Why Does Obama and TSA

Think the 4th amendment doesn't apply to them?

Are you really this stupid?

If the Fourth Amendment is at issue here, it's been at issue as long I've been flying -- which is back to the Clinton administration and earlier. Your Obama obsession is pretty much irrelevant to the question.

Because nothing applies to them, that's why.

Would you care to elaborate?

Flying on an airplane has, for decades, involved things that would be completely unpermissible if done to a person on the street. It's hilarious to watch you try to spin it as the Evil Obama trying to disregard the Constitution.

Why does KIRK...

...think Obama was President in 2001?

Those useless scanners are really the only new thing to come up under Obama and you have a choice not to use them. Vigorous patdowns have always been a part of air travel.

Really? Which US airports have forced passengers to endure heavy doses of radiation so airport screeners could see them virtually naked as well as have the ability to store those images? Which airports have had the ability to do groping "patdowns" for decades?

Re: Why does KIRK...

Ah, but that was different. Because "the Constitution is not a suicide pact," and so on.

Re: Why Did Bush and the TSA

Except that AIT was mandated and in use as early as 2007.

Guh? None. You have a choice to either go through the scanner or to not....which is what I said....

Every one AFAIK. I can remember getting patted down as a kid in the '80s for crying out loud. Your use of "groping" is just you getting hormonal or something.

I'm afraid you are wrong. The invasive groping that is being done now has not been done for decades. The body scanners have not been done for decades either. Some passengers will not be offered a choice of whether or not they get sexually assaulted by the TSA.

Why do you quietly allow your Constitutional rights to be taken away?

This goes way beyond Barry, but it is a complete violation of the 4th. He didn't start this by far, but he hasn't ended it and he has made it worse.

The only real solution to security is to profile as the Israelis do.

You're right, invasive groping hasn't been done for decades. Patdowns have.

Never said they were, sweetheart.

Sexually assualted? That's quite a jump from groping, which was quite a jump from patdowns. You're on a roll.

Why do you obviously allow your emotions to get the best of you?

Not really, IMHO. The "unreasonable" searches are quite recent.

Ten Lubak: Before 9/11, I had never, ever seen a "pat-down" at the airport. The worst I have ever seen was someone setting off the metal detector and then getting a more in-depth (non-contact, mind you) inspection with a wand to see exactly where the metal was. Usually it was a belt buckle or something.

Being forced to have your genitals touched by TSA isn't assault?

Allowing TSA to ignore the 4th Amendment is overreacting?

I've gotten patdowns before that - never the genitals though, it was more legs, arms and midsection. The genital thing seems to be more of a recent development.

I am not talking about simple patdowns. Apparently we are discussing two different things. You are talking about what used to be done. Not about what's been done since 11/1/2010.

These pat downs go beyond what police and corrections officers are allowed to do. (unless we strip search you but then only if we have justification)

I've heard that they are purposely doing these type of pat downs because they want to wear the public down into just accepting the machines.

So you're saying that everyone now gets their junk fondled when they pass through a security checkpoint? This isn't a case of a select few here and there enduring that and going to the press, and the press running with it? The last time I flew went through American security was September and didn't get my junk fondled, and it's pretty hard to miss.

The difference is police have probable cause. TSA doesn't.

No I'm not saying everyone does.

They weren't fondling junk in September, IIRC.

So then what's the solution? I'd personally never go through on of those scanners as after promising the images would be deleted, thousands showed up on the internet. An aggressive junk fondling pat down, while not really my cup of tea, seems to be the only alternative if you want to provide top notch screening and overall safety for passengers. Capatin J suggested doing what El Al does, which also involves profiling, which I'm not really against. Then again, they don't operate nearly as many airports or the sheer volume of passengers that the USA does.

You don't think profiling provides a huge "hey, here's how to get around security" sign to anyone who wants it?

Only if the profiling standards are known, which in the case of El Al, I believe are classified.

Why can't KIRK use correct grammar?

Again, if you profile, you miss the obvious workaround, which is that terror groups *and* individual wackos will simply not use "Arab looking" types to infiltrate airliners. The TSA will spend all its time harassing every young dark-haired male, and not be on the lookout for telltales on anyone else.

Whatever the solution is, it should not have been regulation passed in 2001 hiring $14-an-hour rentacops and then spending $100-200,000 each on the screening units.

To be fair to Priscella, there is talk afoot of enhanced security screening being put into place for all forms of public transit. So, maybe you're right at the moment. But you may soon be wrong. Don't discount it too quickly. We've always been a nation of over-reactors, after all.

Why can't KIRK use correct grammar?

And none of you ever thought any of this would happen when the original legislation was enacted?

Re: Why can't KIRK use correct grammar?

When 80 year old white ladies who write books start blowing up airplanes then we will profile them.

Until then the "arab looking" guys will get the extra scrutiny.