National Opt Out of the Airport Scanners Day

[Ryan]

That didn't stop you from ranting and raving about how it was invalid.

In the English language rant generally refers to negative comments while rave generally refers to positive comments, so you might want to pick one or the other next time, but not both.

Really? After all of that, you're still attacking the poster and style and not substance? Do you want to keep playing word games or have a grown up conversation?

Jis, the article was referring to the backscatter. I'd love to see some testing of both - as infrequently as I fly, I don't really have a dog in that fight, but it would be good to have some actual medical data.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Are we talking here of the mm radiation devices or the backscatter X-Ray devices? My understanding is that there are some doubts about the X-Ray devices, or so said a biophysicist professor whose opinion I trust more on such matters than AFAIK anyone on this forum. However, since I am no expert I won't argue the point. I'd just want to see an impartial study that does not involve the manufacturer of the devices or the TSA as funding source. If I can find such a study then I'd take it to him and ask him about what he thinks of it.

I wholeheartedly agree. But until that day comes, I want the TSA to put the breaks on this Guinea pig process they've put together. Instead they've started moving in the opposite direction by using increasingly vigorous groping as some sort of bizarre deterrent to opting out.

Really? After all of that, you're still attacking the poster and style and not substance? Do you want to keep playing word games or have a grown up conversation?

Another personal attack disguised as a rant against personal attacks? Bravo.

 

[jis]

Are we talking here of the mm radiation devices or the backscatter X-Ray devices? My understanding is that there are some doubts about the X-Ray devices, or so said a biophysicist professor whose opinion I trust more on such matters than AFAIK anyone on this forum. However, since I am no expert I won't argue the point. I'd just want to see an impartial study that does not involve the manufacturer of the devices or the TSA as funding source. If I can find such a study then I'd take it to him and ask him about what he thinks of it.

I wholeheartedly agree. But until that day comes, I want the TSA to put the breaks on this Guinea pig process they've put together. Instead they've started moving in the opposite direction by using increasingly vigorous groping as some sort of bizarre deterrent to opting out.

Dax, you hit the nail on the head. Read this one:

For the First Time, TSA meets Resistance.

'Are Any Parts of Your Body Sore?' Asks the Man From TSA

and a related article:

TSA Desktop Image Makes Joke of Cavity Searching Children

and here is a good one

TSA Body Scanning is Completely Safe..... unless

All from completely reputable sources, so hopefully they will not be edited out by the moderators.

 

[jis]

The Wikipedia actually has a very interesting article on Backscatter X-Ray Scanners, which is not exactly conclusive in any particular way but presents a spectrum of studies and opinions concerning their safety.

Incidentally, you can check out the Flame Fest at Airliners.net on this subject.

And here is the official web site:

http://www.optoutday.com/

As it turns out I will be flying on that day It should be interesting.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Alan I disagree that this isn't a Constitutional issue. I think that it is one of the many issues that the Supreme Court should eventually pick up on-- the question is "are these laws Constitutional" do they violate the 4th Amendment? Furthermore the way these regulations are enacted, without full votes by our elected representatives, rather almost exclusively the Executive branch. The reason we have a Congress is to represent popular opinion, the President to enact laws, and the Supreme Court to judge those laws.

Of course Congress is not completely blameless-- The PATRIOT Act and numerous other legislations, however the mandate that backscatters became mandatory has yet to touch Congress.

Furthermore there is the question on whether or not these orders by the TSA are carried out lawfully. Under the law if you give a choice between two evils, you have the right to choose. However it is clear from reports that the TSA has been attempting to politely bully people to take the backscatters instead of the pat down. In attempting to demonize their own actions they are passively forcing people to make the "choice".

Furthermore the TSA, especially at the lower levels have thrown around the word "contract" that implies when you buy a ticket you surrender your rights. If this is true, then contract law can be applied to TSA mandates. In particular in the US nobody under the age of 18 may enter into a legally binding contract-- therefore the TSA is forcing minors into illegal contracts. It doesn't stop at minors either.

All of the above are possible (some less plausible than others) angles to say that while lawful, these actions are not Constitutional. It is up to the judicial branch of the government to decide this.

EDIT

Perhaps to clarify my position... currently this mess IS Constitutional by virtue of no court ruling that it isn't so. However the Constitution applies to all laws of the United States, and the people have the right to bring this to a court questioning Consitutionality, specifically whether these are lawfully conducted searches or not.

 

[AlanB]

Alan I disagree that this isn't a Constitutional issue. I think that it is one of the many issues that the Supreme Court should eventually pick up on-- the question is "are these laws Constitutional" do they violate the 4th Amendment? Furthermore the way these regulations are enacted, without full votes by our elected representatives, rather almost exclusively the Executive branch. The reason we have a Congress is to represent popular opinion, the President to enact laws, and the Supreme Court to judge those laws.

Congress doesn't vote everytime the FRA passes a new rule.

And the TSA isn't issuing laws, they are passing rules. Rules that you must comply with if you wish to board an airplane.

Furthermore the TSA, especially at the lower levels have thrown around the word "contract" that implies when you buy a ticket you surrender your rights. If this is true, then contract law can be applied to TSA mandates. In particular in the US nobody under the age of 18 may enter into a legally binding contract-- therefore the TSA is forcing minors into illegal contracts. It doesn't stop at minors either.

True, minors cannot enter into a legally binding contract. That's why minors can't buy airline tickets. Mom and dad do (or legal guardians), since they are authorized to enter into a legally binding contract on behalf of their children.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

No, and that's okay. But when said rule is starting to annoy millions of people and they're getting mad-- the representative body has a responsibility to get into the fray, especially if its a federal agency that imposes said rule.

And yes, if parents buy for their children then they should also make the decision if the children take the backscatter or pat down, and they should also be for-warned that their children may be subject to the same screening as they are.

 

[jis]

I think the current problem is that DHS has been given too much leeway in rule making on matters related fundamental values of the nation, without having gone through a proper debate on those matters. The issue of balance between policing and freedoms is smack dab in the middle of that. I think this debate needs to be entered into starting with the Congress and the President leading by curbing DHS's rule making freedoms in this area pending such a debate taking place, except in reasonably agreed upon emergency situations. If they are incapable of handling such a simple matter bearing upon the very essence of who we are then it should be reasonable to consider replacing them as elections come by, by those that can.

There is no point in succumbing wholesale to the desires of the Osama's of the world by unilaterally destroying all that we stand for out of fear of terrorism.

 

[PetalumaLoco]

Hypothetical TSA full-body scanner situation.

 

[Ryan]

There is no point in succumbing wholesale to the desires of the Osama's of the world by unilaterally destroying all that we stand for out of fear of terrorism.

Absolute Truth right there, ladies and gents.

The amount of money and focus on security at airports is ridiculously disproportionate to the threat, and Osama and his pals are doubtless laughing with amusement every time something like this boils to the top of our national consciousness.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Well said Jis, it's time the government got involved in actually governing. Our ELECTED officials are letting APPOINTED officials do their jobs just because they want reelected. I think that appointees have too much power, or at least the elected oenes aren't doing their job to check their power. The Legislative branchnshould be checking the real threat in Executive, but instead of worrying about what certain appointees do they're attacking the very top of tthe food chain.

 

[AlanB]

No, and that's okay. But when said rule is starting to annoy millions of people and they're getting mad-- the representative body has a responsibility to get into the fray, especially if its a federal agency that imposes said rule.

And yes, if parents buy for their children then they should also make the decision if the children take the backscatter or pat down, and they should also be for-warned that their children may be subject to the same screening as they are.

I think the current problem is that DHS has been given too much leeway in rule making on matters related fundamental values of the nation, without having gone through a proper debate on those matters. The issue of balance between policing and freedoms is smack dab in the middle of that. I think this debate needs to be entered into starting with the Congress and the President leading by curbing DHS's rule making freedoms in this area pending such a debate taking place, except in reasonably agreed upon emergency situations. If they are incapable of handling such a simple matter bearing upon the very essence of who we are then it should be reasonable to consider replacing them as elections come by, by those that can.

There is no point in succumbing wholesale to the desires of the Osama's of the world by unilaterally destroying all that we stand for out of fear of terrorism.

I wouldn't argue any of what's been said in these two posts. And I've said before that much of what's being done isn't really keeping us safe. There a plenty of other, better things that we could be doing. We should start with looking at what Isreal has been doing for years.

My main point through all of this is that this isn't a Constitutional issue. I'm not condoing it; just saying that the Constitution doesn't come into play.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Precisely, not yet anyway. I think the greatest way to challenge the TSA is to make it a Constitutional issue by trying to set a legal precedent where a federal court rules one of it's executive policies unconstitutional.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

My main point through all of this is that this isn't a Constitutional issue. I'm not condoing it; just saying that the Constitution doesn't come into play.

So what exactly does come into play? In other words, what are you willing to condone?

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

My main point through all of this is that this isn't a Constitutional issue. I'm not condoing it; just saying that the Constitution doesn't come into play.

So what exactly does come into play? In other words, what are you willing to condone?

He condones what jis and I have said, that there needs to be action on the other two sides of our government to check this power.

There are two different views of how the Constitution applies. Alan is right, this isn't in the Constitution, the Constitution doesn't speculate anything about it, they never foresaw it. It is therefore impossible to say "the stuff the TSA imposes is a violation of privacy and unconstitutional". However there is enough to say that, under the fourth amendment, "these laws are not carried out in line with the constitution"

The TSA policies only INDIRECTLY challenge the Constitution.

An example of a DIRECT opposition of the Constitution is if a Sheriff stopped all women from voting in his county, as according to the Vonstitution, women have the right to vote.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Of course that presupposes the Judicial rule that it in any fashion opposes the Constitution, if they do not rule so then this behavior will remain as it is. Status quo, this behavior is constitutional.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

I was watching the early show and they were talking about this type of protest. They also showed the new frisking technique where the female tsa searches around the breast etc. Of course with a tv camera on you your going to do everything by the book.They also said how the scanners are new and not every airport has them yet. and one guy said if your at a airport that has the magnetometers to go for that. The tsa does not have enough people to do hand searchers so with this large protest its going to cause big problems. He also said you can opt out of the scanners anyway but they won't tell you that you have to ask.

 

[PetalumaLoco]

FYI updated airport list from Flyertalk;

Complete List of Airports with Whole Body Imaging/Advanced Imaging Technology Scanner

 

[leemell]

Precisely, not yet anyway. I think the greatest way to challenge the TSA is to make it a Constitutional issue by trying to set a legal precedent where a federal court rules one of it's executive policies unconstitutional.

There, at last. This is what should happen. Opt out protests are just going to annoy and punish tens of thousands of people and not accomplish anything beyond that. It is the courts that must decide or Congress must change the law.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

There, at last. This is what should happen. Opt out protests are just going to annoy and punish tens of thousands of people and not accomplish anything beyond that. It is the courts that must decide or Congress must change the law.

Even though I disagree with Alan that this isn't a court issue I do agree that the Roberts Court has given us little reason to expect any ruling supporting reinstatement of our eroding civil liberties. I'm not aware of any congressperson who actively campaigned on pushing back against the TSA's encroachment. And frankly, it might hurt a politician's funding levels or push the companies who manufacture and sell these scanners to fund the opponents of anyone who takes on the TSA's mandate. This is a runaway train that needs a serious wake-up call to be stopped. That's why people are looking to really shake things up this holiday season. People are slowly getting fed up with this mess and some of them are even ready to put their actions where their mouth is. The sheep are already being irradiated and groped, they're just pointing out to them how bizarre this security theater has finally become. If you don't like people sticking up for their own rights when nobody else will then don't fly.

 

[Ryan]

If you don't like people sticking up for their own rights when nobody else will then don't fly.

You still don't get that it isn't the fact that people are sticking up for their rights, but the manner in which they are going about doing it.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

If you don't like people sticking up for their own rights when nobody else will then don't fly.

You still don't get that it isn't the fact that people are sticking up for their rights, but the manner in which they are going about doing it.

And your suggestion for alternative corrective action on the part of the citizenry is...? If you think the courts or congress will fix this on their own as some folks seem to, then you have a lot more faith in our politicians than I do.

 

[AlanB]

Even though I disagree with Alan that this isn't a court issue I do agree that the Roberts Court has given us little reason to expect any ruling supporting reinstatement of our eroding civil liberties. I'm not aware of any congressperson who actively campaigned on pushing back against the TSA's encroachment. And frankly, it might hurt a politician's funding levels or push the companies who manufacture and sell these scanners to fund the opponents of anyone who takes on the TSA's mandate. This is a runaway train that needs a serious wake-up call to be stopped. That's why people are looking to really shake things up this holiday season. People are slowly getting fed up with this mess and some of them are even ready to put their actions where their mouth is. The sheep are already being irradiated and groped, they're just pointing out to them how bizarre this security theater has finally become. If you don't like people sticking up for their own rights when nobody else will then don't fly.

I didn't say that this wasn't a court issue. Not once!

I said that this isn't a Constitutional issue. There may well be ways to challenge this in court, ways that might even see the TSA being forced to reverse things.

But the idea that this violates your 4th amendment rights to search & seizure is wrong. You made the choice to ride that plane. It is not your private property, nor is the airport. You brought the ticket voluntarily and as part of that contract to carry you to your destination you have agreed to what ever measures of security are deemed necessary.

If I owned my own plane and the TSA wanted to come onto my plane and perform such a pat down, then the 4th amendment would apply. They are on my property!

But the only ways to get this changed and it should be changed, are to find some other legal challenge or to put enough pressure on both Congress & the White House to make changes to the policies. But the 4th amendment is a legal dead end that will go no where. Like I said way back in the beginning, there are dozens of lawyers who would just love to be able to take on such a challenge. They aren't doing it because they know that they have no hope of winning and that most likely the case would be tossed out of a lower court long before the Supremes ever heard of it; much less consider hearing the case.

And I continue to believe that any protests on the day before Thanksgiving, especially in light of the fact that there is almost zero publicity about this is a mistake. The people who are going to be hurt the most by this protest are those trying to get home for some quality family time.

Something like this would be much better to do say during peak summer travel times. Yes, some people will have their vacation plans screwed up, but the impact on the innocent would be much less than it will be on Wednesday.

 

[Ryan]

If you don't like people sticking up for their own rights when nobody else will then don't fly.

You still don't get that it isn't the fact that people are sticking up for their rights, but the manner in which they are going about doing it.

And your suggestion for alternative corrective action on the part of the citizenry is...?

Something like what this guy is doing. Tons of publicity, no innocent bystanders inconvenienced. It'll be interesting to see if the threatened civil penalties develop.

If you think the courts or congress will fix this on their own as some folks seem to, then you have a lot more faith in our politicians than I do.

I don't, nor to I see anyone that does.

 

[leemell]

If you don't like people sticking up for their own rights when nobody else will then don't fly.

You still don't get that it isn't the fact that people are sticking up for their rights, but the manner in which they are going about doing it.

And a lot of the irritated people are going to be very turned off and will come out against the protesters and their issue because of it.