By your attitude, it's to further harass the passengers.

So what happens when a passenger gets through the checkpoint (even a strip-search machine) with clothing made of 1 mil sheet or cloth explosive? What then? Or as noted in another thread batteries replaced in a laptop with explosive material? Or... or... or...

Is there nothing that your agency will stop at?

Short answer, based on the entire history of the TSA - IMO, they will not be satisfied until all passengers are treated in the same manner as JPATS.

Or worse.

That incident did not start in the USA. I wont speculate further.
In the light most favorable to the prosecution, I rest.
Do you believe the right to be secure in your person against unreasonable search and seizure trumps the rights of people travelling on airplanes to be safe? That is the real question here.
Wait,box cutters were allowed then, rule change now says they are not allowed. So how can you say that?


See above.

Intelligence has failed in the past and will fail in the future. It cannot be relied upon for the entire answer. That is why there are layers of security. It starts with intelligence but I would have to say that is a weak layer because it cannot account for lone wolf types. To answer the last NO, there is something in place for that but it is not checkpoint style screening. that process is not practical That is beyond my scope

Yes, I do.

Because there is a Constitutionally guaranteed right that gives me the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.

Please point to the Constitutional right that guarantees any individual to be "safe" whether traveling on an airplane or not.

Close. The question is if my right to be secure in my person against unreasonable search and seizure trumps the rights of people traveling on airplanes to FEEL safe?

The answer to that is 'Yes, without a doubt'.

Yes - that is what the Constitution states. The Constitution is designed to protect us against the government. Unless it is amended, yes - my right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure trumps your right to be "safe". UNREASONABLE SEARCHES ARE ILLEGAL!

Especially true since the risk is 1/10 the risk of lightning strike death.

The TSA should be screening against lightning strikes. It would be 10 times more productive.

People traveling in airplanes are safe, regardless of the patdowns/NoS. The risk of dying in a plane crash is 1 in 11 million. The risk of dying in a car crash is about 1 in 5000. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/planecrash/risky.html. Even assuming these "security" measures made flying marginally more safe, and I don't believe they do, flying would still be extremely safe without them.

And where does your safety argument end? Why are airports different than the rest of the world? Driving is far more dangerous, and you're more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than a terrorist, but we don't make all drivers take a breathylizer before taking the wheel. Terrorists could target shopping malls, but we (hopefully) wouldn't patdown or body scan anyone who goes shopping.

IOW - you have no idea.

ABSOLUTELY. There's a procedure in place for probable cause to allow a warrant to be issued for search. The TSA's position is that wanting to travel via commercial airliner constitutes probable cause. If that's the case, then there should be no problem getting a warrant for every search.

I don't have a Constitutional right to be "safe" from another person. I DO have a Constitutional right to be safe from government intrusion.

We don't know how many box cutters were used, and if they were used, if they went through security. There's also a report of a passenger being shot on one of the planes, if I remember correctly - were guns allowed prior to 911?

TSA-approved searches have failed in the past and will fail in the future as well. Nothing is fullproof, other than doing away with all air travel.

Uh huh. IOW - we're doing something, but it's not as invasive, but trust us, it's just as good? Ok.

You didn't answer the question about subjecting every airport employee & TSO to NoS and personal items searches every time they come to work and/or leave and re-enter the sterile area. That should be 100% done, every time. Would you agree to that as a condition of employment?

It should be noted that the TSA screens every pilot every time they come to work so it would be logically that every TSO be screened every time they come to work.

Other TSO members have stated, multiple times, that TSA does not recognize that all TSO have to be screened each time as that would be "inefficient", intrude on the employee too much, and "waste too much time". They are only supposed to be required to be searched on their initial entry to the checkpoint at the start of their shift. So, the thought is that random searches will be ok and we, the traveling public to which these self-same government employees are beholden, just have to trust them when they say they are being done randomly, behind closed doors in TSA break areas.

However, I can state definitively that the "start of shift" inspection is not performed either. I am typically on the first flight out on Monday mornings and have followed TSA employees from their cars to the C/P, only to watch them open the glass door while still wearing their backpack and coat and stroll right on through, bypassing any semblance of a security check other than a simple glance at the TSA ID badge (which does not get any of the ID loupe/inspection lunacy that my DoD CAC does).

Unfortunately, there are some that align with one political party or another that think there should be no end to the safety argument. And some have been elected & created agencies like the CPSC. TSA is part of the fallacious argument that says "government can keep us safe". Yet there really is no constitutional right for individuals to be kept "safe".

In that case we're S.O.L. as far as TSA is concerned, because all TSA ever tries to prevent is a recurrence of previous failures.

Fellow passengers will stop & detain the bad guy, and TSA will expand its repertoire of stupidity by adding whatever the latest failed terrorist used to contain his explosives to the list of {shoes, water, toner cartridges, etc.}.

[QUOTE=JObeth66;15094530]


The process whereby a warrant is obtained is too time consuming to use in this instance. It is therefore not practical. Probable cause is only applicable in criminal cases. What TSA does is an administrative search, the limits of which are ambiguous at best. It most likely will end up in court, probably the SCOTUS at which point the justices will make law instead of interpreting it.
One of the basic functions of a government is to protect its citizens. The question becomes one of protection vs intrusion.
I wont attempt to provide an answer to something that you are speculating about. There are so many conspiracy theories about this event that it is hard to believe. Every aspect of security has its flaws and failures. That is why there are aspects or layers to it. I dont hold intelligence as being one of the strong layers because it has too many avenues for failure. I had that when I started. It was interesting to say the least. If they implement it again I will comply and we are still subject to being screened randomly. If we went back to that though, it would cause a lot of issues with delays in screening other passengers.

Citation for this profound opinion? There is nothing in the Amendment that limits PC to criminal cases.

I would suggest that you take Civics 101 again, as you have your interpretation of the permitted powers of the SCOTUS grossly incorrect.