QUOTE=1234 I only watched the first one, but this guy is a pain in the ass.

P.I.T.A.? Yes, he really was all that. As it is (a P.I.T.A.) for us every single day we show up at our work station. As it is for every single one of our passengers when they want nothing more than to go from "A" to "B". In a reasonable manner. And yet they somehow still subject themselves to an unbelievably humiliating security screening. I shake my head in unbelief at how much we as a society have seemingly abandoned one of our fundamental constitutional rights.
Chuck

TSA has announced some new procedures, they were in the onion:


1. Instead of broadcasting CNN on the televisions by the gates, passengers in waiting areas will be shown episodes of 24 to get their adrenaline going in case they need to knock down a terrorist.

2. Any carry-on luggage that cannot fit in standard basket by gate will have its contents announced over loudspeaker.

3. Newsstands are to begin selling copies of Modern Terrorist and reporting people who pick it up.

4. In accordance with President Obama’s demands for a modernized no-fly list, the 219-page catalog of names behind each ticketing desk will now be bound and alphabetized.

5. Using an ultrasonic frequency imperceptible to the conscious mind, the FAA will broadcast the audiobook of Marley And Me in an effort to subliminally warm would-be terrorists’ hearts.

6. Deputy air marshals will have power to surreptitiously look over top of newspaper, register disapproval.

7. Millimeter-wave scanners on board will inspect passengers and heat soup.

8. Shuttle bus drivers will be trained to expand their interrogation techniques beyond asking where passengers are going and if they have family there.

Which constitutional right is being violated?

The fourth one. Actually an amendment of the constitution. The whole unreasonable searches and seizure thing. But James Madison didn't envision an airport in the late 18th century, so I guess it's allowed there. :rolleyes:

The [Rutherford] Institute will represent Roberts [expressjet pilot] and assist him in his claim that the TSA’s use of full-body scanning technology as a primary security scan violates the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. This case will probably be thrown out under some sort of anti-terrorism mandate. Nevertheless, we applaud Roberts and the Rutherford Institute for standing up to what should be freedom from unlawful search and seizure. Full body scans are simply going too far.

My guess is you can claim 4th amendment and say it's going too far but you also don't have the right to fly on an airplane. Hence the author above is probably right, this will be tossed. If you want to fly you do what TSA says.

That said, I don't like those machines and I think you could get the ATA, unions, passenger rights advocates and others to come together to fight the machines as being dangerous and causing passengers undue stress and make it a health and financial issue. Public pressure is as good as anything a court can accomplish.

I think the key is to cite the radiation issue. That'll kill it long before a court even hears it.

Believe me, I don't like the process either and the new machines may be balancing on the line of unreasonable, however:

Courts characterize the routine administrative search conducted at a security checkpoint as a warrantless search, subject to the reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Such a warrantless search, also known as an administrative search, is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, " confined in good faith to that purpose," and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly. [See United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)]

Agreed. Look at the hit to the economy without the air transportation system. If all the groups came together to fight this instead of being the submissive baby, it might change. The problem is that the government has purchased hundreds of these units and now we want to mothball them. (I know, it wont be the first or last waste of our tax dollars)

Correct. Flying is not a right. You could have driven instead, and carried anything you chose to put in your car.

I'd be shocked if this guys' defense makes it very far. He chose to enter the airport. If his defense is accepted, a ruling in his favor could, in theory, disallow screening of any type -whereas one could always claim their possessions are being subjected to an unreasonable search.

Won't happen in this environment.

You might be able to throw in the right to privacy in there, too. I would argue that the groping is excessive and its benefits do not outweigh the privacy rights of the individuals who are groped.

I'm obviously uninformed. I have no idea who you guys are referring to. :confused: :(

Why do we use initials?
These guys are candidates for a prominent position of union leadership.
They should have no objection to their names being made public.
They have voluntarily made themselves "public figures".

Signed,
C.E.