Is the TSA going too far?

[Nowhere Man]

Ok, so we all know of the new airline procedures. They can do full body scans like several scifi movies has portrayed in the past. If you don't want to do the full body scan then you get a full body rub down. So I think it's a legitamite question, is the TSA going too far? Furthermore, is all of this against the fourth amendment?

The fourth amendment: 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.

In the strictest sense, yes the TSA is violating the fourth amendment. Probable cause is defined as: facts or evidence that would make a reasonable person believe that a crime or wrong doing has been, is being, or will be committed.

I realize it would not be practical for massive travel, but maybe it's time to rethink transportation security. I've heard people make the case that the FBI and other agencies should do a better job of traking terrorists. Once they get into the airport the system has already failed in a sense. So, we live in a type of police state that the police can do whatever they want and we can't do shit about it. It's not marshal law, but there's no need for it because they have the population under their thumbs.

 

[Lindley]

I am not a fan of the new TSA procedures. I would be fine with the scanners if they were automated, and only pinged if they detected something; but of course the tech is not yet that developed, so they still need a human in the loop. This I'm not thrilled with.

I can understand why they think these things are a good idea, but I've seen no evidence to suggest they actually will catch anything yet.

 

[Galileo7]

The fourth amendment: 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.

In the strictest sense, yes the TSA is violating the fourth amendment. Probable cause is defined as: facts or evidence that would make a reasonable person believe that a crime or wrong doing has been, is being, or will be committed<b>.

That says it all.

 

[Nowhere Man]

I think it is too far. I'm sick of the constitution bieng stomped on in the name of freedom, it's getting to be rediculous. The patriot act allows for warrantless wire tapinng and the writ of Habeas Corpus has been suspended in Guantanimo bay, what else?

 

[Subcommander R.]

Its fine by me. Keep in mind that no one is saying you'll go to the airport and have to do this. Unless you start acting suspicious and mentioning bombs, odds are you won't get advanced screening measures like that. I fly a lot, and I've only been frisked once. And that was because I had lost weight and my clothes were too baggy.

Keep in mind that air travel is a private service. You have no inherent right to fly on a plane. So when you book the ticket with full knowledge of TSA procedures you are tacitly accepting them.

 

[Deckerd]

What's the TSA?

 

[Shaw]

In the strictest sense, yes the TSA is violating the fourth amendment. Probable cause is defined as: facts or evidence that would make a reasonable person believe that a crime or wrong doing has been, is being, or will be committed.

My wife (who works at the airport) goes through this every morning and has no complaints. I haven't been to the airport in years, so I have no complaints either.

More importantly... the fourth amendment.

It is not being violated. Air travel is a convenience, not a right. You know that the searches will happen at a certain place. If you want to avoid them, don't go there. Not unreasonable.

I understand some people's complaints, but in the strictest sense the TSA is not violating the fourth amendment... the searches are voluntary, and can be avoided if one wishes.

 

[Mr. B]

Done by anyone else, TSA patdowns qualify as assault... all this effort invested in clearly harmless people is ridiculous. Has a security line at an airport ever stopped a terrorist? No occasion occurs to me.

I'm sure al-Qaida is laughing their ass off right now. Thanks to two failed bombing attempts, we all have to take off our shoes now and be subjected to intrusive searches of our bodies. Next we'll probably have the tampon bomber... no doubt the TSA will feel the need to "do something" to address that threat.

 

[Deckerd]

Territorial Sandwich Army?

 

[Arrqh]

It is not being violated. Air travel is a convenience, not a right. You know that the searches will happen at a certain place. If you want to avoid them, don't go there. Not unreasonable.

I understand some people's complaints, but in the strictest sense the TSA is not violating the fourth amendment... the searches are voluntary, and can be avoided if one wishes.

I disagree. The TSA is a government agency that is standing in between you and the private airline through which you have purchased a ticket. If they are going to stand in your way and force you to comply with their procedures or else block the ability for you to use a service that you have purchased access to, then they must be bound by the constitution and all appropriate government regulation. Currently TSA is conducting searches on people which would not hold up to constitutional muster in any other context without the searcher demonstrating reasonable suspicion... and it is not reasonable to suspect someone is a terrorist simply because they purchased a plane ticket.

 

[Vulcan Princess]

I'm going to be writing a law review article on the subject once my finals are over. I'll touch on 4th Amendment issues, but my main focus will be on how the screening policies affect interstate travel.

 

[Nowhere Man]

Its fine by me. Keep in mind that no one is saying you'll go to the airport and have to do this. Unless you start acting suspicious and mentioning bombs, odds are you won't get advanced screening measures like that. I fly a lot, and I've only been frisked once. And that was because I had lost weight and my clothes were too baggy.

Keep in mind that air travel is a private service. You have no inherent right to fly on a plane. So when you book the ticket with full knowledge of TSA procedures you are tacitly accepting them.

I understand that it is a private service and that will always be the standard argument for anything. The problem I have is how far should we allow private sevices to go in usurping our rights? You can say, "well you have a choice" all you want, but when the choices are do what we say or don't fly then it's not much of a choice is it? We all may not have to fly, but at some point, you may need to get somewhere faster than a train, bus, boat or car can take you. Look at at&t, if you want a smart phone then you can get any service provider you want. If you want an iphone, you have to choose at&t, so yeah you have a choice, but not really. I think if private companies are going to participate in counter terrorism they should be subject to our lawss including the constitution. How far should they be allowed to go?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I don't know whether the Constitution is being violated, and neither does anyone else here - those kinds of questions don't have immutable, back-of-the-book answers. They're open until resolved in a court of law.

That said, yes this is ridiculous and it looks like Americans may finally have had enough of at least some varieties of the paranoid bullshit the government has been promulgating since 2001. Airlines, as private organizations dependent upon their customers, seem to be looking for ways to ameliorate or avoid some of this.

 

[Nowhere Man]

It is not being violated. Air travel is a convenience, not a right. You know that the searches will happen at a certain place. If you want to avoid them, don't go there. Not unreasonable.

I understand some people's complaints, but in the strictest sense the TSA is not violating the fourth amendment... the searches are voluntary, and can be avoided if one wishes.

I disagree. The TSA is a government agency that is standing in between you and the private airline through which you have purchased a ticket. If they are going to stand in your way and force you to comply with their procedures or else block the ability for you to use a service that you have purchased access to, then they must be bound by the constitution and all appropriate government regulation. Currently TSA is conducting searches on people which would not hold up to constitutional muster in any other context without the searcher demonstrating reasonable suspicion... and it is not reasonable to suspect someone is a terrorist simply because they purchased a plane ticket.

Agreed. Also, it is unreasonable to ask one to take another mode of transportation just because they don't want to be serched for no reason. A lot of people fly when they need to take long trips and to force them to take another mode of transportation is unreasonable.

 

[FPAlpha]

Keyword in the amendment may be unreasonable searches.

Searches for flight relatede security purposes seem very reasonable to do.. if you don't feel like being searched take the train or bus.

 

[Shaw]

I understand that it is a private service and that will always be the standard argument for anything. The problem I have is how far should we allow private sevices to go in usurping our rights? You can say, "well you have a choice" all you want, but when the choices are do what we say or don't fly then it's not much of a choice is it? We all may not have to fly, but at some point, you may need to get somewhere faster than a train, bus, boat or car can take you. Look at at&t, if you want a smart phone then you can get any service provider you want. If you want an iphone, you have to choose at&t, so yeah you have a choice, but not really. I think if private companies are going to participate in counter terrorism they should be subject to our lawss including the constitution. How far should they be allowed to go?

You have a very strange definition of the word rights.

If you consider flying on airplanes and owning an iPhone as rights, you have a very different definition of that word than the Constitution does. For many people, plane travel and owning an iPhone are considered luxuries (and out of their reach) rather than rights.

I understand why people don't like it... but don't confuse this with rights.

 

[1001001]

What's the TSA?

Transportation Security Administration.

It's part of Homeland Security.

 

[bluedana]

Deckerd: TSA is the Transportation Security Administration.

It's a fallacy to assume that no terrorists have ever been stopped by a security line. You might not hear about it, but it happens. And your Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizures at the airport is somewhat less than it would be in your car, or in your house, or some other property.

That said, I would expect the TSA to walk back this practice a bit -- but it's still going to be tighter than most people would like.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Since no one is forced to fly I don't think this violates the letter of the Fourth Amendment. If airlines stood up and fought this they would probably have a better shot at it than consumers.

It does seem like kind of a gray area since TSA represents taxpayer-funded and federally-controlled security screening done on behalf of private airlines. If the airlines themselves were doing these security checks I don't think there'd be much debate over it at all--private companies can more or less do what they want in this area.

I have my doubts that these scanners are going to wind up doing much good but the fact is that if a terrorist gets through and an attack happens, not having measures like this in place will have people screaming that the government didn't do enough to protect them. At least this way the feds can say they did as much as they could to catch potential terrorists. You could look at it as a CYA move, though that doesn't really justify the invasiveness of the screenings.

 

[Nowhere Man]

I understand that it is a private service and that will always be the standard argument for anything. The problem I have is how far should we allow private sevices to go in usurping our rights? You can say, "well you have a choice" all you want, but when the choices are do what we say or don't fly then it's not much of a choice is it? We all may not have to fly, but at some point, you may need to get somewhere faster than a train, bus, boat or car can take you. Look at at&t, if you want a smart phone then you can get any service provider you want. If you want an iphone, you have to choose at&t, so yeah you have a choice, but not really. I think if private companies are going to participate in counter terrorism they should be subject to our lawss including the constitution. How far should they be allowed to go?

You have a very strange definition of the word rights.

If you consider flying on airplanes and owning an iPhone as rights, you have a very different definition of that word than the Constitution does. For many people, plane travel and owning an iPhone are considered luxuries (and out of their reach) rather than rights.

I understand why people don't like it... but don't confuse this with rights.

I never said it is a right to fly on a plane or by an iphone. They are usurping our 4th amendment right of illegal search and seisure. The point I was attempting to make was about choices. Yes, you have a choice to not fly on the plane and take a bus, train, car or boat. The point is, you shouldn't be forced to make that choice. If a choice is bieng made under duress, then it's not really a choice. If my wife tells me I can go to a superbowl party and have fun with my friends or you can stay home with me and cuddle and watch a movie.(no sex) Yeah, I have a choice, but she's going to get pissed and we will fight for a month if I go to the superbowl party. It's not really a choice is it?

If someone wants to visit their family for thanksgiving and they live far away then they need to take a plane. If they only have 3-4 days off because they have a shitty job that doesen't provide vacation days and it would take more time than what it's worth to drive then they have no choice, but fly. They then go to the airport and are picked to be searched without probable cause and they refuse, then they can't get on the plane. There is no choice, you are forced into the system. You can't refuse on the grounds of it bieng unconstitutional because the constitution is bieng usurped.

Another good example of this is DUI stops. In most states, if you refuse a breathalizer test you are automaticaly charged with a DUI. Just because you refuse does not mean you have been drinking, you could be refusing on priciple. If you are charged with a DUI there is no way to fight it, you are automaticaly guilty without even going to court. Samething with trafic tickets. So, yeah you have a choice, take the breathalizer or don't, but if you don't you will be charged anyway. What kind of choice is that? It's a way to weasel around the law and like I said, it will always be the excuse to do whatever.