Protesters Angry TSA Pat Down Bill Fails to Pass

[harvey007]

Source: Associated Press / Fox 7 Austin

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- A bill that would prohibit federal agents from intrusive searches during airport security pat downs is likely dead in the Texas Senate after a threat from federal officials to close airports if the measure passed.

Read more: http://www.myfoxaustin.com/dpp/top_stories/Protesters-Angry-TSA-Pat-Down-Bill-Fails-20110525-ktbcw#axzz1NTM7bLmg

[LibDemAlways]

1. Good. Let them shut down the airports. Only when the

airline CEOs start complaining to Congress about lost revenue will this shit be curtailed. The sooner the better.

[demosincebirth]

2. Good. Sad to say, but you get dumb legislation from both extremes.

[buckrogers1965]

3. It is illegal to search people

without probable cause that they have committed a crime. And no, your pants wetting fear doesn't override the 4th amendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

You need a warrant to search a person or a house, or to look through their records or stuff.

Period.

[jberryhill]

4. Where were you when the metal detectors were installed in the late 60's?

That is a search.

[Gormy Cuss]

5. You are not required to go through the search.

You may "choose" not to fly. There, feel better? :sarcasm:

[RC]

6. Take a train or bus... err, never mind.

You can still drive. But I assume they are working on that. State lines and such, ya know?

[LibDemAlways]

10. +1000 and then some.

This is blatantly unconstitutional bullshit. Groping in travelers' pants and/or taking nude images of them is certainly unreasonable. I wish more people would simply stop flying. Only when it kills air travel and the airline CEOS start complaining will anything be done. Only other hope is that the courts will declare it unconstitutional, but I'm not holding my breath.

[SDuderstadt]

11. Dude...

look up case law on "administrative searches". Neither warrants nor probable cause is required.

[guardian]

20. Right on! n/t

[ceile]

7. I might actually care

if it wasn't that nutjob Alex Jones leading the protest...

[krabigirl]

8. Good for them. At least some people are protesting,

[truebrit71]

9. A real shame. Someone has to stop the Feds in their destruction of civil liberties..

...the "enhanced pat-downs" are stupid, invasive and blatantly illegal.

Hopefully Jesse Ventura's lawsuit will go some way to stopping this kabuki theater bullshit...

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Aerows]

13. The TSA patdowns

and the machines you go through were bullshit to begin with.

Texas is far from perfect, but they are 100% right on this one.

[SDuderstadt]

14. No, they are not...

Read the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

[Aerows]

15. You always pop up in these TSA threads

I find it curious that you are willing to subject yourself to any violation of your personal space just so you can have a little bit of peace of mind that may or may not even grant you temporary safety.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

22. You might want to lay off the...

strawman arguments.

[Aerows]

24. Here - I'll reply

You might want to lay off the ad hominem attacks.

[SDuderstadt]

26. LOL!

Please point to a single ad hominem attack from me, kettle.

[Aerows]

29. I wasn't the one that had the entire

thread deleted because I had to go complain to the mods. I mean really - my argument was so strong you had to have it deleted? LOL.

Says more about you and your position than it does about me.

[SDuderstadt]

30. You've got to be kidding...

1st of all, you have no idea who alerted. Secondly, do you really think sub-threads are deleted because of "strong arguments"??

You might want to think a little about your repeated rule violations instead.

[Aerows]

31. You are right

Your arguments are incredible.

I'm in awe of your oratory skills, as is everyone else on DU.

[SDuderstadt]

32. Still ducking your rules violations...

I see.

[Aerows]

36. I love life

and occasionally, I break the rules.

I love people, I love my cats, I love to cook. I can't stand hypocrisy, though, and will stand up to it every chance I get.

But other than that, hey I love life, and hope others can do so as well. That includes you, my friend.

[SDuderstadt]

37. I love life, too...

That's just one of the reasons I believe in throwing as many obstacles in the paths of terrorists as possible.

Thanks for bringing that up.

[Aerows]

38. You go for it

I can probably end up liking someone like you, too.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

17. We have been over this...

There is no enabling legislation, codified regulation or federal court ruling that places your beloved TSA patdowns under the umbrella of the supremacy clause.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

23. You might want to read the...

U.S. Attorney's letter. The Department of Justice appears to disagree with you.

Bonus question: Why didn't the Texas legislature seek to enjoin the TSA from enforcing FAA policy and TSA regulations?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

25. I am not going to redebate this with you so your nonsense can get it deleted again

However, I won't let this slide. In this circumstance the Department of Justice is acting as general counsel to the Federal Government, they are not offering an impartial legal opinion. They also do not address the basis of the Texas legislation, it is merely a threat to cancel flights the TSA does not feel were sufficiently screened. I know several US Attorney's and they have to sign their name to all sorts of things they are personally embarrassed by at the behest of various federal agencies.

And as we already discussed at length and repeatedly the TSA is not acting on any federal regulation of their own or anyone elses when they sexually assault the traveling public, you can't enjoin something that doesn't exist. This vacuum in which the TSA operates was deliberate because the Bush administration wanted the TSA to have greater power over the American public than congress ever would have allowed for, even on September 12th.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Aerows]

41. Yep

And +1 for saying it again, because it needed to be said again.

[SDuderstadt]

43. He can say it as many times as he wants, but...

it's simply not true.

[sabrina 1]

54. Thank you. And as more and more people and morea and

more states take action against these unconstitutional tactics, I think eventually we will see the end of them.

The Texas Bill was correct and I hope they go back and rewrite it or maybe the Legislature could join all the other litigants against the TSA and the FEds and file a lawsuit against them for violating their states' citizens constitutional rights.

As more and more courts rule against the TSA eventually it will end up in the SC.

[SDuderstadt]

55. "As more and more courts rule against the TSA eventually it will end up in the SC"

What a misleading subject line, Sabrina.

Has a single court ruled against the TSA? Hint: No. I'm still waiting for those legal cites of security checkpoints that have been found unconstitutional. Find them yet?

[sabrina 1]

34. Thank you. And airc, you made an excellent case debunking

this silly 'supremecy clause' argument. The patdowns were instituted, NOT for security, but to force people to go through the machines since many people were opting out of them. That threatened the profits which is all this is about.

So, a few months ago, the TSA announced their upcoming 'enhanced patdowns' slying hinting that you would be better off going through the anti-Constitutional Naked Scanners.

I think eventually they will be banned in every state and the Feds will have to start working for the people instead of Big Business or shut down the entire country on their behalf.

[SDuderstadt]

35. "Silly Supremacy Clause Argument"

You mean the one that got the Texas Legislature to back down?

THAT silly supremacy clause argument?

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to cite the cases that supposedly found security checkpoints to be unconstitutional. How is that coming along?

[Aerows]

39. Can I ask you a question

Why do you need to be so condescending?

If your position is so strong, why do you have to act so weak by taking a condescending position?

[SDuderstadt]

42. It's called...

satire.

Perhaps you've heard of it.

[Aerows]

45. Let me get this straight

You are calling your own posts satire now?

[SDuderstadt]

47. That one I am...

You do realize the power of satire, right?

[Aerows]

44. I fly

and I don't like them. Since I'm a "customer" my opinion matters, and very much should matter, instead of mouthpieces that seem to think this is all well and good.

It's not.

[SDuderstadt]

48. "mouthpieces"...

Just can't shake that addiction to ad hominem dismissals, can you...

Maybe if you would acknowledge a legitimate other side to this debate, the tone of it might improve. Something to think about.

[sabrina 1]

56. Me too, and millions of others. And these tactics

have only been in use for six months and already ten states are working on banning them, and several lawsuits have already been filed. And the more people find out about them, the more outrage there will be.

I don't think I've ever seen this much reaction to something in such a short amount of time. So, I think eventually they will have to remove them ... we will win this because it is so clearly wrong.

[SDuderstadt]

57. And one such lawsuit has already been dismissed...

"with prejudice".

http://tsaoutofourpants.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/corbett-v-us-dismissed.pdf

Hint: The Plaintiff filed in the wrong court.

Still waiting for the cases that have held security checkpoints are "unconstitutional", Sabrina.

[sabrina 1]

58. There will be plenty more. The TSA backed off taking

a case to court after threatening to do so, when several civil rights orgs. volunteered their services to defend the case. Because they do not want to go to court as the are not on firm legal ground. The ACLU, among others, will defend anyone they sue for refusing their pat downs and/or scanners. But when they had a chance to go to court and prove their case, they were too scared to do it.

They will be in court many many times as more of the traveling public run into these vile practices. As I said, only six months and the outrage is only growing.

[SDuderstadt]

59. Please provide a cite...

for that. Simple question: were those passengers allowed to board the flight?

I am also still waiting for the cases you claimed held that security checkpoints are "unconstitutional". What is taking so long?

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lucian]

19. Texas is right in this one.

I wish it would've passed. Who wants to be felt up by a person they're not married to or dating at the airport?

I don't ever want to fly until patdowns are banned.

[Aerows]

28. I fear nothing

and I'll stand up to anyone, including a hulking authority. That's a novel concept, apparently, but not one that has gone completely out of style.

[SDuderstadt]

33. "hulking authority"

LOL!

[Aerows]

40. If the shoe fits

I'm not hulking, by the way. I'm pretty tiny.

[SDuderstadt]

46. Well, I guess that rules you out as an...

"authority", huh...

[Aerows]

49. It's kind of interesting

to see how many times you would like to fail in this thread. I'm pretty sure you've failed in your responses more often than the Dodgers failed at baseball. But I have no doubt you will come up with an excuse for the Dodgers and yourself to be "winners".

[SDuderstadt]

50. Another strawman argument...

Gee, what a surprise.

[Aerows]

51. Oh for heaven's sake, hit the alert button

already.

[SDuderstadt]

52. Strawman arguments don't violate DU rules...

perhaps you should familiarize yourself with them.

BTW, I am shortly off to see the SF Giants play here in Milwaukee. So much for your Dodgers red herring.

[Aerows]

53. Have a great time

I'm going to tend to my garden and hope strawberries and spinach come up :)