This is why I'm driving, not flying, from Florida to Las Vegas (and back) this summer...

I'm afraid it's going to have to get worse -- a lot worse -- before it gets better. Most of my friends and family are still clueless. They need to get groped, or robbed, before it'll sink in to their thick skulls.

Keep posting and keep pointing it out.

To paraphrase Orwell, it often takes time for people to see what is right there at the end of the nose.

Wow, how crazy that we are allowing this to happen? Very sad when you can't fly without being traumatized first. So glad we aren't letting those terrorists win!

The most disturbing part of all this to me, is how readily average Americans seem to be simply accepting authoritarianism.

Well, that convinced me. I'm not flying ever again until the TSA is abolished.

Lobster,

Exactly.

The authoritarian mentality is the same as the slave mentality. Two sides of the same coin. So it's no surprise that so many people are on board with this.

Of course, most of them haven't been groped or abused yet. When they or their loved ones eventually are, then they'll sing a different song. Not everyone, of course. There will always be that authoritarian/subservient group out there.

sexual abuse? what a joke. if that's all you can hang your hat on, TSA is staying put.

I know you're using labels here to generate a sense of outrage about airport patdowns, but let's just be clear about something:

This isn't sexual assault or rape. A required element in crimes of sexual assault or rape is intent. Because Amy lives in L.A., I'll use the California Penal Code as an example:

(e)(1)Any person who touches an intimate part of another person, if the touching is against the will of the person touched, and is for the specific purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse, is guilty of misdemeanor sexual battery

Unless you truly believe that the TSA schlubs get aroused by feeling up the average overweight, dumpy American air passenger of their own sex, there's no issue of sexual battery. Personally, I can't think of anything less arousing, short of changing someone's adult diaper.

You do have the right to take photographs or video at a checkpoint, as the TSA admits in their blog:

We don’t prohibit public, passengers or press from photographing, videotaping, or filming at screening locations. You can take pictures at our checkpoints as long as you’re not interfering with the screening process or slowing things down. We also ask that you do not film or take pictures of our monitors.

Further, L.A. ordinances forbid only commercial photography at the airport:

(e) No person shall take any still or motion picture on the Airport for commercial purposes without first having a permit so to do, except representatives of the press taking pictures for news purposes.

So, feel free to photograph, as long as you're not blocking other passengers.

Finally, here's a credible legal argument that current TSA search protocols can be distinguished from traditional airport security checks, and that the more intrusive searches violate the 4th Amendment. Unfortunately, most of the web discussion just asserts a 4th Amendment violation without actually engaging the legal issues. The argument comes from the Federalist Society, a conservative/libertarian association of legal scholars, and was probably written by a Cornell law student.

If you think the TSA searches violate your 4th Amendment rights, I'd pursue a legal remedy by joining a class action or supporting the same financially or with publicity. I think it's too early to resort to civil disobedience on this, as a legal remedy will be more effective and less costly in terms of personal inconvenience and possible arrest. Make the legislature and courts take a stand; if they take the wrong stand, then comes the time for civil disobedience.

Love to hear from someone who knows Constitutional law better than I, but I don't think the 4th amendment applies here. I assume that by entering the security line, one is presumed to consent to the search. Just like the 4th amendment wouldn't exclude evidence found if you allowed police to enter your house.

This does not mean I support or condone the TSA's actions in any way. What they do is humiliating, wrong, and the topper - ineffective in addressing the issue of threats to airplanes. But I doubt a constitutional challenge would succeed.

This guy is my new fuckin hero. I love how he demanded to SEE the "law" that they were "enforcing". As soon as they backed off, I went..."yyyeeeeeahhhhh..." Because he's right. He's NOT violating any laws. Yet.
You know what's gonna happen now though don't you? Now they are gonna make it a law. Becuase that's what our govt does when they see stuff like this. They make laws to prohibit it. So they can arrest people. Because that's what makes sheeple feel safer.

(BTW did anyone else notice that at about 7:23 the random TSA agent with the mustashe came toward him, then nodded his head and smiled and went on his way....lol....)

"Just like the 4th amendment wouldn't exclude evidence found if you allowed police to enter your house."

I believe that only applies when they find evidence if it's left out in the open. Allowing them into your home in general is not consenting to a "search". To go into a closed room and look in your drawer for example they have to either have a warrant (and warrants are very specific as to the scope of the search), reasonable suspision that illegal activity is occuring (and that one is still tricky), someone is in danger at the moment they are on the premises, or ask for consent from the home owner to search the premises. They cannot enter your home under the pretense of asking some questions about a robbery in your neighborhood and then search your bathroom for drugs. If they use your restroom though and find drugs sitting on the counter then they can arrest you.

Excellent work, Dale and Christopher.

Glaring ommission from the video: the actual search. Did the agent prep her for what was going to happen? Did she obtain consent? If so, the 4th Amendment claim is gone and the so-called "assault" claim is even less available.

From Dale's linked article: "Airline travel has been a mainstay of American travel ever since it was commercialized, and requiring Americans to forfeit their 4th Amendment rights to exercise their right to travel is ridiculous, not to mention unrealistic."

Unfortunately, while this point seems obvious, I'm guessing no court has actually yet issued this conclusion. Big victory against TSA when/if that happens.

The Texas legislature tried to make the searches without reasonable cause (specifically, the searching of people's private parts) a misdemeanor on the part of the actual TSA agents- and the TSA and a US attorney threatened to SHUT DOWN all of the airports in Texas.

Nah... that shut down would never have happened. The airlines would lose waaaay too much money. Besides, TSA are technically govt employees but not federal agents. They don't have that kind of authority do they?

Terry v. Ohio (1968):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZS.html

This may be the one drawback against unreasonable searches, as this allowed basic "stop & frisk" procedures that did not violate the 4th Amendment, when there was reasonable suspicion by a law enforcement agent that certain activity by an individual justified pat-downs for "safety" concerns (known, henceforth, as a "Terry-pat").

As an example, if at 3:00 a.m. there were folks "hanging around" a place of business not normally open even close to those hours, some law enforcement agents will use Terry v. Ohio in this manner.

Why is this important?

Well, government bureaucrats (especially TSA agents) are no angels to self-control when it comes to encroaching on law abiding citizens, merely for the sake of it. TSA "agents" may think they are law enforcement personnel (they are not: http://www.lewrockwell.com/adams-m/adams-m19.1.html) and even the less intelligent of Americans may think the same thing, but all it takes is 51% of some over-zealous nitwits from Congress to "make it so", and the next thing you know the TSA may be considered on par with police officers, troopers, sherrifs, and deputies.

Sadly so.

Texas could have paved the way for a return to States rights and a federal nueter job as well, but alack and alas, such was not meant to be.

They *should* have told the TSA to try to shut the airports down... but they didn't.

Terry was one of the worst legal precedents ever set. As with every other encroachment, it was only a matter of time before unjust acts perpetrated against Others were perpetrated against Us. Or, more colloquially, our chickens are coming home to roost.

Christopher, as to the concept of consent, a lawyer explained to me that cooperation isn't the same as consent. You might cooperate with a TSA molester as a condition of continuing your journey, but that doesn't mean you consent. I'm not a lawyer; this is just the way it was explained to me. You can register your lack of consent, apparently, by saying, "I don't consent, but I will cooperate." The TSA person will have no idea what the fuck you're talking about, but should a law enforcement officer have to be called, for whatever reason, or if you later decide to file suit, this, apparently, is an important legal distinction.

Dale (who is a lawyer?) will probably be able to explain more.

Speaking of lawsuits, there are many of them wending their way through the courts. You know how long that takes. Please, people, don't make me post every frigging link. Amy allows only at a time, and the document on my computer, of accounts of abuse, now stands at 50 pages single-spaced -- mostly headlines & links only. And EPIC's lawsuit is still tied up in appeals. So I'll just post this one guy's suit -- Jonathan Blitz:

http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/briefed-blitz-redfern-and-corbett/

CAn I just say I lok forward to the nxt terrorist attack, I hope someone bows themselves up in a line before the security checkpoint, ighlight how stupid the TSA is

@Amy and @Lisa -

" . . . as to the concept of consent, a lawyer explained to me that cooperation isn't the same as consent."

This distinction only matters with respect to the results of criminal searches. So if you cooperate (without consenting to) an illegal search of your home/car/body and the cops find a bunch of evidence, you can still exclude that evidence at your criminal trial.

Here, though, Amy is attempting to claim that TSA pat-downs are sexual assaults because people "cooperate" without "consenting." My guess is that, for purposes of defending against such a charge, "cooperation" does = "consent" since the consequence of not cooperating with TSA (not flying) is not as drastic as not cooperating with a police search (potential detention).

The real question is whether the right to air travel is so ubiquitous that the threat of removing that right destroys the ability to willfully consent to a pat-down. To realistically make this argument, you'd also have to take out the "sexual" aspect (for the reasons noted by Dale above) and go with a simple civil "assault" claim. Suing the Feds for this kind of assault requires that you jump through a whole bunch of Federal Tort Claims Act hoops, but it is possible.

lujlp,

Every time we bring this possibility up to the security cheerleaders -- and god knows we've done it dozens of times -- they never answer. It's like they stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalalalalalalala!"

Even when I mention Moscow's Domodedovo, they just refuse to answer. They're not interested in empirical evidence. They're not even interested in reality. They cherish their little security fantasy.

Snakeman99,

"since the consequence of not cooperating with TSA (not flying) is not as drastic as not cooperating with a police search (potential detention)."

But the TSA does have the power to detain (so much for the 5th Amendment). So does this make a difference?

@Lisa - well, you're not going to go to jail for (peacefully) refusing a pat down, whereas you may go to jail if you interfere with a cop's search (even if the search itself is later held to have been illegal). So that's the distinction that I think would be invoked.

But you're right in noting that in one sense, detention and prevention from travel are ultimately restrictions on our freedom of movement. Is it a difference of kind or degree? The Privileges and Immunities clause has historically been read to guarantee a Constitutional freedom of movement. But that right is not absolute. We've tolerated magnetic detection of our stuff and our bodies for some time now. Not sure if the pat downs/x-rays have necessarily crossed over into unconstitutional territory. Its possible that the TSA standards are permissible, but individual episodes that exceed those boundaries are unconstitutional. I suspect the many lawsuits you mentioned above will ultimately test and shape these rules in the coming months/years.

Ah, the cold comfort of court cases. That take years, maybe even a decade, to go through the system. Oh, well. Thank god I've already seen a lot of the world in my life, because from now on I'll just be seeing it on National Geographic.

@Lisa - I here you. FWIW, I travel a few times a year from LAX and Burbank (typically USAir, Soutwest, AA) and I have yet to encounter the pat-downs. Maybe some smart guy out there has a website listing which airports/lines incorporate these measures?

ugh. "Hear" you. Can't believe I did that. Credibility, meet open window.

I just think all the ladies\gentlemen should be careful throwing around the term "sexual assault". Of course it's a judgement, but when you are on a jury someday and evaluating a person who was truly sexually assaulted, the effect of these terms being thrown around will influence your opinion.

I sympathize and agree that the TSA gropes are repulsive and ineffective, a violation of the individual's sovereign rights, but sexual assault, not so much. When I joined junior high school wrestling, there was an annual mandatory hernia check, i.e., someone literally jiggling your balls in their hands and telling you to cough. Nervous, yes. Molested, no.

Dale, Christopher, snakeman99, et. al

The point that seems to escape you all is that if you were talking to T.J., Ben, Thomas Paine and the rest they would seriously want to slap you around for the constitutional abuses you so want to accept.

The right of redress, the exclusionary rule (Weeks v. United States), etc. do not ever truly make the violated whole.

It is also mission creep issue. You accept that they can search you for no reason whatsoever just because you want to get on a plane. Then next you accept to get on a train you can be searched. What's next -- using the interstate you have to have your vehicle searched? Just because you are on the interstate they can stop and search?

Amy had a blog item just a few weeks back (www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/03/30/pastor_beaten_a.html)from the pastor who refused a border search inside the U.S.

You defend the "clarification" of laws claiming they make no difference. They shouldn't have been law anyway.

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.

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.

Which of these rights are given up just because I want to travel on a train, plane, or automobile?

The measures that they have taken on the ground are totally ineffective. The number of reporters (and others) that have been able to get weapons through security should prove that. I had a co-worker that flew on a regular basis for over two years with a bag that had a pair of sewing scissors sewn into the lining and was never caught.

In addition to all of the above, if you look at the 9/11 timeline -- in less than hour from the first plane going in to the crash of Flight 93 the world changed. The passengers realized they couldn't be sheeple. The nice, safe (non-existent) world was gone.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Many of my liberties have been given up by prior generations. Continuing down that road is subject to ruin.

Submitting to the judgement of 545 idiots who think they are right and know what I (or you) should do is a total crock.

Ranting against the TSA on a web site does not do much good to change things.

Who is behind the curtain? Who is authorizing these actions to be taken? Time for some public humiliation. Not the agents, they just follow orders. Who is giving the orders. What is their position and how can we get them removed and put someone in their place that can initiate reasonable methods? Does the President have in say in this? Congress? No one?

"Make the legislature and courts take a stand; if they take the wrong stand, then comes the time for civil disobedience."

Fallacy of false choice.

"Unless you truly believe that the TSA schlubs get aroused by feeling up the average overweight, dumpy American air passenger of their own sex"

Your obvious disgust with the apparently-beneath-you 'common people' aside, your false suggestion that only ugly people travel, and your apparent belief that 'common people' should only act through lawyers - here's a question for you, what percentage of people are homosexual or bisexual, and how many TSA officials are there? Multiply one number by the other. That aside, it's not even really relevant ... it would be wrong either way. Jim P is right on.

The point that seems to escape you all is that if you were talking to T.J., Ben, Thomas Paine and the rest they would seriously want to slap you around for the constitutional abuses you so want to accept.

Read above where I wrote that these searches are "humiliating, wrong and... ineffective."

I'm not accepting these searches. I think we should work to change the way airline security works. My one point was that under our current jurisprudence, I'm not sure that they are unconstitutional.

There are many different ways to protest, not just one. Every movement in history that has succeeded did so by fighting on several fronts. Women got the right to vote not only by pushing their cause through "proper" channels, but also by chaining themselves to the White House fence, being beaten, arrested, force-fed during hunger strikes, and dying. Similarly with the civil rights movement. Tahrir Square didn't happen overnight; years of resistance and activism preceded it.

Fighting the TSA isn't only accomplished by going through the courts. That's only way to do it. Awareness -- yes, by blogging, writing, and speaking out about abuse -- is always an important thing to do. Political pressure -- writing one's (mostly worthless) Congressional reps -- is another way. Boycotting flying (yes, I know not everyone can do this) is another. Committing small acts of resistance is another: refusing to go through the scanner; refusing to submit quietly to a grope; asserting one's rights and indicating that one isn't fooled by this charade; videotaping encounters; and yes, civil disobedience. And I'm sure people can come up with others.

These are all tools we can use. There's not just one.

Oh, and Eric, re sexual assault: sorry, but sexual assault includes more than rape. It encompasses more than vaginal or anal penetration. My girlfriends who've been probed and groped by TSA agents were sexually assaulted. And good grief, do we really have to hear these inane comparisons to a medical examination?? It's so absurd I'm not going to bother addressing it anymore.

Lisa, I can't wait to hear your TSA story. (It was you that had the story to tell but were waiting for some info from lawywers right? Or did I just mix you up with someone else?)

I'm all in favor of mass civil disobedience at airport checkpoints -- people sitting down, refusing to move. That ain't gonna happen anytime soon -- too many sheeple -- but as more and more people get abused, support will grow. And now that I've posted this publicly I can be labeled a "domestic extremist" by DHS and FBI and added to a watch list. Oh, well, hopefully I won't be in my nothings when they bust down my door someday.

Can't dance at the Jefferson Memorial without getting arrested.

Can't feed hungry people in a park without getting arrested.

Can't fly without getting molested, and if you object too loudly, without getting arrested.

Land of the free and home of the brave.

But hey, "I'm just doing my job."

http://www.ianwelsh.net/moral-monster-test/

I honestly cannot believe that not one other person there said ANYTHING. My god what a bunch of SHEEPLE.

"It's my story - I've been working day and night to get my book proposal and chapters revised, and then got sick. I also need some information, which I'm working on getting."

Oh. Sorry! I got it all mixed up in my head...

It is possible to get quick change.

The Minnesota Department of Health snuck through a law that prohibited hot dish brought from home to public events like church meetings and such. Can you imagine! Minnesota - the hot dish capital of the world.

Such red faces and the new law was gone within days.

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?
-Thomas Jefferson

Elections have less blood letting dear Lisa.

"If you think the TSA searches violate your 4th Amendment rights, I'd pursue a legal remedy by joining a class action or supporting the same financially or with publicity."

There are too many risks for a good lawyer to take this on a contingency basis. First, there is the risk that the government will simply declare sovereign immunity and make the case moot. Second, there is the matter that even if the suit succeeds, in order for any settlement (including plaintiff's legal fees) to be paid, Congress must appropriate money for it. If Congress refuses, then congratulations -- you're the king of nowhere. A lawyer would be foolish to not demand a retainer for a case like this, and all of us here put together couldn't afford that retainer.

Oh stop crying about the 4th ammendment. The constitution is a living document. It means whatever Congress and/or the courts think it means at that current moment in time.

/sarc

Of course, one wonders why they even bother to cite the constitution anymore. Well, if they didn't more people might wake up.

"The real question is whether the right to air travel is so ubiquitous that the threat of removing that right destroys the ability to willfully consent to a pat-down."

As I see it, the question boils down to this: can the government set up a checkpoint in front of a commercial facility, demand that anyone who wishes to enter the facility surrender their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search, and do so without the consent of the owners of the facility? If they can do so with airlines, then they can do so with *any* commercial facility. They can strip-search you when you go to the grocery store. More to the point, they can force you to consent to search if you want to attend a college football game, or the Seattle Space Needle, or the Portland Christmas tree lighting. (These have all been targets for foiled terrorist attacks.)

Taking this to its logical conclusion, you can't go anywhere without being subject to invasive search. At that point, the Fourth Amendment has been substantially weakened. I find it hard to believe that the Founders intended that the protection against unreasonable search apply only in one's own residence.

Again, can do only one link at a time. Woman who received pittance after being assaulted by the TSA, but at least she won:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/stupid/tiny-tsa-payout-over-breast-exposure-034978

Cousin Dave,

We're fast approaching that scenario. TSA's odious VIPR teams have shown up at venues all over the country, searching bus passengers, train passengers (until the Amtrak chief found out -- said he thought it had to be a joke, was so incensed he banned them from ever setting foot at Amtrak again), stadium entrants. This was predictable (as some of us are blue in the face from saying), but even for those who refuse to believe it, Napolitano and Pistole came out and said it publicly.

The security cheerleaders won't be happy until Uncle Sam is sticking his fingers up their asses everywhere they go.

March 17, 2011
Today, Jonathan Blitz filed his reply to the government’s motion to dismiss in his case, so we now have 3 cases in US district courts ready to rumble on the issue of jurisdiction.

Corbett v. US, 10-CV-24106, SDFL 11/16/2010 (11th Cir.)
Redfern v. Napolitano, 10-CV-12048, MAD 11/29/2010 (1st Cir.)
Blitz v. Napolitano, 10-CV-930, MDNC, 12/03/2010 (4th Cir.)
Blitz is a brilliant guy, and I’ve attached his public filing here, as it’s a great read. The next cases to get to this point will be in the DC and CO (10th Cir.), and I’ll update everyone as the public filings are made. –Jon

http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/briefed-blitz-redfern-and-corbett/

58-year-old woman who was arrested, hand-cuffed, hauled off to jail, and strip-searched for grabbing cooler (filled with applesauce and yogurt for her 93-year-old mother) from TSA agent -- she was charged with various criminal counts. Her case was eventually thrown out (it took a year):

“I am not going to plead guilty to something I didn’t do. I’m a person of character."

http://boingboing.net/2010/04/26/tsa-applesauce-assau.html

"The security cheerleaders won't be happy until Uncle Sam is sticking his fingers up their asses everywhere they go."

Who are they?

Who are they?

The ones who defend the TSA at every turn and who think we need it To Keep Us Safe!

Who are "they" Dave B?

Just turn around, you'll see one of them with thier hand so far up your ass that they are working your mouth harder then a teenager who just discovered masterbation works his cum covered sock puppet.

I case you didnt get that I likened you to a makeshift masturbatory aid, and judged it as better then you

My time is limited on the net because of HughesNet. Where might I go to find those that defend the TSA at every turn? You seem to have done a lot of research but your links do not disclose the defenders just the grunts.

Geez Lujlp. Nice talk. Evidently I pissed you off. Should I censor myself, or do you want to do it?

Okay. I've been following the TSA debacle for a few years now, writing and speaking out about it for 18 months. Once again, I can only append one link at a time here. I have appended dozens of them at this blog in the past but will add another at the end of this comment.

The document on my computer, with accounts of abuse from all over the country, reported by reputable sources from all over the world, in addition to accounts related to me personally, now stands at 50 pages -- headlines and links, not complete text.

I spend a lot of time researching this stuff so I post at a lot of sites in the blabbosphere. Let's kill two birds with one stone here -- there's one link at my name. Here's another:

http://www.elliott.org/

Here's another -- lots of defenders at this site -- and I see, by the way, that the blog masters have already deleted one comment -- there were 65 comments a few hours ago:

http://current.newsweek.com/budgettravel/2011/05/should_the_tsas_airport_patdow.html

Dave B, here's another one:

http://www.elliott.org/blog/patting-down-toddlers-security-failure-and-whistleblowers-its-been-another-interesting-week-for-the-tsa/

Amy, you will love this -- by a guy named Nicholas Perez:

Fuck you, TSA
http://perl-yarg.blogspot.com/2010/10/fuck-you-tsa.html

Not what I was looking for Lisa. Comments on the web are annonymous so "they" can freely say what they want without repercussion - like lujlp.

I followed my own advice and googled TSA and quickly spout the following, which may be all true, but maybe not.

TSA, the name, is a curtain. It cannot, and does not do what people ascribe to it. TSA does not put it fingers inside the vagina of an old, white woman. TSA does not look inside babies diapers, nor feel up pre-pubescent girls. TSA does not fondle the balls of men of obvious Arab descent, nor men who are obviously white.

Such touchings are done by low wage people, who in effect, work for a man named John S. Pistole. Mr. John S. Pistole, Adminitrator of TSA, nominated by President Barack Obama and unanimously confirmed by the Senate, is the one who approved and defends these touchings. Pistole acknowledged new TSA screening procedures are "invasive" and "uncomfortable" but said they were necessary. Unfortunately, many questions raised by American citizens regarding this policy remain unanswered and Pistole has remained silent regarding significant Contstitutional objections.

Some might wonder why these vagina, breast, balls and ass crack fascinations are not utilized by Israelies since Pistole deems them "necessary." If they are necessary why would Pistole allow religious and cultural needs (TSA website). I would think that necessary is necessary if it is necessary. Pisole admits it is uncomfortable (easy for him to say).

Howard Stern is private parts. Weiner is weiner. John S. Pistole is pervert.

There is no TSA. There is John S. Pistole.

I'd be more than willing to insult your complecency to your face

"I'd be more than willing to insult your complecency to your face"

You do not know me. You know nothing about my activities.

Yet you know I am complacent. Maybe you are a god and know all. But then you dislike those who believe in god so it must be some other power. Or self hate.

Please feel free to openly discuss my complacency. That could prove that you are as knowlegeable as Amy says you are and not just dyslexic.

Or if you have the strong desire to insult me to my face, Amy could give you my email address and if you ever travel to NW Minnesota or NE North Dakota we can set up a meet.

Christopher,

I want to personally apologize for lumping you in with the others. I took a paragraph out of context.

The point still stands -- where in the the Constitution does any of this really reside? The commerce clause has been so abused since Wickard v. Filburn that it is absurd.

Now a question for you all: Pre-9/11 the security was the responsibility of the individual airlines in conjunction with the local airports.

What if post-9/11 an individual airline (not the government) wanted to have all their passengers wear paper jumpsuits (provided by the airline) from source to destination? What if another decided to have armed guards on every flight? What about an airline that issued hand tasers to every passenger over 18? What if to fly on the airline you had to the smell-o-vision and porno scanner. Essentially the government mandated to the airlines that they had to tighten up security -- not stating how. The airline company would also be responsible for damages if a 9/13 incident happened.

The flying public would then have a choice of how onerous a level of security they would accept to fly. The passengers would also understand the risk. There would not be a constitutional issue because the individual airlines could decide their own security levels. There wouldn't be a federal mandate.

To get this closer to home and get the right mindset to this: What if 9/11 was instead Black Friday (day after Thanksgiving) -- terrorists and suicide bombers had killed thousands of people in attacks on malls, Wal-marts, department stores, etc. Would you have a TSA checkpoint to enter every mall and Wal-mart in the country? Or would you have a more rational reaction that the stores had to tighten up security?

The price of liberty is that the world is not a safe place. You are, nominally, responsible for yourself. Expecting me to submit to your unreasonable, capricious, draconian, one size fits all rules are not something I can agree with.

Jim P.

Well said.

The security cheerleaders cherish their fantasy of 100% Security and No Risk. Such a world doesn't exist, but they like to pretend it does. It makes them feel better. Because they're scared. And instead of using the rational part of their brains, they succumb to the reptilian part.

I'll repeat what so many of us have said, using the words of a commenter at another site:

Anyone so afraid to fly that that they would consent to having their family strip-searched and their privates groped by a stranger in a public place shouldn’t fly. These people are obviously ill equipped to manage the risk that life entails and should stay home.
Posted by Fisher1949

http://current.newsweek.com/budgettravel/2011/05/should_the_tsas_airport_patdow.html

Lisa - did you know President Barack Obama is a security cheerleader? I do not know why you insist on pointing to the powerless.

John S. Pistole, Administrator of TSA, is the one responsible for putting these techniques into effect. He hails from the FBI. Oh, and he was nominated by President Barack Obama. Being he comes from the FBI, I wonder if he has similar proclivities as J. Edgar.

Doin' the Pokey Pokey with TSA hamburger flipper:

http://onebagger.squarespace.com/blog/2011/5/20/tsa-pokey-pokey.html

Lisa - I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I believe you voted for Barack Obama to be President (if yuu were old enough to vote). I believe you will vote for him next election.

If you were really concerned about these enhanced security measures, and wanted them stopped, you would not support the administration that implemented them.

Dave B, I don't support this administration. I've been relentlessly criticizing it, publicly, for over a year now.

Yes, I voted for Obama, to my regret (scared shitless of McCain, who I think is mentally unbalanced). I still believed in the electoral process -- my naiveté (oh, and I'm 53, so I don't think naiveté is only the province of the young). No, I won't vote for Obama again. And no, I won't vote for whatever Neanderthal the Republicans come up with either.

I believe there's precious little difference between the two major parties. They're both beholden to corporate interests, they both want to hang onto power for power's sake, they're both perfectly fine with taking a dump on most of the population. Yes, there are individual, rare exceptions. But I'm talking about the parties in general. I don't believe we can work through the system anymore.

I'm busy working through other avenues, with people from all over the political spectrum. I think the left/right paradigm is dying and increasingly makes little sense. It's just another way for our overlords to divide and conquer.

Since you are a woman (I think), you may not fully understand pissing in the wind. That is what you are doing.

In the first half of my life, I was compelled to real life combat - the killing type. I worked very hard, financially and time, to build a viable third party as a result.

Now in my twilight, I've learned and as you are almost aware, most don't care and won't get involved. But I also learned, protesters, professionals and otherwise, accomplish little in the big picture. They do not target well.

Our founding fathers set up a good system, and they knew very well the governments, once let loose, are very difficult to control. They also knew, first hand, that revolutions were very bloody and costly. There are no bloodless revolutions. I continue to work in the electoral process but will be in the revolution if it comes to that. Preferably not.

Our founding fathers set up a good system, and they knew very well the governments, once let loose, are very difficult to control. They also knew, first hand, that revolutions were very bloody and costly. There are no bloodless revolutions. I continue to work in the electoral process but will be in the revolution if it comes to that. Preferably not.

Posted by: Dave B

Look at EVERY single society in hisotry Dave, it always, always, sooner or later comes to that.

True dat! But the idiots still voted for hope and change and made things worse. Lisa included.

I'll never understand why something is so obious to some is so hidden from others.

Governments have never learned anything from history, or acted on principles deducted from it.