Former TSA Admin Admits They're Violating The 4th Amendment

[Joe Williams]

snip
Do you believe that deficiency cured if they clearly detail the procedures that will be performed and the penalty for failing to complete those procedures prior to entering the check-in area?

No... the cure is for the government to not detain or fine you for refusing their service.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

No... the cure is for the government to not detain or fine you for refusing their service.

There we will disagree. I think that if they clearly and consisely say something to the effect:

You are entering a secure are where you are subject to molestation and / or nude pictures being taken of you. You have the right to turn around now. If you pass this point and choose to leave the secure without completing the check-in procedure are you will be subject to civil fines up to $11,000.

If you choose to pass through that point, you have entered a contract.

I see the issue that they don't want potential terrorists testing the security procedures water and leaving. I get it. On the surface I think it's a false dilemma. I don't know that I agree it's a real issue because all you have to do is go through it without any contraband and you can see what happens.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I used to support without exception the carry of any firearm with any ammo on any plane. I still support carry. I now recognize, after discussion with a member here, (and my apologies, I forget who it was), in which your arguments about fuel cells and hydraulic lines were expounded upon. It was my thought that enough redundancies existed to negate the concern at least in re: control cables and hydraulics. I've been shown where that was wrong. I would still support carry with a restriction by the airline (as in, not enforceable as a violation of law if you didn't) to "only frangible ammo allowed."

Further, I was thinking that in most cases, the 85 year old grandmother and the 14 year old cheerleader to whom you refer would most likely have been sitting down, strapped into their seats, while the hijackers would likely have been standing. I don't know how accurate that thinking is.

I'm quite certain the situation could run a wide gambit of scenerios. None of them are helpful to grandma or the cheerleader.

Undiscussed here, though, is the fact that the grandmother, the cheerleader, the hijackers, and everyone else, rich man, poor man, begger man, thief, are all going to die if the hijacker is not stopped. At risk of quoting Star Trek, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, which totally, completely sucks if you're either the one or related to him or her. I like to think that maybe the airplane scenario is different because there's no question that the criminal is going to kill.

The fact that Joe the Electrician has a gun and can shoot a terrorist or two does not necessarily equate to successfully stopping the terrorist from accomplishing their mission. The terrorist doesn't really care if the plane falls from the sky because he detonates a bomb. He is just as happy if a passenger shoots the plane from the sky.

This I'm sure we could be certain of. The terrorist(s) would be far better prepared than anyone else on the plane. You can't put 19 people on 4 planes and execute 87.5% of your plan (causing 4 planes to crash, 3 of them into primary or secondary targets) without an incredible degree of discipline and precision.

Is anyone less dead or is their death more righteous? No, but I think it would have a deterrent effect to dump a few dead terrorists on the tarmac in some unused corner of an airport or two and leave them there to have their rotting corpses picked clean by the crows.

And with all due respect, this is where we in the west don't get it. They don't place the same value on life we do. They know they are going to die. They don't care, and they only see other's failure as a resolve to succeed.

Might even make a poster of it:

I'd let 'em use this one I just did up.

I only see Abu Grahib pictures. I'm sure that won't **** them off more.

Yeah, I think I like this idea.

Blessings,
Bill

The sentiment is great, but is feel good for us. It won't impact them the way we want it to. Remember, these are a people pissed off because one guy got another guy's goat 4,000 years ago. How can you reason with people like that? You can't. All you can do is remove them like the virus they are.

 

[rambone]

Did we read the same article, Rambone? What I take away from that is that legislators will be very hesitant to implement more, more, more of the backscatter etc., and that even Napolitano wants to get out of "having to" have the ever-increasing security apparatus.

I can only guess that you read those and dismissed them as untrue.

The method of search is inconsequential when probable cause or a warrant has not been established. The technology used in the search apparatus doesn't really change the fact that the government is invading people's privacy as a matter of policy. A hand pat is just as unacceptable as a radiological backscatter image being taken.

What legislators will do in the future, God only knows. But they have expressed the desire to expand their searches to new arenas.

FWIW, I do know there have been screenings on our highways for cars carrying radioactive material for at least a couple of years... heard about this while working a job which required me to do so. The report was that a man was pulled over and checked because his car was emitting ionizing radiation: Seems he'd just picked up his cat from the vet, where it had had radiation therapy. Apparently, the sensing devices don't read for type, nor was the scan a search of any vehicle, but with the little knowledge I have of radiation, I would ask you:

If the signature they found is similar to what they would find in, say, a "dirty bomb" (that is, a conventional explosive that scatters radioactive material over a large area), at what point do you say that something is significant enough a reason to start searching?

Hmm. Dicey situation. I can say I am against mobile x-rays as a matter of principle. But mobile radiation detectors... I am no radiation expert either. If these radiation detectors themselves do NOT emit anything harmful, and did NOT facilitate searchers to peer inside vehicles, they might be permissible, but NOT administered by the Federal Government. If detectable radiation counts as established probable cause, that invades the privacy of cancer patients. I would have inclination of wanting them to obtain a warrant. IMHO.

It would be good to know more about the methods and if it were possible to gauge the levels of radiation being detected; bomb versus cancer patient.

To answer your question, I think I would be OK with searches on any public or for-hire transportation that the owner of that transport requests it to be on. I have the choice of not using it. I think I would also be OK with searches on public roads if they are for cause and not just "random" or checkpoint/"every third car"/etc. (that is, search any car that's emitting a radioactive signature, but not a predetermined number or type of car just because it's the third or because it's a blue car.

Would you disagree?

Private security inside private property, yes.

Government security inside private property, never.

Government security in the public; very questionable. I am convinced government checkpoints are patently unconstitutional. I don't believe the government should be in the checkpoint business at all. Checkpoints looking for weapons are doubly-unconstitutional, because they don't have the authority to disarm us either. As per the "detectable radiation" situation, I think it should operated under very rigid guidelines established by local government... if it is pursued at all.

I keep seeing people say the government is violating rights with these searches. What I don't see anyone say is how.

Perhaps in your purview, since radiation did not exist during the time that the constitution was written, the government can do anything they want with it. I read the 4th amendment telling me I am secure in my person, and I believe that means from radioactive particles, or from the cupped hands of a government agent around my scrotum. The government shouldn't be in the checkpoint business, period.

You have the right to refuse screening. If you exercise that right you may not fly.

You have the right not to fly.

You can avoid the screenings by not flying. It's as simple as that.

You have an absolute right to not be molested. You have an absolute right to not have nude pictures taken of you. You surrender that right if you choose to fly. That's reality.

They could set up a checkpoint at the end of your driveway and then you could have the right to not be searched by staying on your property. Does it really work that way?? Or does the 4th Amendment apply restrictions on the government, anywhere, anytime, any place?

I don't accept the avoidance theory as a convincing argument that our rights are not being violated.

 

[right winger]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Ben Franklin

 

[mrjarrell]

Judge Andrew Napolitano seems to think these TSA goons and their bosses are violating the 4th Amendment. Ah, what the devil does he know? He's only a judge. And a Constitutional scholar.

YouTube - Airport Security and The Constitution

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

The method of search is inconsequential when probable cause or a warrant has not been established. The technology used in the search apparatus doesn't really change the fact that the government is invading people's privacy as a matter of policy. A hand pat is just as unacceptable as a radiological backscatter image being taken.
What legislators will do in the future, God only knows. But they have expressed the desire to expand their searches to new arenas.

You didn't really answer Bill's question. No, you actually weren't in the same ballpark. Or the same sport. I would avoid the question too.

Hmm. Dicey situation. I can say I am against mobile x-rays as a matter of principle. But mobile radiation detectors... I am no radiation expert either. If these radiation detectors themselves do NOT emit anything harmful, and did NOT facilitate searchers to peer inside vehicles, they might be permissible, but NOT administered by the Federal Government. If detectable radiation counts as established probable cause, that invades the privacy of cancer patients. I would have inclination of wanting them to obtain a warrant. IMHO.

It would be good to know more about the methods and if it were possible to gauge the levels of radiation being detected; bomb versus cancer patient.

I understand your opinion. As a matter of law how are you against mobile x-ray scanners? What provision of law precludes federal use? So peeking is OK as long as there's no proof of harm and it's not inside a vehicle? And how is the privacy of cancer patients violated? I don't begin to understand that statement.

I don't necessarily disagree. I am just trying to understand where you are coming from.

Private security inside private property, yes.

Government security inside private property, never.

Government security in the public; very questionable. I am convinced government checkpoints are patently unconstitutional. I don't believe the government should be in the checkpoint business at all. Checkpoints looking for weapons are doubly-unconstitutional, because they don't have the authority to disarm us either. As per the "detectable radiation" situation, I think it should operated under very rigid guidelines established by local government... if it is pursued at all.

Cite for government checkpoints patently unconstitutional? Doubly-unconstitutional? I didn't know there was such a thing. Local government setting rigid guidelines... you've heard of the supremacy clause, right?

Perhaps in your purview, since radiation did not exist during the time that the constitution was written, the government can do anything they want with it. I read the 4th amendment telling me I am secure in my person, and I believe that means from radioactive particles, or from the cupped hands of a government agent around my scrotum. The government shouldn't be in the checkpoint business, period.

Strawman.

You misunderstand the 4th Amendment. It says you are secure in your person and papers from unreasonable search without a warrant. There are exceptions for exigent circumstances. Google the reasonable man standard. Read it twice to see what it means. You may want to Google exigent circumstances also.

They could set up a checkpoint at the end of your driveway and then you could have the right to not be searched by staying on your property. Does it really work that way?? Or does the 4th Amendment apply restrictions on the government, anywhere, anytime, any place?

The 4th Amendment applies everywhere. So do the exemptions thereto.

I don't accept the avoidance theory as a convincing argument that our rights are not being violated.

I believe everyone agrees that not getting on a plane is a natural right. You haven't remotely proven that getting on an airplane is any type of right. All evidence points to the contrary. If you have no right how can it be violated?

Just curious. What do you do for a living? You don't have to tell me. It would just help understand where you're coming from.

 

[Stschil]

They could set up a checkpoint at the end of your driveway and then you could have the right to not be searched by staying on your property. Does it really work that way?? Or does the 4th Amendment apply restrictions on the government, anywhere, anytime, any place?

I think I understand where this comes from and please, correct me if I am wrong. What I read is; Uncle Sammy now tells you that you MUST submit to a search of your person and belongings prior to your exiting your driveway every morning. The reason for which is inconsequencial, but travel by car/truck has now been deemed a 'threat to national security'. This isn't done universally with everyone, just a select few (hmmmm,,,,,not all airports have backscanners). You are also told that you will be subject to civil penalties, fines, etc should you refuse to submit. Are your rights being violated now?

I don't accept the avoidance theory as a convincing argument that our rights are not being violated.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Ben Franklin

^^^^^^ This



To Semper fi:

You are a obviously a well read, and intelligent man. I mean absolutely no disrespect in saying this.
I am assuming by your screen name that you are a Marine (past or present) I too served for a good part of my adult life, though in US Army as a Military Policeman. Nearly 10 years of which was spent in criminal investigations. I lived, ate, slept, and dreamt 4th Amendment for a very long time. Exigent circumstances do not apply in this case and never will. These are established check points. Nothing that is done by the TSA is done due to an emergency or because there is a very good chance that evidence will be destroyed. These backscanners and pat downs are being used at a first line search, NOT, after something amounting to even reasonable suspicion has been discovered. This is why I believe this is a violation. This is a Federal condition being placed on a Private transaction under the guise of the safety of the public.

Now my rant:
As a Nation of Sheeple, we have continually let the government take over our lives, our jobs, our finances, etc. With every new instance, we allow more and more control over them. I cannot say exactly when this began, but I can say that since the Great Depression and the FDR administration our Liberties have been eroded at an ever increasing pace, All in the name of the "greater good" or the "safety of the public" This is the sugar that lessons the bitterness of the medicine. It happens all the time. You'll find some altruistic mantra behind each and every infringement throughout our history. It is time that WE as American Citizens and Guardians of the Liberties our Nation was built upon do something to take back our Freedoms and Liberities. I am not advocating uprising or armed conflict. Nor did our Founders, yet they were prepared if that should be the only option. The situation with these illegal searches in the airports is just one instance where I believe we must Stand Firm and not allow our rights to be subjected to such abuse.

Ok,,,I'm taking my medication now....

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

^^^^^^ This



To Semper fi:

You are a obviously a well read, and intelligent man. I mean absolutely no disrespect in saying this.
I am assuming by your screen name that you are a Marine (past or present) I too served for a good part of my adult life, though in US Army as a Military Policeman. Nearly 10 years of which was spent in criminal investigations. I lived, ate, slept, and dreamt 4th Amendment for a very long time. Exigent circumstances do not apply in this case and never will. These are established check points. Nothing that is done by the TSA is done due to an emergency or because there is a very good chance that evidence will be destroyed. These backscanners and pat downs are being used at a first line search, NOT, after something amounting to even reasonable suspicion has been discovered. This is why I believe this is a violation. This is a Federal condition being placed on a Private transaction under the guise of the safety of the public.

Now my rant:
As a Nation of Sheeple, we have continually let the government take over our lives, our jobs, our finances, etc. With every new instance, we allow more and more control over them. I cannot say exactly when this began, but I can say that since the Great Depression and the FDR administration our Liberties have been eroded at an ever increasing pace, All in the name of the "greater good" or the "safety of the public" This is the sugar that lessons the bitterness of the medicine. It happens all the time. You'll find some altruistic mantra behind each and every infringement throughout our history. It is time that WE as American Citizens and Guardians of the Liberties our Nation was built upon do something to take back our Freedoms and Liberities. I am not advocating uprising or armed conflict. Nor did our Founders, yet they were prepared if that should be the only option. The situation with these illegal searches in the airports is just one instance where I believe we must Stand Firm and not allow our rights to be subjected to such abuse.

Ok,,,I'm taking my medication now....

No disrespect taken. I wasn't clear. There are absolutists here that believe the Constitution reads like a book. It does not. Anyone with the slightest inkling knows this. My point that there are exceptions to the 4th Amendment, not whether exigent circumstances exist in this instance.

I'm not a 4th Amendment expert, but I'm not sure the 4th Amendment applies because you have the right to not be scanned or molested.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The method of search is inconsequential when probable cause or a warrant has not been established. The technology used in the search apparatus doesn't really change the fact that the government is invading people's privacy as a matter of policy. A hand pat is just as unacceptable as a radiological backscatter image being taken.

What legislators will do in the future, God only knows. But they have expressed the desire to expand their searches to new arenas.

Legislators have? I thought Secretary Napolitano was the one who addressed the subject but at the same time, expressed that she didn't want to keep escalating the security presence.

Hmm. Dicey situation. I can say I am against mobile x-rays as a matter of principle. But mobile radiation detectors... I am no radiation expert either. If these radiation detectors themselves do NOT emit anything harmful, and did NOT facilitate searchers to peer inside vehicles, they might be permissible, but NOT administered by the Federal Government. If detectable radiation counts as established probable cause, that invades the privacy of cancer patients. I would have inclination of wanting them to obtain a warrant. IMHO.

It would be good to know more about the methods and if it were possible to gauge the levels of radiation being detected; bomb versus cancer patient.

I think the "emit(ting of) anything harmful" is of minimal consequence. You're probably exposed to radiation far more often than you realize, and not for any specific, nefarious purpose, just that it's out there and you never know when. The job I had when I heard about the above case was doing nuclear cardiac stress tests. My patients were injected with a radioactive isotope and continued emitting radiation for anything between a couple of days and a month, depending on the isotope. Is it harmful to you or anyone around you? Only in high doses over extended periods of time. (as an example, I would see up to 12 patients a day, four days a week, for maybe a half hour each at close enough range to assess blood pressures. In no month did my radiation levels reach even half of the lowest level of concern to regulatory agencies. I cannot imagine that backscatter emits more radiation than any one of my patients. Thus, the physical harm is at most, negligible. That doesn't, however, address the fact that it's wrong to be taking nude or nearly-nude pictures or the fact that a search of our persons is improper.

Question: Why would you say that the search on the federal highways being performed by the federal government's employees would be improper? Who has jurisdiction to do so if they do not?

Private security inside private property, yes.

Government security inside private property, never.

Government security in the public; very questionable. I am convinced government checkpoints are patently unconstitutional. I don't believe the government should be in the checkpoint business at all. Checkpoints looking for weapons are doubly-unconstitutional, because they don't have the authority to disarm us either. As per the "detectable radiation" situation, I think it should operated under very rigid guidelines established by local government... if it is pursued at all.

And is the airport government property or private? The security is in the airport despite the fact that it controls access to private property (with that property's owner's consent)
I don't disagree that checkpoints are not where government should be.

Perhaps in your purview, since radiation did not exist during the time that the constitution was written, the government can do anything they want with it. I read the 4th amendment telling me I am secure in my person, and I believe that means from radioactive particles, or from the cupped hands of a government agent around my scrotum. The government shouldn't be in the checkpoint business, period.




They could set up a checkpoint at the end of your driveway and then you could have the right to not be searched by staying on your property. Does it really work that way?? Or does the 4th Amendment apply restrictions on the government, anywhere, anytime, any place?

I don't accept the avoidance theory as a convincing argument that our rights are not being violated.

I still would like to know at what point you would think a search of someone (or his car) would be warranted? If you answered, I missed it. When is there enough suspicion (note that I did not say proof) to justify doing so? Do we have to wait for a bomb to detonate? I wish there was some way to know who to search and when, but until the crystal ball is perfected or we get all the pre-cogs to agree so there's no minority report, I don't see an option that doesn't either allow that proverbial bomb to go off or subject people to searches. Profiling might help, but what of the so-called "homegrown" terrorist who looks just like us? There will always be risk, but what level of it is acceptable?

Judge Andrew Napolitano seems to think these TSA goons and their bosses are violating the 4th Amendment. Ah, what the devil does he know? He's only a judge. And a Constitutional scholar.

YouTube - Airport Security and The Constitution

I don't disagree that Judge Napolitano is a learned man and an authority on this subject. I'd like to hear a little more context of that clip... it sounded very specifically edited to me. (I'm not saying you did so, only that it sounds like someone wanted to make a specific point and perhaps something outside those 53 seconds would have contradicted or lessened that point.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

...I'm not a 4th Amendment expert, but I'm not sure the 4th Amendment applies because you have the right to not be scanned or molested.

This is the point we've been stressing repeatedly. You DO have that right, just as you have the right to remain silent when questioned, both of which you can choose not to exercise. The present level of enforcement of punishing the exercise of that right after entering the area of the search is unquestionably a violation and a governmental overreach. If anything here violates the 4A, it would be that, with the only possible argument I can see against it being that you are not forced to purchase the ticket in the first place.

I'd still like to see someone challenge the required passing of a search point by someone who was compelled to be in a courtroom as a witness.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

And with all due respect, this is where we in the west don't get it. They don't place the same value on life we do. They know they are going to die. They don't care, and they only see other's failure as a resolve to succeed.

My point here was that the bodies were left out to be carrion, not just the fact that the terrorists died, but that they both failed and were not buried. I thought I read somewhere that that was an issue for them. If it's not, I'm sure we could add some pig entrails to the bodies.

Bill of Rights]Might even make a poster of it:

I'd let 'em use this one I just did up.[/quote]

I only see Abu Grahib pictures. I'm sure that won't **** them off more.

Ah. I just searched google images for "dead terrorists".