Ron Paul Responds to TSA: Introduces 'American Traveler Dignity Act'

I don't think you read the story, which may be why you are still insisting on defending this activity.

If a cop did this to a suspect I would wager a lawsuit would be forthcoming.

As for prison guards - you defeat that argument yourself. Given the context, a prison inmate has by default given consent inasmuch as they were convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison. Part of the routine of prison is a restriction on numerous rights inherently, such as the use of these types of searches. Such is not the case for boarding a plane, or getting pulled over, or even having a prostrate exam.

To a certain extent, if the TSA agent asked for permission, than this might be acceptable. But such is plainly not the case.

And this is the real argument, and it's just simply a failure. Read back through this thread for examples of people still sneaking all sorts of illicit items onto planes, while your wife gets fondled, the man with the screw in his hip gets accosted, and the dude in a wheelchair pisses himself. It's theater. And beneath us as a country, and as rational individuals. I presume you at least agree with that, given that you prefaced your initial commentary with the idea that the whole system should be scrapped.

 

I don't.

If they are going to keep running this idiotic TSA deal, let them do it to "regualr Americans" and not just the hairy brown folks. The TSA is expensive, intrusive, and ineffective crap whomever they target, about time it gets exposed and we can have an honest conversation about whether we want to put the People of Wal-Mart in blue uniforms and have them touch our collective labia.

 

You're not alone.

It makes those who defend the TSA (as anything other than an expensive joke guilty of providing a false sense of security) sound ignorant and foolish. Many of the TSA employees I've encountered seemed nothing more than glorified security guards.

Cowardice and intellectual dishonesty allow this stupidity to continue.

 

Different words to describe the same thing. The side of the hand between the labia majora, the edge of the hand against the vulva, a slow motion karate chop to the junk, it is all the same thing (edge of hand = side of hand, vulva is the entire exterior of a woman's genitals, between the labia would be the middle of the vulva).

You have a very strange definition of consent. Under your bizarre definition where putting yourself into a situation = consent, then travelers are consenting to these searches. I would not call it consent in either case, just a context to explain why it is not a rape.

The TSA agent doesn't need to ask permission to search you, that is their job. When a cop stops you they don't need your permission to search you, it is part of their job. When you are taken into prison the guard doesn't need your permission to search you, that is your job. You have not been raped in any of those situations, even though you are being touched in ways you don't want to.

I do agree with that, but for all that it is largely a pointless waste of time, it is not rape.

 

You can't be serious. If you place your hand against my clothed genitals, that is considerably different than rolling my balls around in your hand. I welcome you to try this (on somebody else!) and gauge reactions per justtxyank's post and prove this for yourself. The former would probably get a "woah there fella" the latter would probably result in "HOLY WTF MAN!"

Being sentenced to a prison term is hardly the same as purchasing a ticket for air travel. Consent is basically irrelevant in regards to prison, as the entire punishment is based on purposefully denying all sorts of freedoms to the guilty party. Ergo, I would claim consent was "given" by prison inmates inasmuch as they were convicted (see my previous post). Similarly, as a person waiting in line to board a plane is not being punished, consent is not irrelevant and is precisely the reason the 4th amendment exists.

That's kind of the problem here.

Subjective, and honestly moot as described far more effectively by the lawyer in my original post regarding this matter (407). Call it whatever you want - it's still completely unacceptable.

 

Except that is two completely different things. If I touched your clothed balls with the edge of my hand or I touched your clothed scrotum with the side of my hand, that is two different phrasings of the exact same action.

Consent wasn't "given" it was irrelevant. Consent was also irrelevant in the boarding of a plane, because in both situations you are entering into a controlled area and are being searched for weapons. If the prisoner example is too tough for you to wrap your head around (hint: the fact that he was convicted of a crime is irrelevant) how about a visitor to a super-max prison inmate. They are also searched as a condition of entry, just like the people at the airport. The 4th amendment exists so that Americans can be secure in their persons, homes, papers, and effects. It does not exist to keep you from being searched when entering a secured area. Try to go into the Oval Office without being searched, it isn't going to happen.

I agree that it is a problem insofar as the TSA is largely useless and should be scrapped. I disagree that their job is so offensive that people need to cry rape (which if you choose to look back, was the point I have been making all along).

In one sense everything is subjective and what is rape to her and you is clearly not rape to me and the TSA. On the other hand, the law relies on fictional "objective" standards, and I am pretty sure no TSA agent is going to be convicted of rape for a search as described.

 

A job that violates the Constitution.

The Supreme Court subsequently ruled that even a "frisk" by a police officer without a warrant violates the 4th Amendment unless they have reasonable suspicion that the person is armed. I don't think this works in this case.

A cop cannot legally pull you over and then fondle your private parts looking for weapons. He has no probable cause and he has no warrant. If he did it he'd be sued.

When you are in PRISON you have committed a crime and your rights are no longer the same. The comparison is ridiculous.

 

actually, unless they have probable cause they do need to ask your permission. cops are not allowed to randomly search people like the tsa does.

furthermore, cops are not allowed rub up on your balls or put their fingers in ladies vaginas during a search, even when they do have probable cause and if they did they would be charged w/ sexual assault.

i have been subject to police pat-downs and tsa pat downs and i can tell you that the tsa was way more intrusive. i have also been to county jail and although you are strip searched, they dont touch you - they do take a look up your poop-shoot though. but the thing you fail to realize is that there is a difference b/t people who have been placed under arrest and are being put in jail and innocent travelers who have not done anything to warrant the kinds of "enhanced procedures" we are now seeing.

penetration = rape. in this woman's case it sounds like rape. but even when there is no penetration it is still sexual assault. anyone w/out a federal badge would go to jail for doing what the tsa does.

there are tons of stories out there of rape victims breaking down when searched or describing it as akin to relive their past rape.

 

Not really, no.

The cop needs a reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime to conduct a further investigation absent your consent. They do not need a reasonable suspicion that you are carrying a weapon to frisk you, they are allowed to do so out of a concern for officer safety. Who taught you criminal procedure?

If a cop has a reason to stop you (for example, he thinks you have committed a crime) he can frisk you without probable cause or a warrant.

The comparison is based on the fact that both situations allow for a search without consent. So no, it is not ridiculous. See above for several examples that don't involve committing a crime.

While justtxyank was wrong, you are REALLY wrong. If it was rape every time a cop frisked someone without probable cause, every cop would be a rapist.

Cops are allowed to run their hands over the outside of your clothing, including in the crotch area, so long as it would be possible for the suspect to be hiding a weapon in that area.

This would be due to either the individuals involved or some internal policy, not the law. The pat down described is legal.

You are the third person that has failed to realize that the analogy was based on the entry into a controlled area, not the status of the person being searched.

Clearly penetration does not always equal rape, otherwise every time people had sex it would be rape. The point though is that the TSA does have a badge. Of course a random person on the street can't frisk you without permission, but the TSA are not random people on the street. I guarantee the TSA officers in these stories are never convicted of sexual assault, sexual battery, rape, etc.

There are tons of stories of soldiers having reactions to screaming matches with a spouse or a car backfiring, but that doesn't make a wife nagging or a person driving an old car an act of war.

 

Other have already observed other issues with your posts, so I'll just comment here. The 4th amendment is also there to enforce "reasonable" searches; thus the requirements for warrants and the usual issues with searches that overly invade a person's body without specific cause.

No, that's fair. Sexual assault is probably the more accurate term.

 

Yes it is. The whole point of the argument is that TSA agents should not have that right.

Frisking a la the usual cop routine is not even remotely the same as what a TSA agent is doing. Period. There is no similarity - if a cop did what a TSA agent does they would be sued into oblivion. Google can provide examples.

 

On top of the fact that it would lead to assault, as SM already agreed (in his effort to correct me) a police officer can't frisk a person without "reasonable suspicion." That is not the case with someone in an airport.

Additionally, the comparison of a prison and an airport is, sorry, ridiculous. They are not both simply "secure locations." One is a place of travel and commerce and the other houses criminals. There is of course reasonable suspicion that a criminal might hind a weapon or someone visiting a criminal might smuggle a weapon in, etc. There is no reason to assert a "reasonable suspicion" that a person boarding a plane has a weapon anymore than a person entering a bank or a shopping mall or a high school. Would you suggest that the government could setup a security agency that would require you to submit to these types of searches before entering a Macys? A Bank of America?

 

it is you who is really wrong - cops are not allowed to randomly search people like the tsa does - they need probable cause.

if a cop randomly stops a woman and sticks his fingers inside her vagina i would not argue if she called it rape.

only if they have probable cause - they are not allowed to randomly do this to people. and tsa-style grabbing of nuts would only be in an extreme case - that is definitely not part of a standard pat-down. again, as someone who has been subjected to both i can say that the tsa is far more invasive.

and you fail to realize that we have a thing called the 4th amendment in this country.

that is ridiculous - obviously we are discussing non-consensual acts. and if it makes you feel better how about if we just call it sodomy instead?

the nazis had badges too, but that didnt make what they did right.

the point is that what they are doing is a violation of our rights, invasive, ineffective, expensive and actually puts travelers in more danger by creating bottlenecks at the point of entry. if someone actually wanted to do something whats to stop them from doing it at the gate?

 

Inorite? I think this has been made perfectly clear.

 

First, they need reasonable suspicion to detain someone (for example if a man is walking back and forth in front of a closed store), they can then pat them down for officer safety reasons. Second, this is a totally irrelevant tangent because they do lots of things at the airport that would constitute a search if done to a random person on the street, such as scanning your bags with an x-ray machine and making you walk through a magnetometer. This is because the airport is a secure location and you are required to agree to these measures in order to travel via the airport. The pat down is just one more thing you are required to agree to.

First, visiting a friend or relative in prison is not sufficient to create legal reasonable suspicion to detain someone. You are required to submit to security measures in order to visit someone inside, because it is a secure location. When I went into the county jail to interview a defendant, they did not require that I go through a metal detector because they suspected I was smuggling in a weapon, they did it because it is a secure facility and they check everyone for weapons. The same is true of the airport.

Second, would you expect that the US government could set up metal detectors, scan any packages you happen to be carrying with x-rays, limit you to three ounce containers of liquids, and check for proof of your business inside and your identification before entering a Macy's or Bank of America? Clearly the airport has a heightened level of government control as compared to those places, and as such you are subject to more security measures at the airport, and have been for decades. Much like other areas secured by the government like I don't know, say prisons? The pat downs are simply one more security measure that you subject yourself to by choosing to use the airport, just like the x-ray machine.

They absolutely do not need probable cause to frisk someone. Terry v. Ohio is the case that settled this. Probable cause is the threshold to get a warrant.

No one is sticking his fingers in a woman's vagina. That would be a sexual assault/sexual battery depending on the language in the jurisdiction, if it happened, which it did not here. That is why this is not a rape, or a sexual assault. Read the quote. Edge of hand. Outside of clothing.

Reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing is required to detain someone, at which point you can frisk for weapons. Probable cause is required to get a warrant (or for some non-warrant searches depending on circumstances that are beyond the scope of this discussion).

Again, this would be a difference between individual officers/policies of individual agencies on how to conduct a pat down/frisk. What the TSA does is allowable under the law.

Since I have successfully defended people on 4th amendment grounds, this is highly unlikely. Perhaps I just have a better understanding of the 4th amendment than you do.

No, what happened to that woman was not sodomy either (at least legally speaking, I am no expert on the religious doctrine).

It did make what they did lawful in Nazi Germany though.

I disagree. I think if anyone tries to press charges the cops will disagree, the prosecutor will disagree and if it ever gets that far the courts will disagree. You are welcome to your opinion though.

All of those are perfectly sound reasons why the TSA is a big waste, and I would have no problem scrapping it. None of them mean that what they are doing constitutes rape. It doesn't.

 

did they rub on your nutsack when you visited county jail? when i was actually under arrest and being processed they did not rub on my nutsack - but the tsa did when i tried to board an airplane.

ok, so they need reasonable suspicion - that still does not mean they can randomly search people like the tsa does.

here is the quote - she said side of hand INTO her vagina.

again, cops cannot randomly search people like the tsa does.

and therein lies the problem.

i think you lack an understanding of what constitutes "reasonable" search. as ive said, i dont have a problem w/ x-raying baggage and going thru metal detectors. i think that is "reasonable". taking off shoes and belts and banning of liquids over 4 oz is stupid and pointless, but its a hoop we jump thru to fly - but sticking hands down pants and groping grandmothers breasts and naked body scanning innocent travelers is totally "unreasonable". there is absolutely no reason to subject innocent men, women and little kids to this kind of treatment.

it would be sodomy or sexual assault if it was not a tsa agent.

and therein lies the problem.

 

Nazi Germany, Glorified Mall Cops, Dr. Ron Paul.

 

Nope it was just metal detectors. Of course, I had my county ID and they were not really concerned that I was trying to get something in that couldn't be detected by a metal detector (like a bomb). Trying to extrapolate your personal experience into the standard by which all other instances are judged is not very valid though.

Like I said before, this is an irrelevant tanget. An airport is a secure area, it is nothing like a public street. A cop can't make random people walk through a metal detector on a public street either.

We already covered all of this.

Again, secure area. No x-rays on the streets, etc.

Yes, the problem is not that it is illegal or unconstitutional, it is that you don't agree with it. That is fine, but it is not what was being argued earlier.

My understanding of what constitutes a reasonable search has been tested both academically and vocationally. It has been determined to be adequate.

I think none of those would be reasonable searches in ordinary circumstances, but we submit to them when traveling. I don't think a pat down (TSA style) is going to be found unreasonable by the courts in light of all of the advanced security measures they allow at airports.

People with a badge get all sorts of privileges that the average citizen does not. If a police officer follows a car through a red light, that would be a traffic violation, if they weren't a police office. Handcuffing someone would be assault if the person doing the handcuffing were not a police officer. Shooting someone with a taser who is being rowdy after you tell them repeatedly to stop would be assault, but it isn't when a cop does it. You seem a bit too hung up on what the actions would be if they were not done by a lawfully recognized authority.

 

i know i've been pro gov't in these threads, and I'm trying to remain balanced, but i seriously doubt that woman's story is accurate. hence she is being sued by the tsa employee

i think its also very assholish to make fun of people because the look like they work at walmart

i've only flown a couple of times since the new scanners, it wasn't a big deal to me, but to each his own and anecdotal evidence i know isn't the best. just my experience.

lastly, i did find it interesting that on a cocaine documentary on the history channel one guy said you can't strap kilos to your body anymore.

edit: and if by any chance that woman's story is true, i dont' see how anyone can argue grabbing a woman's vagina is alright who is only trying to board a plane and isn't a known criminal

 

Please point me to the clause, amendment or court ruling that establishes these "secure areas" where the Constitution does not apply. I also need to see a definition of "secure areas" as defined by the Supreme Court. As I see that Prisons and Airports are both in the category I am curious as to whether schools and banks fall into this category. I know a high school volleyball coach who will be thrilled to establish the lockeroom and a "secure area" and begin vulva searches of all teenage girls. It's not rape, it's just procedure.