The reality of the situation is that you are strip searching the American public. That has never been dared before in the history of the republic. It is specifically forbidden in the Constitution that used to govern the outfit you work for.

The reality of the situation is that you are feeling up the sex organs, buttocks, hair, and whatever else you please, of the American public, likewise in violation of custom, expected freedoms, and the explicit words of the 4th Amendment.

The reality of the situation is that other countries in the world with worse terror problems do not do this.

The reality of the situation is that we are told to submit, "soldier on", whereas a healthier reaction would be to run y'all through with bayonets.

There is no inevitability about this. There is no need to accept it. It cannot be accepted because it is unjust and violates the human person so deeply. You just want us to quietly comply, to go take our place up at the lip of the pit when it is our turn. the h*ll with that.

Why ruin good steel? Hemp rope is cheaper and can be reused unless you want to tar the corpse and leave it for a few year pour l'encouragment des autres.

You're not my #%@&ing sergeant. And demanding military obedience and submission from your civilian population proves your desire to undermine the American way of life in favor of a totalitarian police state. North Korea expects its citizens to "soldier up". Soviet Russia expected its people to "soldier up". Communism, Fascism and every other -ism requires the masses to "soldier up" for the greater good. If you don't understand that such an attitude should never bleed into the civilian side of a free society, then you shouldn't have left mindless conformity of military culture.

^^^^^^

Actually no, we are not. People are not allowed to strip naked at TSA checkpoints. Take coats off, shoes, yes, but not strip. The whole idea that we do otherwise is a complete lie, hyperbole. The searches we do are administrative in nature, and completely supported by the laws of our nation. At least until such time as they change those laws, which has not happened yet. Any other understanding of the situation is false. I have provided more than enough proof of this.

Your version of reality has absolutely nothing to do with the facts. I have never touched anyone’s sex organs on the checkpoint. Nor have I touched anyone’s hair. But then again I search males, and they tend to have shorter hair.

It also seems that your understanding of the fourth amendment is a bit lacking. In another thread I posted quite a number of court cases that directly address this issue. Please take a few moments to find that post and read about the fourth amendment and how it applies to the TSA and its administrative searches. It’s an interesting read. Somehow I doubt you will, but I have pointed you in the right direction and therefore have met my obligation as an educator.

And here is the problem, you provide a very clear example. You are putting your belief’s in place of the facts and saying that your belief’s are the truth. Believe what you like, it’s not like I can change your mind, but don’t expect me to allow falsehoods such as you seem to support and indeed seem to believe, go without challenge.

Never said I was. I understand that there are some comprehension issues out there but you seem like fairly bright person. The analogy was quite appropriate, so find some other thing to pontificate about.

It's ironic that you criticize others for their comprehension issues in a posting in which you make a grammatical error. There's a saying about glass houses that comes to mind.

AIT is a visual strip search pure and simple. ATR mitigates this substantially. Yes, TSA **IS** strip searching. TSA is looking at the intimate parts of our loved ones. You folks go to ATR, then this goes away in part, provided the data is not retained or renderable in the current nude body format.
This is the absolute truth and to deny it is a joke. We're not buying it.


The facts I point to are incontrovertible.
Does TSA feel up to the resistance or not? Yes, it does. Not everyone hits the genitals, but some or many agents do touch the genitals. In the resolution rubdown, does TSA rub the genital and sex organ area or does it not? Yes it does. That TSA agents do this through the clothing changes nothing.

If you can prove otherwise, let's hear it.

Yes, and we pointed out the fatal flaws in your arguments in those posts. We rejected the extension of those driver license checkpoint and parolee frisk cases to the strip searches and the sex organ groping of innocent passengers not under arrest and without probable cause. We noted there that only twisted minds could possibly think this way. We noted there, and we note again here, that a free people cannot tolerate this. If they do, they are no longer free, but slaves to power.

I bring to bear on this issue not beliefs, but the same reasoning that is available to us all. Namely, based on natural law, based on the Constitution, based on how the Constitution has been written and interpreted over the past centuries. It is the reasoning of Jefferson, Madison, and the other founders. It is a reasoning participated in by any of us capable of thinking. And that reasoning is fairly simple. A government should not violate my person and my privacy simply on its whim. There has to be some cause capable of generating a warrant. And buying a airline ticket does not constitute a cause to be so searched. Not a belief. A fact.

It is impossible for you to challenge what I've written. It is impossible for falsehood to challenge truth. It can only make noise.

The law permits reasonable airport security searches. These must be effective, consistent, brief, and must not be targeted at general law enforcement. For example, TSA searches for the purpose of finding drugs are unlawful. (If TSA happens to find drugs during an otherwise lawful search, that is another thing. But there is ample evidence in various threads on this site, and elsewhere, to believe that TSA is looking for drugs -- whoops!)

No court has yet given an opinion as to whether the current regime is lawful. Where however the search is not supported by a warrant issued by a magistrate, the burden of proof rests upon the government to establish that the search is reasonable, and if it is not, it is unlawful. So, right now, the legal presumption is that TSA's current search regime is unlawful.

And even if in theory the TSA regime could be lawful in general, in particular there will be very great difficulties in carrying it out in a lawful fashion.

For example, the glove issue. It has yet to be shown that there is any connection between failure to change gloves and enhanced security on the aircraft. I would say that where TSA's default state of hygiene is never changing gloves unless they are requested, the courts will not sustain this.

And certainly, if a TSA agent were to carry out an intrusive search of the passenger without changing gloves, and doing so in a proper manner, that search would be unlawful, and possibly criminal.

I need hardly add that the bursting of ostomy bags, yelling out "Here's another cutie" and so forth will cause a search to be regarded as unlawful by the courts as unreasonable and unnecessary humiliation.

So they can take out a ruler and hit them like a schoolmarm if you misbehave?

Actually, they have. SCOTUS has stated several times “within the technology of the time”. You would know that if you had read the links I provided in the other thread. AIT is certainly technology in our time. I find it interesting how often that little gem is ignored by the folks around here.

Not sure I get your point here.

We use gloves to protect ourselves. You may come into contact with a single TSO, or maybe two, as you make your way through an airport, but we make contact with hundreds of passengers. I change my gloves when they become dirty, when requested, or when I feel I need a change. I also change them when I move from one position to another, when I go on break or to lunch, and when I am done for the day. All in all I’d guess I go through 15 to 20 pairs a shift.

Yeah, right, whatever.

While the constitution specifically speaks to “unreasonable”, I do not believe it speaks to “humiliation”. If it did, we would need more courts and far more prisons.

Well, the Constitution doesn't specifically speak to "administrative search" exemptions to the Fourth Amendment, either ... but we still have them, as you have pointed out numerous times.

If you want to be a strict Constitutionalist, that's fine. But if you want to allow for latter interpretations of the Constitution, then please be consistent.

Same at you there big guy! ^

Now wait a minute, I'm not the one that is a "strict Constitutionalist", you might want to have a word or two with some of your fellows though, they certainly are.

InkUnderNails posted a law article that described the origins of this nefarious practice of administrative search by the SCROTUS, which started out as a relatively innocuous way to allow city building inspectors to access private property to determine safety..

It has grown into this monster where it is now used to justify TSA inspections of your private orifaces. It is past time to reign in this staggering gutting of the 4th amendment.

You're the one who wants to disallow arguments about "humiliating" searches, because the Constitution doesn't say anything about the topic. Yet, you're more than willing to endorse the notion of "administrative" searches, even though the Constitution doesn't say anything about the topic.

So ... how shall we proceed? Is the Constitution a living document, or not?

They just want to make you know who is the boss. It is all part of security theater. Not security, just theater.