If airlines are going to pat me down or xray me - I think first they should read my Miranda rights

[LynneSin]

Since I'm about to be treated like a common criminal.

Would you like us to pump poisons thru your body or would you prefer sexual assault?

Since I am being treated as someone suspect of carrying a bomb or other endangering item onto an airplane then read my damn Miranda Rights first please.

I thought in this country I was Innocent until proven Guilty. I guess our new mantra now should say "Innocent until proven guilty or buying an airline ticket"

[Bragi]

1. Apparently you waive those rights when you enter an airport /nt

[av8rdave]

2. I agree with your sentiment, but remember it isn't the airlines that are doing this

[LynneSin]

4. I do realize this but perhaps they can help out the TSA

Or at least have a TSA member stand by the security line and read your Miranda Rights before you walk thru.

[av8rdave]

8. That's not a bad idea!

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

3. except that you don't have to fly

I won't.

[LynneSin]

5. Oh I won't fly if I can help it

But sometimes flying is necessary and that is what scares me.

[reggie the dog]

36. how else can i bring my daughter from france to the usa

to visit her american family members??? once in the usa i dont fly, i DROVE from chicago to santa cruz this past summer

[JamesA1102]

66. By boat? nt

[reggie the dog]

73. i have been looking into that

boats take about 12 days to get from france to new york but you have to go on a freighter with a room for you as there are no real cruise ships that cross the atlantic

[MineralMan]

80. Here's a link that will help

http://www.cruisetransatlantic.com/

There are, indeed, transatlantic cruises, and very pleasant ones on nice cruise ships, at that. You'll find schedules for 2010 and 2011 on that site. You can also google transatlantic cruises to find additional options.

I'm sure your daughter would enjoy such a cruise enormously. Good times, indeed.

[reggie the dog]

90. except that daddy cant afford too much for the fare

but i will look into it...

[LisaL]

6. I really do wonder if a body cavity search is far behind.

Even then I imagine some people are going to support body cavity searches if it's for "security."

[leveymg]

27. That's what the Xray scanner does.

If you have explosives stuffed up there, it will show up.

[LisaL]

32. As far as I understand it, these scanners can not see what's hidden

in the body cavities.

[bluetrain]

33. No, it doesn't. Actually, it would pose less of a health risk if it did that. These

machines only focus on the skin.

[leveymg]

60. There's another generation of machines coming.

You're right - the present backscanner type is not really effective at internal imaging.

[avaistheone1]

86. Then why did you just say that the current ones do this?

:crazy:

[leveymg]

93. My mistake. My bad.

They actually do have some capability to view internally, but the image isn't clear enough to be reliable for this purpose.

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. No it won't, it is not an MRI or a cat scan

But a dog trained to sniff bombs would.

[leveymg]

95. The current scanners do reveal larger quantities of explosives.

My understanding is that there is a physical limit on the amount that can be carried internally, and that may not be enough to bring down a commercial airliner, particularly since a human body contains most of the shock wave.

I would prefer dogs, if they were as reliable as scanners. But, dogs, like people, are fallible.

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. These scanners are theater and can be fooled. The GAO believes

This as well. Chemical sniffers, if you insist on tech, and dogs are a far better choice.

They will be defeated, so what's next?

Time people realize freedom IS dangerous.

[leveymg]

110. I agree with you about this thing being largely security theater.

But, the scanners don't bother me much more than old-fashioned magnetometers. Much, too much, is being made about this, and people aren't spending nearly enough time thinking and talking about the crimes of state that got us to this point.

[nadinbrzezinski]

112. I am

And they are, read my sig

It is time for more airports around the world to tell the us, you meet our security standards or you don't fly here.

It is also time for Americans to regain sanity and stop being afraid.

Land of the free and the brave...my dying ass.

More like the land of the scared chickens and all of them roosting along. And I will tell you what's next...papers...portable scanners and cavity searches in the name of false security.

[MineralMan]

7. You consent to the security screening when you buy a ticket.

It's that simple. They don't have to read you anything, because you have already consented. Were you planning to fly? Didn't you say you hadn't flown in a long time and had no plans to fly in some other thread? I'm not sure, but I seem to remember that. If that's the case, then you won't be going through the screening.

I'm not saying that it's right, but that's how it's been for a long, long time now. Passengers have been consenting to security screenings for a very long time. It's nothing new, although the technology has changed over time. You still consent by buying a ticket and showing up for a flight.

[Lucian]

10. Sure, you consent...

but when the TSA treats everyone like a criminal, that's when it goes too far. That, plus the invasion of privacy and the legal gropings.

That's something you've failed to see for the last few days.

[MineralMan]

14. I have not failed to see anything. They've been peering into

our bags to see what we're carrying for a long, long time. We've been walking though metal detectors for a long, long time. We've been patted down or wanded if we beeped the metal detector for a long, long time. It's just a matter of degree. As long as there have been security screenings, we've been treated with suspicion when we fly. It is only the degree of the search that has changed, not the function of the screening.

I don't fail to see the issue. It has been a matter of choosing whether or not to consent to these searches since the screenings started so many years ago. You know it's going to happen, so you consent or you do not. I choose to fly, so I consent to these searches. I'm fully aware of the searches and to what extent they may be done. I'm still consenting.

You may know you're not a threat to anyone. I know that I'm not. However, you do not know that about me, nor I about you. There's the problem. I know virtually nothing about any other passenger who may be flying with me, and they know nothing about me. I could be someone who had the goal of crashing the plane and committing suicide while taking others with me. It happens all the time. We read about the workplace shootings and other such incidents.

If the only people flying were me and friends of mine, I wouldn't give it a thought. But I don't know any of the people on any of my flights, other than my wife. You don't know me, either. This is why we have security screenings. It's not about what you know about yourself. It's about what you don't know about anyone else and what they don't know about you.

Sorry, but it's a crummy world out there, sometimes, and not everyone is as rational and non-violent as you and I are. Do I think they're going farther than they need to? Yes. Do I care? No...not at this level of screening. Will I tolerate a cavity search as a routine thing? Not on your life. But they're not going to do that. In fact, I expect this current level to be scaled back shortly. In the meantime, I have a flight to catch on Christmas Day. I'll be on that flight.

[kestrel91316]

16. I think you're wrong about the possibility of cavity searches down the road.

[MineralMan]

19. Nope. I'm not wrong. That's not going to happen.

Certainly, if such a thing were a routine part of flying, then I'd stop flying. So would everyone else, and the industry would collapse. That's why it's not going to happen. Heck, even this new screening stuff may cause people not to fly. If that happens, it will be scaled back. If it does not happen, then it won't be scaled back. Everyone has a limit. For some, that limit was reached a long time ago. For some, it has been reached now. We'll see what happens.

And yes, I do have a limit. It hasn't been reached yet. Your limit, as with many things, may differ from mine.

[reggie the dog]

43. do you ever get into the subway or the el as we call it in chicago

i do, i also take tgv high speed trains and the metro in paris lyon and marseille when i am there, i have taken the tube awnd i was never worried. i prefer not flying because i take weed with me...

[MineralMan]

54. Sure, I use public transportation all the time, and have used it

for decades.

[LisaL]

59. So if naked body scanners and pat downs were

implemented in order for you to get on the train, bus, or whatever else you are using for public transportation, I presume you would be just fine with it?

[MineralMan]

65. It depends. I'd have to weigh it against alternative transportation.

That's what I do with flying, too. I weigh the options, then make a decision. I only fly when it is impractical to drive to my destination. Normally, if I can drive to my destination in a single day, I will drive. If not, I fly. It's a matter of convenience for me. If I fly, I am aware that I will go through security screening, and plan accordingly.

[reggie the dog]

61. do you agree with my idea that it is absurd to have such security

checks for plane? we dont need it. "terrorists" could kill way more people with a car bomb or by blowing up a busy subway station.....

[MineralMan]

62. No, actually, I don't agree with your idea.

Planes are much more attractive targets. There are risks everywhere, of course.

[reggie the dog]

69. why are planes more attractive?

when you can kill and maim more with a truck bomb in times square for example?

[MineralMan]

78. Of course you can. In fact, we've seen a truck bomb,

as I remember, in Oklahoma City. A major terrorist attack, for sure. I don't have an answer for you on that one. But, head over to the farm supply store and buy some ammonium nitrate fertilizer suitable for explosives. If you order enough of it to make a truck bomb, someone from a federal agency is going to know about it. We learned something from Oklahoma City.

Truck bombs aren't that easily made these days.

[jancantor]

118. Criminals are not entitled to Miranda

just because they are being arrested, etc. People misunderstand what Miranda is. Miranda is, per SCOTUS case law, a procedural requirement when two factors are present

1) A person is in custody (brief detentions generally do not qualify, unless a reasonable person would believe they are being detained TO AN EXTENT consistent with a "custodial arrest". Brief, investigative, fact-finding etc. stops do not meet the definition of "custody' EVEN IF a person is not free to leave. Very misunderstood concept

AND

2) Interrogation is happening. Interrogating means asking questions likely to or intended to elicit an incriminating response

It also only applies when the person is being detained and there is jeapardy. Iow, civil infractions like speeding cannot result in jail, thus miranda is never required, even if there might the functional equivalent of custody.

Note that Miranda DOES NOT apply to direct/physical evidence, but to TESTIMONIAL evidence. This is why many states do not require miranda warnings after a person is arrested and taken to the station for a breathalyzer. Breathalyzer is NOT testimonial evidence.

In the case of TSA, you are not in custody (prong 1). And the physical search (or scanner) is not INTERROGATION. There is also no jeapardy.

Not that I think TSA is justified in these grope-downs. Just getting pedantic on Miranda.

In brief, if the cops arrest you - even for murder, they are not required to read you miranda UNLESS they are questioning you. Most will, because even in the case of excited utterances, spontaneous statements they don't want to have to worry about stoppin' you before they clarify.

[LisaL]

11. I consent to getting on the plane and going from point A to point B.

[MineralMan]

18. Actually, you'll find that you have consented to security screening.

You know that it's going to happen when you buy your ticket, and if you read everything on your ticketing site, you'll find that you actually do consent to security screening. You don't bother to read everything because you know there will be screening. But you definitely do consent to it.

If you did not, you would not buy the ticket.

[LisaL]

20. So the consitution goes out of the window just because

I want to get from point A to point B?

[MineralMan]

24. No. If you consent to a search, the Constitution is not violated.

In reality, as long as the search is not "unreasonable," the Constitution is not violated. That single word, and how it is interpreted, is at the crux of this issue, but it is moot, because consent is involved. That, and the fact that it is private enterprise that is flying you from Point A to Point B, makes the Constitutional issue not a factor.

You consent to the search. It is that simple, at least on the Constitutional level.

[LisaL]

28. It's not a freely given consent, considering that if you refuse,

you can't get from point A to point B.

[MineralMan]

53. Ah, but you can get from point A to point B. It's just not as

fast or convenient. You have a Constitutional right to travel freely within the United States. You do not have a Constitutional right to fly between two points, unless you have your own plane and a pilot's license. If you want to fly on a commercial airline, you give consent. If you don't give consent, you can still go where you want to go.

[LisaL]

56. So if you need to go somewhere on a business trip do you think

your employee is going to sit around and wait for you if it takes you a week to travel?

[MineralMan]

68. No. That's why I fly on such trips. I'm retired, now, but

I used to fly very frequently for work. And, you know what, I went through screening every time. No big deal.

On a personal level, I have no problems with nudity or being touched, so it's not an issue for me. It may be for others. So, nobody's going to have to wait for me. I'll fly there. If I could not, then I wouldn't be in that sort of business. Flying has involved searches for a very long time now. The only thing that has changed is the level of search.

[jberryhill]

76. It's a good thing businesses don't hire agoraphobics or claustrophobics

If you have claustrophobia, and cannot be inside of an aircraft, what does your employer do?

Fire you?

[de novo]

82. It is possible the consent could be deemed unenforceable.

If consent is based on one party's inability to bargain for the terms.

It isn't as black and white as you are trying to make it.

[jberryhill]

107. No, because it is not a contract

It is application of FAA regulations relating to flight, and other regulations within Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce at it relates to the operation of airports.

That's like saying, "I didn't agree not to have an open container of alcohol in my car when I drive". You don't have to agree to all of the regulations that pertain to operation of an automobile.

[jberryhill]

75. You consent to all FAA regulations

Flying is a federally regulated activity.

"Going from point A to point B" is not.

[avaistheone1]

74. We have inalienable rights that even an airplane ticket or one's consent

can't take away. This is America. We do have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. No?


:kick:

[jberryhill]

101. So, why can they x-ray your carry on?

Let's set aside the recent procedures for a moment.

What gives them the right, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to x-ray your bag or have you walk through a metal detector?

[MineralMan]

105. We do have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, yes.

The pertinent Amendment that applies to these searches is the 4th amendment, which prohibits "unreasonable" searches. See, that one word is really, really important. If terrorism is a problem, then it is "reasonable" to try to keep terrorists and weapons off the airplane. That makes these searches "reasonable." At least that's how the courts will see it.

Further, you CAN consent to almost anything. When you join the military, for example, you consent to limitations on your freedom of speech, freedom of travel, and even your freedom to quit your job. When you go into a courtroom, you are going to be forbidden to use certain language or you will risk being jailed for contempt of court.

There is not a single "freedom" or "liberty" in the Constitution that is unlimited. Not one. All have limits, under certain circumstances. And you may consent to forgo any Constitutional freedom. For example, if you are read your Miranda rights, then consent to participate in an interview, you will have given up the protection afforded you by the 5th Amendment. People do it all the time. They're stupid to do it, but they consent, and what they say can be used against them.

You have the right to bear arms, but that right is regulated in many ways, and is in no way an unlimited right. You have the right to travel freely, but try traveling to a building on a military base without permission. And, if you get permission, you'll find that you are then giving permission to be searched. There's a sign on the gate of every military base informing you that you and your vehicle are subject to search.

You have the right of free speech, but can go to prison for some speech. You have the freedom of worship, but if your religion includes things like human sacrifice or deflowering virgins, you'll find out quickly that your freedom of worship is limited as well. You have the freedom of the press, but don't try threatening the President of The United States on your website or in your publication.

You cannot be deprived of life, property, or liberty, EXCEPT by due process of law. Not unlimited.

You have the right to a speedy trial, but you may, and probably will consent to delaying that trial for a very long time. You can consent to give up this right, too. You can give up your right to be tried by a jury, as well, and many criminals do just that. Same thing with civil suits, as laid out in the 7th Amendment.

The 8th Amendment only limits your right to bail if it is "excessive." Judgment call there, and often no bail is allowed in some crimes.

There is no Constitutional right that is unlimited. There are limiting phrases and words for every one of them, and SCOTUS decisions that further limit them. The idea that you have unlimited rights that are protected by the Bill of Rights is a common error.

[Lucian]

9. I wonder if they'd prefer if I waited in line naked...

and when it was my turn, I could spread my ass open far and wide for them to search.

I wonder if they'd prefer that. This whole airport security system is just nuts. Goes way too far.

[Ozymanithrax]

12. Not to mention some candelight, a bottle of wine,

and the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16B5Xm8_IKw">Lonely Bull playing in the background.

I mean, if you are going to flush the 4th amendment down the toilet, they ought to make it an event.

[LisaL]

13. I wouldn't recommend bringing your own wine.

Could get you in trouble if it's more than 3 oz.

[Ozymanithrax]

23. Well, I guess we need to get those itty bitty bottles from the hotels.

[leveymg]

15. You do know the cops can make you provide an ID and search you, even without probable cause?

With regard to pat downs, the Fourth Amendment is dead on the streets, as well as in airports, and has been since 1968. Wiki: "stop and search"

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and searches him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and frisk," or simply a "Terry stop". The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops.

The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, "the exclusionary rule has its limitations." The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).

[LisaL]

17. At least the cop has to have a reasonable suspicion.

[leveymg]

22. It can simply be that he sees a bulge in a pocket. Not much of a threshhold there.

The same standard applies at airports as federal buildings. You can not enter unless you've gone through their security screening, whatever screening methods or technologies that might entail.

I'm afraid, there is diminished privacy expectation at airports or any other place that might present a special circumstance where there is a reasonable possibility that weapons might be smuggled in.

We can argue about specific search methods or the potential health issues of a particular screening device, but on constitutional grounds airport searches are really no different from other circumstances.

[ThomCat]

29. NO, the cops have to be able to Claim they had reasonable suspicion.

Unfortunately, that's a whole different standard. A much easier standard.

[leveymg]

42. The search standard is same as for entry into any secure building or area.

Essentially, it derives from the Terry doctrine. If there's any articulable reason -- the person appears to have something in a pocket, or there have been crimes in the area -- the cops can frisk you.

They don't have to have any cause at all in order to demand ID. They don't have to have any particular cause to search you if you enter a secure area.

[jberryhill]

79. It's strange

You know how the teabaggers seem to read the Constitution without any idea that we have 200 years of case law interpreting and applying it?

When you say "Terry doctrine", you might as well be speaking Japanese to the Constitutional scholars here.

[leveymg]

85. This is displacement of a lot of pent-up frustration and anxiety about the loss of privacy

By the standards of the 1950s - if you were White and middle-class (the others never had an expectation of privacy) -- this has in many ways become what we imagine East Germany was like. An Orwellian society with everyone carrying location devices and open mics in our pockets.

I'm most concerned about the commercialization of surveillance and profiling, and the fact that HTML5 gives any small sized company capabilities to track my web surfing, images viewed, and e-mail that the NSA would have envied a decade ago.

[ThomCat]

97. It meant to be a veiled insult?

Are you implying that you're oh so educated and smart and everyone else here is an uneducated idiot? :eyes:

[jberryhill]

100. No

I am directly stating that some people are aware of Terry and its progeny, and some people are not.

This is like saying that some people know how to speak Japanese, and some people do not.

However, I have been directly called a nazi fascist sheeple for suggesting that the relevant law applying to administrative searches is not as simple as it seems. No implication at all.

[ThomCat]

94. Right. The cop can claim, even after the fact, that you had something

in your pocket, even if you didn't.

The cop can claim, even after the fact, that you had something in your had, even if you didn't.

The cop can claim, even after the fact, that you acted in some ways suspicious, even if you didn't, because that is a totally arbitrary judgment and no judge or jury with every contradict the cop who claims that you were somehow doing something suspicious no matter what you were doing. That's a "catch all" to get anyone at any time.

The terry doctrine gives cops permission to search anyone at any time and make up the excuse for it afterward. And the excuse can be any excuse, no matter how flimsy or irrational.

[leveymg]

96. Yup. You just passed your rookie cop test. Wanna go for an ADA job?

[ThomCat]

98. It's hard to know exactly what you mean by that online

where sarcasm and body language don't come through. But if you're saying, why don't I become an ADA because I won't buy the excuses, then you know very well that nobody succeeds in the DAs office unless they are willing to buy the excuses. It's a necessary part of the job.

[leveymg]

111. Take it as a humorous compliment.

That's how it was intended. (Here's some body language) :hi:

[jberryhill]

106. So? Terry is the law with respect to non-custodial searches

Your point is that there is loophole in the practical application of Terry. Yes, there is. You are correct. That doesn't change the status of Terry as the prevailing standard.

Absolutely, you are entitled to the opinion that Terry is bad law and should be changed. Such an opinion is not a basis for arguing that Terry is not the law. Find a lawyer, set up a test case, and go do something about it. That's how activists change laws and rulings they don't like.

Get in the game.

But the point of bringing up Terry is that the type of administrative search conducted by the TSA is whether the TSA search is more or less invasive than the search permitted under Terry.

The seminal case here is US v. Davis in relation to what is deemed an administrative search. A TSA inspection is not, itself, a Terry stop. Whether cops can lie under a Terry situation has nothing to do with the relevant law on administrative searches.

But the larger point here is that, and I'm going to assume this, you are okay with a metal detector and a carry-on bag x-ray. So we are not even discussing some fundamental "can they search" or "can't they search" principle of the Fourth Amendment. We are only at this juncture discussion "what kind of search can they conduct"?

And here we come full circle to what is permitted in, say, the Terry context in relation to the TYPE of search.

Now, I MAY be assuming you are okay with a metal detector and a carry-on X-ray. If you are not okay with that - i.e. your position is a pure 4th Amendment one - then that is a fine position to hold. But if that is your position, then there's really nothing new here in terms of your objection to the recent procedures. The line, for you, was crossed in the 1970's with Davis.

So, please... let's start at Davis. Is Davis also bad law?

I would love to hold a discussion on the subject beyond "you approve of nazis".

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jberryhill]

115. That is your response to several paragraphs of invitation to a discussion?

Cop out.

I thought maybe you wanted to discuss the law as it applies to the TSA procedures.

I had not realized this was a thread about me.

Thank you for your insightful assessment of my character and worth as a human, based on your deep understanding of who I am.

[LynneSin]

25. So because I choose to fly there is reasonable suspicion that I am commiting or about to commit

a crime?

[ThomCat]

31. Apparently so. There is a reasonalbe suspicion that you might

be a terrorist. :shrug:

[LynneSin]

37. Hey stranger

:pals:

I guess I won't be flying much anytime soon. Not only because of the TSA and that hassle but then I get the thrill of sitting in the seat with enough space for a small 12 year old child where I have to buy overpriced drinks & beverages if I actually need sustenance.

[ThomCat]

102. Hi LynneSin!

I am learning to make do with short car trips. :)

:hug:

I can't say that I miss all the thrills of the pat-downs, the cramped seats, and never getting a meal I could eat. :)

[LisaL]

39. What exactly makes it reasonable?

What reasonable suspicion is there that a 80 year old grandma in wheelchair could be a terrorist?

[leveymg]

47. Someone may have given grandma a C-4 enema. Same for a child.

It's not her intention or profile that matters - it's someone else, unknown.

I know it seems intrusive, but that's the only way they can make sure that explosives don't get onto airplanes. And, enough people have tried that there is reason to justify the scanners or pat downs.

[LisaL]

52. How are they going to find this enema unless they start

doing full cavity searches? I presume you are fine with that as well?

[leveymg]

64. It's not that I'm fine with it - but, there is a new generation of scanners that effectively

image objects inside the human body without a big radiation dosage. That's what's next, as I understand it.

[reggie the dog]

55. i disagree

people try and do succed in bringing illegal things onto busses, subways etc. all the time, hell i often bring illegal drugs on such vehicles.. does that justify putting sniffer dogs or pat downs??? not in my book. how often has the tsa actually stopped a passanger from getting on with a real bomb? i know they stop you from boarding with baby milk, water, or contact lens solution

[jberryhill]

89. "my book. how often has the tsa actually stopped a passanger from getting on with a real bomb?"

Quite often.

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/#chapter_2

Read these tables:

Table 2-16a - Airline Passenger Screening Results by Type of Weapons Detected, Persons Arrested, and Bomb Threats Received

Table 2-16b - Prohibited Items Intercepted at Airport Screening Checkpoints (Updated April 2010)

1,416 firearms were seized at airport checkpoints in 2007.

Gross violation of 2nd Amendment rights.

[avaistheone1]

83. * FAIL. The scanners and the pat downs can NOT detect C-4

in the rectal or in the vaginal cavity. So the pat downs and the scanners are completely unjustified.

And experts in the US said airport "pat-downs" – a method used in hundreds of airports worldwide – were ineffective and would not have stopped the suspect boarding the plane.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, allegedly concealed in his underpants a package containing nearly 3oz of the chemical powder PETN (pentaerythritol tetranitrate). He also carried a syringe containing a liquid accelerant to detonate the explosive.

Since the attack was foiled, body-scanners, using "millimetre-wave" technology and revealing a naked image of a passenger, have been touted as a solution to the problem of detecting explosive devices that are not picked up by traditional metal detectors – such as those containing liquids, chemicals or plastic explosive.

But Ben Wallace, the Conservative MP, who was formerly involved in a project by a leading British defence research firm to develop the scanners for airport use, said trials had shown that such low-density materials went undetected.

Tests by scientists in the team at Qinetiq, which Mr Wallace advised before he became an MP in 2005, showed the millimetre-wave scanners picked up shrapnel and heavy wax and metal, but plastic, chemicals and liquids were missed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/are-planned-airport-scanners-just-a-scam-1856175.html/div]

[leveymg]

87. Please see my post upthread. There are internal scanners coming soon.

I agree - these are not that useful for that - but there's a limited amount of explosive material that a person can carry internally. Probably not enough to bring down an airliner, but the current scanners serve the primary purpose of detecting larger quantities in people's underpants.

[avaistheone1]

84. .

[alstephenson]

88. That's crap.

[reggie the dog]

49. what reasonable suspicion is there that a 25 year old student from

yemen who happens to be muslim and has a koran in their bag is a terrorist? there is none. i am willing to bet that the real terrorists that either let 911 happen or orchestrated it (give the americans some shock and awe) were mostly male, white, christian, white haired, and wore suits or militiary uniforms..... i take the tgv high speed train without having a security check point, there has NEVER been a tgv attacked.....why is the govt so parinoid about planes??? just to make stupid sheeple happy???

[jberryhill]

67. Administrative search doctrine

At a highway sobriety checkpoints, we've had a lot of cases that have developed the law for this sort of thing.

It is unconstitutional for the police to pull over whomever they want, to check sobriety.

They call pull over "every car", "every Nth car" or "randomized cars with an X% check rate". They can also pull over any car having a missing tail light or other legal infraction.

It is precisely the application of constitutional principles that require statistical searching, instead of profiling.

The thing that Lynne completely misses is that Miranda is about answering questions. A lot of people say, "Why don't we do like Israel and interrogate passengers?"

Again, the answer is because you DO have your Miranda rights, and you DON'T have to answer questions.

Go ahead and test this in the TSA line, or when entering the country and not answering any questions which are not on the entry form.

They have started a technique of "chatting up" passengers to assess nervousness, inconsistency, etc., but the fact of the matter is that you do not need to answer any of the questions they might ask you.

[leveymg]

77. Yes, this is akin to pulling over every car at checkpoints without Miranda. The courts approve.

Frankly, I believe that there is far less justification for sobriety checkpoints than for screening passengers in airports. I personally wouldn't want to be interrogated by a TSA officer, or Shin Bet, every time I have to fly. But, that's just me.

[leveymg]

44. That's how it goes. Sigh.

There doesn't have to have any particularized cause to search persons entering secure buildings. But, the legal standard is related to Terry.

[leveymg]

35. The special circumstances of attacks on airplanes creates the cause.

Same thing with entry into federal buildings. If nobody blew them up or shot people there, there'd be no cause to allow this level of intrusive search.

The pat down allowance that justifies traffic stop and street searches is not only for their own safety, but for others. Cops can basically search anyone anywhere. That's been the legal status quo for forty years.

[LynneSin]

40. How many terrorists have TSA agents caught

First I understand I go thru the same security when I go into federal buildings.

But it's not invasive search. We have a federal building here in Wilmington that I had to enter a month or so ago. I went thru the metal detector and drop my stuff off on the xray belt. The person ahead of me had tripped off the sensors and got the wand.

I'm not keen on it but it's tolerable because it's not invasive.

These new procedures are invasive.

There is a difference.

[jberryhill]

70. You know, there is this Google thing

in 2008, TSA screeners seized NINE HUNDRED AND TWO FIREARMS from people who were going to board planes:

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/#chapter_2

Table 2-16a - Airline Passenger Screening Results by Type of Weapons Detected, Persons Arrested, and Bomb Threats Received

Table 2-16b - Prohibited Items Intercepted at Airport Screening Checkpoints (Updated April 2010)

Your personal ignorance of the number of persons arrested and weapons seized at TSA checkpoints is not a basis for asserting it doesn't happen.

Further, if you are going to assert a right not to be searched without cause, then why were you okay with x-raying carry-on luggage? That is also a search.

What's going on here is a line-drawing exercise, and not some assertion of principle.

[leveymg]

72. I went through the backscanners two weeks ago during a business trip. I didn't even realize

that it was anything different from the familiar magnetometer until the TSA lady told me to raise my hands.

This really is no different, and if as they claim the radiation dosage is no more than flying at 35,000 feet for an hour, I can live with these things, even if they reveal an image of my penis on a screen for a few seconds. I think the people who would rather be patted down are putting themselves through a much more intrusive search for silly reasons.

[durkermaker]

41. on 'COPS' they put people in handcuffs all the time without arrest

i dont know how they can do that

but i think cops can pretty much do anything they want

[LynneSin]

81. "COPs" is a TV show - half of what they do is edited out for TV

:D

[jancantor]

119. Whatever you think about cops

being pretty much able to do whatever you want, handcuffs can be used in a number of situations where they are not tantamount to a custodial arrest, what most people think of when they think arrest.

Handcuffs are simply a tool to promote officer's, suspect's, and general public's safety. Since there is a strong liberty interest in freedom of movement, cops cannot just put the handcuffs on anybody, and handcuffs are strongly suggestive of custodial arrest. However, they do not always = custodial arrest. It depends on the facts and circumstances. For example...

If a robbery occurs, and cops have reasonable suspicion (not Probable Cause, but a lower standard) that you did it, they can detain you, handcuff you, etc. As long as the length of the detention =/= custodial arrest, they are ok.

Contrarily, if they have RS you just committed a minor shoplift, being as extreme as to handcuff you would probably be construed as a constructive arrest, and they better have PC.

[joeybee12]

21. Hey, I also want dinner before...and a phone call after! nt

[LynneSin]

26. Then you better opt for sexual assault

:rofl:

[joeybee12]

51. Yeah, it's been a while, so why not?

:evilgrin:

[Egnever]

30. easy solution

Dont fly.

[LisaL]

34. Easy for those that can sit at home all day, I presume.

[Egnever]

71. Yea cause god knows if you arent flying you must be sitting at home all day

:crazy:

[reggie the dog]

57. i guess i will just take my daughter to ireland so i can avoid this shit

i think i can still do france ireland without x ray or gropes

[durkermaker]

38. ...or at least give you flowers nt

[LynneSin]

46. I'd be happy if they just helped out with the housework

:rofl:

[piratefish08]

45. what if they buy you a drink and promise to call?

[robinlynne]

48. question: is the scan an xray? What exactly is it? wondering about safety.

I don't care if someone looks at an xray of me, but a full body xray sounds dangerous. I smoke and my doctor wont recommend a chest xray because it is so dangerous. if it is not an xray, what is it?

[lame54]

50. Or buy you a glass of wine

[leftstreet]

58. "Since I'm about to be treated like a common criminal"

Looks like this controversy may inadvertently focus attention on human rights

Which is good

[WinkyDink]

63. Or buy you dinner. ;-)

[LynneSin]

92. I have to admit this is one time I wish I could see the unrec count

:rofl:

I have a thick enough skin to recognize that people might actually disagree with me and I'm ok with that :D

[MineralMan]

103. Well, I know I didn't unrec it. It's a discussion. Why would I

unrec a discussion?

[LynneSin]

104. If someone disagrees with me?

:shrug:

it happens, life goes on!

[jberryhill]

109. If someone disagrees with you, then they might want to engage in a discussion

...to share perspectives, insights, and points of view.

That's not a reason to unrec a thread.

Would you like to have a discussion?

Your point is simplistic. If we went back to "metal detector and x-ray the bag" that is still a search.

Do you object, on Constitutional grounds to "metal detector and x-ray the bag"?

What is your basis for thinking that kind of a search is "constitutional" and some other kind of search is "unconstitutional"?

I'm not a criminal. I don't carry a weapon to the airport, or have one in my bag. So why am I being treated like a criminal by having to go through a metal detector and have my bag x-rayed?

How, in your view, is that question different from yours.

Or is the point of a thread to say "I think X, and anybody who doesn't is a poopy-head"?

[W_HAMILTON]

116. I almost never un-rec anything...

...but I un-rec'd you :)

I'm surprised more haven't, to be honest. But it seems like the majority are anti-TSA as well.

I think the uproar over the TSA is just plain silly. I'm sure these TSA workers -- everyday Americans like you and me -- really get off on having a dickhead tell them "don't touch my junk" and embarassing me in front of everyone. I'm sure the workers really get off patting down a screaming pre-teen. :sarcasm:

They are just trying to do their jobs, and people are acting like jerks to them. If you have a problem with the policy, that's one thing, but these people are taking it out on the workers themselves. And most of the time, it's nothing to be going apeshit over to begin with! It's not going to kill you to walk through a machine or get a quick patdown; hell, most people flying nowadays don't even go through these procedures anyway.

I don't want to say it's fake outrage, but it certainly seems like overexaggerated, misplaced outrage.

[jberryhill]

117. I'd just like someone to address what they see as the distinction

Between being okay with the metal detector and luggage x-ray, and then screaming "Fourth Amendment" this week.

What was going on prior to this was a search, and it was a search of everyone boarding. It remains, as you point out, the norm except for statistical sampling of other passengers.

So, why could someone x-ray your bag before, and this was "not a search" to these folks, but suddenly there is an unreasonable search?

Everyone just wants to turn it up to 11 and yell "Constitution", when airport checkpoints have been searching people since the 1960's.

What has changed is the type of search, but folks seem to think nobody was being searched until this week, and DON'T want to discuss what is, in essence, a line drawing exercise.

It's just an exercise in "I think THIS and you are WRONG", but that's as far as it ever goes.

[KamaAina]

108. What Miranda rights?

The Extreme Court just said that you have to speak up in order to exercise your right to remain silent. How Orwellian of them.

[Harry Monroe]

113. "If airlines are going to pat me down or xray me - I think first they should ..."

Buy me dinner? Otherwise I ain't puttin' out!!