Originally Posted by
T.J. Bender
Ron, no one said they were supposed to detect prohibited items. What has been said over and over again is that they're detecting "anomalies" that don't exist, and defeating the stated purpose of having them (as any TSO will tell you): "They're here to keep us from having to touch you." The claim that they're working properly is akin to Mike Valentine's claim about his radar detector: false alerts aren't false alerts; they're the machine doing what it's supposed to do.
Actually, that is exactly what the individual that wrote
this post is saying.
Originally Posted by
T.J. Bender
Don't do that. The rules are flawed and you're blind to that. Instead, look at it as a civilian, untainted by indoctrination into the TSA culture. Is it revolting to you to see people being patted down? Hey, here's a fun idea: opt out. Don't tell them that you're a TSO, just opt out of the scanner both ways. See how they respond, and see if your answers (or refusal to answer, if you're feeling frisky) to their inquiries about why anyone could ever possibly want to opt out of their perfectly safe and private machine gets you an overly-zealous screening.
Opting out is actually a pretty good idea, but the initial flight will be out of my own airport so they are going to know who I am. After that, well I’d say you have a pretty good idea there.
Originally Posted by
T.J. Bender
Who died and made you a Constitutional lawyer? Unlike yourself, there are actually people who hold a law degree on this forum, and some people who are closely related to Constitutional lawyers, who very well understand those rights and the exemptions to them. Those people tend to believe that the TSA's actions far overstep the "administrative search" doctrine, and dive into the murky realm of unconstitutional.
There are those who “claim” to have law degree’s. Just as I “claim” to be a TSO. And with the anonymous nature of the internet there is no way to absolutely verify those claims.
In any case, I have taken the time more than once to provide the relevant case law on the subjects we so often discuss here. And just as often that information is ignored. A claim of a civil liberty that does not exist is not enough to bring it into being. One can claim to have the right to have sex with any person they find attractive, but that claim does not make it so (just an example people, you can stop frothing now). Just as it is governments prevue to conduct screening on everyone who wishes to travel by commercial airline. And again, just as it is your right to avoid such screening by choosing another mode of travel. But I cant think of a mode of travel that does not have its government oversight somehow, maybe you can help.
Originally Posted by
T.J. Bender
Opinions are subjective. They are inherently neither right nor wrong. Your claim to understand Constitutional law, however, is wrong. TSOs are not trained in Constitutional law, and whenever one claims that they know my rights better than they do, that they are allowed by the Constitution to perform the search they're performing, or (my favorite) that all rights are surrendered while one is in the secure zone, it makes me laugh and cry on the inside.
Opinions are indeed exactly as you describe. And they come in many different forms. SCOTUS provides opinions on the law, and their opinions become the law. A lawyer provides his opinion in a court room, and his client either wins or does not. Most things are formed by opinion. And opinions are formed by things.
The most interesting thing about opinions is that some are “informed”, and some are not.
You wont find me making any of the mistakes you mention. I know your rights, and I know the laws under which TSA operates. Most here give the impression that they know neither, and are happy in their ignorance. Happy enough to give their opinion, as uninformed as that opinion may be.