If Ron Paul were to be elected POTUS we'd truly be f*!@ed.

You hate this loss of freedom so much that you want to force others not to have to put up with it? That makes sense. I've gone through that security scanning more than once with an opt out. It wasn't sexual assault by a long shot. By the way, the last time I checked, there isn't a court in the land that has disagreed with me.

You have three posts here. Were you really flying much to start with? You wouldn't by any chance be an angry, middle aged white guy would you?

As someone who has flown a great deal and still flies enough to qualify for mid tier status the OP's remarks are spot on.

The TSA's strip search and whole body groping procedures are the crudest and most widespread violation of the 4th Amendment that has ever taken place. It represents a significant practical threat to those of us who travel by air. You are free not to be upset about it. It is probably more praiseworthy to be upset about it.

No, most of the time, the patdowns appear innocuous. The issue is that they can cease being innocuous at ANY time, things have gone south for some people, indignities have happened. It's like Russian roulette, will this time be the time bad things happen? That is arbitrary behavior, not lawful behavior, and a free society cannot put up with this kind of unpredictable "will I get screwed today" stuff.

Keep checking. No court in the land has ruled on this yet. According to one federal lawyer who posts on these forums, PTravel, these procedures DO violate the principles already existing in federal cases on administrative searches.

Why are you counting? Are we limited by quota?
Unless you are a racist, his race should not matter, should it?

"You hate this loss of freedom so much that you want to force others not to have to put up with it? "

Do I want to force others to be free from having naked pictures taken and to be free from groping when they travel? that's a bad thing?

If I had it my way each individual airline would be responsible for having as much or as little security they choose. In that way the customer can choose whether he/she wants to fly 'nanny state search your body cavity airline' or 'be responsible for yourself airline'.

""Oppose with manly firmness any invasions on the rights of the people." " - TJ

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."" -TJ

Perhaps it would help the discussion to compare your link to this one from the year 2000, prior to 9/11, when the DHS did not exist, when the TSA did not exist, when cockpits weren't locked, nude-o-scopes didn't exist, and gropedowns didn't exist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ncidents,_2000

Know what I see on those two pages?

In 2000, there were 185 total terrorist acts, with only 1 occurring inside the US (April 30, an enviro-wacko group destroyed logging equipment, hurt no one and killed no one).

In 2010, there were 103 total terrorist acts, with only 1 occurring inside the US (May 10, a religio-wacko pipe-bombed a mosque with 60 people inside, fortunately with no injuries).

So, how has DHS, TSA, or the currently used scope-or-grope procedure made any difference?

How many courts have actually reviewed scope-or-grope? To my knowledge, there isn't a single court in the land that has AGREED with you, either.

Looks like the Brits are getting terrorized much more than we are in their public transportation, yet we still don't see them going crazy with TSA style security. Things that make one go "Hmmm". @:-)