TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5FHhz65 ... r_embedded" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
He's right all the way. (Especially about keeping guns aboard planes...and to think idiot Norman Lear made fun of this idea 40 years ago with Archie Bunker HAHAHA. Bunker was right then and he's right now). I never go to airports. Not because I'm afraid of Arab terrorists...but because I'm afraid of being arrested, raped, violated by the government.

Doug.38PR wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5FHhz65 ... r_embedded
He's right all the way. (Especially about keeping guns aboard planes...and to think idiot Norman Lear made fun of this idea 40 years ago with Archie Bunker HAHAHA. Bunker was right then and he's right now). I never go to airports. Not because I'm afraid of Arab terrorists...but because I'm afraid of being arrested, raped, violated by the government.

Richard Reid agrees with you, Doug. Hopefully he, too, will never go to another airport.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2712445.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Elmo

b322da wrote:

Doug.38PR wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5FHhz65 ... r_embedded
He's right all the way. (Especially about keeping guns aboard planes...and to think idiot Norman Lear made fun of this idea 40 years ago with Archie Bunker HAHAHA. Bunker was right then and he's right now). I never go to airports. Not because I'm afraid of Arab terrorists...but because I'm afraid of being arrested, raped, violated by the government.

Richard Reid agrees with you, Doug. Hopefully he, too, will never go to another airport.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2712445.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Elmo

Wow, snarky, but doesn't really explain your position. Where do YOU draw the Constitutional line at airports?

VMI77 wrote:

b322da wrote:

Doug.38PR wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5FHhz65 ... r_embedded
He's right all the way. (Especially about keeping guns aboard planes...and to think idiot Norman Lear made fun of this idea 40 years ago with Archie Bunker HAHAHA. Bunker was right then and he's right now). I never go to airports. Not because I'm afraid of Arab terrorists...but because I'm afraid of being arrested, raped, violated by the government.

Richard Reid agrees with you, Doug. Hopefully he, too, will never go to another airport.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2712445.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Elmo

Wow, snarky, but doesn't really explain your position. Where do YOU draw the Constitutional line at airports?

No intention here to be "snarky," VMI77, particularly since this is the first time I ever saw the word, athough when I "Binged" it I guess I can still say I'm not sure what it means. I did, however, see the word "humorous" appear in some of the sometimes conflicting definitions.

My intention was instead to demonstrate the other extreme of two extremes, and in so doing demonstrate the quite valid question you picked up on. It is gratifying to see my point was understood. That is not always the case here.

I will say, however, I have thought quite seriously about your question, and at the end I have some difficulty coming up with a serious constitutional issue other than again coping with that extremely troublesome word "unreasonable" in the 4th Amendment?

While I find it impossible to draw a clear line, here is another take on the question.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/busin ... +xR2B6cjKA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anyway, good comeback!

Elmo

I believe the searches without judge issued warrants are unconstitutional, no?
Local Police, even FBI can not search yourself, your car, or you home without out valid judge issued search warrant, or reasonable suspicious of crime is being committed.

How come TSA got a bypass for the constitutional rights?
I am just asking to learn how this is possible.

Andrew Napolitano makes many good points in that video.

TSA, screening culture, etc, jumped its chain a long time ago, and is long overdue for some grown-up supervision and a reality check.

I will vote with my wallet and choose not to travel by airline where I have to be subjected to this escalating nonsense.

Just a reminder: Richard Reid was caught by alert and switched-on cabin staff and fellow passengers, which are completely compatible with Constitutional muster and common sense; high-powered scanners and intimate pat-downs fail the former, and inane questioning fails the latter.

Here is a video and article from CBS news in Indiana showing some of the techniques for the pat down and some statements on how the new procedures will be implemented. The TSA states that they don't want to give out much information so that the searches can be kept unpredictable, so that they are more effective. However, even passing through the full body scanners might not make you immune from a pat down.
http://www.wthitv.com/dpps/news/nationa ... gr_3634607


This news video from an ABC station interviews some people who have experienced the new searches and has a risk analysis expert demonstrate the techniques on a mannequin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td37495s ... re=related

In this video, both reporter (in the first minute) and passengers (especially at 1:30) bring up germane points regarding the timing of this new strategy and how the pat downs are triggered by metal detector results.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2GIDXxSDO4

This is especially important for those with false joints since they will always set off a metal detector or cause suspicion in the full body scanners.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-jdDE6bFow

Children are not exempt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrdRtIizKqc

If the people in power were good enough to rightfully be entrusted with power, there would be no reason for power to be wielded.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5gtmRsyofk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZwXEO4z ... re=related

Beiruty wrote:I believe the searches without judge issued warrants are unconstitutional, no?
Local Police, even FBI can not search yourself, your car, or you home without out valid judge issued search warrant, or reasonable suspicious of crime is being committed.

How come TSA got a bypass for the constitutional rights?
I am just asking to learn how this is possible.

The first thing we must do, Beiruty, if we suspect a constitutional issue, is of course to read the provision we are considering. For example, the 4th Amendment does not require a warrant before a search. It first says that any search must be reasonable, and then goes on to say that no warrant shall be issued without certain prerequisites, such as probable cause, but again these are two independent provisions and are not related specifically by the 4th Amendment. This can be seen from two directions: first, even though a warrant is issued courts have found a search to have been "unreasonable," and second, a search wthout a warrant is very often "reasonable." Some might call the latter to be "exceptions" to the 4th Amendment, but I have always thought, when having to face this issue, that it is better to say a reasonable search without a warrant lies outside the 4th Amendment.

While I can only guess what the position of the TSA (read that as being the Attorney General, or the U. S. Government) is, and they tend to be discreet about things like this early on in the game for good reason, many suspect that if push comes to shove their airport searches after 9/11, based on somebody's definition of "national security," fall within an often-used exception when (a) a person does not expect privacy under the circumstances, and (b) society does not feel it to be unreasonable. So we see the two parts of the 4th merge together, and the ultimate test remains "reasonableness."

There are many who would say that if SCOTUS says something is constitutional then it is constitutional, while others (myself included when it comes to our current SCOTUS) question such an argument. The latter can easily cite support in the fact that SCOTUS has more than once reversed itself on important constitutional issues when its composition changes. So here we see a classic exercise in dialectic which might result in something constitutional being unconstitutional. Or, put another way, in the final analysis is it just a judge who determines reasonability, or is it society, or, if you will, the American people? I suspect time will tell.

My answer to all this is simply to never fly anywhere again. I'll take the train instead. And when Mussolini... er... I mean Secretary Napolitano starts insisting on body cavity searches for train passengers, I'll drive instead. And when her highness insists on check points and showing of papers on the highways, it will be time to FULLy assert and exercise my 2nd Amendment rights.

She's an officious little bureacrat without a concern for the personal dignity of the law-abiding majority of the traveling public. Fortunately, we'll have an opportunity to fix her wagon in 2012. When she was governor of Arizona, she didn't give a rip about border security. She even protested that the border fences under construction in California at the time were funneling illegal immigrants to the — at the time — unprotected Arizona border. Now that she is in charge of homeland security, she has no problem treating the traveling public like serfs in the name of security, but she's doing nothing to protect Texan ranchers along the border.... ....the twit. And her answer to Arizonans is to avoid going within 60 miles of the border — effectively ceding a large chunk of their state to Mexican narco terrorists. She's incompetent. She's a toad. I can't stand her.

Don't hold back, TAM, tell us how you really feel!

And I agree on flying... I've flown twice since 9/11, both unavoidable trips for work, and intend to avoid airports as much as possible.

9/11 was a real kick-to-the-head for the airline industry. Many people now won't fly because they're scared. Others won't fly because they won't tolerate the intrusive "security" measures implemented to fool... oops, I mean woo back... the first group.

http://wewontfly.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm glad Richard Reid went to jail (he's crazy and a would-be murderer)....but I couldn't help but laugh at the Federal Judge's nationalistic posturing with that silly and irrelevant "you hate our freedom/All hail the American flag" speech. There must have been cameras in the courtroom. (I can almost hear Battle Hymn of the Republic being quietly hummed in the background as he said it. LOL!!!!)

Doug.38PR wrote:I'm glad Richard Reid went to jail (he's crazy and a would-be murderer)....but I couldn't help but laugh at the Federal Judge's nationalistic posturing with that silly and irrelevant "you hate our freedom/All hail the American flag" speech. There must have been cameras in the courtroom. (I can almost hear Battle Hymn of the Republic being quietly hummed in the background as he said it. LOL!!!!)

I am really interested in knowing what is silly and irrelevant about saying to this excuse for a man, "you hate our freedom," and "all hail the American flag?" And on Veterans' Day, too. I have loved that freedom, and I have served and "hailed" that flag, for all my life, both in and out of uniform, and frankly, I feel insulted. Not at all unusual when so many citizens think that a bumper sticker is "supporting our troops."

Elmo

Doug.38PR wrote:I'm glad Richard Reid went to jail (he's crazy and a would-be murderer)....but I couldn't help but laugh at the Federal Judge's nationalistic posturing with that silly and irrelevant "you hate our freedom/All hail the American flag" speech. There must have been cameras in the courtroom. (I can almost hear Battle Hymn of the Republic being quietly hummed in the background as he said it. LOL!!!!)

I would rather hear that than some Jeanine Garofalo wanna-be Judge spouting off their garbage.