TSA: Some pigs are more equal

ScottM

ScottM

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
42,529
Location
Variable, but somewhere on earth
Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
And this is why the pat downs are here to stay. The elites will exempt themselves.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/19/no-security-pat-downs-for-boehner/

Representative John A. Boehner, soon to be the Speaker of the House, has pledged to fly commercial airlines back to his home district in Ohio. But that does not mean that he will be subjected to the hassles of ordinary passengers, including the controversial security pat-downs. As he left Washington on Friday, Mr. Boehner headed across the Potomac River to Reagan National Airport, which was bustling with afternoon travelers. But there was no waiting in line for Mr. Boehner, who was escorted around the metal detectors and body scanners, and taken directly to the gate.
Click to expand...


The law does not apply to the special classes
Michael Steel, a spokesman for the Republican leader, said in a statement that Mr. Boehner was not receiving special treatment. And a law enforcement official said that any member of Congress or administration official with a security detail is allowed to bypass security.
Click to expand...
SIGH!
 
"Michael Steel, a spokesman for the Republican leader, said in a statement that Mr. Boehner was not receiving special treatment. And a law enforcement official said that any member of Congress or administration official with a security detail is allowed to bypass security."

On the contrary...how do we know that one/more of the security detail has been replaced by nefarious elements or is under duress to participate in a violent act?

Citation of the rule/law/statue that allows this, please.
 
murphey said:
Citation of the rule/law/statue that allows this, please.
Click to expand...


Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, U.S. Constitution:

Senators and Representatives... shall in all cases except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Sessions of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same;
Click to expand...
 
so being scanned and groped is equivalent to arrest?
 
tonycondon said:
so being scanned and groped is equivalent to arrest?
Click to expand...

Yes. That is why they have to resort to the "flying is a privilege" rationalization. They know that rights are being violated so they have to declare that rights do not exist.

That argument also declares that they believe they have the power and authority to grant and deny peoples basic rights at will. That should be the scary part of this whole thing.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Yes. That is why they have to resort to the "flying is a privilege" rationalization. They know that rights are being violated so they have to declare that rights do not exist.

That argument also declares that they believe they have the power and authority to grant and deny peoples basic rights at will. That should be the scary part of this whole thing.
Click to expand...
I think Tony was pointing out that it doesn't make any sense to apply that clause of the constitution (which talked about arrest) to representatives being able to skip airport security.

It can't be arrest (since the TSOs can't arrest anyone) - I guess the founding fathers didn't think they'd also have to mention sexual molestation in addition to arrest. I guess they didn't think far enough ahead :p
 
And bypassing security is a felony, so the congressional immunity in the constitution doesn't apply. But I bet you in the law that set up TSA or a follow on there is a Congressional exemption, or in the TSA regs. It's normal for armed Law Enforcement, Intelligence, DipSec, and others to bypass security, along with their protectees.
 
I'm just surprised that Scott singled out only Republicans as an example. What a shocker.
 
wsuffa said:
What Greg said.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I guess. I was just commenting that this is a worthy topic for discussion, and I think it's nonsense that Congresspeople subject us to intrusive and possibly illegal searches without undergoing the searches themselves... and the whole discussion is presented as a partisan smear.
My bad.
 
It was appropriate to go there because the person who previously had the same position chose to travel in a government jet at great expense to the taxpayers. The new guy says he'll ride the airlines and now somebody is giving him shlt because he doesn't go through security? Did his predecessor go through security to fly on the jet that she used? GMAFB.

Greg Bockelman said:
You really didn't need to go there.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
It was appropriate to go there because the person who previously had the same position chose to travel in a government jet at great expense to the taxpayers. The new guy says he'll ride the airlines and now somebody is giving him shlt because he doesn't go through security? Did his predecessor go through security to fly on the jet that she used? GMAFB.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the point.
 
Telemakhos said:
I'm just surprised that Scott singled out only Republicans as an example. What a shocker.
Click to expand...
Yes by highlighting "ANY MEMBER OF CONGRESS" after I had mentioned 'the elites' in the first line, I singled out Republicans GEESH! Having some reading comprehension problems are we? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Greg Bockelman said:
That wasn't the point.
Click to expand...

It is now. When the new guy said he would use the airline, I didn't hear anybody applauding him for practical travel or the economies that would be created. I didn't mention it at the time, although I think it's relelvant. I hope he cuts out the junkets too, although that probably won't happen.

It will be even more interesting to see if he is truly "required" to fly on a government jet, and if so by whom and for what reason. Would the security guys be forced to acknowledge that the "protection" now provided by TSA is nothing more than the "security theater" boondoggle we know it to be? I assume we'll never know the answer, as they will cover it up behind their "in the interests of national security" drivel.
 
The Speaker of the House is different from other members of Congress because he/she is right after the Vice President in succession to the president. You wouldn't want the president or vice president milling around in a crowded terminal where an assassin can just show up, and the speaker is in the same boat.

The other members of Congress aren't that vital. They should represent us, and that means they should fly commercial and go through TSA's groping hands just like the rest of us.
 
Since when does missing a point change anything on a pilot forum? Without that essential element, most threads would consist of three posts--at most.

Greg Bockelman said:
Wayne, you totally missed MY point. And I am going to let it go.
Click to expand...
 
It should be pointed out that Boehner is not the Speaker of the House...just yet...he will be...but not just yet...

As far as D's and R's go, I will wager that he will not be the only Congresscritter "opting out" of these security theater measure.
 
Kelvin said:
It should be pointed out that Boehner is not the Speaker of the House...just yet...he will be...but not just yet...

As far as D's and R's go, I will wager that he will not be the only Congresscritter "opting out" of these security theater measure.
Click to expand...

And that is wrong, I don't care who you are.
 
And this thread is really close to either being moved to Spin Zone or shut altogether.
 
wabower said:
Since when does missing a point change anything on a pilot forum? Without that essential element, most threads would consist of three posts--at most.
Click to expand...

You know, I can't even say you took my point out of context. As far as I can tell, you totally hijacked it. As far as the rest of your post, Yeah, I suppose.
 
tonycondon said:
so being scanned and groped is equivalent to arrest?
Click to expand...

You could make an argument for it.

The benchmark standard for an "arrest" - and this has developed under 4-6th Amendment law so it is questionable whether it would apply here - is "does a reasonable person feel like he/she is free to leave, and is there the degree of control associated with formal arrest?"

So, ask yourself: when you've gone into security, do you feel like you're free to leave, and how much control does the gov't have? I'd say the answers to those two questions are obvious.

The distinction between the good congressman and the rest of us is that, for us, it's well-established that our rights can be waived, even if it's a condition of doing something that we want to do. If that weren't the case, TSA agents would be required to give us all Miranda rights (silent, right to an atty, anything you say, etc.), and also be required to honor them.

Not sayin' I like it, but just sayin'....
 
Come on, you really want to give an "enhanced pat-down" to a dude named "Boehner"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top