TSA idiots cause diplomatic incident

[Kamakazie Sith]

That's not real consent - that's consent under the threat of being stripped of one's ability to travel around the world. Similarly, when you consent to being groped because you're being blackmailed, that's not genuine consent.

It isn't? You read the paper when you purchased your tickets. You freely signed it and agreed to the terms required so you can fly on a plane that you do not own.

Driving a car and flying on privately owned commercial airliners is not a right. It is a privilege. So, yes. It is real consent.

Edit - Besides, I'm discussing a legal term. On the grounds of it being true consent where there are no penalties for refusing then I agree with you, but that's totally irrelevant to what we're discussing.

[Norade]

That's not real consent - that's consent under the threat of being stripped of one's ability to travel around the world. Similarly, when you consent to being groped because you're being blackmailed, that's not genuine consent.

It isn't? You read the paper when you purchased your tickets. You freely signed it and agreed to the terms required so you can fly on a plane that you do not own.

Driving a car and flying on privately owned commercial airliners is not a right. It is a privilege. So, yes. It is real consent.

Edit - Besides, I'm discussing a legal term. On the grounds of it being true consent where there are no penalties for refusing then I agree with you, but that's totally irrelevant to what we're discussing.

It's not a privileged when your entire job hinges on the ability to travel unmolested and cross the globe quickly. If there was another option then maybe, but there isn't. Besides, hard numbers wise how many terrorists has this screening actually stopped? How many lives are saved by TSA agents jacking off to the screening monitor, or groping children?

It's getting to the point where visiting the US by plane simply isn't worth it anymore unless you need to and I really hope that tourism numbers drop and shitter the economy worse, because frankly the US has it coming. Of course that would fuck Canada over that's where I am, but what the hell, maybe we can start charging you for that fresh water and power that BC keeps sending you, or is that the bit of free trade that only the US gets to do?

[Kamakazie Sith]

It's not a privileged when your entire job hinges on the ability to travel unmolested and cross the globe quickly.

Actually, flying on a commercial jet is a priviledge regardless of your career choice. Though, to that person I'm sure it is a headache, but again that plane does not belong to them. Marinate on that fact.

If there was another option then maybe, but there isn't. Besides, hard numbers wise how many terrorists has this screening actually stopped? How many lives are saved by TSA agents jacking off to the screening monitor, or groping children?

Aren't private jets an option or is the TSA involved in that as well? Judging from the articles I've read they aren't involved in private flights, but they are trying.

To answer your question. Obviously, no lives are saved by a policy violation like jacking off to a screening monitor. You'd hope that agent in question would be terminated immediately. As for groping children? Do you know what the term groping implies? It implies that you're touching their genitals. Do you have a confirmed case of this happening and is it within TSA policy. Because the term has been coined as enhanced pat down or pat down which to me, an experienced police officer, a pat down does not involve the touching of genitals.

It's getting to the point where visiting the US by plane simply isn't worth it anymore unless you need to and I really hope that tourism numbers drop and shitter the economy worse, because frankly the US has it coming. Of course that would fuck Canada over that's where I am, but what the hell, maybe we can start charging you for that fresh water and power that BC keeps sending you, or is that the bit of free trade that only the US gets to do?

The US has suffering coming? A crappy economy means people lose their jobs and may go hungry. Which could be interpreted as you view the rights violated by the TSA as more important that human survival. Fascinating.

[Norade]

Aren't private jets an option or is the TSA involved in that as well? Judging from the articles I've read they aren't involved in private flights, but they are trying.

Just looked at that, and no screening yet, but they've been pushing hard since '08. Now in that time have any terrorist attacks taken place with a private jet? Not that I've heard of. Just more evidence that the TSA does nothing but make some people feel safe.

To answer your question. Obviously, no lives are saved by a policy violation like jacking off to a screening monitor. You'd hope that agent in question would be terminated immediately. As for groping children? Do you know what the term groping implies? It implies that you're touching their genitals. Do you have a confirmed case of this happening and is it within TSA policy. Because the term has been coined as enhanced pat down or pat down which to me, an experienced police officer, a pat down does not involve the touching of genitals.

I guess groping is a bit strong of a word, but an 'enhanced pat down' sure sounds awfully invasive. Not to mention, how many TSA officers are going to be experienced or well trained? Given every story we hear about them they seem to be unprofessional, and incapable of making the right call if given any leeway at all.

It's getting to the point where visiting the US by plane simply isn't worth it anymore unless you need to and I really hope that tourism numbers drop and shitter the economy worse, because frankly the US has it coming. Of course that would fuck Canada over that's where I am, but what the hell, maybe we can start charging you for that fresh water and power that BC keeps sending you, or is that the bit of free trade that only the US gets to do?

The US has suffering coming? A crappy economy means people lose their jobs and may go hungry. Which could be interpreted as you view the rights violated by the TSA as more important that human survival. Fascinating.

You guys brought this upon yourselves; you trained the people who carried out 911, started a worthless war costing trillions, made security so bad that historical documents are being torn and foreign diplomats are being searched publicly, allowed banks to flush good money after bad, and are now whining when people finally get the chance to laugh at you for shooting and entire mag into your own foot. Besides, it's not like the softwood lumber debacle and numerous convenient mad cow scares don't fuck Canadians over. Nor would the fact that we give California power for less than our citizens pay for it, then there's of course the water we ship out to Vegas for fuck all. None of that shit ever costs Canadians...

Forgive me for laughing as your government circle jerks while the nation becomes a 3rd world shit hole.

[Kamakazie Sith]

One perspective that might not be receiving the attention it deserves is that of the government. How does one weigh personal dignity against the lives of potential victims? Even if the loss is just the plane and its passengers those are lives lost. Is your dignity worth more than even a single life?

[Norade]

One perspective that might not be receiving the attention it deserves is that of the government. How does one weigh personal dignity against the lives of potential victims? Even if the loss is just the plane and its passengers those are lives lost. Is your dignity worth more than even a single life?

Looking at the odds I'd say my dignity isn't saving fuck all either way. Attack rates haven't change from before in any meaningful way. Both before and after 9/11 you were/are more likely to die from mechanical failure or bad weather than a terrorist anyway. Israel has shown that screening can be done without any of this nonsense and they face worse threats than we do, so fuck the TSA and fuck enhanced pat downs and worthless ass scanners that people knew how to thwart even before they were in use.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Just looked at that, and no screening yet, but they've been pushing hard since '08. Now in that time have any terrorist attacks taken place with a private jet? Not that I've heard of. Just more evidence that the TSA does nothing but make some people feel safe.

You realize that a pilot plane piloted by terrorists would just be target practice for fighter jets, right? The reason you don't see terrorists attacks with private jets is because it is a lot harder for them to achieve their goals which is mass death and/or property destruction of a important target. In other words Bob and Toms Crab Shack probably isn't high on that list...

I guess groping is a bit strong of a word, but an 'enhanced pat down' sure sounds awfully invasive. Not to mention, how many TSA officers are going to be experienced or well trained? Given every story we hear about them they seem to be unprofessional, and incapable of making the right call if given any leeway at all.

Indeed, it does. I would like to hear what it entails because I do not know. Every story we hear? You're getting sucked into the media hysteria. The media simply does not run stories on professional TSA agents, police officers, lawyers, doctors, politicians, etc, etc, etc because it doesn't generate anything. It is uninteresting. Have you flown on an international flight? What was your experience like? I've felt the TSA agents that screened me conducted their duty professionally and were very courtesy. Though, I guess it is possible that most are incompetent douche bags...but media articles aren't evidence of that allegation.

We have a TSA employee board member. Perhaps, he'd be able to weigh in on their training. Also, it's not like conducting a pat down is not surgery. So, when you say well trained. I'm thinking of a week course involving literature and on hands training.

You guys brought this upon yourselves; you trained the people who carried out 911, started a worthless war costing trillions, made security so bad that historical documents are being torn and foreign diplomats are being searched publicly, allowed banks to flush good money after bad, and are now whining when people finally get the chance to laugh at you for shooting and entire mag into your own foot.

No, we didn't. It's this mindset that gets me fired up. Notice the use of the word "you". Let me correct your misconception. I have not been involved in any of those things. I didn't train a single person that carried out 9/11. I didn't start a war. I didn't come up with these security procedures. I did none of those things you listed, but somehow you think I deserve to suffer.

Besides, it's not like the softwood lumber debacle and numerous convenient mad cow scares don't fuck Canadians over. Nor would the fact that we give California power for less than our citizens pay for it, then there's of course the water we ship out to Vegas for fuck all. None of that shit ever costs Canadians...

Forgive me for laughing as your government circle jerks while the nation becomes a 3rd world shit hole.

Just remember you're laughing at suffering. If you feel ok with that then I hope you do not consider yourself a morale person. You're just as bad as those in the government who are "circle jerking" each other. Suck that down...

To compare. I felt bad for the people of Afghanistan who didn't have a choice what their "leaders" did and who suffered at the hands of US revenge. They did not deserve it any more than I deserve to be out of a job for what my government does.

**EDIT**

[Norade]

Just looked at that, and no screening yet, but they've been pushing hard since '08. Now in that time have any terrorist attacks taken place with a private jet? Not that I've heard of. Just more evidence that the TSA does nothing but make some people feel safe.

You realize that a pilot plane piloted by terrorists would just be target practice for fighter jets, right? The reason you don't see terrorists attacks with private jets is because it is a lot harder for them to achieve their goals which is mass death and/or property destruction of a important target. In other words Bob and Toms Crab Shack probably isn't high on that list...

So you're saying a Boeing Business Jet or an Airbus A320 isn't capable to fucking a building over? That could be construed as showing why they need tighter regulation, but since no terrorist has ever even tried I'd say they're pretty damned safe anyway and are certainly more convenient than anything with TSA goons involved.

I guess groping is a bit strong of a word, but an 'enhanced pat down' sure sounds awfully invasive. Not to mention, how many TSA officers are going to be experienced or well trained? Given every story we hear about them they seem to be unprofessional, and incapable of making the right call if given any leeway at all.

Indeed, it does. I would like to hear what it entails because I do not know. Every story we hear? You're getting sucked into the media hysteria. The media simply does not run stories on professional TSA agents, police officers, lawyers, doctors, politicians, etc, etc, etc because it doesn't generate anything. It is uninteresting. Have you flown on an international flight? What was your experience like? I've felt the TSA agents that screened me conducted their duty professionally and were very courtesy. Though, I guess it is possible that most are incompetent douche bags...but media articles aren't evidence of that allegation.

We have a TSA employee board member. Perhaps, he'd be able to weigh in on their training. Also, it's not like conducting a pat down is not surgery. So, when you say well trained. I'm thinking of a week course involving literature and on hands training.

A non-zero number of TSA agents are incompetent boobs that any terrorist could walk by with a bomb. Some masturbate on duty, others 'enhanced pat down' foreign diplomats, and yet more tear historical documents in clearly marked cases. They didn't manage to stop a guy who shoved some explosives near his own dick and I doubt they would spot anybody better at carrying out an attack. Besides, we hear far less cases where the TSA catch anybody than we do of them fucking up badly.

I flew to Disney Land in 2001 and as a 12 year old child I was pulled aside by a fully uniformed and armed soldier and given a wanding over with a metal detector. From the sounds of things security since then has gotten worse and more invasive instead of better, faster, and less invasive.

You guys brought this upon yourselves; you trained the people who carried out 911, started a worthless war costing trillions, made security so bad that historical documents are being torn and foreign diplomats are being searched publicly, allowed banks to flush good money after bad, and are now whining when people finally get the chance to laugh at you for shooting and entire mag into your own foot.

No, we didn't. It's this mindset that gets me fired up. Notice the use of the word "you". Let me correct your misconception. I have not been involved in any of those things. I didn't train a single person that carried out 9/11. I didn't start a war. I didn't come up with these security procedures. I did none of those things you listed, but somehow you think I deserve to suffer.

You as in your nation did all of those things. You as a nation voted in Bush twice, you as a nation started a war, you as a nation fuck your allies, you as a nation allowed your banks to run unchecked, you as a nation now get to reap what you as a nation have sown.

Besides, it's not like the softwood lumber debacle and numerous convenient mad cow scares don't fuck Canadians over. Nor would the fact that we give California power for less than our citizens pay for it, then there's of course the water we ship out to Vegas for fuck all. None of that shit ever costs Canadians...

Forgive me for laughing as your government circle jerks while the nation becomes a 3rd world shit hole.

Just remember you're laughing at suffering. If you feel ok with that then I hope you do not consider yourself a morale person. You're just as bad as those in the government who are "circle jerking" each other. Suck that down...

To compare. I felt bad for the people of Afghanistan who didn't have a choice what their "leaders" did and who suffered at the hands of US revenge. They did not deserve it any more than I deserve to be out of a job for what my government does.

**EDIT**

I'll feel sorry for your nation as a whole when it stops trying to police the world and cleans its act up. Until then I'll remember how often they fucked other nation over and watch as karma bitch slaps the lot of you.

[loomer]

One perspective that might not be receiving the attention it deserves is that of the government. How does one weigh personal dignity against the lives of potential victims? Even if the loss is just the plane and its passengers those are lives lost. Is your dignity worth more than even a single life?

If you mean specifically as regards this incident, I'm failing to see how a professional diplomat - presumably vetted by her US-friendly government - could pose a threat to a flight.

[Kamakazie Sith]

So you're saying a Boeing Business Jet or an Airbus A320 isn't capable to fucking a building over? That could be construed as showing why they need tighter regulation, but since no terrorist has ever even tried I'd say they're pretty damned safe anyway and are certainly more convenient than anything with TSA goons involved.

Actually, I was speaking of the private planes usually chartered for non-VIP passengers. Besides, it isn't like those private companies don't conduct security checks of their own, and in some cases are more extensive than that employed by the TSA such as background checks, and many require pre-payment up to 50% of the cost and they're quite expensive.

A non-zero number of TSA agents are incompetent boobs that any terrorist could walk by with a bomb. Some masturbate on duty, others 'enhanced pat down' foreign diplomats, and yet more tear historical documents in clearly marked cases. They didn't manage to stop a guy who shoved some explosives near his own dick and I doubt they would spot anybody better at carrying out an attack. Besides, we hear far less cases where the TSA catch anybody than we do of them fucking up badly.

A non-zero number? So, that could be anywhere from 1 - the entire staff. Great. Is that suppose to help your argument in some manner that the entire staff isn't perfect. Well, duh. Do you know of a career field staffed by perfect people?

As for the guy who shoved explosives next to his own dick. I assume you're referring to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. In which case he flew from the Netherlands to Detroit. He did not pass through TSA security. I'm not saying they would have caught him but you can't say the TSA failed when they didn't even participate. The same is true for the shoe bomber.

I flew to Disney Land in 2001 and as a 12 year old child I was pulled aside by a fully uniformed and armed soldier and given a wanding over with a metal detector. From the sounds of things security since then has gotten worse and more invasive instead of better, faster, and less invasive.

And was this conducted in a professional manner?

You as in your nation did all of those things. You as a nation voted in Bush twice, you as a nation started a war, you as a nation fuck your allies, you as a nation allowed your banks to run unchecked, you as a nation now get to reap what you as a nation have sown.

In other words. Not me. And not a lot of other americans who did not vote for Bush twice. Who did not support the war or support fucking over our allies, or any of the other things you listed so you can justify your position that it is OK to laugh at the suffering of people.

I'll feel sorry for your nation as a whole when it stops trying to police the world and cleans its act up. Until then I'll remember how often they fucked other nation over and watch as karma bitch slaps the lot of you.

I'm not asking you to feel sorry for anyone. I'm pointing out that you are as much of a fucktard as the US government.

[Kamakazie Sith]

One perspective that might not be receiving the attention it deserves is that of the government. How does one weigh personal dignity against the lives of potential victims? Even if the loss is just the plane and its passengers those are lives lost. Is your dignity worth more than even a single life?

If you mean specifically as regards this incident, I'm failing to see how a professional diplomat - presumably vetted by her US-friendly government - could pose a threat to a flight.

No, I'm not. In fact, I completely agree with what Edi had to say in regards to that. Even if the TSA agents had acted within policy their actions were stupid.

[Simon_Jester]

To bring this back to the topic, I think it's entirely reasonable for the Indian government to be outraged about this. They have a right to expect their representatives to the US to be free from harassment by US government officials. If we can't fulfill that expectation, when every other nation on Earth can, including both states in far more danger from terrorism than us and outright dictatorships, we're doing something wrong.

Hopefully, this will contribute to a re-examination of our security policy, though I'm not optimistic about anything being able to convince the US government to scale back anything done in the name of security.

Just looked at that, and no screening yet, but they've been pushing hard since '08. Now in that time have any terrorist attacks taken place with a private jet? Not that I've heard of. Just more evidence that the TSA does nothing but make some people feel safe.

You realize that a pilot plane piloted by terrorists would just be target practice for fighter jets, right? The reason you don't see terrorists attacks with private jets is because it is a lot harder for them to achieve their goals which is mass death and/or property destruction of a important target. In other words Bob and Toms Crab Shack probably isn't high on that list...

In parts of the world where terrorism is a more serious and common problem, they routinely attack the equivalent of Bob and Tom's Crab Shack, because they're trying to put people in fear at any time. If there are twenty people eating at the Crab Shack, then one well-placed bomb does make for a pretty good terrorist attack.

The US is unusual in that so far, we haven't had to worry about that much if at all. We're also lucky, because the kind of security crackdown that would be a TSA-style response to a spate of attacks on places where people live their daily lives would be pretty painful to people trying to live their daily lives after the attack.

So, not only is she reporting that, but so are the witnesses.
Forgetting the fact that the pat downs are legalized sexual assault.

Actually, it is a form of implied consent. Basically, when you purchase your tickets and you sign your ticket you are agreeing that you will submit to a search. In a way it is like drivers license laws in a majority of states. When you sign that drivers license you are giving your consent to submit to a chemical test if you're suspected of being DUI.

From the legal perspective, I suppose- though the new search procedures haven't been addressed in court so far as I know, and there are limits to the doctrine of implied consent. The fact that you purchased the ticket and agreed to a security check doesn't mean you agreed to just any security check, or that it is legal for the TSA to do whatever they wish as part of the check.

Use of the roads is a privilege too; that doesn't mean that motorists consent to random stops by traffic officers to search for contraband. There are limits to what implied consent makes it legal for a government official to do, and whether "enhanced pat downs" are inside those limits or not has not been tested.


But in any case, what if we do take the position that buying an airline ticket is "a form of implied consent" to whatever search the TSA cooks up next? I don't think that absolves the TSA of the duty to address the privacy question squarely, to pay attention to the problem. Which so far, they haven't shown many signs of doing.

The American public flies routinely; that's the whole reason the TSA exists in the first place. Unless the TSA's job is to restrict air travel to a tiny minority, that means screening large numbers of passengers.

So if they enact intrusive procedures, and if everyone who doesn't want to go through the procedures does opt out, rather than going through with it when they very much don't want to... they're effectively locking down air travel in the US without admitting they're doing it. I can understand if they honestly conclude that the only way to stop terrorists from attacking people on planes is to stop commercial air travel, but they should admit that, not just quietly keep ratcheting up the search protocol until half the population isn't willing to fly.

Again, there has to be a limit- but the TSA has not acknowledged a limit, nor has the government imposed one on them from above. So where is it?


The reason I keep harping on these limits is that there's a huge contrast here between the behavior of the TSA and the behavior of other security organs like the ordinary police. If I want to know how far the police are willing and able to go to pursue suspected criminals, I can look up the constitutional limits on their actions: I have well defined rights that they are not allowed to violate and have no intention of trying to violate. And the most truly intrusive things they can do to me, police can only do if they have some fairly solid grounds to suspect me of a crime- so I can avoid even that by simply acting like a normal citizen.

According to the TSA, I do not have such rights when dealing with them. Their power to search me, or to tell me I can't get on the plane because they don't like the cut of my jib, seems almost unlimited. No constitutional restraint on their activities exists because of all this.

[General Zod]

The reason I keep harping on these limits is that there's a huge contrast here between the behavior of the TSA and the behavior of other security organs like the ordinary police. If I want to know how far the police are willing and able to go to pursue suspected criminals, I can look up the constitutional limits on their actions: I have well defined rights that they are not allowed to violate and have no intention of trying to violate. And the most truly intrusive things they can do to me, police can only do if they have some fairly solid grounds to suspect me of a crime- so I can avoid even that by simply acting like a normal citizen.

According to the TSA, I do not have such rights when dealing with them. Their power to search me, or to tell me I can't get on the plane because they don't like the cut of my jib, seems almost unlimited. No constitutional restraint on their activities exists because of all this.

It's worth noting that not even the police will grope your genitals when they arrest you. At most they'll have you empty your pockets and run a metal detector over you before putting you in jail, and that's with genuine criminal suspects.

[Spoonist]

I would think that the only way for India to go forward with this is to reciprocate. Similar stuff has happened before and given only an apology from the diplomatic core.
So I'd say that all nations delegates should tell their respective customs etc to handle US diplomats the same way as they are being treated by the US.

Think about the press coverage when having Clinton & Bush getting a thorough pat down in a public line.

Now mind you I don't understand all the fuss about the scanners myself but I can see why a diplomat wouldn't approve of it.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It's worth noting that not even the police will grope your genitals when they arrest you. At most they'll have you empty your pockets and run a metal detector over you before putting you in jail, and that's with genuine criminal suspects.

Not entirely true. Prior to being admitted into jail the genital area will be searched.

[Kamakazie Sith]

To bring this back to the topic, I think it's entirely reasonable for the Indian government to be outraged about this. They have a right to expect their representatives to the US to be free from harassment by US government officials. If we can't fulfill that expectation, when every other nation on Earth can, including both states in far more danger from terrorism than us and outright dictatorships, we're doing something wrong.

Hopefully, this will contribute to a re-examination of our security policy, though I'm not optimistic about anything being able to convince the US government to scale back anything done in the name of security.

I believe the State Department has already begun to take steps to correct this...

In parts of the world where terrorism is a more serious and common problem, they routinely attack the equivalent of Bob and Tom's Crab Shack, because they're trying to put people in fear at any time. If there are twenty people eating at the Crab Shack, then one well-placed bomb does make for a pretty good terrorist attack.

The US is unusual in that so far, we haven't had to worry about that much if at all. We're also lucky, because the kind of security crackdown that would be a TSA-style response to a spate of attacks on places where people live their daily lives would be pretty painful to people trying to live their daily lives after the attack.

I never said that terrorists don't go for smaller targets. I was talking about their actions in the United States but thank for you for pointing out that detail.

From the legal perspective, I suppose- though the new search procedures haven't been addressed in court so far as I know, and there are limits to the doctrine of implied consent. The fact that you purchased the ticket and agreed to a security check doesn't mean you agreed to just any security check, or that it is legal for the TSA to do whatever they wish as part of the check.

True. It doesn't provide a no limits search. From what I understand they do have certain criteria that must be met in order for them to conduct a search such as the detector going off twice or something like that. However, I do not know what their criteria is for random searches.

Use of the roads is a privilege too; that doesn't mean that motorists consent to random stops by traffic officers to search for contraband. There are limits to what implied consent makes it legal for a government official to do, and whether "enhanced pat downs" are inside those limits or not has not been tested.

Quite correct which is why I specifically stated under what grounds implied consent applies for motor vehicles. Specifically, DUIs. Which is why you also have DUI checkpoints which stop and check everyone coming through that area.

But in any case, what if we do take the position that buying an airline ticket is "a form of implied consent" to whatever search the TSA cooks up next? I don't think that absolves the TSA of the duty to address the privacy question squarely, to pay attention to the problem. Which so far, they haven't shown many signs of doing.

Well, according to their policy they do have a policy that addresses the concern of privacy.

[General Zod]

True. It doesn't provide a no limits search. From what I understand they do have certain criteria that must be met in order for them to conduct a search such as the detector going off twice or something like that. However, I do not know what their criteria is for random searches.

It's truly random. Even if you go through the body-scanner in order to avoid a pat-down and come up clean you can still be selected if the machine says to put you through it, at which point you have no choice of refusal unless you want a $10,000 fine.

Quite correct which is why I specifically stated under what grounds implied consent applies for motor vehicles. Specifically, DUIs. Which is why you also have DUI checkpoints which stop and check everyone coming through that area.

There actually seems to be certain limits for what constitutes an acceptable search from being pulled over. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepubli ... p0127.html

Well, according to their policy they do have a policy that addresses the concern of privacy.

A policy they've violated numerous times.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It's truly random. Even if you go through the body-scanner in order to avoid a pat-down and come up clean you can still be selected if the machine says to put you through it, at which point you have no choice of refusal unless you want a $10,000 fine.

Well, from my perspective the selection being random is a good thing. Though they obviously still do make selections based off of ridiculous reasons such as the OP.

There actually seems to be certain limits for what constitutes an acceptable search from being pulled over. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepubli ... p0127.html

That has to do with terry frisks and doesn't really have anything to do with what I was talking about. See, in order for you to be pulled over the officer must have reasonable suspicion that you may be involved in a crime or you've committed a traffic violation. We can't just pull people over. However, due to the implied consent law we can setup DUI checkpoints and check everyone to see if they are intoxicated.

Again, the implied consent law only applies to DUIs. Nothing else.

A policy they've violated numerous times.

Right, I quoted a statement by a third party witness who verified this violation with the Ambassador. I wonder how they define private?

[General Zod]

Well, from my perspective the selection being random is a good thing. Though they obviously still do make selections based off of ridiculous reasons such as the OP.

I fail to see what good random selection accomplishes. If someone goes through the whole body-scanner rigmarole and complies with everything else then they should be in the clear to not get molested.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I fail to see what good random selection accomplishes. If someone goes through the whole body-scanner rigmarole and complies with everything else then they should be in the clear to not get molested.

I believe the idea is about visual deterrence but you are right about its limited effectiveness. I'm just saying it is better than selecting someone because they are wearing a certain piece of clothing.

[General Zod]

I fail to see what good random selection accomplishes. If someone goes through the whole body-scanner rigmarole and complies with everything else then they should be in the clear to not get molested.

I believe the idea is about visual deterrence but you are right about its limited effectiveness. I'm just saying it is better than selecting someone because they are wearing a certain piece of clothing.

I'm not sure how it's deterring anything except people's desire to fly. Especially when the TSA has a really poor track record of letting stuff slip through like 12 inch razor blades.

[Simon_Jester]

True, but at that point you've already been arrested. There are fairly rigorous requirements the police have to meet before they can designate you as someone who needs to be searched that carefully. "Breathing while using the roads," for instance, isn't enough. "Breathing while flying" didn't used to be.

Hopefully, this will contribute to a re-examination of our security policy, though I'm not optimistic about anything being able to convince the US government to scale back anything done in the name of security.

I believe the State Department has already begun to take steps to correct this...[/quote]If the steps taken just involve letting foreign diplomats bypass the security (as American VIPs already do, leaving the average citizen to be searched with arbitrary intrusiveness), then that at least fixes the immediate problem... but not the general one.

I'm quite serious; I think we need to scale back.

I never said that terrorists don't go for smaller targets. I was talking about their actions in the United States but thank for you for pointing out that detail.

I think you missed what I'm getting at: that if we truly do have a serious terrorist problem, we need to worry about the security of low-value targets where people gather, not just high-value ones.

From the legal perspective, I suppose- though the new search procedures haven't been addressed in court so far as I know, and there are limits to the doctrine of implied consent. The fact that you purchased the ticket and agreed to a security check doesn't mean you agreed to just any security check, or that it is legal for the TSA to do whatever they wish as part of the check.

True. It doesn't provide a no limits search. From what I understand they do have certain criteria that must be met in order for them to conduct a search such as the detector going off twice or something like that. However, I do not know what their criteria is for random searches.

No, and I don't think they're telling people. Which is part of the problem: we don't know what rights the TSA recognizes under this search regime. The rights and restraints law enforcement has to follow are a matter of public record, and there is a lot of constitutional case law on the subject.

The TSA doesn't admit to being bound by that case law, and doesn't have any similar set of restraints. They say they respect people's privacy and take that into account. But who's watching them to make sure of it, the way that the courts watch the police? A police officer can get in a hell of a lot of trouble for violating someone's constitutional rights, and a police department that does so systematically gets in a hell of a lot of trouble collectively, at high levels. They're not above the law.

What is the law restraining the TSA, and who watches them to make sure their notion of what rights we have matches the Constitution and the views of the taxpayers who pay for them?

If you ask me, it's the random searches that are most problematic from a constitutional standpoint. This is a hell of a lot more intrusive than a DUI checkpoint. DUI checkpoints passed the Rehnquist court (which, you must admit, wasn't one of the more civil-libertarian ones in recent history), but this is a profound escalation in terms of unwarranted search and seizure by government officials.

Use of the roads is a privilege too; that doesn't mean that motorists consent to random stops by traffic officers to search for contraband. There are limits to what implied consent makes it legal for a government official to do, and whether "enhanced pat downs" are inside those limits or not has not been tested.

Quite correct which is why I specifically stated under what grounds implied consent applies for motor vehicles. Specifically, DUIs. Which is why you also have DUI checkpoints which stop and check everyone coming through that area.

What's the limit, though?

Can the police at a DUI checkpoint randomly decide to search your car? Can they search your person for weapons? Can they confiscate items that they deem to be unsafe? Do they get to have internal regulations that define what is and is not unsafe to carry in a car, rather than having that formally defined by the legislature?

Because the TSA gets to do those things.

But in any case, what if we do take the position that buying an airline ticket is "a form of implied consent" to whatever search the TSA cooks up next? I don't think that absolves the TSA of the duty to address the privacy question squarely, to pay attention to the problem. Which so far, they haven't shown many signs of doing.

Well, according to their policy they do have a policy that addresses the concern of privacy.

Where's the oversight? Real police have oversight. Does the TSA?

[HarrionGreyjoy]

Where's the oversight? Real police have oversight. Does the TSA?

Uh, yes. It's even handily broken up into a civil liberties section (wild guess: they're not doing a very good job) and Aviation Security Inspectors (pretty much internal affairs for everything else). Here, have an org chart. Inspection's second from the left on the top. http://www.tsa.gov/who_we_are/org/edito ... _0102.shtm

[Psychic_Sandwich]

That's not seperate oversight, though, like the courts with the police. It's part of the same organisation. Think about the shit police get over 'blue walls' and so forth; whether they actually engage in that sort of behaviour or not, the possibility of it existing is why the police are watched by the courts, not simply internal affairs. It's why, in Britain, the organ responsible for investigating complains against the police is completely seperate, and we have the courts as well.

Internal self-regulation simply isn't sufficient; if there really is a problem that needs resolving, why should we trust the organisation that allowed said problem to occur to solve it?

[HarrionGreyjoy]

That's not seperate oversight, though, like the courts with the police. It's part of the same organisation. Think about the shit police get over 'blue walls' and so forth; whether they actually engage in that sort of behaviour or not, the possibility of it existing is why the police are watched by the courts, not simply internal affairs. It's why, in Britain, the organ responsible for investigating complains against the police is completely seperate, and we have the courts as well.

Internal self-regulation simply isn't sufficient; if there really is a problem that needs resolving, why should we trust the organisation that allowed said problem to occur to solve it?

Aha. Okay, I was wondering if Simon Jester had wandered into rhetorical silliness all of a sudden, that makes more sense.

On review, there *probably* should be more transparency; it's not that the courts don't still have jurisdiction over the TSA (though its mandate is admittedly a bit overbroad, too), it's that it's not really clear what you can complain about, I think. Congress at least tries to maintain some sort of oversight through its committees and roughly biannual hearings - they're not standardized, that just happens to be about how often Congress decides it's time to make some new policy statements.

Could someone a bit more versed in legal details suggest how the TSA is different from the FBI in terms of external oversight and suchlike? Comparisons to local police, while handy, are comparing... uh, dogs and wolves, I guess, to butcher the apples/oranges analogy a bit. I do like the British solution; unfortunately, I hardly think you're going to get anybody to prioritize grafting another investigative arm onto DHS.