[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Pedophile's Decapitated Corpse Found On Judge's Doorstep After Bail Hearing In Aurora, Illinois

Syria - Israel Provocation Kills Russian Soldiers - Moscow Will Take Political Revenge

Gun goes off inside Mormon meetinghouse in Provo; church leader is recorded urging teenage girls not to spread news on social media

We Need To Know If Intelligence Agencies Covered Up The 1996 Crash Of TWA 800

Conservative Forced Into Hiding After Writing Pro-Life Tweet

Video Game Treats Cops as Good Guys. The Left is Outraged.

Here Are 202 Companies Hurt by Trump's Tariffs

Allegations throw Kavanaugh confirmation into turmoil (Liars!!!)

Triangle shaped UFO spotted on US Aircraft Carrier in Mediterranean Sea - Space Force?, Leaked Video

Human Rights Campaign honors Raytheon for LGBT equality

The Dike Breaks - Netherland Ends Support For 'White Helmets' Terrorist Propaganda

Les Wexner renounces Republican Party affiliation

Trump's Reckless Hostility Unites China and Russia

This reminds of the liberal take over of the democrat party

The Bluffer’s Guide to Bombing Syria

Poland says it will block any EU sanctions against Hungary

Barack Obama: Worst. President. Ever.( Oldie but still a goodie)

FBI Not Investigating FeinsteinÂ’s Smear Letter Against Kavanaugh

US Coast Guard member 'removed' after making 'offensive' OK sign on live TV

Lawyer with Obama, Clinton ties may face federal charges: report

ICE won’t arrest or detain evacuees in the Carolinas escaping from Hurricane Florence

Delusions of the Social Justice Warrior Gang

Trump’s Wars and the Threat to Free Speech

Nike Fighting to Keep Oregon a ‘Sanctuary State’ After Illegal Alien Kills Young Couple

Serena Williams’ U.S. Open Tantrum Reflects Society’s Wider Problems

Don't Piss Off Old People

Trump Administration Decides Free Speech Isn't Free: Publishes Plans to Tax Protests and Close White House Sidewalk to Protests

9/11: The Biggest Con Job Since JFK

Dalai Lama: ‘Europe Belongs to Europeans’, Refugees Should Return and Rebuild Homelands

Couple Get Back $10,000 Seized By State Trooper After Local Media Starts Asking Questions

TSA Decides The Path To Flight Safety Runs Through A Passenger's Prosthetic Leg

Cop Amber Guyger Is One Reason We Need Private Gun Ownership

Understanding The Tactics Of Subversive Globalism

Justice Ginsburg blasts Her Own Party After Brett Kavanaugh Hearings (Loves Swampy)

Manafort pleads guilty, will cooperate with prosecutors

#MAGA: Federal Deficit Jumps 32 Percent, Hits $895 Billion for Fiscal 2018!

Joe Scarborough: Trump Is Worse For America Than ‘The Attacks On The Twin Towers’

Cheerleader Wins a Fight

Michael Moore doubles down on claim that Trump could be America's last president: 'I think it's possible'

InfoWarrior got another one right!

Kansas man GOES OFF on Police who Raid Home at Gunpoint without Warrant

Michelle Obama to visit 10 cities for 'Becoming' Michelle Obama' book tour

If You Oppose NFL Kneeling, You May Be A Victim Of Russian Trolls: WaPo

Armageddon Rides In The Balance

Pot Prohibition Makes Self-Defense Illegal

Report: Las Vegas professor shot himself in arm to protest Trump

Hurricane Florence is coming

Grand Jury Finds Police Were Complicit in Covering Up Massive Child Sex Ring in Catholic Church

Since 9/11, America Has Traded Liberty for Security, And We’re Almost Out of Both

17 Years After 9/11, US Counts Al Qaeda Among Allies in Syria, Yemen


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles

Title: WHY CAN’T WE SUE THE TSA FOR ASSAULT?
Source: Daily Sheeple
URL Source: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/why- ... sue-the-tsa-for-assault_062018
Published: Jun 20, 2018
Author: Dr. Ron Paul
Post Date: 2018-06-20 11:28:25 by IbJensen
Keywords: None
Views: 96
Comments: 4

When I was in Congress and had to regularly fly between DC and Texas, I was routinely subjected to invasive “pat-downs” (physical assaults) by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). One time, exasperated with the constant insults to my privacy and dignity, I asked a TSA agent if he was proud to assault innocent Americans for a living.

I thought of this incident after learning that the TSA has been compiling a “troublesome passengers” list. The list includes those who have engaged in conduct judged to be “offensive and without legal justification” or disruptive of the “safe and effective completion of screening.” Libertarian journalist James Bovard recently pointed out that any woman who pushed a screener’s hands away from her breasts could be accused of disrupting the “safe and effective completion of screening.” Passengers like me who have expressed offense at TSA screeners are likely on the troublesome passengers list.

Perhaps airline passengers should start keeping a list of troublesome TSA agents. The list could include those who forced nursing mothers to drink their own breast milk, those who forced sick passengers to dispose of cough medicine, and those who forced women they found attractive to go through a body scanner multiple times. The list would certainly include the agents who confiscated a wheelchair-bound three-year-old’s beloved stuffed lamb at an airport and threatened to subject her to a pat-down. The girl, who was at the airport with her family to take a trip to Disney World, was filmed crying that she no longer wanted to go to Disney World.

The TSA is effective at violating our liberty, but it is ineffective at protecting our security. Last year, the TSA’s parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), conducted undercover tests of the TSA’s ability or detect security threats at airports across the country. The results showed the TSA staff and equipment failed to uncover threats 80 percent of the time. This is not the first time the TSA has been revealed to be incompetent. An earlier DHS study fund TSA screenings and even the invasive pat-downs were utterly ineffective at finding hidden weapons.

The TSA’s “security theater” of treating every passenger as a criminal suspect while doing nothing to stop real threats is a rational response to the incentives the TSA faces as a government agency. If the TSA puts up an appearance of diligently working to prevent another 9/11 by inconveniencing and even assaulting as many travelers as possible, Congress will assume the agency is doing its job and keep increasing the TSA’s budget. Because the TSA gets its revenue from Congress, not from airline passengers, the agency has no reason to concern itself with customer satisfaction and feels free to harass and assault people, as well as to make lists of people who stand up for their rights.

Congress should end the TSA’s monopoly on security by abolishing the agency and returning responsibility for security to the airlines. The airline companies can contract with private firms that provide real security without treating every passenger as a criminal suspect. A private security firm that assaults its customers while failing to detect real dangers would soon go out of business, whereas the TSA would likely have its budget and power increased if there was another attack on the US.

If shutting down the TSA is too “radical” a step, Congress should at least allow individuals to sue TSA agents for assault. Anyone who has suffered unfair treatment by the TSA as a result of being put on the “troublesome passengers” list should also be able to seek redress in court. Making TSA agents subject to the rule of law is an important step toward protecting our liberty and security.


Poster Comment:

What we have here is a boiler with a defective safety valve and that bitch is running on high heat... with more coal being tossed on every day. How long before something pops?

Personally I kinda wanna see it. I want to see the expressions on their faces when they try to trade their bank cards or some bitcoin for a loaf of bread. Even funnier if they use gold. Who eats gold?

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: IbJensen (#0)

"WHY CAN’T WE SUE THE TSA FOR ASSAULT?"

Because you voluntarily submit to their searches. If you don't want to be searched, simply leave the facility.

Stop your whining and your histrionics.

misterwhite  posted on  2018-06-20   22:06:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: misterwhite (#1)

If you don't want to be searched, simply leave the facility [where federal inspectors are authorized to perform their respective duties.]

What makes you so sure there is any individual liberty to do so?

buckeroo  posted on  2018-06-20   22:36:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: misterwhite (#1)

You are dumb or a liar. Maybe both.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-06-21   7:39:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: IbJensen, A K A Stone, misterwhite (#0)

"WHY CAN’T WE SUE THE TSA FOR ASSAULT?"

People and and have sued the TSA for violation of constitutional rights. They have lost.

At issued is the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches.

The Courts have fond the searches to be reasonable.

The "searches are valid only if they recognize the right of a person to avoid search by electing not to board the aircraft.”

See e.g. USA v Marquez, 04-30243 (9th Cir, 7 Jun 2005).

At 6509:

A

[1] Airport screenings of passengers and their baggage constitute administrative searches and are subject to the limitations of the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973) (noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are “conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme” where the essential administrative purpose is “to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft”); see also id. at 895, 904. Thus, airport screenings must be reasonable. See Torbet v. United Airlines, Inc., 298 F.3d 1087, 1089 (9th Cir. 2002). To judge reasonableness, it is necessary to balance the right to be free of intrusion with “society’s interest in safe air travel.” United States v. Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d 899, 901 (9th Cir. 1986).

B

[2] In Davis and its progeny, we have established a general reasonableness test for airport screenings. “An airport screening search is reasonable if: (1) it is no more extensive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives; (2) it is confined in good faith to that purpose; and (3) passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.” Torbet, 298 F.3d at 1089 (citation omitted); see also Davis, 482 F.2d at 913; Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d at 901.

The cited Davis is United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973) (noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are “conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme” where the essential administrative purpose is “to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft”)

At 6512:

3

Finally, “airport screening searches are valid only if they recognize the right of a person to avoid search by electing not to board the aircraft.” Davis, 482 F.2d at 910-11; see also id. at 913. However, a passenger must exercise his right to abandon air travel before beginning the screening procedures. See Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d at 902 (“The requirement in Davis of allowing passengers to avoid the search by electing not to fly does not extend to a passenger who has already submitted his luggage for an x-ray scan.”). Any other rule would allow potential hijackers to leave whenever detection seemed imminent and permit them to try again another day. Id. (“A rule allowing a passenger to leave without a search after an inconclusive [screening] would encourage airline terrorism by providing a secure exit where detection was threatened.”).

nolu chan  posted on  2018-06-21   9:09:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com