Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Colorado man claims he was 'sexually assaulted' by TSA

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
The Northerner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 03:12 PM
Original message
Colorado man claims he was 'sexually assaulted' by TSA
DENVER -- Geoff Biddulph of Berthoud, Colo. is a frequent flyer. He travels at least 30 times a year for business and has been "pat down" by airport security all across the world.

But he says he has never experienced anything like the pat down he got at Denver International Airport on April 5th.

"I felt like I was sexually assaulted," he said.

Biddulph says he was line at the security checkpoint waiting to go through the metal detector when a Transportation Security Administration agent tried to force him to go through the body scanner.

"A TSA agent literally started pushing me towards this other line," he told us.

Read more: http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-colorado-man-claims-he-wa...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. This guy needs some perspective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. he simply needs to understand a stranger groping his dick makes you feel safer
i hear ya.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. +100000
I was going to reply, but you did it so well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. +1 brazillion. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Northerner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. I couldn't agree more
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. Very well stated!
I too was going to respond, but I think you handled it perfectly ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. No, you didn't hear me.
Edited on Sat Apr-16-11 06:41 PM by Buzz Clik
Talk to someone who has really been sexually assaulted, and this bit of whining will disappear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. ah. well, i dont do degrees. but i can imagine that a person who had been sexually molested would
be effected 100x's fold

none of it is ok.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #16
26. I never suggested it's okay. But it most certainly is NOT sexual assault.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
franzia99 Donating Member (479 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #26
37. How do you figure? It's an unconsented to sexual contact; fitting the sex assault definition in
many if not all states. There are different degrees of sexual assault; and I can't think of a single state where touching someone's genitals without their permission isn't sexual assault.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeunderdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #26
85. Yeah, fondling of privates never hurt anyone.
Are you for real?

What's next, unwanted breast fondling A-OK?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #26
105. You don't get to decide that. If you have no problems being
groped by strangers, that's your business. I otoh, do not want you making that decision for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #105
106. And I...
don't you making public safety decisions for the rest of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #106
110. Don't know what you mean by that comment.
But I do get to decide if I have been assaulted, not you and not some 'agent' who is not even a law enforcement officer. Not that that would get them off the hook either.

Interesting that when the TSA had the opportunity to actually carry out their claims that they could force people to do as they say, they did not. Under the threat of a lawsuit, they backed away. Guess they were not as sure as you are of how those claims would fare in a courtroom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #110
111. I see...
YOU get to decide if you were assaulted?

I'm sure that would surprise the American legal system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #111
113. Yes, every victim gets to decide whether or not they were
assaulted, sexually or otherwise. Then, they report the crime. If there is enough evidence to support the claim, the case will move forward. If, as has happened so often in the past, a prosecutor decides not to go forward with prosecutions, the victim can use the civil courts.

Who doesn't get to decide are strangers who know nothing about the case, such as people on internet forums who weren't there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #113
114. "Who doesn't get to decide are strangers who know nothing about the case, such as people on...
Edited on Sun Apr-17-11 05:24 PM by SDuderstadt
internet forums who weren't there"

Which would, ironically, include you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #114
116. True, but I'm not the one saying that this person has no
case. That would by you. I am willing to let the court decide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #116
117. That's my opinion....
same as yours.

Get it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #117
118. Can you explain, since you are so convinced that
these tactics are legal, why every time someone challenges them, the TSA backs down? Apparently they are not as convinced as you are.

Seems to me just watching their reactions, that they will take advantage of the American people until they push back, as the pilots have eg. That their 'rules' are not based on the law at all and that once challenged, they back away rather than have them tested in court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #118
119. "why every time someone challenges them, the TSA backs down"
Maybe you should document that instead of merely asserting it. In the meantime, do you understand the legislative basis for the promulgation of the TSA rules?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #106
124. And I for one
am uncomfortable with how you always cling to the side of authority, no matter how ridiculous is looks.

Too many people like that in a democracy can lead to bad things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #124
127. I like facts, dude....
wherever they lead.

You want to keep your posts focused on them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #127
129. Are you any kin to the guy who wrote "Nuclear Reactor Analysis" by chance? nt
Edited on Sun Apr-17-11 10:31 PM by sudopod
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #129
131. If you just want to fight...
go fight with yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #131
133. I was serious, lol.
Edited on Sun Apr-17-11 10:32 PM by sudopod
I own (and have been owned by) this book.

http://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Reactor-Analysis-James-Du...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #133
136. You're assuming....
that's my real last name.

It's actually my mom's maiden name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #133
147. Why are you asking me personal questions? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #14
123. Ok, coach. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
franzia99 Donating Member (479 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
35. lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snooper2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-11 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #2
157. Well, if I wasn't circumcised it would be a good place to hide some weed
:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Yes...why can't everyone just stand up, salute & be a "good German"?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. He must have been one of those "arrogant people who
question passenger screening procedures."
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #4
30. LOL!!!
You are trying to put this on the same plane as the Nazis and the holocaust?

DU ... home of the hysterical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timtom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #30
99. You're pretty unbelievable in your cavalier regard
Edited on Sun Apr-17-11 03:38 PM by timtom
for the very obvious erosion of our constitutional freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures.

How could that sort of thing possibly be compared to "May I see your papers, please?"

It's worse.

At least at this stage.

Take a look around at, oh...the governor of Michigan arrogating to himself the absolute disregard for city autonomy, for example.

<edited to add:> Hmmm. No sooner said than, voila!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. he was sexually assulted
the cops rubbed my balls and dick many times because i "looked like a druggie". they would stop us while we were riding our bikes across town, search us, rub our private parts and make fun of us saying we had small dicks. sometimes we would get stopped multiple times in a week. They started doing this when i was 11, after nearly 4 years of this kind of treatment i actually started to smoke weed. i have been scared of cops and see them as an enemy ever since they touched me like that "for my own good". i feel no safer and the cops rubbing my private parts as a pre teen fucked me up more than any of the drugs i ever did later on in life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. By definition only -- and a very generous definition at that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sen. Walter Sobchak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. So if Larry Craig came over and against your will did the same...
what would you call it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. If Larry Craig were wearing a TSA uniform performing his job, he'd be another TSA lackey.
If Larry Craig the Congressman shoved his hand down my pants in an other empty airport bathroom, it would be sexual assault.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. So a uniform gives someone the right to sexually assault you?
I don't think that attitude is conducive to a free society.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #32
41. You seem to be missing a really vital point: it wasn't sexual assault.
Jeebus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sen. Walter Sobchak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. "performing one job" does not include what occured in this story
The through and repeated fondling of ones genitals is not part of the "enhanced patdown"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #33
42. Okay. I agree. I completely and totally agree that this clown should be fired.
Sexual assault? No. It was not sexual assault.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
franzia99 Donating Member (479 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #15
40. Uh, touching someone's genitals without consent fits the legal definition of sexual assault
Whether you think that's generous or not isn't really relevant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. It's sure as hell is relevant to this conversation.
:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
franzia99 Donating Member (479 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. You don't make the law brother.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. And you do?
This entire thread has launched into sillyville.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
franzia99 Donating Member (479 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. Here's the Colorado definition, complete with links
I don't write the law, but my opinion happens to match the Colorado definition of the crime

http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll/cocode/1/2e00f...

18-3-404. Unlawful sexual contact

(1) Any actor who knowingly subjects a victim to any sexual contact commits unlawful sexual contact if:

(a) The actor knows that the victim does not consent; or

http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll/cocode/1/2e00f...

18-3-401. Definitions.

(4) "Sexual contact" means the knowing touching of the victim's intimate parts by the actor, or of the actor's intimate parts by the victim, or the knowing touching of the clothing covering the immediate area of the victim's or actor's intimate parts if that sexual contact is for the purposes of sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse.

(2) "Intimate parts" means the external genitalia or the perineum or the anus or the buttocks or the pubes or the breast of any person.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. Keywords:
if that sexual contact is for the purposes of sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
franzia99 Donating Member (479 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. Which is a question of fact for the jury to decide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Oh, for the love of Mike...
Edited on Sat Apr-16-11 09:33 PM by SDuderstadt
it will not go to trial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
franzia99 Donating Member (479 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. Are you the prosecutor and/or judge with jurisdiction over this?
You've engaged in no factfinding. I find it hard to believe you can reliably say whether or not this will go to trial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. Neither have you...
if you think state law trumps federal law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
franzia99 Donating Member (479 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. Um, flesh out that argument please. Your point is unclear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. TSA regulations are...
developed pursuant to authorization by federal law.

No DA is going to bring this case and no judge is going to permit it to proceed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
franzia99 Donating Member (479 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. 2 arguments: First, the Constitution trumps federal law, and the 4th amendment is interpreted to
Edited on Sat Apr-16-11 09:51 PM by franzia99
mean that people cannot be searched without probable cause. So were this to go to court there are many who believe the regulations requiring these searches will be struck down on the grounds that they're subjecting people to searches without probable cause. Probable cause means you have particularized facts that reasonably suggest that someone may be committing or has committed a crime.

The second argument is that what this TSA agent did went beyond the scope of proper procedure under the TSA's own rules (assuming they're deemed constitutional) and therefore constituted a sexual assault. If you watch the video the alleged victim says he's been patted down many times before and that this one was much more intrusive than what he's previously been subjected to. He said the agent pushed him out of line, repeatedly fondled his penis and testicles, and stuck his hands down the front of his pants. If the finder of fact concludes that the agent went beyond the proper procedure for the patdowns, they could find unlawful sexual contact, even if the patdown regulations stand.

Edit:

And even if a prosecutor refused to bring this, the alleged victim could bring a 1983 claim where he sues the government for violation of his civil rights. Again, this is a question for the finder of fact. Based on what's been reported, it looks like there's a colorable claim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. Dude...
with respect to your first "argument", security checkpoints do not require "probable cause", nor do other kinds of administrative searches. No prosecutor is going to bring such a weak argument.

With respect to your second "argument", as I said earlier, this will never, ever go to trial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
franzia99 Donating Member (479 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #59
60. Sadly though, your argument is unpersuasive.
Also, there was a good article in the Washington Post citing authority under which the patdowns could be struck down under the 4th amendment. I suggest you give it a read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. Take it up with the Supreme Court...
I'd love to see your "good article".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
franzia99 Donating Member (479 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. Shouldn't be too hard to find if you put in a minute of effort. Not to mention, you've never
addressed a scenario where what the tsa agent did went beyond proper procedure, which the media report suggests. When it comes down to it, you have no basis for saying with any degree of certainty that this wasn't unlawful sexual contact and that it won't go anywhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. That's a prediction....
"did went"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
franzia99 Donating Member (479 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. It's a question for the finder of fact, as I've said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. Which is why I labeled what I said as...
a prediction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #63
132. His grammar is correct. He said "what the TSA agent did," which is a
noun clause acting as the subject of the verb "went." That ("what the agent did") went beyond normal procedure. He did not write "did went" as though he intended it as a verb phrase, which you seem to be implying he did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #55
73. So any TSA agent can do anything to any passenger with impunity?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #73
76. No...
nor did I say that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #76
90. You just said that no judge will permit this case to proceed?
Why? Why exactly shouldn't this case proceed? Alleged victim appears to be willing to testify.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #90
92. First of all...
Edited on Sun Apr-17-11 01:59 PM by SDuderstadt
it's not a "case". Secondly, I highly doubt any DA will prosecute because the allegation does not rise to the level of sexual assault. No judge will allow it to proceed based upon the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Hint: I am making a prediction here, not a statement of fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
franzia99 Donating Member (479 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #92
100. Predict what you want, but your "supremacy clause" argument is WEAK
As I've said above, your supremacy clause bit fails to address two major arguments. But it's a free country so you're welcome to rest your hat on that if it makes you feel better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #100
107. Do you think capitalizing "weak"....
makes your "argument" more convincing?

Please state the two arguments I've "failed" to address.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #55
79. why not? sexual assault is a state crime, not a federal one
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #79
83. Dude...
it doesn't meet the test for "sexual assault". Beyond that, research the "supremacy clause" of the U.S. Constitution.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/pr...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
franzia99 Donating Member (479 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #83
101. Are you an actual attorney? Because you're butchering the legal analysis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #101
102. Says you n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
franzia99 Donating Member (479 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #102
103. Yah, funny, I'm probably one of the few lawyers on here.
You're holding up the supremacy clause without considering any of the other issues. You sound like an armchair lawyer.

I can handle disagreement because everyone's entitled to their opinion, but at least provide a good reasoned analysis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #103
104. Sure you are n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
franzia99 Donating Member (479 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #104
108. Okay, so I'll take this as an admission that you aren't. People should be informed
Edited on Sun Apr-17-11 04:44 PM by franzia99
that to just cite the supremacy clause here and stop at that is a really poor legal analysis. For starters, the federal government could enact a law that's unconstitutional, at which point the supremacy clause is not going to protect it in conflicts with state law. Here there are good arguments that these patdowns violate the fourth amendment. We'll see what the supreme court says, but to throw up the supremacy clause and say that ends the analysis is just ridiculous. You mentioned before that the court has upheld the use of checkpoints, which is true, but I don't remember any cases that involved fondling someone's genitals. The contact here is more intrusive than what was upheld in the checkpoint cases.

Furthermore, there are facts suggesting that the tsa agent went beyond the scope of proper procedure for the patdowns. Saying "supremacy clause" there doesn't even address the point. Even upholding the regulations they don't give tsa agents license to do whatever they want to people sexually.

And btw, do you know what a 1983 claim is? That's when you sue the government for a civil rights violation. Even if a prosecutor didn't want to bring the case, this guy could hire his own lawyer and bring a civil suit.

So to just say supremacy clause doesn't quite cut it here. I'm calling you out because I don't want people to be misled by you. I'm not trying to be mean to you but you don't understand the legal issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #108
135. Of course, the current SCOTUS is packed with RW Bush appointees. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tpsbmam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #15
57. Wow
You get to be judge and jury as to what constitutes sexual assault and what doesn't. Just plain wow.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #57
66. so when you were a kid and teen and the cops kept stoppin you
and felt your balls and dick to look for drugs that you didnt even use you didnt feel violated? you dont feel violated when grown adults put their hands in your pants against your will?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tpsbmam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #66
122. Getting back you way late....either I responded to the wrong post or you did....
I was sticking up for you and criticizing the poster who was dismissing what you went through. I think what you went through most certainly felt to you like sexual assault, and would have felt the same to me. I was criticizing the person who felt that he/she could minimize what you went through.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-11 07:49 AM
Response to Reply #122
152. i posted in the wrong place, sorry and thanks for sticking up for me
sorry for the mix up
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
_ed_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #15
87. Is it some kind of contest?
Isn't this like saying you haven't really been raped unless you've been gang raped?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Scribe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #15
146. Lol, I've never seen anyone argue a point like that!
"Well, yeah, if we're going by, like, the definition in question, but..."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
24. Yeah, well, the Merkin Public is only outraged now because it is affecting THEM.
When the 4th amendment was junked for people who looked like hippies, or who were driving around the country with grateful dead stickers on their cars, or for cancer grannies smoking a joint to ease the nausea of chemo, most Merkins didn't give a shit. Still don't.

What they don't realize is that this crap has been going on for decades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #24
67. the shit they did to hippies like me
is nothing compared to what the cops do to black people or latinos. i give a shit and have for quite some time, but most people dont. it is sad when kids out riding bmx bikes have to be molested because they may have flowers in their pocket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #67
98. Agreed. The biggest component of the drug war is a racial one.
No doubt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #7
36. that's my penis
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. I think YOU need some perspective...
Edited on Sat Apr-16-11 03:41 PM by hlthe2b
1. This is a frequent flyer, a businessman who travels worldwide extensively. I'm guessing that gives him some comparative "perspective."
2. He is serious enough to have filed a complaint with BOTH TSA and the Denver Police and has requested a copy of the video surveillance.
3. Denver Police is investigating. They have NOT dismissed this complaint out of hand, which means they take his account quite seriously.
4. When is it ever appropriate to grab someone's crotch without cause? When?


Perspective, indeed. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #8
17. Meh. Bullshit.
He was harassed and maybe embarrassed and sick of the shit. I'm sick of it, too. I spend an hour getting ready to travel, and they spend 60 seconds undoing all my efforts. It's invasive and maybe unnecessary, but IT IS NOT SEXUAL ASSAULT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. You contradicted yourself upstream...
Edited on Sat Apr-16-11 07:22 PM by hlthe2b
:shrug:

I HAVE worked with those who have been sexually assaulted. I can assure you that "purpose" of the grope doesn't make a whole lot of difference when they relive one of the worst incidents of their lives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #18
28. Yeah, well, so have I. And I disagree with completely.
Edited on Sat Apr-16-11 08:22 PM by Buzz Clik
If you had the experience you claim to have, you would recognize instantly that sexual such (as with rape) is not a sexual act but an act of violence against the victim. To call this sexual assault is spitting in the face of every true victim of sexual assault.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. You disagree that you contradict yourself?... Check it.. Post #15
Edited on Sat Apr-16-11 08:25 PM by hlthe2b
and, heavens if you aren't more sensitive to the issue of sexual assault and re-victimization than that...???? Well, I'll leave it there. Sad...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. I disagree with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. You are free to do so..
Edited on Sat Apr-16-11 08:37 PM by hlthe2b
and I am free to say you deviate from professional standards of care for victims of sexual assault for whom re-victimization (including from inappropriate TSA contact) is a very real potential. In denying this as an issue, I would find it difficult to refer anyone-- who had experienced such trauma-- to you for the care you claim to deliver. I would, quite frankly, have to question your compassion for these victims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #34
45. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. You don't get to misstate misframe, or misrepresent everything
that I and others have said. I have said nothing of the kind, but am not going to defend what is obviously a problematic policy in general, and a specific incident that underscores why it is so open to abuse. Abuse that YES, can have very real impacts on a prior victim of sexual abuse. You argue that it is essentially no big deal and that the complainant should "just get some perspective." You are being so disingenuous, I would recommend that others follow in my lead and simply ignore you. I certainly will. BTW, your sigline is quite offensive. The previous poster is quite right to say so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #31
71. The unlawful sexual contact does not have to be violent.
So to claim it has to be makes no sense whatsoever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #71
81. unwanted contact with my sexaul areas is violence in and of itself
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #28
69. Oh for crying out loud.
Have you not read the definition of unlawful sexual contact: sexual contact can be for the purpose of sexual gratification?
Violence against the victim is nowhere to be found in that definition, so WTF are you talking about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #28
80. as when cops felt my privates because i "looked like a druggie"
years before i even tried pot, the agent in this case did this as an act of violence, they want the public to "submit". they let their power go to their head. it is like the ancient laws permitting the king to fuck any scottish bride on her wedding night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #80
84. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
blueamy66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #18
39. Hey...get used to it.
I was told in another thread that I don't know what domestic abuse is.

So, who made the DU posters the Know It Alls of the world?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #39
86. Unintentional irony n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #8
19. "Denver Police is investigating. "
:rofl:

A few gallons of white wash will take care of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. Look, I have my issues with DPD...
Edited on Sat Apr-16-11 07:32 PM by hlthe2b
but I also know that when they want to whitewash something, they will find a way NOT to investigate-- there are lots of ways to "discount out of hand" when they are so predisposed. They are not doing so.

DPD is like any large city police department, with its ups and downs and good and bad cops. But, I can't be so cynical, having lived in a neighborhood where we faced a serial rapist/murderer. DPD did their job, did it well and caught the guy. They did it professionally and kept the various affected neighborhoods informed. When I unknowingly came upon the SWAT team closing in on him after a rape on the other side of Cheeseman Park right before dark one evening, they sent an officer to make sure I (and my dog) got home safely and they likewise cruised the neighborhoods throughout the night.

So, no, I can't say they have no bad apples (as recent incidents confirm), but they don't deserve that level of contempt, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. I guess for people who haven't been victims of *their* contempt, they don't deserve any
level of contempt.

You have YOUR vision, and I have MINE.

The whole police department needs to be cleaned out and sanitized and start over fresh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tpsbmam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
56. Maybe he DOES have perspective
He's a frequent traveler and I'm sure has been through many pat-downs and security checks of varying degrees. This one was clearly different for him. IMO it's wrong to simply dismiss his complaint based on your conjecture. How do you know this wasn't different? You have nothing to go on save for your bias.

I appreciate you standing up for people who've been sexually assaulted. You are, however, dismissing someone here who may well have been assaulted. I can very easily imagine a pat-down conducted by a pervert hired by the TSA that goes way over the line and would, indeed, be sexual assault. What, that couldn't happen?

Bull.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
10. i listened to the video clip and there is a tsa person something along the line of 'tsa has 'served'
over 250 million passengers.


served? -- that was the exact word -- 'served'? really -- served?

i get service at a restaurant -- i do not get 'service' from the tsa.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. It's meant along the lines of
"You got served!" - TSA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shagbark Hickory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
23. Well duh. Didn't he notice the other people in line ahead of him getting assaulted?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #23
38. Watch the report, he's a frequent flier, this was different for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
68. I really wonder why this hasn't been challenged as a violation of 4th amendment rights yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #68
70. Because security checkpoints don't require...
probable cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #70
72. But the search has to be reasonable.
I don't see why grabbing someone's genitals as this guy alleges was done to him is reasonable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #72
75. Keywords: "as this guy alleges"
Personally, I'll wait to see if his allegations bear out before just blindly jumping on the TSA.

At the same time, the "reasonableness" requirement also takes into account the legitimate means needed to protect against a real threat. I have been subjected to the enhanced patdown several times and not once was I "groped" or "sexually assaulted". That doesn't mean that Biddulph and/or others weren't. However, given the huge number of flights/travelers with roughly 3% subjected to these measures raises a logical question. Why aren't these complaints far more widespread?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #75
88. Yes of course these are allegations.
Edited on Sun Apr-17-11 01:51 PM by LisaL
So I fail to see why a jury or a judge shouldn't decide whether this guy was sexually assaulted. Here we have an alleged victim saying he was sexually assaulted and it appears the alleged victim is willing to testify. Why exactly shouldn't this go to court?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #88
89. Because I don't believe that any DA will prosecute...
based upon the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #89
91. So, nothing that TSA agent does can lead to prosecution, using your
logic?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #91
93. Jesus...
I already said no. Quit putting words in my mouth and learn to read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #93
125. You just claimed no DA will prosecute...
Edited on Sun Apr-17-11 10:16 PM by LisaL
Why? There is an alleged victim apparently willing to testify. So why exactly no DA will prosecute this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #125
128. It's a prediction and...
I have already explained it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #70
74. I still think this would be illegal search and seizure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #74
77. Well...
you can think whatever you want. Someone going through a security checkpoint has a far more limited expectation of privacy. Privacy does not trump public safety.

Take it up with the Supreme Court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. If it happens to me, maybe I will.
See that's the great thing about this country - you can challenge laws you don't like in front of SCOTUS. I personally believe these pat downs are extremely violating and a direct 4th amendment. The fact is that they don't have probable cause to search someone's private areas. It's just mortifying that they're even attempting doing this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #78
82. As I said before...
they don't need probable cause. The issue is more the reasonableness of the search. It had to be balanced against republic''s expectation of safety. In this case, it's pretty high.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #70
121. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #68
94. Because the 4th amendment doesn't give you the right to fly on an airplane
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #94
95. It's about searching someone's bags illegally, not about flying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #95
96. It isn't "illegal"...
reading the Constitution is not a substitute for case law, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #96
126. Can you imagine asking Thomas Jefferson if it's ok to grab his crotch?
Edited on Sun Apr-17-11 10:16 PM by sudopod
I wonder what he would say. XD


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #126
130. Nobody's crotch is...
"grabbed".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #130
134. Patted firmly with a cupped hand? nt
Edited on Sun Apr-17-11 10:32 PM by sudopod
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #134
137. Have you been through the actual...
enhanced patdown?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #137
138. Does it matter? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #138
139. Yes n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #139
140. Why? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #140
141. On what basis do you know...
that anyone was "grabbed" or "groped"? People don't exaggerate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #141
142. Not everyone lies. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #142
143. Exaggeration is not necessarily "lying"...
I never, ever called anyone a liar.

Serious question: how can someone "grab" or "grope" with the back of their hand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #143
144. I don't know. I guess you had to be there? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #143
145. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-11 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #143
149. LOL, it appears that you're upset. ;) nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #95
97. Nobody is forced to have their bags searched by TSA
You can simply choose not to fly. The 4th amendment covers forced searches and seizures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #97
109. You don't know much about your own rights. No wonder
you are so willing to give them up, so easily.

American citizens have the right to travel freely without harassment by the government. Look it up, I'm tired of providing proof for people who are so willing to, not only give up their own rights, but all of our rights.

These TSA agents are not even law enforcement agents.

Do the police have the right to pull you over without probably cause and search your belongings while you are travelling legally on a highway?

Do they have the right to come into your home, without probably cause, and search that home?

These were the things George Bush said were now necessary because of 'terra'. And I recall Democrats being outraged at the time.

These tactics have yet to be challenged even in regular courts, although there are many cases pending.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Innomen Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #97
112. Dangerous argument, Slippery slope.
Edited on Sun Apr-17-11 05:24 PM by Innomen
In my opinion the whole justification "well you don't have to patronize X service" for right infringement needs to be questioned.

Sure I don't have a constitutional right to fly, but there are protections that are supposed to transcend the rights of a private business.

For example, this same type argument was used extensively in defense of segregation and other forms of discrimination. As a private business owner they could say "if you don't like my policy on blacks, don't utilize my service" and logically speaking that argument had a lot of merit. It was their property, and officially no one was strictly forced to utilize their services, but in reality they often were.

In many ways I am forced to fly. It may be part of my job, or it could be an emergency. You've signed yourself up potentially for making people choose between their constitutional protections and their careers and homes. That's a touch more significant than "well if you don't like Pepsi, drink coke."

Obviously the argument doesn't hold because discrimination was wrong. I think we as a society need to address the issue of defending one's rights without effectively being punished for doing so. If for example you were put on the no fly list, and they refused to tell you why, do you feel you have a right to challenge that? If so, on what grounds? After all, you could always "chose not to fly." They aren't obligated to serve you, right?

Well, I think they are. If a service is offered to the public, in exchange for that potential profit the business surrenders some rights and accepts some responsibilities, among them I believe should be respecting a patron's constitutional freedoms.

Similarly, I feel that the "choose not to fly" argument as a get out of court free card for the TSA has no merit. Granted, that is currently the law of the land, but it shouldn't be. We allow it to stay at our own peril. The TSA's actions are in a way a microcosm of the entire country. They are an industry selling elephant repellent.

Just because I could take a boat does not mean the TSA owns me once I enter the building, and that's pretty much what shop somewhere else type argument easily allows.

It's the same as EULA and TOS contracts. By allowing one company to profitably trample the rights of it's customer you set the stage for all of them being forced to do so or else go out of business, and pretty soon surrendering your rights becomes a matter of course no matter what you do or where you go.

Just sharing.

Edit: This is especially important in a capitalist society with a service economy where virtually everything I need to live has to come from a private business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #112
120. Yes, you do have a right to fly.
Edited on Sun Apr-17-11 07:04 PM by sabrina 1
49 U.S.C. 40103 : US Code - Section 40103: Sovereignty and use of airspace

(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under
section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the accessibility of
commercial airports or commercial air transportation for handicapped individuals.


So if the government decides to violate that right they need to have a very good reason. Refusal by a citizen to submit to violations of the 4th Amendment doesn't seem like a very good reason.

It looks like all this needs to be settled in the courts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Innomen Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-11 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #120
158. Agreed.
+1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-11 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #112
148. Exactly this.
It's like that editorial I was reading the other day where the guy was giving the Giants fan shit because he chose to go to the Dodger game wearing his Giants shirt. Sure, he could have not gone to opening day, but if he wanted to, he shouldn't have been subjected to *THAT*. That's what I am trying to get at. You're exactly right - it's a public service, you're paying to use it, but they don't own you once you enter the building.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #94
115. we HAVE to go into the court house. the court houses have naked scans. is THAT against 4th
amendment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-11 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #115
150. I've had jury duty several times and never been subjected to one.
And yeah I still think it does. They should not be scanning us like this, period.

I actually have jury duty next week, so I'll be sure to report if my court house has one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-11 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #150
151. i know there are courthouses in florida that have them. they have held onto the pictures and
supposedly got in trouble. we have no choice but to go into court. so at tht point it is a demand to use naked scanner.

it certainly is not all over the country, though other court houses are talking about getting them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-11 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #115
153. when i went to trial in craig county virginia
there was not even a metal detector, there were armed police though, by the way, i was found innocent due to illegal search and seizure!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-11 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #153
155. ok. and a lot of courts across the nation does not have naked scanner. there are a few
the point of the poster is, since flying is not a right it is ok that they do strip searches (naked scanners) and groping. having to go to a court takes away an option of doing or not. the courts in florida that have the naked scanner, then are making people that have to go, do something that is against the right.

and more and more courts are talking about getting them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-11 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #155
156. ah, i see
they oblige people to be seen on the naked scans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Modern_Matthew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-11 07:54 AM
Response to Original message
154. There's no room for opinion on this. It's wrong to be touched without consent and...
everyone has a right to travel freely throughout the country without submitting to such draconian bullshit. End of debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Innomen Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-11 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #154
159. Agreed, however.
The real debate is one that relates to many other areas of public life. I have freedom of speech but not the right to be on tv, I have freedom to travel but not the right to a plane ticket.

We're amassing a collection of effectively worthless rights and allowing business to create an extra layer of law that no one voted on. We're allowing an environment where only the rich and obedient have rights because they are the only ones abiding by the terms of service and paying the entry fees.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Aug 20th 2014, 12:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC