The TSA has an Honor Guard...

Next up, for your taxpaying enjoyment: The Synchronized Glove-Snapping and Tub Stacking Team
 
Anthony said:
Let's be clear. I am against the TSA, and their "security" procedures. I have written all my elected officials about it as I think it will bleed over into GA.

However, as long as we VONLUNTARILY submit to these procedures, it is not a Constitutional issue. Maybe an attorney could comment, but we'll proably get "It Depends" or several different opinions.

Don't like it? Don't fly the airlines until they change the procedures, and lobby your elected officials to change the process. Whining about it just seems like a waste of time. Maybe you should join the "occupiers" who are whining about their awful lives. Instead of whining do something like I did.
Click to expand...

I don't know anyone that VONLUNTARILY submits to these procedures, they're forced to submit to them in order to board the airliner. Your assertion that it is not a Constitutional issue is absurd.
 
Last edited:
roncachamp said:
"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."

Yes, it is.
Click to expand...

THIS.

<---<^>--->
 
roncachamp said:
I don't know anyone that VONLUNTARILY submits to these procedures, they're forced to submit to them in order to board the airliner. Your assertion that it is not a Constitutional issue is absurd.
Click to expand...



Curious that no attorney here will comment on the "absurdity" of my position. Do you, or don't you have a choice to board an airliner? Do you have a choice whether to buy the ticket and AGREE to their terms of service?

Maybe your position is absurd? Think with your brain within the context of the law, not what is right or wrong. Leave your emotions at the door please.
 
Anthony said:
Curious that no attorney here will comment on the "absurdity" of my position. Do you, or don't you have a choice to board an airliner? Do you have a choice whether to buy the ticket and AGREE to their terms of service?

Maybe your position is absurd? Think with your brain within the context of the law, not what is right or wrong. Leave your emotions at the door please.
Click to expand...

I'm not an attorney. I would agree with your position if it were the case that a particular airline had instituted this procedure as a risk mitigation strategy. Then other airlines would be able to choose whether or not to do the same and we could choose whether or not to patronize a particular airline based on their business decisions.

This is a situation where the government has inserted itself and this procedure between the airline industry and the public, and bars us from making a private transaction without submitting to what I believe to be "unreasonable" search and seizure. Therefore, I agree with those who believe this is a violation of the constitution.

I'm not whining ... I don't hear anyone on this thread "whining." And I do intend to make voting decisions (where possible) considering this issue.
 
I see both sides of the argument, and agree that it is unreasonable search and seizure, but I do not see it as Constitional as long as we voluntarily choose to travel by airlines, and have other means of transportation available. However, I also see that some of us have to travel that way for business, or other critical reasons, then the line gets blurry. Maybe the better question is do we have a Constitutional right to travel by the airlines.
 
Anthony said:
I see both sides of the argument, and agree that it is unreasonable search and seizure, but I do not see it as Constitional as long as we voluntarily choose to travel by airlines, and have other means of transportation available. However, I also see that some of us have to travel that way for business, or other critical reasons, then the line gets blurry. Maybe the better question is do we have a Constitutional right to travel by the airlines.
Click to expand...

The best question is, "Does the government have a Constitutional right to interfere with a transaction between legitimate businesses and their customers?"
 
Rndmtrvlr said:
The best question is, "Does the government have a Constitutional right to interfere with a transaction between legitimate businesses and their customers?"
Click to expand...


Maybe, but I'll bet you'll get the "national security" arguments also. I do fear that this is a slippery slope, as it is bleeding into other forms of transportation.

I really would like to get some opinions from attorneys.
 
Anthony said:
Do you, or don't you have a choice to board an airliner? Do you have a choice whether to buy the ticket and AGREE to their terms of service?
Click to expand...

Anthony said:
I do not see it as Constitional as long as we voluntarily choose to travel by airlines, and have other means of transportation available.
Click to expand...

Counterpoints to these arguments have been put forth several times by myself and others and you have declined to address them; instead you just keep repeating the same ones over and over.
 
dmspilot said:
Counterpoints to these arguments have been put forth several times by myself and others and you have declined to address them; instead you just keep repeating the same ones over and over.
Click to expand...

That's called dogma. :)
 
Anthony said:
Curious that no attorney here will comment on the "absurdity" of my position. Do you, or don't you have a choice to board an airliner? Do you have a choice whether to buy the ticket and AGREE to their terms of service?

Maybe your position is absurd? Think with your brain within the context of the law, not what is right or wrong. Leave your emotions at the door please.
Click to expand...

You do have a choice whether to walk down a public city street or not too. When you do, you agree to any city ordinances too. So, suppose a city put up a security station at each entrance to the downtown. So, what is the difference!? Keep accepting this violation of rights and soon it may only apply to being in your own home and feel lucky to have that.
 
Anthony said:
While I absolutely despise the TSA, and just about anything they represent, flying on an airline is VOLUNTARY. It is not illegal search, and seizure. If you don't want to go through the security measures, don't fly the airlines. Walk, drive, take the train, fly GA, ride a bike, etc.
Click to expand...

Am I to understand that if you voluntarily decide to do anything in this country, you have voluntarily given up all your rights under our Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Does this mean that once you voluntarily leave the sanctity of your home, you are fair game to any and all government authorities?

How much longer before our government determines you are living in your home voluntarily, therefore, you have voluntarily relinquished what is left of your so called rights?

How soon will it be before we are required to wear our political orientation on our sleeves?

We have traded our freedom for temporary security, soon we will have neither. Cheer your TSA Color Guard or expect further scrutiny.

Remember, your neighbors are alert, and watching.

John
 
Anthony said:
Curious that no attorney here will comment on the "absurdity" of my position. Do you, or don't you have a choice to board an airliner? Do you have a choice whether to buy the ticket and AGREE to their terms of service?

Maybe your position is absurd? Think with your brain within the context of the law, not what is right or wrong. Leave your emotions at the door please.
Click to expand...

Dude it's Pilots of America.. not Posts of Attorneys.. All thinking is done by the brain. The law is supposed to be based on the constitution. Emotions are a fundemental part human thinking and necessary for our survival. You cannot think "without" emotion. The brain does not work like that. Besides most of the arguments on here have been based on logical standpoints. Your trolling again I think.

<---<^>--->
 
p1l0t said:
Dude it's Pilots of America.. not Posts of Attorneys.. All thinking is done by the brain. The law is supposed to be based on the constitution. Emotions are a fundemental part human thinking and necessary for our survival. You cannot think "without" emotion. The brain does not work like that. Besides most of the arguments on here have been based on logical standpoints. Your trolling again I think.

<---<^>--->
Click to expand...

"Dude", you don't know me like many here, and I am in fact surprised by some of the comments. I am no troll.

I guess people don't really read my posts. I am not for these measures, and have spent valuable time lobbying various politicians, contributing $$$ to AOPA PAC, and other groups to actually get rid of these security measures at airports.

My argument is purely an intellectual argument about the technicality of the whether these measure actually violate our Constitutional rights.

Unlike many others here, I can and have changed position when a cogent argument is made opposing mine. How many of you can say that? I will think about this a bit more, but I may be changing my mind on the TECHNICAL/legal issue here.

We all know that Constitutional violations can stand for years and years. Just look at all the situations where the Second Amendment is still being violated. This may be a case where the Constitution is being violated, but politicians and the courts are just too scared to do anything about it.

Trust me, there is no DOGMA here with regards to how I feel about this issue. The misunderstanding of this medium of communication knows no bounds. I guess some people can't have an intellectual argument without name calling, and personal attacks.
 
Last edited:
Anthony said:
"Dude", you don't know me like many here, and I am in fact surprised by some of the comments. I am no troll.

I guess people don't really read my posts. I am not for these measures, and have spent valuable time lobbying various politicians, contributing $$$ to AOPA PAC, and other groups to actually get rid of these security measures at airports.

My argument is purely an intellectual argument about the technicality of the whether these measure actually violate our Constitutional rights.

Unlike many others here, I can and have changed position when a cogent argument is made opposing mine. How many of you can say that? I will think about this a bit more, but I may be changing my mind on the TECHNICAL/legal issue here.

We all know that Constitutional violations can stand for years and years. Just look at all the situations where the Second Amendment is still being violated. This may be a case where the Constitution is being violated, but politicians and the courts are just too scared to do anything about it.

Trust me, there is no DOGMA here with regards to how I feel about this issue. The misunderstanding of this medium of communication knows no bounds.
Click to expand...

Anthony - you're 100% correct. This issue (TSA screening prior to boarding commercial flights) has been challenged and the courts have failed to overturn the federal government's approach.

My opinion is this: No hijacking has been or will be successful with Americans on board. Remove all security and allow the citizens to police themselves the way they do quite successfully on the ground.
 
dmccormack said:
Anthony - you're 100% correct. This issue (TSA screening prior to boarding commercial flights) has been challenged and the courts have failed to overturn the federal government's approach.

My opinion is this: No hijacking has been or will be successful with Americans on board. Remove all security and allow the citizens to police themselves the way they do quite successfully on the ground.
Click to expand...

Dan, I still don't know why we can't CCW on aircraft. If you pass a background check for a CCW permit, why can't you carry it nationally and on an airliner. At least the good guys would be armed then, and could effectively combat a terrorist instead of having to use plastic knives and forks.
 
Anthony said:
Dan, I still don't know why we can't CCW on aircraft. If you pass a background check for a CCW permit, why can't you carry it nationally and on an airliner. At least the good guys would be armed then, and could effectively combat a terrorist instead of having to use plastic knives and forks.
Click to expand...

Exactly. A strict cost-benefit analysis will show the cost of the entire fed security apparatus = many billions.

Remove that and permit freedom of travel. Passengers can choose which airpline policies they support with dollars. If there is a terrorist on board, the greatest risk is -- what? three CCW permit holders rise up at the same time? Maybe a stray shot? Maybe a dead would-be hijacker?

Fed cost = 0
 
Anthony said:
"Dude", you don't know me like many here, and I am in fact surprised by some of the comments. I am no troll.

I guess people don't really read my posts. I am not for these measures, and have spent valuable time lobbying various politicians, contributing $$$ to AOPA PAC, and other groups to actually get rid of these security measures at airports.

My argument is purely an intellectual argument about the technicality of the whether these measure actually violate our Constitutional rights.

Unlike many others here, I can and have changed position when a cogent argument is made opposing mine. How many of you can say that? I will think about this a bit more, but I may be changing my mind on the TECHNICAL/legal issue here.

We all know that Constitutional violations can stand for years and years. Just look at all the situations where the Second Amendment is still being violated. This may be a case where the Constitution is being violated, but politicians and the courts are just too scared to do anything about it.

Trust me, there is no DOGMA here with regards to how I feel about this issue. The misunderstanding of this medium of communication knows no bounds. I guess some people can't have an intellectual argument without name calling, and personal attacks.
Click to expand...

Well OK maybe its not trolling, but using fallacies to further your point instead of logical arguments and then projecting that on others is not helpful. "Think with your brain" and comments like that are silly. Calling you a troll is a personal attack, OK yeah you got me. But when you say stupid things about how (and again I'm standing up for other people you were not refering to me at the time) you want to hear from attorneys on a pilot forum.. Yes there may be a few but your trying to invalidate the logic based arguments of the other pilots posting this tread by saying they should use there brains to think... (as if its possible they cannot?) should think logically and without emotion (when all thought processes involve emotion even if your doing math its because its probably going to somehow in the long run involve a better chance of you getting on of the four fs) and that you are the only one making inellectual arguments is manipulative, yes, but not actually a good defense of your position. All law is supposed to stem from the consitution and while it is true that our government over steps the bounds it was originally supposed to be constrained to, it does NOT make it right morally, legally, emotionally, logically, or otherwise.

<---<^>--->
 
Regarding the "It's voluntary" argument, I think there's an element of coercion in the fact that other means of transportation are not practical for some purposes, and that for some people, the cost of opting out would be to lose your job, especially when jobs are scarce.

Even if you accept the "It's voluntary" argument, you still have to show that the searches are not unreasonable, because that is an explicit requirement in the Fourth Amendment.
 
dmccormack said:
Anthony - you're 100% correct. This issue (TSA screening prior to boarding commercial flights) has been challenged and the courts have failed to overturn the federal government's approach.

My opinion is this: No hijacking has been or will be successful with Americans on board. Remove all security and allow the citizens to police themselves the way they do quite successfully on the ground.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your argument here. Numerous hijackings have been successful with Americans on board. The events of 9/11 stand as spectacular example of this.

And after twenty years in a law enforcement career I'm not sure I'm ready to rate as "successful" Americans' ability to police themselves regardless of what tool they have in their pockets. Any measure of such would be subjective :nono::wink2:

That aside, one wonders what the airlines would do if all security regulation was removed. Certainly one scenario could be that security could be even more draconian. No pesky Fourth Amendment issues at all.
 
Last edited:
alaskaflyer said:
I don't understand your argument here. Numerous hijackings have been successful with Americans on board. The events of 9/11 stand as spectacular example of this.

And after twenty years in a law enforcement career I'm not sure I'm ready to rate as "successful" Americans' ability to police themselves regardless of what tool they have in their pockets. Any measure of such would be subjective :nono::wink2:

That aside, one wonders what the airlines would do if all security regulation was removed. Certainly one scenario could be that security could be even more draconian. No pesky Fourth Amendment issues at all.
Click to expand...

How many hijackings have been successful since 9/11?

LEO have a narrow professional exposure to the citizenry, thus the sample is skewed.

Think how many peaceful days pass by tens of thousands of Concealed Carry Permit holders in my home state on Pennsylvania (a right to carry and now Castle Doctrine state).

I'm with the Founders -- I trust the citizens more than supposed benign Government oversight.
 
dmccormack said:
How many hijackings have been successful since 9/11?

LEO have a narrow professional exposure to the citizenry, thus the sample is skewed.

Think how many peaceful days pass by tens of thousands of Concealed Carry Permit holders in my home state on Pennsylvania (a right to carry and now Castle Doctrine state).
Click to expand...

Ah, but it is very hard to prove a negative. TSA would be happy to claim credit for the lack of hijackings and probably deserves some.

And again, I've never known a criminal to consider the random chance that someone might be carrying a weapon as a deterrence. Heck they assault each other all the time even when they know their opponent is likely to be carrying.

I'm with the Founders -- I trust the citizens more than supposed benign Government oversight.
Click to expand...
And I remember that we are a nation of laws not of men, with a citizen government.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Ah, but it is very hard to prove a negative. TSA would be happy to claim credit for the lack of hijackings and probably deserves some.
Click to expand...


Even a cursory perusal of hijacking events since 9/11 show that the few attempts have been ended by passengers and crew:

http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?Event=SEH&lang=&page=11

alaskaflyer said:
And again, I've never known a criminal to consider the random chance that someone might be carrying a weapon as a deterrence. Heck they assault each other all the time even when they know their opponent is likely to be carrying.
Click to expand...

Really? Criminals don't evaluate their marks?

:confused:

Sure, there are random, completely unpredictable assaults, but these are very rare.

It's pretty simple: Don't deal drugs, don't walk alone after 11 PM in certain areas, and don't chase down people who cut you off on the freeway if you want to limit your exposure to assault.

alaskaflyer said:
And I remember that we are a nation of laws not of men, with a citizen government.
Click to expand...

Civilization requires the voluntary submission to those laws.
 
I'll put my firearm skills, and many of my friends whom CCW up against ANY LEO's, anytime. I have coached enough LEO's that come to our range, frustrated because they can't qualify with their service pistol. I am not saying this represents all LEO's either, but most carry a gun and only practice when the absolutely have to.
 
True, there has not been a successful hijacking since 9/11 but let's not forget the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber and other such incidents. They were all FAIL but they were already on the plane. The citizens of this country still had their civil rights violated with no tangible gain in security. Its more of a big show to make people FEEL safe. Not to mention if you fly once a month even your odds of even being hijacked are like 850,000 to 1. The increased risk of the radiation (albeit maybe less than flying at high altitude maybe not) is more likely to give you cancer. The odds of you dying in your bathroom are WAY better than both put together and driving the car is 1000x more dangerous than flying period. Many people op to drive instead of fly because of the TSA. So ultimately its big waste of taxpayer and traveler dollars on top of the delays which cost the airlines dearly. And the commuters too.

<---<^>--->
 
Palmpilot said:
Regarding the "It's voluntary" argument, I think there's an element of coercion in the fact that other means of transportation are not practical for some purposes, and that for some people, the cost of opting out would be to lose your job, especially when jobs are scarce.

Even if you accept the "It's voluntary" argument, you still have to show that the searches are not unreasonable, because that is an explicit requirement in the Fourth Amendment.
Click to expand...

All this "it's voluntary" stuff is just chaff. The fact is that these searches are not reasonable - they aren't effective nor are they necessary.
 
Anthony said:
While I absolutely despise the TSA, and just about anything they represent, flying on an airline is VOLUNTARY. It is not illegal search, and seizure. If you don't want to go through the security measures, don't fly the airlines. Walk, drive, take the train, fly GA, ride a bike, etc.
Click to expand...
How do you feel about the fact that if you suddenly decide you don't like their security intrustion and elect to not fly and go home they'll try and intimidate you, threaten you, and then "fine" you for $10,000?
 
dmccormack said:
Which the pax and crew subdued.
Click to expand...

Well, only because they were both too inept to pull it off quickly and the passengers had the time to subdue them. Had either been smarter than a box of rocks, I doubt that the passengers could have done much and the outcome may have been quite different.

Not arguing for TSA with that statement. Just saying...
 
timwinters said:
Well, only because they were both too inept to pull it off quickly and the passengers had the time to subdue them. Had either been smarter than a box of rocks, I doubt that the passengers could have done much and the outcome may have been quite different.

Not arguing for TSA with that statement. Just saying...
Click to expand...

OK, then consider how successful hijackers with box cutters would by today (post 9/11).

Not very -- the rules have changed.
 
I think the security procedures are inconvenient and and sometimes stupid. I have in the past felt my blood pressure rise at the thought of commercial travel security procedures, but I've accepted the reality of NOW.

I also do not trust the guy in the row behind me to do the right thing if a bad-guy were sitting next to him which is one reason I will opt to sit near the Emergency Egress and PAY ATTENTION during the briefing.

Quit sitting down and posting on the internet about the issue. Go out, DO SOMETHING...Hell, "Go Egypt".
 
Rndmtrvlr said:
The best question is, "Does the government have a Constitutional right to interfere with a transaction between legitimate businesses and their customers?"
Click to expand...

Isn't there a thing called "regulation"?
 
jesse said:
How do you feel about the fact that if you suddenly decide you don't like their security intrustion and elect to not fly and go home they'll try and intimidate you, threaten you, and then "fine" you for $10,000?
Click to expand...


Never heard that one before. I've walked out of line a few times because I forgot something or changed my mind and checked a bag. Nobody every said anything to me. I could have easily just left the airport. :confused:

Where are you getting from anything I said in this thread that I am FOR any of these measures? Did you read the part where I have spent time and money lobbying specifically against them? My argument is about Constitutionality.
 
Last edited:
Anthony said:
Never heard that one before. I've walked out of line a few times because I forgot something or changed my mind and checked a bag. Nobody every said anything to me. I could have easily just left the airport. :confused:
Click to expand...

Try leaving after you've been selected for extra screening. The word is at that point the only way out leads to Gitmo.
 
Anthony said:
Never heard that one before. I've walked out of line a few times because I forgot something or changed my mind and checked a bag. Nobody every said anything to me. I could have easily just left the airport. :confused:
Click to expand...

Try leaving after you've been selected for extra screening. The word is at that point the only way out leads to Gitmo.

You might arouse suspicion if some good citizen sees stuff on your person about FLYING AIRPLANES!
 
mikea said:
Try leaving after you've been selected for extra screening. The word is at that point the only way out leads to Gitmo.

You might arouse suspicion if some good citizen sees stuff on your person about FLYING AIRPLANES!
Click to expand...


Any real evidence of the above? I have gone through security with my entire flight bag, containing GPS, Handheld Radio, charts, etc., coming back to Philly on the airlines when I flew the Tiger back to Denver after my move. Did it elsewhere also. Sure, they looked through the bag and asked a bunch of questions.

Again, where are you getting I am OK with any of these measure? I would like to be able to CCW as a licensed person on an airliner.
 
Anthony said:
Never heard that one before. I've walked out of line a few times because I forgot something or changed my mind and checked a bag. Nobody every said anything to me. I could have easily just left the airport. :confused:

Where are you getting from anything I said in this thread that I am FOR any of these measures? Did you read the part where I have spent time and money lobbying specifically against them? My argument is about Constitutionality.
Click to expand...

The courts have ruled that once the screening starts, you must allow them to finish - and the TSA gets to define "finish". You cannot leave once screening starts. The only question is when screening starts. For a long time, it was when you put your bag on the xray belt.

The TSA is trying to change that with the new chat-downs (interrogations) they're using in Boston & starting in Detroit. Meaning screening starts at the ID podium.

via Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top