The Obama Approved (Nazi)TSA sexual assault of former Miss USA

[Ernie S.]

Good night ladies. She's all yours, Syrenn.
Valerie, pleas try to apply some logic.Current TSA guidelines are stupid.

 

[Valerie]

It's NOT a practical solution to anything other than to increase the size of the Federal payroll. Practical would be to select for enhanced screening, people who look particularly nervous or fit the threat profile. But, profiling is a dirty word, so in order to appear politically correct, we let the majority of passengers that DO fit the threat profile pass without enhanced searches and pat down granny and little Heather.

You really think a profiling protocol would HELP with your long beard situation?

What the hell do you mean by that? I could be perceived as somewhat radical, I guess. Maybe I deserve closer scrutiny than the guy who flies out every Tuesday and knows all the screeners by name, But if I'm not the 27th to pass through, I walk by and Joe the frequent flier gets his nuts checked.

I mean that to me profiling people according to superficial appearance sounds way more offensive and intrusive...

 

[syrenn]

You really think a profiling protocol would HELP with your long beard situation?

What the hell do you mean by that? I could be perceived as somewhat radical, I guess. Maybe I deserve closer scrutiny than the guy who flies out every Tuesday and knows all the screeners by name, But if I'm not the 27th to pass through, I walk by and Joe the frequent flier gets his nuts checked.

I mean that to me profiling people according to superficial appearance sounds way more offensive and intrusive...

It is all offensive and intrusive. So profiling should not be off the table because its not politically correct. .

 

[Valerie]

Then what would you call strip searching a nun and letting Muhammed pass through untouched as he mutters Allah Akbar?

Your vivid imagination........?

No, its not. Ive seen it happen.

You saw a nun get strip searched?

 

[Valerie]

Then what would you call strip searching a nun and letting Muhammed pass through untouched as he mutters Allah Akbar?

Your vivid imagination........?

No, its not. Ive seen it happen.

Would you call strip searching a nun politically correct?

 

[syrenn]

Your vivid imagination........?

No, its not. Ive seen it happen.

You saw a nun get strip searched?

No, in tampa i saw a old women in a wheelchair along with her son who had NOT been searched or given any enhanced security tried to jump in line and board a our plain. The mother had a ticket and the son DID NOT have a ticket. When asked how he got to the gate without a ticket he said no one asked him for one. Both were iranian (they showed their passports) and looked dicey to me. He was pissed off that he could not board the plain and help his mother into her seat saying she could not lift her bag. So neither went through even the standard security.

His mother did just fine lifting her bag into the over head.

 

[Valerie]

What the hell do you mean by that? I could be perceived as somewhat radical, I guess. Maybe I deserve closer scrutiny than the guy who flies out every Tuesday and knows all the screeners by name, But if I'm not the 27th to pass through, I walk by and Joe the frequent flier gets his nuts checked.

I mean that to me profiling people according to superficial appearance sounds way more offensive and intrusive...

It is all offensive and intrusive. So profiling should not be off the table because its not politically correct. .

You are the one clinging to what's supposedly "politically correct" by insisting an administrative search for explosives prior to boarding a commercial flight is some sort of personal intrusion by "the government" when it is truly no such thing at all...

 

[syrenn]

I mean that to me profiling people according to superficial appearance sounds way more offensive and intrusive...

It is all offensive and intrusive. So profiling should not be off the table because its not politically correct. .

You are the one clinging to what's supposedly "politically correct" by insisting an administrative search for explosives prior to boarding a commercial flight is some sort of personal intrusion by "the government" when it is truly no such thing at all...

No, i am saying search for a reason to search, not to fulfill an hourly quota. Anything else is an personal intrusion by "the government"

 

[Valerie]

It is all offensive and intrusive. So profiling should not be off the table because its not politically correct. .

You are the one clinging to what's supposedly "politically correct" by insisting an administrative search for explosives prior to boarding a commercial flight is some sort of personal intrusion by "the government" when it is truly no such thing at all...

No, i am saying search for a reason to search, not to fulfill an hourly quota. Anything else is an personal intrusion by "the government"

There is reason to search and no evidence of an hourly quota whatsoever....

 

[syrenn]

You are the one clinging to what's supposedly "politically correct" by insisting an administrative search for explosives prior to boarding a commercial flight is some sort of personal intrusion by "the government" when it is truly no such thing at all...

No, i am saying search for a reason to search, not to fulfill an hourly quota. Anything else is an personal intrusion by "the government"

There is reason to search and no evidence of an hourly quota whatsoever....

You must not fly often.

 

[Valerie]

No, i am saying search for a reason to search, not to fulfill an hourly quota. Anything else is an personal intrusion by "the government"

There is reason to search and no evidence of an hourly quota whatsoever....

You must not fly often.

You've reached a dead end here, huh?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do contracted screeners draw their authority from the Aviation Transportation and Security Act PL107-71 (ATSA), or do state and local governments have to codify ATSA to establish their authority to perform Administrative Searches? If so, what if there is a conflict with the State Constitution (e.g., random vehicle searches during heightened alert conditions)? Will the Screening Standard Operating Procedures be modified to accommodate these conflicts?





Even prior to the passage of ATSA and the Federalization of the screening work force, Federal courts upheld warrantless searches of carry-on luggage at airports. 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)].

While the searches at the airport will be conducted by private screening companies, such searches will continue to be subject to the Fourth Amendment requirements of reasonableness because they are conducted at the instigation of the federal Government and under the authority of federal statutes and regulations governing air passenger screening.

TSA: Frequently Asked Questions - Program

I love how people keep going back to the administrative search argument, and then ignore the fact that these searches are both more intrusive than necessary given current technology, and are not confined to luggage.

Want to try again?

 

[syrenn]

There is reason to search and no evidence of an hourly quota whatsoever....

You must not fly often.

You've reached a dead end here, huh?

No, if you fly often you would see for yourself what i am saying. There is no telling you or explaining it to you, as you don't want to listen.

They pick women to search because they look attractive. They let people who i would consider dicey walk right though.

 

[Valerie]

Do contracted screeners draw their authority from the Aviation Transportation and Security Act PL107-71 (ATSA), or do state and local governments have to codify ATSA to establish their authority to perform Administrative Searches? If so, what if there is a conflict with the State Constitution (e.g., random vehicle searches during heightened alert conditions)? Will the Screening Standard Operating Procedures be modified to accommodate these conflicts?





Even prior to the passage of ATSA and the Federalization of the screening work force, Federal courts upheld warrantless searches of carry-on luggage at airports. 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)].

While the searches at the airport will be conducted by private screening companies, such searches will continue to be subject to the Fourth Amendment requirements of reasonableness because they are conducted at the instigation of the federal Government and under the authority of federal statutes and regulations governing air passenger screening.

TSA: Frequently Asked Questions - Program

I love how people keep going back to the administrative search argument, and then ignore the fact that these searches are both more intrusive than necessary given current technology, and are not confined to luggage.

Want to try again?

Sure, I try and try yet you refuse to see who really clings to PCism here...



Administrative searches are not an "argument" but indeed the facts of a legal precedent which stands to be shot down any time now... Or not...

 

[Valerie]

You must not fly often.

You've reached a dead end here, huh?

No, if you fly often you would see for yourself what i am saying. There is no telling you or explaining it to you, as you don't want to listen.

They pick women to search because they look attractive. They let people who i would consider dicey walk right though.

I have seen for myself and IMO it is no big deal...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Seriously, people get way too emotional about this when it's really nothing more than trying to find practical solutions to real problems...

It's sad the way our security gets politicized and undermined when attention seekers with an agenda act as if people don't understand about the 4th amendment and all...

The problem they are attempting to find a solution to is the fact that politicians do not want to look bad if another terrorist gets on a plane and flies it into the UN building. That might be a problem for the politician, and you might even think that it is a problem if politicians look bad, but I do not see that as a problem. I do not give a fuck if a politican looks bad because something that he could not stop happened.

The TSA is about looking good, not preventing terror attacks. The TSA has not prevented a single terror attack in its existence, and never will. They make up procedures to stop the last attack, tell us terrorists are geniuses, and treat us all like idiots. This is theater designed to make people feel good, and you allow them to violate your rights so that you can believe a lie.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are the one clinging to what's supposedly "politically correct" by insisting an administrative search for explosives prior to boarding a commercial flight is some sort of personal intrusion by "the government" when it is truly no such thing at all...

No, i am saying search for a reason to search, not to fulfill an hourly quota. Anything else is an personal intrusion by "the government"

There is reason to search and no evidence of an hourly quota whatsoever....

There is no reason to search. Fear is not a reason, it is an emotion.

 

[Valerie]

Seriously, people get way too emotional about this when it's really nothing more than trying to find practical solutions to real problems...

It's sad the way our security gets politicized and undermined when attention seekers with an agenda act as if people don't understand about the 4th amendment and all...

The problem they are attempting to find a solution to is the fact that politicians do not want to look bad if another terrorist gets on a plane and flies it into the UN building. That might be a problem for the politician, and you might even think that it is a problem if politicians look bad, but I do not see that as a problem. I do not give a fuck if a politican looks bad because something that he could not stop happened.

The TSA is about looking good, not preventing terror attacks. The TSA has not prevented a single terror attack in its existence, and never will. They make up procedures to stop the last attack, tell us terrorists are geniuses, and treat us all like idiots. This is theater designed to make people feel good, and you allow them to violate your rights so that you can believe a lie.

What this former Miss USA pulled here is what I would call theater...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do contracted screeners draw their authority from the Aviation Transportation and Security Act PL107-71 (ATSA), or do state and local governments have to codify ATSA to establish their authority to perform Administrative Searches? If so, what if there is a conflict with the State Constitution (e.g., random vehicle searches during heightened alert conditions)? Will the Screening Standard Operating Procedures be modified to accommodate these conflicts?





Even prior to the passage of ATSA and the Federalization of the screening work force, Federal courts upheld warrantless searches of carry-on luggage at airports. 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)].

While the searches at the airport will be conducted by private screening companies, such searches will continue to be subject to the Fourth Amendment requirements of reasonableness because they are conducted at the instigation of the federal Government and under the authority of federal statutes and regulations governing air passenger screening.

TSA: Frequently Asked Questions - Program

I love how people keep going back to the administrative search argument, and then ignore the fact that these searches are both more intrusive than necessary given current technology, and are not confined to luggage.

Want to try again?

Sure, I try and try yet you refuse to see who really clings to PCism here...



Administrative searches are not an "argument" but indeed the facts of a legal precedent which stands to be shot down any time now... Or not...

And, according to the citation you gave, are only permissible when they search luggage and carryons.

Federal courts upheld warrantless searches of carry-on luggage at airports.

Can you explain how we get from a search of luggage and carry ons for weapons and explosives to patting down everyone who gets on a plane?

 

[Valerie]

No, i am saying search for a reason to search, not to fulfill an hourly quota. Anything else is an personal intrusion by "the government"

There is reason to search and no evidence of an hourly quota whatsoever....

There is no reason to search. Fear is not a reason, it is an emotion.

That's deep. You've reached Quantum depths...