1. So merely purchasing an airline ticket (still legal so far as I know) and boarding a plane (also still legal so far as I know) makes one a "suspect." In other words, in your view, we're all suspects even if we do nothing suspicious or illegal? Our mere existence is suspicious and makes us subject to being searched. My standard is the US Constitution. Your standard is the police state standard, because it's a signature element of police states that citizens can be searched and detained merely on the whim of the police. Sounds like that's OK with you, but it isn't with me.Gr8_Outdoorsman wrote:
If a passenger that was randomly selected is acting irate, irrational and resisting how should the TSA agent have acted?
Regarding police doing searches, it happens everywhere. Police place people in handcuffs and pat them down (i.e. touching them as you say) without placing them under arrest. Officers do this especially when there is only one of them and several potential suspects until they sort through things. It's called detaining. Do you really think that every single search warrant produces something illegal?
I'm not saying that I'm for the random searches. What I am saying is that they are just part of traveling by air right now. There are things in the works to try and get things changed, but nothing has changed as of yet. If you don't like it, don't fly. There's no need in giving the TSA agent a hard time. They didn't make the rules/laws and are doing what they've been told to do. The OP was rude and non-compliant from reading the post so the agent acted accordingly. There are more creative and constructive ways to drive change instead of causing a scene at the airport.
I'm done!
2. Random searches and whimsical searches and search warrants are all different animals. Search warrants have to meet the Constitutional standard of probable cause --in simple terms that means you have to do something illegal or suspicious. No one in this thread seems to be contesting the execution of search warrants at airports.
3. In a previous comment you say: The OP is completely to blame for being scrutinized to the level that they were. It is no different than someone being nervous, rude or resistant to any other law enforcement officer.
Yes, you should let anyone with any kind of authority do anything they want. It's illegal now to be rude, nervous, or resist any demand made upon you by anyone in authority. What happened to the notion of government employees showing respect to the citizens who pay their salaries? I missed that part of the Bill of Rights where it says you deserve what you get for failing to be good obedient little boys and girls whenever a government agent get his panties in a bunch. I thought authority was supposed to operate under a legal standard, not the "panties in a bunch," or "you failed to stroke my ego," standards. So, in your view, if a citizen is having a bad day, in pain, frustrated, or nervous, he gets taught a lesson, but when a government agent has a bad day he gets a free pass to make a citizen's life miserable? That said, I agree that we're now operating under the "failure to stroke the authoritarian's ego got his panties in a bunch standard," and it's not smart to act like you're a taxpaying American citizen, and absurd to expect a government agent to treat you with consideration or respect: keep your eyes downcast, be obedient, answer questions with the serf's proper deference, accept any insults, improper remarks, stupidity, and inconvenience with a smile (however forced), and maybe you'll be allowed to continue on your way without further harassment, humiliation, and cost.
The problem I have with that dynamic is that it sounds more like what I'd expect in North Korea than in the America I was born in, and I'd like to have my country back. Maybe we seem to be at odds because you're attempting to be pragmatic, and deal with the realities we're facing. If so, excuse my agitation, because I'm arguing against the concepts you seem to be endorsing being accepted as a matter of principle.