http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/07/19/7106446-internet-rallies-around-flier-accused-of-groping-tsa-agent
Hot and piping fresh news from limitgov!
Wow, this is absolutely stellar! It is a picture-perfect illustration of the moral and legal double-standard that constitutes the State. I'm glad for Miyamae's sake that they dropped charges and I think it's telling that they dropped charges but it would have been nice to have this argued out in court. Too bad somebody has got to sit in jail if they want to challenge the government's arrogated authority.
"This whole incident is a joke. If you don't like TSA, don't fly. There is no right to fly. Don't like the rules, don't use flight as a mode of transportation."
Tired of hearing that line of argument.
It would be one thing if TSA owned the airports and the airplanes. Then, indeed, if you don't like the rules, don't fly that airline/airport. But the TSA has been thrust onto us with nothing more than "9/11" and the say-so of an out-of-control Federal government.
Clayton -
this one happened about a week ago. I thought there wa another one that happened more recently.
Eating Propaganda
What do you mean i don't care how your day was?!
Clayton: It would be one thing if TSA owned the airports and the airplanes. Then, indeed, if you don't like the rules, don't fly that airline/airport. But the TSA has been thrust onto us with nothing more than "9/11" and the say-so of an out-of-control Federal government. Clayton -
Right, and there's something fishy about any broad class of activity ("flying") that is now under the purview of a single agency. You could, with the same argument, create a TSA for literally any activity and have the same infuriating "logic". Swimming isn't a right either, but that wouldn't make TSA style security at the beach any less of a travesty.
Well, the principle on which TSA exists is no less odious than the principle on which DMV exists. Because Government Said So. Not only has the DMV come to be tolerated, it is implicitly embraced. No one can conceive of roads without a monopolistic government agency to license drivers to drive on them.
I know this is an older post...but after just hearing about the "very real, but non imenient threat" of "body bombs" (nothing new acutally) - and having just learned about Legal Positivism (you do it because we say so) in my history II class, as well as doing a paper over the TSA (ACLU objecting to body cavity searches back in 2009) - I wanted to clarify, that the TSA IS OVER ALL TRANSPORTATION....
As you may well know from their more recent searches of buses in Houston, labeled as routine excerses as well as stops on the highway.
This is a police state.
We need to get these yahoo's out of office.
The people stand up more for their freedom of religion than the freedom not to be groped.
Well, I've got to get back to my history class.
The whole damn thing is so sickening and grotesque and it's gotten much worse since this thread was posted, what with the NDAA - which is literally an Enabling Act.
The water-logged brain of the average American is utterly incapable of thinking through even the most basic questions. Why do we not allow men to screen female passengers and vice-versa? Presumably, it's because cross-gender pat-downs would be sexual assault, no? This could be either because the screener himself might be aroused or the passenger may feel violated or a combination of both. But how does limiting the patdowns to same-sex screeners preclude this?? A homosexual, pederast or pedophile could easily be aroused by patting down someone of the same sex and a passenger who was sexually victimized by someone of the same sex in the past or just has a phobia of such an assault could feel violated.
Even more laughable is that in our fair land of "equality" (there was public outrage at the proposal that certain passengers be permitted to be "pre-screened" in order to pass through the TSA checkpoint without having to wait in line and be re-screened), those fortunate enough to fly in their own private jets undergo no such indignities. It's only the middle-class cattle who can only afford to fly commercial, ride the bus, etc. who are being put through this shit.
I understand that most people feel that libertarian ethics are somewhat quixotic but even by their own standards of allowable behavior on the part of government and private parties, the public should be able to see that the TSA is absolutely out of control. And yet the beat goes on.
Clayton, I honestly think a lot (if not most) people do think the TSA is out of control. Why don't we see more public outcry? "I don't have the time." "I don't want to get in trouble." "I don't think it would do any good."
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
@Auto: The point is that it's only the "excesses" that they object to. They don't object to the whole thing on principle, which is the root problem. Of course it is sexual assault for a man to feel my genitals when I don't want him to, even though I am also male. And this whole "driving/flying is a privilege, not a right" crap is just crap.
Transportation - the need to move from place to place - is a fundamental right that cannot be lawfully impeded on the commons. Of course, private owners have a right to impede your transportation from crossing their land but that's not what the government claims to be. It does not claim that it owns the roads nor does it claim that its requirements (such as a driver's license) flow from its property rights in roads. Instead, the government is appealing to a quasi-religious sentiment whereby it is somehow the "divinely sanctioned" builder, maintainer and policer of roads. And the TSA's groping at airports is simply a logical extension of this superstitious reasoning to airports and flying.
I know you don't disagree but this issue just really winds me up.
</ranting>
It does not claim that it owns the roads nor does it claim that its requirements (such as a driver's license) flow from its property rights in roads. Instead, the government is appealing to a quasi-religious sentiment whereby it is somehow the "divinely sanctioned" builder, maintainer and policer of roads.
AFAIK, you could decline to be searched and sue for compensation if you were detained trying to pass. But, they could get around that, as Robert Menard claims happened to him, by telling the airline not to let you on. The airline will capitulate. As with so many things, they don't need lawful authority. They need only general intimidation.
That said, I don't mind being groped (call me kinky) and it is at least plausible that airports could have their own screening. Though, I would prefer the money being spent reducing the very high probability of dying in flight in general than the miniscule chance of being blown up by a bomber. As an example of lies, damned lies and statistics, my PMP instructor explained that the seemingly wonderful odds of an accident in flight that we so often hear about are based on distance flied (which is useless), whereas when measured against number of take-offs and landings it is about the same as riding a motorcycle on a highway without a helmet.