|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: TSA = Tremendously Stupid Asses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Ziegler
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 753
From: West Hollywood, CA
Registered: Jul 99
|
posted 12-05-2010 06:35 PM
quote: Steve Guttag
One can choose to not exercise their rights but can just as quickly return to their use. i.e. you can waive your 5th amendment right answer questions...but just as quickly reinstate that right and refuse further questioning. It isn't like you've surrendered those rights for the duration.
That depends on the right. For example, once you have plead guilty, it is pretty difficult to rescind that plea. Again, Steve, the issue comes down to what is reasonable. Requiring someone to complete the screening process once they have started it is reasonable because allowing people to stop mid screening would allow someone trying to smuggle a weapon or explosive to stop screening if he thinks his item is about to be found. He can then go and hide it somewhere else and try again, and again, and again until he managed to get whatever it was onto the aircraft.
quote: Steve Guttag
Oops...so in this instance one can not retain their rights? Losing ones rights requires due process...I think your theory of merely walking into an airport as a voluntary waiving of one's rights is wrong.
Not walking into the airport, but starting the screening process. By doing so you are voluntarily waving your rights until the process is over. This is a pretty simple concept Steve.
quote: Steve Guttag
The amount of time wasted, the amount of "caught" items versus non makes the TSA security fall, for most, in my opinion fall outside of the reasonableness.
So you would prefer a wild west style free for all on commercial aircraft?
quote: Steve Guttag
In a similar case that has made it to the supreme court involving sobriety checkpoints, key points that were brought up were the number of fatalities of drunken driving, the detained time (25-seconds) and the percentage of people caught (2 out of 125). If you compare the stop and frisk at airports, you have a far longer detention, far fewer fatalities and a FAR FAR fewer caught versus frisked.
First, SCOTUS upheld checkpoints as legal. Second, you're comparison is absurd on it's face. One drunk driver cannot cause the level of death and destruction as one terrorist can. If your ideas on airport security were in practice, I doubt there would be a tall building left in this nation as crashing planes into them would become a daily event. The reason that we stopped having planes crashed into buildings is because we increased security - both at the passenger level and higher.
Do you really think the terrorists were done after 9/11?
quote: Steve Guttag
Is going to an airport to board a plane for which you bought a ticket suspicious activity?
Flying on a commercial airliner not a constitutionally protected activity, Steve. The difference between a Terry stop in the street and airport security is that the Terry stop you are randomly stopped and searched, which is why the reasonable suspicion standard is in place. With airport security, being screened is a requirement to get onto the aircraft. You don't want to get screened? Take a bus. Again, this is a simple concept that you are refusing to see.
quote: Steve Guttag
Regulating air travel (how the industry operates) is different from regulating the free travel of the citizens of the USA...when evaluating the government's authority as it involves the private citizen always involves that the laws fall within the constitution.
Not allowing you to fly does not impede your free travel. You can take a bus, a train, a car, ride a horse or walk. Free travel existed before 1903. You do not have a constitutional right to ride in anything.
quote: Steve Guttag
To suggest that the founders would have tolerated the airport security check points is the absurd part...they lived through that sort of society.
So what in early American society compared to an airliner Steve? One device could one destroy and kill hundreds of people, both on the device and on the ground?
quote:
t was so important that the prevention of search and seizure was in the Bill of Rights and came in at #4.
Again, you are failing to include "unreasonable". There are quite a few, in fact, probably most, searches and seizures in the United States are without a warrant. There is a difference between regulating an activity, and "preventing" it. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent searches and seizure.
quote: Steve Guttag
This issue will get a ruling in the Supreme court sooner or later.
I highly doubt it will make it past Federal district court. A district judge will laugh out a suit claiming that airport screening is unconstitutional, and it will not make it though the appeals court either.
However, let's suppose for the hell of it that is does. Do you really think at that point you would be able to get on a commercial airliner with whatever you wanted? Is United Airlines really going to let you get onto their multi-million dollar plane with a gun? No, they won't. In fact, what would happen is that the TSA people would get hired by the airlines to do the exact same thing as they are doing now, and you would have to agree to let them do it before you could purchase a ticket (which would cost a lot more).
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 12-05-2010 07:48 PM
quote: Jim Ziegler
That depends on the right. For example, once you have plead guilty, it is pretty difficult to rescind that plea.
Oh come on...where did I say that the exercising of one's right somehow erased the history of when they were not exercising their right?
quote: Jim Ziegler
Requiring someone to complete the screening process once they have started it is reasonable because allowing people to stop mid screening would allow someone trying to smuggle a weapon or explosive to stop screening if he thinks his item is about to be found. He can then go and hide it somewhere else and try again, and again, and again until he managed to get whatever it was onto the aircraft.
Lets look at this and compare it to your prior examples. If one is being interrogated and is not exercising their 5th amendment rights and is then asked a question that might, in their mind, tend to incriminate them...they can instantly exercise their 5th amendment right with no penalty for the use of that right.
If I allowed the screening and you find something on me...well I can't go back on that. If, however you have not started the screening on me...the inspection process has not started yet...you've merely selected me and I choose not to be selected.
quote: Jim Ziegler
So you would prefer a wild west style free for all on commercial aircraft?
Honestly? Given the extreme of surrendering one's 4th amendment rights or the wild west...I'll take my chances with the wild west. Naturally, less invasive forms of screening including metal detectors, and checks on the actual passenger list prior to the person ever being issued a boarding pass would be preferred.
quote: Jim Ziegler
First, SCOTUS upheld checkpoints as legal. Second, you're comparison is absurd on it's face.
You miss the point...the level of inconvenience versus the potential for harm. How many people are being screening in air travel versus driving? What is the average wait time for the average driver due to sobriety check points versus TSA check points? What are the percentage of people found drunk (versus checked) compared to people potentially causing planes/buildings to fall out of the sky or being rerouted (skyjacking)?
The concept you are missing is that there is NO difference between ones liberty to take a plane, bus, car or walk. The method of moving about is not specifically excluded in the constitution.
In a TSA screening, one is indeed RANDOMLY searched...no reasonable suspicion.
We will see just how far it goes in the courts...I'm still betting on the Supreme Court.
It does, however, appear that you and I will not find much common ground and the substance of our discussions will not be much different than they have been. I will, therefore bow out of continuing the same discussion of the same points.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 12 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic