteously whining about it on a blog, that is.

Lawsuits? (Not that that's a remedy, since the courts have already ruled on this.) Organized protests? Putting the pressure on your congressman? Even a letter to the editor?

No, huh? Gee, how did I know that?

[Radwaste:] The problem is actually that Jeff Guinn calls what the TSA does, "security".

Then by all means bring a convincing mockup of a bomb large enough to bring down an airliner through security.

Then have media meet you on the other end with your revelation.

It would hole the TSA below the waterline, and since the TSA doesn’t provide security, then it would be risk free to you.

That you haven’t, and won’t, suggests perhaps you don’t particularly believe your rants.

[coffee!:] I don't think asking a pilot for a urine sample for drug/alcohol (as a condition of continued employment and for airline safety) is the same thing as a TSA grope-fest of a paying customer. Moreover, even making the comparison is specious, at best, and I wonder what line of thinking one wanders down to come to such a conclusion.

Unfortunately, you are wrong. First, at the risk of repeating myself, the restriction is reasonable, and the potential cost of violating the restriction is huge: the going rate for an airliner crash is $1B. For those in certain industries, like yours, the financial fallout can run into the millions.

That is why it is random urine testing is a reasonable search that requires neither probable cause nor a warrant.

Your insisting that this reasoning doesn’t somehow apply to passengers is specious. You will no doubt find widespread agreement that it is reasonable to keep bombs off airplanes; therefore, the least intrusive means to that end is reasonable.

For some reason, Amy provokes grope fests because she refuses to go through a scanner. So she rails at the TSA for a situation of her own making, and compounds the error by failing to acknowledge the difference between reasonable and unreasonable searches, or the settled law in a completely analogous realm.

Overall, these searches are obviously unreasonable to the average traveling customer that poses no threat, takes away focus from actual threats and only adds cost and inconvenience.

In this regard, you are partially correct. Clearly, essentially all TSA screenings are a waste of time, money, and effort. Further asserting they take away focus from actual threats misses the point, and is historically disproven. There have been two attempts to bomb airliners, both of which failed because of the byzantine efforts required to evade security.

Unless you have evidence that Islamo-fascists have lost their appetite for suicide attacks, then you will have a tough time explaining how checkpoint screening does not deter those attacks.

[Radwaste:] And yet, neither of you has the wit to answer the question – a simple one: what mode of travel is your right?

Just because you write a grammatically correct sentence ending in a question mark doesn’t mean its answerable. You might as well have asked, “Which is better, purple or Pink Floyd?”

If you could find “mode of travel” in the Constitution, then the question might not amount to argle bargle. But you can’t.

So, you are right, I don’t have the wit to answer a question you should have the wit not to ask.

Jeff has basically rested on his assertion that there is no replacement for the existing TSA setup.

Wrong, and considering how many times we have gone over this, I’m astonished that you can have so thoroughly misapprehended my position.

Please remember this: I can’t think of an alternative to TSA screening. That is a far cry from asserting no such thing exists. If you can come up with something better, by all means, bless the rest of us with your blinding brilliance.

But in the meantime, at least try to get the easy stuff right.

[Jim P:] So please feel free to give up your rights Jeff and Patrick. I want mine.

Please, for my edification, please list which rights TSA screening deprives you of.

> The question is not whether you welcome TSA
> measures, but whether the searches are
> "reasonable".

[1.] Says who? Who have I authorized to make that judgement on my behalf?

[2.] What's the difference between my welcoming them and thinking them "reasonable"?

[2.(a)] Why did you put quotation marks around the word "reasonable"?

[2.(b)] Why did you use the word "reasonable" eight times in the earlier comment?

Note EVEN BETTER: One's rights, in the US and elsewhere, cohere naturally to one's responsibilities, such that those not flying planes are excused from drug & alcohol constraints applicable to pilots. I mean, you're makin' shit up.

> it completely rejects the possibility that
> some warrantless searches are reasonable

Where there are no checks on the application of these searches or reviews thereof, Amy's rejection is entirely appropriate.

> Your premise is completely undefined, so
> it isn't even wrong.

Not at all! My premise has been and is that there's something you're not telling us, because otherwise your arguments wouldn't be so weak.

A background in the military and in aviation, (rightly) authoritarian as these milieux might be, won't explain an American's submission to these witless TSA intrusions.

Dood, sumpthin's up.

[1.] Says who? Who have I authorized to make that judgement on my behalf?

Seriously?

[2.] What's the difference between my welcoming them and thinking them "reasonable"?

Roughly the same as that between chalk and cheese.

[2.(a)] Why did you put quotation marks around the word "reasonable"?

Dunno. Because it sounded right in my head.

[2.(b)] Why did you use the word "reasonable" eight times in the earlier comment?

Because the assertion that TSA searches are constitutional revolves around the concept of what is unreasonable, and what is reasonable. That sounds like a reasonable enoughreason enough right there.

BTW, here is a quote from a 2011 US court of appeals ruling on the subject: "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," the ruling continued.

> it sounded right in my head.

Right. We'll always wonder why, and you'll never tell us.

As it turns out, I improperly put quotation marks around "reasonable". Be careful not to use quotation marks in an attempt to emphasize a word (the kind of thing you see in grocery store windows—Big "Sale" Today!). Underline or italicize that word instead.

There, now you know.

So re-read my post and replace the quote marks with either of the officially approved options.

Then maybe you can start playing the ball instead of the man.

A woman whose late husband gave her the knife that was taken from her for no fucking rational reason by the pretend security officers in police costumes at airports (aka the TSA) wrote a letter about it to the WaPo, calling the return of the knife "a Christmas gift from the TSA."

Because chicks dig jerks?

Please, for my edification, please list which rights TSA screening deprives you of. -- Jeff Guinn at December 26, 2013 5:12 PM

Somewhere in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Eights the founding fathers wrote things like:

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.

Ant then they also included:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

No where do I see a distinction for the administrative search in those rights. But even admitting the administrative search might be legal. Tell me then why isn't the TSA at every bus station, on-ramp to the highway, taxi stop, and subway in the states?

Jim P, did you even bother to read what I wrote, or are you just reacting to what you wanted to see?

Courts have decided that some searches are reasonable, because they are the only way to enforce reasonable restrictions.

So, like it or not, you are not being deprived of a 4A right, because TSA searches (or customs inspections, or checking to see whether you are importing certain things into Hawaii or California, etc.) do not fall within its scope.

Of course, you could make the case that the restrictions aren't reasonable, or there are equally effective, but less onerous ways to enforce the restriction, but until you do, insisting that you have been deprived of your rights is wrong by definition.

Tell me then why isn't the TSA at every bus station, on-ramp to the highway, taxi stop, and subway in the states?

I did, above, and have done so many times previously. Bus stations, on-ramps, taxi stops, etc are not targets like airliners are, because the payoff for downing one is so much higher.

That's the way asymmetric warfare works. You should read about it sometime.

Jeff, you wouldn't want us to think you were misrepresenting an authority, woodja? You can repeat "reasonable" like a mantra. You can claim that this is tolerable as many times as you want... This will not make it so. "Like it or not" isn't going to win any enthusiasm, either.

Seems that Crid, Radwaste and Jim P. just got slam-dunked. Those are going to be three crabby posters for the next few days. Not that the three of them aren't naturally pissy to begin with, but but for the next few days, they'll be in rare form.

The denseness of some of the people who think the TSA is necessary scares me.

Lookin at YOU, Jeff and Patrick. I'm sorry but both of your arguments for the continued abuses of the TSA are LAME. All caps. This is why.

Please show me where I said the TSA was "necessary," Flynne. Thanks.

Apologies, Patrick, I can't. You didn't say it. So I redact your name from my previous post. But Jeff's stays.

test

Crid: Remember Dred Scott? His first battles were here. And that's probably the only reason the building is still standing...

I doubt it. Minor v. Happersett had its humble beginnings in the same courthouse, numbnuts.

You prepared to bring on a Civil War and three amendments to the Constitution to get the appalling TSA overturned? Because that's what it took to overrule the Dred Scott decision.

Interesting thing about Dred Scott that you seem to not be willing to concede when it comes to the TSA. His enslavement was found to be in keeping with the Constitution of the United States. The decision required new Amendments to the Constitution to overturn.

But you don't seem to feel that that's the problem with the TSA. That the Constitution, as it stands, should not allow for the TSA. And when the courts continue to disagree with you, what, pray tell, do you plan to do about it?

That's the question I posed to Jim P., whereupon he ran from it like Ann Coulter from a polygraph test.

So, let's ask you: What are you doing, Crid, to protect those Fourth Amendment rights that you believe are being so violated? Other than ineffectually (but long-windedly) whining about it on a blog, that is?

Then by all means bring a convincing mockup of a bomb large enough to bring down an airliner through security.

Then have media meet you on the other end with your revelation.

So, Jeff, I take it you've never seen the news reports where the TSA fails the test the DHS run on their checkpoints and bomb components make it past security?

That is why it is random urine testing is a reasonable search that requires neither probable cause nor a warrant.

Are these urine tests preformed by LEOs or government 'officers' or by your company?

Your insisting that this reasoning doesn’t somehow apply to passengers is specious.

OK I'll bite, how is a passanger going to crash a plane by being drunk? Better yet how is a pilot or a passanger going to be prevented from crashing a plane by confiscating his water, butter knife, soap, at the TSA checkpoint when they can get 99% of that stuff from an airport kiosk, or the airline itself?

Why is the assumption that each and every TSA agent is unmitigated scum

cause they are

and gets a sexual thrill out of violating our Fourth Amendment rights?

cause its fun to take cheap shots at assholes

Why can't a TSA agent simply be a hard-working decent-minded individual who's just doing a job.

cause it not hard work (unless you mean to say the work makes them 'hard') and no decent minded individual could take money for such services

lujlp, by contrast, is a terrorist supporter.

If i'm a terrorist supporter you are a child molester supporter

(See his comments here, if you don't believe it.

Yes do. And unlike Patrick I'd suggest reading comprehension as well

He gives his exuberant support of a terrorist attack in which a TSA agent was killed and three more innocent people wounded.

That was a terrorist attack? Please Patrick contact the FBI immediately to let them know as they apparently have no idea. What group was he affiliated with? What were his intended political goals?

TSA workers are traitors to the spirit, and the principles, this nation was founded on, if I had my way they'd all be executed as banishment is unconstitutional.

I find it a bit ironic that the complaints of the thin-skinned get people banned from this blog

Aside from spammers, the guy who made every thread about his ass, and the chick who disagreed with Amy over everything, all the time, even on threads which were about her dog and art, who exactly has been banned?

Also Jeff, I could ground a plane with this, and a couple of rusty nails

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR42o3ej9-fcYsVG3Vc0HaEFkysn0XYRDpHECojtOi2dAAEITWH

lujlp: What group was he affiliated with? What were his intended political goals?

Ah, so Timothy McVeigh wasn't a terrorist, because he had no group affiliation? And what, pray tell, definition of "terrorist" are you using that asserts that a "terrorist" requires a group affiliation?

This is why, dumbass, you are not and never will be equipped to have a discussion on this issue. You're just plain too fucking stupid.

Only the perp is NOT being charged with "terrorism" per se. He's being charged with murder.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/26/justice/lax-shooting-arraignment/index.html

The premise of the TSA has been to "protect" the American flying public from "another 9/11". But, as Jim P has pointed out, numerous times, there will NEVER be that same kind of attack again. And just because someone works alone, doesn't necessarily mean he's a "terrorist" in the Al Qaeda sense of the word. And McVeigh wasn't a lone terrorist. He had a couple of co-conspirators.

That's because "terrorism" is not a legal concept. No one has ever been charged with "terrorism" in the U.S.

McVeigh was charged with conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, use of a weapon of mass destruction, destruction by explosives and eight counts of first-degree murder.

Hasan was charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted murder under the UCMJ.

[Crid:] Jeff, you wouldn't want us to think you were misrepresenting an authority, woodja? You can repeat "reasonable" like a mantra. You can claim that this is tolerable as many times as you want... This will not make it so. "Like it or not" isn't going to win any enthusiasm, either.

Mis-representing what authority? The endless charges that TSA searches are unconstitutional is simply wrong. Constitutional rights aren’t what you say they are. They are what the combination of law and court decisions say they are. As things stand, like it or not, TSA searches do not violate the 4th Amendment.

For, you, Amy, Radwaste, Jim P, etc to insist otherwise turns all of you into this guy.

If you believe TSA searches are unconstitutional, then you have several choices: get a law passed prohibiting them, litigate, or amend the constitution.

Clearly, the latter would be a haul, but the former two are well within the realm of the possible. Have you written your Congressman or Senators? Have you tried to start a pressure group? Tried to get candidates including TSA elimination in their platform?

If your arguments truly hold water, then set up a legal foundation and litigate. Unfortunately, you will have to overcome the niggling fact that analogous and more intrusive searches have been found constitutional, which raises that annoying stare decises thing.

Wait, no, there are a couple more ways. Demonstrate the threat no longer exists, which makes the searches unreasonable. Or demonstrate a better and less annoying way to reach the goal of keeping explosives off airplanes, which would also make current TSA searches unreasonable.

Your choice.

... stare decisis ...

Reading comprehension as bad as yours apparently is explains a lot. In case you didn’t take it on board above, here it is again (bold added this time for the concept impaired):

[Radwaste:] Jeff has basically rested on his assertion that there is no replacement for the existing TSA setup.

[Jeff:] Wrong, and considering how many times we have gone over this, I’m astonished that you can have so thoroughly misapprehended my position.

Please remember this: I can’t think of an alternative to TSA screening. That is a far cry from asserting no such thing exists. If you can come up with something better, by all means, bless the rest of us with your blinding brilliance.

And as I have retorted, numerous times, the TSA is not trying to defend us from another 9/11 attack, because the TSA is well aware of the fact that reinforced cockpit doors and revised crew training have put paid to that. In fact, if you had been paying attention to the news, or even this thread, you would know that the TSA tried to remove a lot of items from the list of banned objects. Unfortunately, the Flight Attendants unions pitched such a hissy fit that the TSA shelved the proposal.

So every time Jim P pastes his rant, the only thing he is demonstrating is that he has no earthly clue what the threat actually is.

The denseness of some of the people who think the TSA is necessary scares me.

Lookin at YOU, Jeff and Patrick. I'm sorry but both of your arguments for the continued abuses of the TSA are LAME. All caps.

So far, this is your argument.

Hey, Jeff. Love your posts, but your "this guy" link doesn't work.

You wrote: Clearly, the latter would be a haul, but the former two are well within the realm of the possible. Have you written your Congressman or Senators? Have you tried to start a pressure group? Tried to get candidates including TSA elimination in their platform?

I posed this question earlier. Oddly, I didn't get an answer. Evidently, their strategy for defeating this atrocity is complaining about it on a blog.

Jeff, please. I'd love to see your links, but kindly learn how to close them properly, or just post the URLs, so we can at least see them.

lujlp: TSA workers are traitors to the spirit, and the principles, this nation was founded on,

Amy: Exactly.

Feel free to back up this bald assertion, Amy and luj. From where I sit, you're losing. Badly.

Patrick:

I swear I know how to embed links. Really, I do.

(The following is completely OT.)

Somehow (brackets in place of carets)

[a href="http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bateman-on-guns-120313"]this guy[/a].

became this (via View > Developer > Source):

[a]this guy[/a]. [/p]

and

[a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y"]So far, this is your argument.[/a]

became

[p] [a]So far, this is your argument.[/a][br /]

[/p]

Mystifying. I have recently also had problems in blogger when composing posts. It doesn't recognize links I type, but when I select text and use the Link function, what it produces is exactly what I typed.

Hmmm. Perhaps an experiment is in order.

this guy.

Works fine.

I think I figured out the problem. I mostly compose these comments in a text editor, then past into the comment window. Recently, I decided to minimize fussy typing by taking advantage of auto replace. For example, .hr becomes [a href=" and ..hr becomes [/a].

Hand typing works, but even though auto substitute produces apparently the same thing, it isn't. Odd.

Especially since it used to work just find. What changed? Last week's update to Mavericks, perhaps?

NOTE FROM AMY: Please, one link per comment or it will go to spam, as this comment did, multiple times.

Jeff, your html skills suck almost as bad as your reasoning skills.

My argument is thus: the TSA, was not, is not, and will not EVER be needed or instrumental in catching so-called terrorists. It IS, however, most necessary by the US government as a tool to cow people into submission because they want to exercise their freedom of travel in the United States and abroad. The TSA is no more than a government-sanctioned work farce of thugs. And I say that knowing my cousin and her husband work for them at a major mid-west airport. I still love them, I HATE the people and organization they work for. And they have assured me that if they could find another means of supporting their family, they would abandon the travesty that is the TSA "in a heartbeat". Their words, not mine.

Flynne, and are your cousin and her husband traitors? Do you know that lujlp would applaud enthusiastically if they were shot and killed?

I'm okay with people who complain that the TSA is ineffectual. Not having researched the topic, I will say that they probably are. Again, not having committed myself to researching their effectiveness, I can only say "probably."

What I object to is those who read the Fourth Amendment and without having read a single court case in which the courts have ruled upon the application of Fourth Amendment rights and start screaming "UNCONSTITUTIONAL!" Like these self-designated constitutional experts would know!

It's just plain fucking ignorant. That's what it is.

"I've read the Constitution; therefore I know exactly what is and isn't Constitutional."

The courts have been ruling on what is and isn't constitutional for two centuries. But you're a Constitutional authority without having read a single court case on the Constitution. Yeah, right. Feel free to pull your head out of your ass any time.

Which is why I'm gleeful over watching pompous pretenders like Jim P. having their asses handed to them. Jim P. has been smug-smugging his Constitutional expertise ever since he arrived on this board. Now, all of a sudden, all that pomp and pretense has been popped like a balloon. And I, for one, am always delighted to see ignorant pretenders exposed for what they are.

My argument is thus: the TSA, was not, is not, and will not EVER be needed or instrumental in catching so-called terrorists.

Your argument demonstrates you don't understand either the problem, or TSA's mission, which is this: deterrence.

Not catching terrorists, but deterring them from trying to get a suicide bomber on an airplane.

That is how to judge the TSA's effectiveness (which is not the same as efficiency). Islamists, as much as they would love to blow up American airliners realize that the odds of successfully getting something through checkpoint security that they rarely try, and when they do, they have to resort to such byzantine methods that the odds of a successful detonation have been, thankfully, zero.

You should also note, but never do, that those few attempts that weren't deterred didn't try to breach US security.

It IS, however, most necessary by the US government as a tool to cow people into submission because they want to exercise their freedom of travel in the United States and abroad.

Now you are in cloud-cuckoo land, where there absolutely no explanation for the TSA trying to relax screening, or the words now appearing on more and more airline tickets: "Pre-screened."

But that's OK, in cloud-cuckoo land reality isn't even a social construct.

Thanks very much, Jim. I especially enjoyed the Monty Python sketch.

I'm sure you know to post links. We all have the occasional mishap. I sometimes get what you got with your earlier attempts when I forget to close the quotes.

Memo to self: make Preview my friend.

Then according to the arguments of Jeff Guinn and Patrick, they should be in favor of cavity searches for everyone before boarding a plane. Why not? Someone might hide a bomb or "bomb-making materials" where the sun doesn't shine. After all, can't be too careful!

As for links to court cases, one link per comment, so here's one:

Jon Corbett
http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/category/tsa/tsa-lawsuit/

Here's another:

http://tsanewsblog.com/10193/news/redfern-pradhan-vs-dhs-tsa-tomorrow-in-boston/

Another link:

Aaron Tobey
http://politix.topix.com/homepage/6977-man-wins-lawsuit-against-airport-security-forces-them-to-learn-fourth-amendment

Several different cases & links at this one link:

http://tsascandals.wordpress.com/2013/03/30/tsa-lawsuits-legal-cases/

Steve Bierfeldt's case, which he won -- though hasn't stopped the blue-shirted crusaders from continuing to illegally search people's papers, records, wallets, documents:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-bierfeldt/how-my-lawsuit-against-th_b_352660.html

Lisa Simeone: Then according to the arguments of Jeff Guinn and Patrick, they should be in favor of cavity searches for everyone before boarding a plane.

If Amy's experience is any indication, they already do.

I thought Jeff raised an interesting point. The Fourth Amendment has apparently been interpreted so that as a "reasonable search" does not merely mean "either probable cause or a warrant," but it also includes a search to enforce reasonable restrictions.

Then according to the arguments of Jeff Guinn and Patrick, they should be in favor of cavity searches for everyone before boarding a plane. Why not? Someone might hide a bomb or "bomb-making materials" where the sun doesn't shine. After all, can't be too careful!

Funny you should bring that up.

Nothing in my argument leads to cavity searches, because it isn't reasonable to think that it is possible to hide in a body cavity sufficient explosive to bring an airplane down.

You, and I, and the TSA, and the entire rest of the civilized world hope that our presumption continues to be true, because none of us wants to think about the alternative.

(Also, it is worth noting that your reductio ad absurdum approach to disproving my argument instead weakens yours.)

Last summer I happened to be at London Heathrow, en route to Paris. Breaking news had it that MI5 had uncovered credible evidence Islamists had hidden explosives in a woman's breasts.

My first thought was "Is there nothing these monsters won't stoop to?" Second thought. "My, wasn't that a stupid question."

What you, and Amy, Radwaste, etc should take on board from this is that the threat is real, our security procedures are forcing the enemy to attempt ever more failure-prone means of attack, and that we bloody well need to hope that they never actually pull one off, especially if it happens to multiple airplanes on the same day, or over a short time.

That's the nightmare scenario to which Jim P appears utterly immune.

BTW -- thanks for the links, but pawing through them for pertinent information is a real chore. Summarizing what their point is, then linking for confirmation is a huge help.

The litigation that went (SFAICT) to oral arguments last April. What were the bases for the argument? What were the results?

If Amy's experience is any indication, they already do [cavity searches].

Amy refuses to go through a scanner. When they were first introduced they had privacy issues, and used X-rays, which for her were each sufficient cause to give the experience a miss.

Now, however, both issues are gone (everywhere, SFAIK). The scanner displays the location of objects on a generic body outline, and the scanners now use millimeter waves instead of X-rays. Continuing to insist upon a pat down seems much less like having causes, and more for a cause.

To some extent, then, she is the victim of a self-inflicted wound.

Back in the day, your primary objections were to the invasion of privacy, and the unknown risk. (Caveat: I'm getting old. Take my fading memory into account before blasting me if I got it wrong.)

With those objections gone, what, precisely, are the civil liberties you would be foregoing, and why?

When I stand still for five seconds so that all my fellow passengers can be assured I'm not bringing anything on board I shouldn't, what civil liberty have I sacrificed, and why?

Hello? You're telling me what I think?

No, I'm summarizing what I think I remember some of your objections being.

It is more dangerous to disappear our rights than to have a plane blow up.

Really? Standing still in a scanner for five seconds is worse than that? And you really shouldn't limit your imagination to just one. Instead, consider the consequences if, say, four were blown up on the same day.

Furthermore, if any terrorist with three bran cells to rub together wants to get something through "security," they can.

If that is true, then you have no explanation for why Islamists are resorting to shoe, panty, and booby bombs.

Jeff, you've lost this argument over and over and you are unwilling to admit it. Grasping at straws and pretending I said something I didn't -- what even is "unknown risk"? -- is dishonest arguing.

On the constitutional issue, you are wrong. You might believe that airport searches shouldn't be constitutional, but they (and many other analogous searches) are. What is and isn't constitutional has a very specific legal meaning, and " I think" isn't part of it.

And as long as we have been having this argument, your position is a nullity: not this but [ ].

[ ] works great if there isn't a threat. Otherwise, not so much.

(BTW, after two attempts, your link wouldn't load. Dunno why, looks good to me. However, I've been known to be less than completely reliable on that score.)

This is what I mean, Amy, with all due respect.

The idea that you could understand what is meant by "constitutional" and "unconstitutional" because you like to read the Constitution is absurd.

Lawyers go to school for years to understand the concept of "constitutionality" among other things.

Reading the Constitution is a vital part of understanding what is and isn't constitutional, but it's not the only thing, by any means. There are literally centuries of precedent in which Constitutional terms have been argued and batted around and resolved in courts. And rulings regarding some of these terms actually predate the Constitution itself (as the United States is a common law nation).

I think Jeff is doing an admiral job of explaining this. I simply the complaints of posters like you, lujlp and Radwaste and I have Pocahantas's song running through my head: "How can there be so much that you don't know you don't know?"

I'll ask it as you seem to miss it.

If the searches preformed by the TSA are constitutional, then what mode of travel do we have the right to engage in without government molestation/intrusion