richard wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:18:06 -0800, Jordon wrote:
>
>> richard wrote:
>>> http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/02/17...ef=igoogle_cnn
>>>
>>> Ok now this one is getting under my skin a bit to much. The damn TSA
>>> {airport security people} have gone a tad far now.
>>>
>>> Because of one person sneaking on some home made contraption which failed,
>>> TSA now demands every passenger hands be swabbed for explosives.
>>
>> Not one. Two. Richard Reid and his shoe.
>>
>>> Excuse me? No. First of all, the test is not conclusive. If you didn't
>>> know, a person who is a commercial gardner who works with plants all day
>>> long will test positive. Why? Nitrates. This is what the test will look
>>> for.
>>>
>>> Even a person who recently fired a pistol or rifle will test positive.
>>>
>>> Not even the police you come into contact every day have this authority to
>>> conduct a search of your person without a search warrant. I believe that
>>> somewhere in the US Constitution there is a little statement about the fact
>>> that people have the right to be secure in their person and personal
>>> belongings.
>>>
>>> What's next on line for the TSA? A full body cavity search?
>>>
>>> This is damn bullshit. The TSA needs to be stopped.
>>
>> There's a difference between a police search and the search
>> you go through at the security checkpoint at the airport...
>> You don't have to go through the security checkpoint at the
>> airport. You either consent to the search or you don't get
>> on the airplane. Your choice. With the police, you have no
>> choice.
>>
>> Not that you'd ever be allowed on an airplane, but what's
>> the big deal if the TSA thinks this may, sometime, save
>> 300 lives?
>>
>> I've asked you before on other subjects but you've never
>> answered... what's your solution?
>
> What is the solution?
> I would begin by repealing the Patriot Act.
> Which basically stated that every American citizen is now a suspected
> terrorist.
And that prevents people from boarding airplanes with
explosives... how?
> The TSA is a police force. So therefore they must abide by any and all
> federal laws and rulings. Just as any other police officer has to.
> Does a police officer on the street have the right to take any kind of
> samples from you for any reason? No they do not.
The key word is consent.
What you fail to comprehend (and I have no doubt will
continue to fail to comprehend) is that if a police
officer asks you if you'd consent to a search, and they
have no search warrant, and you consent, it's legal.
Same with security at the airport. You give your consent
for a search but a search isn't mandatory, unless you
want to get on an airplane. You have the option to not
get on the airplane.
> In order to take a legal sample, the officer must have "probable cause".
> Boarding a plane is not probable cause.
Since the search isn't mandatory the use of the words
"probable cause" has no meaning.
> I just feel this latest swabbing is a violation of the right to be secure
> clause in the amendments.
The Constitution doesn't have anything to do with it.
You don't have to be searched. You also don't have to
get on the airplane. Does any consumer have the right
to be served at any place of business? (We reserve the
right to refuse service to anyone.) You don't have a
right to get on the plane, but if you want on, you have
to consent to a search.
You still haven't given me your suggestion on how to
prevent someone from bringing explosives on board.
Similar Threads
