Friday, May 27, 2011

Texas House of Representatives Seeking to Ban Current TSA Pat-Down

***Update: 5/27/2011 – Read this story in the Houston Chronicle for an update.***

What's our take on the Texas House of Representatives voting to ban the current TSA pat-down? Well, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article. VI. Clause 2) prevents states from regulating the federal government.

We wish we lived in a world where you could just walk on a plane with no security screening, but that just isn't the case unfortunately.  Aviation security agencies worldwide have been using pat-downs long before TSA was created to prevent dangerous items from getting onto airplanes. The pat-down is a highly effective tool to resolve certain alarms and keep these dangerous items off of planes that could cause catastrophic damage.  It's important to note that if a passenger (or bag) alarms during screening, our officers must resolve the alarm before allowing the passenger and their baggage on the airplane.

Here are some pat-down myths and facts:

Myth: Everyone who travels will receive a pat-down.

Fact: In fact, less than 3% of passengers receive pat-downs. Only passengers who alarm a walk through metal detector or AIT machine or opt out of the AIT receive a pat-down. In addition, some passengers may also receive a pat-down as part of our random, unpredictable security measures.  In his testimony to a Senate subcommittee, Administrator Pistole said: "The bottom line is few people in the overall scheme of things will actually receive those pat downs. Now, we've heard some examples, and obviously, there's a vocal group out there who have experienced this for the first time, and, rightfully so, raising concerns, what's behind this. And the bottom line is we, the transportation security officers in particular, are trying to work in partnership with the traveling public to say we want to ensure that you are safe on this flight. Work with us in a partnership to provide the best possible security. And that's what it comes down to."

Myth: All children will receive pat-downs.

Fact: No. TSA officers are trained to work with parents to ensure a respectful screening process for the entire family, while providing the best possible security for all travelers. Children 12 years old and under who require extra screening will receive a modified pat down. 

Myth: Complaints about the pat-downs are extremely high.

Fact: Only a small percentage of the traveling public receives a pat down as they travel through the security checkpoint.  Between November 2010 and March 2011, TSA screened nearly 252 million people. In that same time period, we received 898 complaints from individuals who have experienced or witnessed a pat down. That's roughly 0.0004%.

Myth: Pat downs for certain individuals are limited to the head and neck.

Fact: No one is exempt. Everyone is subject to the same screening. TSA is sensitive to religious and cultural needs, but everyone must be screened effectively.

Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team 

If you’d like to comment on an unrelated topic you can do so in our Off Topic Comments post. You can also view our blog post archives or search our blog to find a related topic to comment in. If you have a travel related issue or question that needs an immediate answer, you can contact a Customer Support Manager at the airport you traveled, or will be traveling through by using Talk to TSA.

1,032 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   601 – 800 of 1032   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Good news everyone:

http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=300&Month=5&Year=2011

"The Electronic Privacy Information Center reports that the US House of Representatives is trying to cut funding for new airport body scanners from next year's budget. This would prevent the TSA from installing 275 new scanners in airports in FY 2012, at a cost of $76 million."

Anonymous said...

I hope Texas secedes from the union, my family will move there. Sorry TSA the Supremacy Clause does not mean what you think.


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

in simple terms, what does the supremacy clause mean? Just what it says. The constitution is supreme. And any federal laws made in line with the constitution is supreme. Nothing more, nothing less.

Notice there’s not one single word in the actual text that says anything about states regulating the federal government as the TSA claims. They’re just making things up as they go.

Anonymous said...

The pat-downs are are a violation of the right to be "Secure in our person". In hindsight, we stepped onto this slippery slope long ago when we didn't protest the search our bags and belongings. This was also a clear violation of our rights to be secure in our "effects and papers". Now the momentum has picked up and we are sliding down the hill.

I actually wouldn't have a problem with the TSA pat-down or my bag (no pun)being searched as long as the TSA gets a judge to sign a warrant and specify what they are searching for and why.

Until the TSA provides warrants for each search, consider this a complaint!!!

My name is John Livingston and I live in Indiana.

Anonymous said...

"The TSA is in the midst of a union-busting attempt by the right. Question who introduced the equipment and the policies that are now demonizing this vital part of our national security. All the anti-TSA venom is very purposely misplaced anti-union sentiment. The TSA is NOT at fault for following guiedlines handed down to them.

As for the organized managed profiles here with a poorly-constructed argument against the our government using the Supremacy Clause to douse the Texas GOP in cold water, it's Think Tank, Cato, Koch, Heritage nonsense. It will come out that all of these anti-union, anti TSA, anti-US Government lies will be outed as just that. Unfortunately, their swiftboat attack on reality will already be sold on the Tea Party rabid. Again, victims of this right-wing disgrace."

I am a registered Democrat, and I belong to a Union. I oppose the TSA because everything it does, everything it stands for, is both a violation of the Constitution and of basic human rights.

Anonymous said...

There is no supremacy clause issue here. The TSA rules are just that.. rules.. enacted by the executive branch, not laws. Only laws passed by Congress with clear meaning and intent have a supremacy issue. There is no *law* by Congress protecting TSA agents for doing these pat downs.
For the TSA, this is now a scrum between them and Texas.

Anonymous said...

The 2010 PRSA badge is a nice touch. Stay classy TSA.

Anonymous said...

What all this TSA nonsense reminds me of is the "duck and cover" drills back in the 1950's. Remember when we had school children hiding under desks and covering their heads in case an atomic bomb was exploded in the United States?

The originator of that useless tactic was the Federal Civil Defense Administration -- which was merged with FEMA -- which was merged with the US Department of Homeland Security.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. There will always be a bogeyman to be scared of -- there will always be some government bureacrat who will spend a ton of money on security theatre and insist we follow their ridiculous rules.

I hope someday a picture of a person having their body scanned seems as outrageous to us as a picture of a child huddling under his or her desk at school.

Anonymous said...

I love the "logic" here, Bob. You seem to think that because we object to the invasive, ineffective current procedures, we want NO security. It's not all-or-nothing, Bob. We want you to ditch the grope-downs, dismantle the porno-scanners, and institute a REASONABLE security system that is effective without violating our 4th Amendment rights.

Someone above said we don't have a right to fly, it's a privilege. Granted. But that's not what the 4th Amendment says; that amendment states that we are protected against searches without probable cause. There is no probable cause to back the grope-down of a 6-year-old child or searching a law-abiding citizen who's just trying to visit their family on the other side of the country.

This may be the first thing Texas has ever done that I've agreed with.

Anonymous said...

TSORon said:
"As for bomb components, we find them every hour of every day."

No, TSORon, you don't. I won't reveal any classified information except to say that, no, this is incorrect.

But you knew that, didn't you?

(Screen shot taken)

Anonymous said...

Blogger Bob (for some reason) said:
"Well, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article. VI. Clause 2) prevents states from regulating the federal government."

So, the Texas Rangers can't issue a speeding ticket to a Federal employee? How about arrest a TSO for rape?

I like the idea - if you're a TSO who abides by common convention, you're OK. If you grope a child or "search" a baby, we'll talk to you at the arraignment.

RB said...

Bob, think your getting a positive TSA message out to the public?

Anonymous said...

The supremacy clause only applies to federal laws, not agency guidance. Unless the US Code or the Code of Federal Regulations specifically authorizes TSA agents to touch the anuses, breasts, buttocks and sexual organs of flyers, then the proposed Texas statute doesn't contradict federal law. The current TSA patdown procedures were issued as agency guidelines, not subject to regulatory review. They are not law. Agency guidelines do not have article 4 protection. They are advice, and so long as the proposed Texas statute can be construed to be reasonably consistent with the USC and CFR, the supremacy clause is not relevant.

Earl Pitts said...

@Anon: "The Bush administration abuses were far worse."

In some ways. In others, it wasn't nearly as bad, especially with TSA.

I never had to worry about my crotch getting fondled or having overly "friendly" "patdowns." I never had to worry about being force thru Nude-O-Scopes as a primary and choose between being groped or being seen naked in order to fly (except on rare occasions when I hit the secondary lottery).

TSA was largely incompetent under Kippie, but it's gotten a LOT worse under Pistole and Obama.

I voted for Obama for better change and the hope that he'd respect civil liberties and the constitution more than his predecessor. I got change alright, and definitely not the positive change I had hoped for.

TSA abuses may have started under Bush, but they've jammed on the gas pedal since Obama and Pistole took over.

And BTW Bob, I filed 2 complaints this month already. One of them submitted thru this website bounced after 72 hours. Fortunately, it gave me the direct email address of the person to whom it's supposed to go to. On my last trip, I had both my 1st and 4th amendments violated. Are you guys ever going to learn respect for the Constitution?

Earl

Anonymous said...

"Even more, it turns out the TSA has operated in complete secrecy surrounding these machines, including using secret scientists to conduct the radiation tests, which were based on secret methodologies, using secret equipment and measured by devices that are physically incapable of detecting high levels of X-ray radiation!"
http://www.naturalnews.com/032425_airport_scanners_radiation.html

Anonymous said...

Yay Texas! Good job keeping TSOs out of our pants!!

Protonius said...

(PROTONIUS’ 05-17-2011 COMMENTARY – PART 4 OF 4 PARTS):

Well, and therein, perhaps, lies the loophole that would seem to permit the TSA the authority to control who can fly and who cannot fly. But that brings us back to all these other questions as to the true purpose – which apparently is also somewhat under debate – and the modus operandi, of the TSA, and of whether various aspects of its operations fall within – or outside of – Constitutional law, Federal and state law, medical and health standards and regulations, or even “common sense”.

But maybe the key question for the TSA, and its leadership, to ask themselves, is this: Why, if the TSA is there “for the good of” all Americans (and travelers), has it become so widely DESPISED? Shouldn’t an exploration of answers to that question provide SOME sort of clues that can, perhaps, help the agency reform its goals and methods so that it enhances security AND does it in a way (and, by the way, NOT by a “false flag operation”) that gains the adulation and approval of the masses of the people at the same time?

In other words: Operate in FULL – not HYPOTHETICAL or SELECTIVE – accordance with the CONSTITUTION. Be RESPECTFUL OF PEOPLE'S RIGHTS, DIGNITY, AND HEALTH. Design a security system that takes these parameters into account AND assures that airline travel will be safe. Wouldn’t THAT combination be a goal worth pursuing?

And while you’re at it, how about ALSO instituting a thorough (and effective) realtime on-the-job surveillance and checking of airport employees, especially those have access to oft well-populated passenger-areas, terminals, or luggage, fueling, maintenance, cargo-holds and cabins, of airplanes, or access to relevant and potentially hazardous or sabotageable airport equipment? How about also instituting a policy of 100% luggage-to-passenger matching?
Or of x-ray scanning of 100% of all checked luggage?

Also, if TSA – whose jobs, allegedly, is to insure passenger-safety (although that’s debatable) – has already claimed the authority to contract for umpteen billions of dollars worth of Mr. Chertoff’s most profit-generating scanning machines, and to mandate that just about all commercial U.S. airports install them and that who-knows-how-many millions of passengers must go through them, shouldn’t TSA – by that same logic – also mandate that all commercial airlines that fly in U.S. airspace be equipped with the latest and most sophisticated of radar-confusing, missile-evading, “stealth” technologies, particularly as the threat of a shoulder-launched “Stinger” missile (and the like) is potentially far more of a threat to commercial air-safety than a typical American passenger standing in line hoping that the groping and x-rays won’t be as bad as he or she expects?

So, "Blogger Bob": Your thoughts?

Protonius said...

(PROTONIUS’ 05-17-2011 COMMENTARY – PART 3 OF 4 PARTS):

And how about these several instances, which were reported in the news (and which you can also see reports about on YouTube), in which some individuals -- NOT "terrorist types" -- chose to just turn around and leave the airport rather the be subjected to, reportedly, the TSA agents' abuse, but were then CHASED AFTER BY TSA AGENTS and were then SUED AND FINED BY THE TSA (to the tune of many thousands of dollars) as a "penalty" FOR NOT CONTINUING TO SUBJECT THEMSELVES TO TSA ABUSE AND FOR INSTEAD DECIDING NOT TO FLY?

So now the TSA also “throws the book” at people who, in what SHOULD be a “free society” and within an individual’s rights, choose NOT to fly?

If insanity has its limits, this would appear to have gone over its edge.

And now you have the gall to try to tell us all, via the article that you wrote above in this blog, that the vast majority of U.S. travelers HAVE NO COMPLAINTS about these TSA procedures?

Are you KIDDING?

Just look at all the extensive (and detailed) complaints in this blog. Count them.

Or, as another commenter in this forum wrote, consider the Texas case. Texas has now passed a state law declaring it a crime for TSA agents (within Texas) to grope anyone’s sexual organs. That law passed by an overwhelming majority of the state legislature, which itself is said to represent, at least theoretically, the will of some 25,883,999 people – the current estimated population of Texas. Can you really say that you believe that these numbers, or even that this issue reached that state’s legislature and that the majority of the legislature’s elected officials voted for this law, means “nothing” as contrasted to the tiny (and misleadingly ridiculous) number of “official” complaints that you say TSA has received?

By contrast, too, where are all those supposedly glowing COMPLIMENTS that passengers are bestowing upon the TSA for these airport-gropings-and-scans? Where are THOSE statistics?

Appropriate, rights-respecting, effective, security-measures, if and as legitimately needed to insure safety of air-travel, will always be subject to debate and review as to definitions and application, but at least, if openly and honestly dealt with, may be justified AND popular.

But somehow that does not seem to currently be the case. Rather – and some would argue that this may be an intended policy – intimidation seems to be the overriding rule.

If so, does it “scare away” potential “terrorists”? Or does it brutalize the Constitution and what it means to be an American? And where is it intended to lead?

When the TSA establishes, permits, condones, procedures that appear designed to INSTITUTE ABUSE OF AND FEAR INTO potential passengers, what do you EXPECT? Or is this precisely the outcome that TSA desires?

Some commenters, and I think even the TSA, have responded with the admonition “Well, if you don't like it, don't fly". This, in my view, is not only an INVALID, and FLAWED, but also a DANGEROUS, rationale:

Some people MUST fly, for business or personal reasons; there is no viable travel-alternative. Some people PREFER to fly, whether out of necessity or not. Either way, according to Constitutional and U.S. Code law, as I noted earlier in this post, Americans have a legal right to travel as they will, unhindered – except in cases, specified in law, in which if the person is engaged in a particularly relevant illegal activity, a legal restriction may consequently have been placed on his or her travel.

(CONTINUES: SEE PART 4).

Protonius said...

(PROTONIUS’ 05-17-2011 COMMENTARY – PART 2 OF 4 PARTS):


For that matter, is there a section of the U.S. Code that specifically empowers the TSA to BLOCK a person – not a possible “terrorist” but an average person (at an airport, train station, etcetera) who, for whatever the reason (such as asserting a complaint about the groping or the scanning) , “ticks off” a TSA agent – from being able to board his or her booked flight, or even from being permitted to fly ever again?

If so, please provide to us the location of, and details of, that specific portion of the U.S. Code.
And also please provide similar details as to where the U.S. Code specifically authorizes the TSA to –

(a) conduct sexually-invasive gropings (or where the definition of “enhanced pat-downs” specifically delineates and authorizes sexually-invasive gropings),

(b) forcibly expose persons to potentially (or actually) health-damaging x-ray or millimeter-wave scans,

(c) refuse independent safety-or-effectiveness-testing of its x-ray or millimeter-wave
Scanners,

(d) empower non-medically-trained, non-medically-licensed, non-radiologically-trained-or-licensed, personnel to operate those x-ray and millimeter-wave scanners and to subject persons to the effects of those scanners,

(e) permit its agents to conduct sexually-intimate/invasive gropings, or even less-intrusive bodily-contacts, in an unsanitary manner that endangers the target-subjects’ health and which would be considered a violation of any number of health-codes if conducted in a professional medical setting,

(f) embarrass, threaten, intimidate, and reprise against, any individual (particularly passengers at a U.S. airport or train station, so far) who protests or questions any of these procedures or, according to what the TSA itself has recently published, might even appear to a TSA agent as being too “upset” or too “calm”.

(g) threaten, intimidate, and reprise against – even instituting a massive financial penalty and lawsuit against – any individual (particularly passengers at a U.S. airport or train station, so far) who, perhaps having begun to be subjected to a TSA agent’s “security-check”, chooses to then instead NOT catch his or her booked flight (or train) and chooses to leave the airport (or terminal). In essence, by what specific legal authority and, also, on what logical and ethical basis – if such exist – , does TSA have the authority to institute punitive action against that person?

Also, when a person buys a ticket to fly on a commercial airliner (in the U.S.), where on that ticket, and where in the purchase agreement, is it stated that the person is not only contracting for the flight but ALSO contracting to be TSA-security-checked?

Further, you have twisted the statistics -- and I can only guess whether your numbers are accurate or not. How many people who are PATTED DOWN complain of BEING patted down? How many people who are forced to go through those (potentially cancer-causing, cataract-causing, testicular/fetal-damage-causing) x-ray/millimeter scanners -- which the TSA claims (against scientifically-based research asserted by various experts) are "safe" -- complain about having to go through those scanners?

And also: Do you really expect people, as they’re waiting in line to catch their flights but know that if they dare to protest their treatment BY the TSA TO the TSA, that this protesting may likely HARM them, especially as the TSA AGENTS have already made EMINENTLY CLEAR that anyone who complains may not only be loudly and embarrassingly pulled out of line and subjected to a demeaning STRIP-SEARCH, lengthy “INTERROGATION”, further VERBAL ABUSE, LONG DELAY, and possibly a trip to a POLICE STATION, but also may be forced to MISS THEIR FLIGHT, and may be PERMANENTLY DENIED PERMISSION TO FLY?

(CONTINUES: SEE PART 3).

Protonius said...

(PROTONIUS’ 05-17-2011 COMMENTARY – PART 1 OF 4 PARTS):

“Blogger Bob”, whomever you are – and by the way, who are you? Are you a single individual or a team of persons collectively going by the title “Blogger Bob”? And what are your qualifications, your credentials, to be writing in, offering comments in, and moderating, this blog?

And, is this a “blog” rather than part of the TSA’s website, so that anything you state here is to be considered as “unofficial” and not necessarily representing the views of the TSA? Aside from letting participants express their views here, what is TSA’s purpose in running this “blog”?

In any case, to the point:

While I would agree that APPROPRIATE & CONSTITUTIONALLY RESPECTFUL security measures – IF THEY ARE LEGITIMATELY NEEDED – can be vital to helping ensure that air-passengers "have a safe trip", I have major disagreements with your above-stated rationalizations re TSA's operations, constitutionality, implied “passenger-satisfaction with TSA operations”, and treatment of passengers.

The Constitution, as many other commenters have amply pointed out, does NOT authorize the TSA to conduct these kinds of operations. The Constitution’s “Supremacy Clause” does not apply to the TSA’s existence or its unconstitutional intrusions into and modus operandi within the Constitutionally-protected domains of the rights of the individual states and, ultimately, of The People, those domains being specifically referenced in and protected by various Amendments to the Constitution.

In fact, as some commenters have noted, TSA's overall airport “security-checking” procedures – procedures that include sexually-invasive gropings, subjecting people to arguably health-damaging x-ray/millimeter-wave scans, and a reportedly common pattern of verbal abuse and intimidating threats and actual reprisals – can well be construed not only as a VIOLATION of the Constitution's ban on illegal, warrantless, searches and seizures, but also as a VIOLATION of various Federal statutes and state laws against subjecting people to unreasonable and warrantless invasions of their privacy, blatantly illegal sexual molestations, forcible and involuntary exposure to potential or actual harm – and is also a VIOLATION of Federal (and Constitutional) protections of a person’s legal right to travel (presumably so long as the person is not violating a law by doing so).

Some details as to those rights of travel – including what the U.S. Supreme Court itself has ruled on this issue – can be found at these URLs:

http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-14/96-right-to-travel.html

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/11/17/do-you-have-a-right-to-fly/

49 U.S.C. § 40103(2). This section of the U.S. Code confirms that it is each American's RIGHT – not a Government-granted “PRIVILEGE” – to fly.

(CONTINUES: SEE PART 2).

Anonymous said...

I wonder is anyone in power at the TSA ever looks at these comments and sees the amount of hate directed at what they are doing. Do they have any idea just how bad they are failing?

Anonymous said...

I´m cheering for Texas!

Anonymous said...

I must agree with many of the above comments, and say I applaud my state for taking this action. The TSA oversteps its bounds, and is NOT allowed to conduct any searches (baggage or body) without a warrent. As the 4th ammendment superseeds the Supremancy Clause, you cannot claim that you are exempt because of this. Expect this to be escallated to the Supreme Court, where you will have all your powers stripped away.

f2000 said...

"TSA is sensitive to religious and cultural needs"

Unless your culture is American and you hold the 4th and 5th amendments as part of your cultural heritage.

f2000 said...

So 3% receive patdowns.

Some portion of those are due to alarms and opt outs of other screening measures.

1/2, 2/3. Is it a fair conclusion that about 1% of passengers are subjected to "random, unpredictable" security measures? Doesn't that number really tell you is that the only people that can't predict their utility are the TSA.

------

The employee access to sensitive areas remains the greater threat to airline security. Why has the TSA continued to allow largely unfettered access to those areas, while continuing to harass private citizens?

------

Has the TSA already developed plans to deal with the eventual attack on the security lines outside the TSA checkpoint where the current procedures force large numbers of people to congregate in a densely packed and unsecured and unscreened area?

------

While I'm here, a reminder that a TSA agent was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography. It's reasonable to expect that he isn't the only one. What measures are in place to ensure citizens that the government isn't forcing them to allow badged perverts to molest their kids.

You can conclusively no longer insist that rigorous screening of employees ensures that it doesn't happen. It has. It will continue. No person should allow their child to be subjected to TSA procedures.

http://www.examiner.com/la-county-libertarian-in-los-angeles/tsa-airport-screener-arrested-for-child-porn-also-worked-at-catholic-school-questions-remain

f2000 said...

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says, “Well, actually, very, very, very few people get a pat-down.” That’s three verys, which is kind of like a triple-dog dare — and PolitiFact decided to take up Napolitano on the dare. As it turns out, Napolitano’s claim depends on your definition of “few” … and probably “very,” too:

Atlanta TSA spokesman Jon Allen told us that during March, 3 percent of air passengers were subject to a pat-down. The TSA collects this data by monitoring “data from select airports throughout the year,” he wrote in an email. That number is “consistent with that of previous time periods.” …

PolitiFact Georgia therefore took the TSA figures and did some math. The TSA’s Allen told us that “on an average day, about 2 million people are screened at TSA checkpoints.” Three percent of 2 million is 60,000 people.

That means that over the course of a month, roughly 1.8 million people receive a pat-down. That’s more than four times the population of Atlanta.

That doesn’t sound like “very, very, very” few people to us.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/17/napolitano-very-very-very-few-people-get-tsa-patdowns/

f2000 said...

If so regulating the actions of the agents is "regulating the federal government" then the federal government could also exempt its employees from speed limits in (non emergency) government vehicles.

You'd probably feel pretty silly making that argument.

Anonymous said...

So you go to the Constitution to make your claim that you can do this but you ignore the 4th and 10th. I guess common sense is not so common.

f2000 said...

According to the Muslim American Society's own research, 1 in 3 terror plots involves non-islamic ideology (I found the claim based on dubious assumptions, but let's roll with it for now). The paper was intended to highlight that terror plots aren't just about muslims, but it ignored the fact that muslims constitute about .5% of the population.

2/3 of the incidents from .5% of the population.

Why, with such a readily identifiable, statistically significant, cohort of the population representing such an acutely elevated threat, does the TSA insist that it is not significantly worthwhile to be a little less random?

Don't tell me it's about human rights (profiling). You're basing your policies on the assertion that travel is a privilege that renders the 4th and 5th amendments irrelevant or inapplicable. It would be no different to argue that other rights might also be dismissible in light of the significant public interest.

Anonymous said...

blogger bob:PLEASE KNOW the constitution BEFORE you site it as a reason to grope children- if you are going to site it, site the 4th amendments which states:"the right of the people to be secure in their persons, against unreasonable searches without probable cause"- NO WHERE in the constitution does it say that your supremacy clause argument overrides that!

Anonymous said...

It's funny how the TSA is stating how they have the right to basically molest the American People! You are the reason me and my family will NEVER EVER FLY because if one of your so called "agents" even attempted to touch one of my children or myself then we would have a serious problem. The TSA has NO RIGHT to touch any genitals or private parts of anyone, especially our children. The TSA is just a cracked up agency put there by our ridiculous government to keep tabas on the American People. Your company is a joke and good luck trying to take us all down. Americans are sick of your abuse and we will not take it.

Anonymous said...

GO TEXAS!!!!

Anonymous said...

The TSA is completely unnecessary. The solution to 9/11 was arming the pilots and hardening the cockpit doors on all of the airplanes. Nothing like 9/11 will ever happen again on a domestic flight in the US. If you can't trust the government to keep terrorists out of the country, then why do you believe they can keep them off of our planes? You are letting them violate your rights for nothing. The TSA is already showing up in train stations now... Government monitored and regulated domestic travel? People are ok with this? What's next, show your papers? If you love this country and all it is supposed to stand for, reject what the government is doing. Do not let them infringe upon your rights in any way. Always remember, You can vote yourself into slavery, but you cannot vote yourself out...

Thomas Jefferson said...

I am embarrassed by this blog and the horrible actions of the TSA.

The American people deserve better.

I will do everything in my power to call attention to this stealing of basic rights.

No backscatter machines!

No patdowns!

Anonymous said...

Lies and blatant propaganda. if you or the rest of the TSA abide by the US Constitution, you wouldn't have a job.

pscully01 said...

I have researched the Supremacy Clause which states the following:

When Congress legislates pursuant to its delegated powers, conflicting state law and policy must yield. 7 Although the preemptive effect of federal legislation is best known in areas governed by the commerce clause, the same effect is present, of course, whenever Congress legislates CONSTITUTIONALLY. And the operation of the supremacy clause may be seen as well when the authority of Congress is not express but implied, not plenary (total) but dependent upon state acceptance. The latter may be seen in a series of cases concerning the validity of state legislation enacted to bring the States within the various programs authorized by Congress pursuant to the Social Security Act. 8 State participation in the programs is voluntary, technically speaking, and no State is compelled to enact legislation comporting with the requirements of federal law. Once, however, a State is participating, its legislation, which is contrary to federal requirements, is void under the supremacy clause.

Regarding the information above - Am I correct to say that prior to NOT knowing exactly which proceedures will be followed and to what depths they will be performed, participation by each state is VOLUNTARY? But once a state agrees to participate, States Rights are NULL AND VOID?

I'd be very anxious to find out under what premise and/or circumstance was Texas "signed-on" for government interference?

When all is said and done, does this override the Constitutionality of the Fourth and Tenth Amendments?

Anonymous said...

Constitution = supreme law of the land

fed govt has to abide by constitution , TSA is violating that supreme law, so the state reclarified it and applied a penalty (a power that is definitely delegated to the state) No officer of the government regardless of power status has the right to violate that.....

4th Amm.:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Stop and frisk

Under Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968), law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a limited warrantless search on a level of suspicion less than probable cause under certain circumstances. In Terry, the Supreme Court ruled that when a police officer witnesses "unusual conduct" that leads that officer to reasonably believe "that criminal activity may be afoot", that the suspicious person has a weapon and that the person is presently dangerous to the officer or others, the officer may conduct a "pat-down search" (or "frisk") to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon. To conduct a frisk, officers must be able to point to specific and articulatory facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant their actions. A vague hunch will not do. Such a search must be temporary and questioning must be limited to the purpose of the stop (e.g., officers who stop a person because they have reasonable suspicion to believe that the person was driving a stolen car, cannot, after confirming that it is not stolen, compel the person to answer questions about anything else, such as the possession of contraband).[21]

10th Amm.: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Graham said...

Welp, you can raise you complain number once more, i complained, and i hope everyone else who can, will.

https://apps.tsa.dhs.gov/tsacontact/DynaForm.aspx?FormID=10

So everyone who has a voice can be heard.

SSSS for some reason said...

I would just like to politely remind everyone that posting on this blog is very helpful when a topic like this one gets 600+ comments in just a couple of days. We get the immediate relief of not only sharing our outrage at the system, we get the benefit of seeing we are not alone in our opinions.

However, if you truly believe the TSA needs to go away, like I do, then you need to write to your elected officials. Yes, write, with ink on paper in an envelope with a stamp. Our elected leaders are impressed with the capacity of their email in-boxes, but you can't ignore a mountain of mail on your doorstep.

To truly end the TSA, write your elected officials. Anything less is just less.

Jeff said...

Blogger Bob,
You can only cite the "Supremacy Clause" if you are referring to a power granted to your by the U.S. Constitution. Because there is no power granting you the unwarranted search of a person's personal effects (i.e. clothing; see 4th Amendment), you must yield to the 10th Amendment. The powers to which you are referring have not be granted to the federal government and therefore reside with the states and individuals.

Jeff said...

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
-- James Madison, Federal No. 45, January 26, 1788

Anonymous said...

TSA get the hell out of our Airports. You have made good American citizens feel like the Terrorist. I'm stick of seeing your people stick their hands down the pants of children and babies. America, how long are we going to sit back and just allow this to happen? Re-claim the power back to the people. Give me liberty or give me death!

Anonymous said...

How dare you site the constition to defend the TSA. We will stand then what.

Anonymous said...

Never thought I would say this, but: GO TEXAS!!!

Anonymous said...

Doesn't the AIRLINE have some 'burden of responsibility' for security here?

Anonymous said...

You guys kinda forgot a little something something called.. the 10 ammendment! It's their for a reason! Duhh!! We're not stupid!

Anonymous said...

What disingenuous crap.

I've flown 3 times in the past 2 years. Each flight was round-trip with 2 legs. I've been subject to pat-down 3 times, and I've never tripped the metal detector in any exciting way.

Complaints TO THE TSA may number 898, but to say that those are the only complaints about the process is utter hogwash and you should bloody well be ashamed of yourself for pretending otherwise.

Furthermore, given your "3%" number, your ratio of complaints is off by 40X. Liar. LIAR. How do you live with yourself, you shill?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous wrote: Complaints TO THE TSA may number 898, but to say that those are the only complaints about the process is utter hogwash and you should bloody well be ashamed of yourself for pretending otherwise.

I wonder what the total number of complaints would be if the TSA employees in various airports didn't tell people they didn't have complaint forms, or if the e-mail address for TSA complaints didn't bounce.

Anonymous said...

TSA = USSR

Anonymous said...

I seriously read the last piece of the article as "Fact: No one is exempt. Everyone is subject to the same screening. TSA is sensitive to religious and cultural needs, but everyone must be 'screwed' effectively."

Anonymous said...

I just want to thank you, and the TSA's never ending work. You have caught just so many terrorists who would threaten our rights. You guys are definitely worth the billions of dollars we spend on you.

--
Citizen

Anonymous said...

Well the TSA will be out of Texas soon enough anyway. When are yall going to learn that no one likes you and that your screenings are trivial and useless? A job is a job, so I don't hate the people that have to work for the horrible TSA; but good luck to them on finding a new job in Texas.

Anonymous said...

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You sir are the real terrorist.

Anonymous said...

All you have to do is look at the comments on this blog to see if this PR koolaid is an accurate reflection of what the people want.

Of course, no one is interested in what we want, unfortunately. This is the comfortable illusion of a democracy.

Anonymous said...

Myth: Everyone who travels will receive a pat-down.

Fact: In fact, at a typical airport over 40% of travelers are forced to be exposed to Ionizing radiation via AIT photographers which infringe upon their right to privacy or are otherwise forced to allow a stranger to put their hands on them inappropriately.

Myth: All children will receive pat-downs.

Fact: No stranger should put their hands on a child unless their life is in danger and they are a certified medical employee.

Myth: Complaints about the pat-downs are extremely high.

Fact: Complaints ARE extremely high however they are kept quiet at the gate for fear of not being able to fly to go to work/see their loved ones/do something they love.

Anonymous said...

Sorry TSA you clearly do not understand the meaning of the Supremacy Clause.

Nice try.

Anonymous said...

If you count all of the comments and complaints in your blog posts, what does that do to your complaint count? It seems to me like the TSA can't help but lie to itself about the effectiveness and stupidity of its existence.

Anonymous said...

Again and again, we have seen TSA Agents execute unreasonable searches on children,people,and infants with no 'probable cause'. It is sad that States have to execute the 9th and 10th Amendment to protect our 4th Amendment. I agree with security, since that was my major MOS in Iraq, but to see our airports becoming East German facilities in order to travel is very disheartening. Put aside that Micheal Chertoff at Radiscan is making millions on the body scanners, forget the fact that Wired Magazine, Popular Science, Dr. Oz, and other experts warn of the dangers - especially for people like me who live at airports getting exposed to radiation daily, which is why I always am forced to take the un-constitutional pat-downs at Logan Airport and other airports... it has come to the States to uphold a document that has been consistently attacked, demeaned, and disregarded that has founded our nation. Forget the fact that it is a public record that our body scans are stored and cataloged and can be shared since it is simply binary code that can be transmitted or stored in any hard drive. Which has been verified that the United States Marshal Service has such records, according to the Associate Press.

Due to this continued aggressive abuse, which is documented, that 60 billion dollars of tourist revenue has been lost due to the Europeans avoiding the US - minus Orlando since the Sherrif Department will arrest any TSA Agent touching a individual - that is due to the Disney and Universal Studio revenue that can be lost.

I believe that security and protecting the Bill of Rights can be achieved including the safety both from scanning US Citizens for explosives while not treating the law-abiding citizen like an al-Qaeda operative.

I have cut my travel by 35% to reduce my weekly experiences with the TSA. I'll loose my airline status, but it is worth it to avoid the experiences at the airport. One last thing, it is funny that a State Trooper or a Local Municipal Police Officer cannot touch a person unless 'Probable Cause' but the TSA is except from such a Constitutional Law?????

This is why I call Logan Airport the East German Airport for New England. :-(

Anonymous said...

lol, 890ish complaints? Have you never heard of .... the American Public? There has been near constant complaining since your grossly overbearing, illegal, and useless agency has been federalized.

I, and many others, will continue to dedicate our time and resources to promoting your agency's removal from any oversight whatsoever. I understand "you're just people" like every other citizen, but please: Disappear.

Anonymous said...

You claim you only got 898 complaints in a year but I see over 600 complaints on this page alone. When can we expect to see TSA setting up random road block check points? Oh wait they're already doing that.

Anonymous said...

Per Prison Planet article:
"The TSA’s contention that the Supremacy Clause bars states from regulating the federal government is a total lie. The Supremacy Clause states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

In other words, The constitution is the supreme law and any federal laws made in line with the constitution are supreme. No where does it say that states cannot regulate federal government.

But why would we expect the TSA to understand the Constitution when it violates it every hour of every day?"

Anonymous said...

Wow, siting the Constitution when it fits your purpose; how convienent. First off, DHS/TSA are already in violation of the 4th amendment of the Constitution as well as the 10th Amendment. The States do have the right to check powers of the Federal Government.

Next comment, this coming from an organization which has outright labled veterans, gun owners, constitutionalists, etc as domestic terrorists. The only true terrorists are the ones running the show to include, but not limited to DHS/TSA, POTUS, Pentagon, most members of Congress, etc.

The only threat to our nation is from within; most of us can see through the lies and false flags you pull on the sheep in the US and it is coming to a close very fast.

Will love to see when thugs, such as the moron who wrote this peace, is in handcuffs for violating Texas State law and violating peoples constitutional rights. We are safer without the DHS/TSA; what a waste of Government spending if I have ever seen one before.

GOD BLESS THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS....

Anonymous said...

Am I missing something?

The Texas bill doesn't make the pat-down illegal. It makes certain actions during a pat-down (that Pistole and other in the TSA claim they don't do anyway) illegal.

So, if the TSA doesn't touch people's junk, and the Texas bill makes junk-touching illegal, then why is the TSA complaining about a law that makes something they don't do illegal?

Anonymous said...

You claim that Texas has no right to infringe upon the federal government. Where do you think the TSA gets the right to infringe upon the 4th amendment?

Anonymous said...

I have read the comments section and I think it is safe to say that the citizens do not want the TSA poking your nose in state business. As for the reference to the Constitution, you might want to read the 4th and 10th Amendments.

Opt Out!

ub said...

When "complaining" basically automatically involves forfeiture of your flight (and however many hundreds of dollars you spent on that flight) yeah, I'll bet you don't receive too many complaints.

Hopefully the spirited dialog proceeding on this blog post gives you an idea of the number of complaints you should actually be receiving.

Consider this a complaint.

Also, any chance I have to push this information in a relevant setting, I will do so:

The new TSA scanners (that peer-reviewing scientists posit could be dangerous and cancer-causing in large segments of the populace) are being sold by a company owned by The Chertoff Group - as in, Michael Chertoff, former head of Homeland Security/the TSA. Source:

http://www.dailypaul.com/149697/tsas-nude-scanners-former-homeland-security-head-chertoff-and-how-our-government-works

Anonymous said...

Pat down are not "highly effective" as you say. It has been multiple times that screeners have failed to discover weapons in test scenarios. I'm not willing to give up my fourth amendment rights in the name of security theater.

Irving Washington said...

People would complain a lot more if they weren't afraid you were going to arrest them or detain them long enough to miss their flight.

Anonymous said...

TSA is nothing but a bunch of liars. No one exempt from pat down? BU HA HA. Google "exempt

You see what they wrote here? "We wish we lived in a world where you could just walk on a plane with no security screening, but that just isn't the case unfortunately. " But you see what they didn't write? "because of pat down we captured 10 wannabe terrorists". You know why ? Because it simply does not work. And now this post provide example of false dilemma: either pat downs or no security screening. Surpise: screening can be done without molesting children. Though it will not be fun.


So we saw: lie, and false dilemma
God, I'm glad I don't leave in USA.

Anonymous said...

Isn't there also a Fourth Amendment to the Constitution? You all are thieves and liars

Anonymous said...

I stopped flying because of the unnecessary security theater. Great that you don't pat down all children, but there is ZERO probable cause for bodily searching my three-year-old, and I am not going to take the risk.

So consider this another complaint.

And it's kinda hard to hide behind the Constitution when the searches already violate it: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

9/11 was caused by people getting access to the cockpit. Restrict access to the cockpit, and the problem is all but solved. Planes are then no more dangerous than trains, buses, malls, stadiums, and thus invasive searches are NOT reasonable.

But TSA logic is to plan to expand invasive searches to trains, buses, malls and stadiums, so the Constitution is effectively dead.

But if it is, let it rest in peace. Don't pull it out to decry Texas standing up for their rights. That's just shameful.

Anonymous said...

The government has no 'rights' to do anything. It only has the permission of the people. The supremacy clause use here is just a red herring. Disband the TSA, as it is nothing but a jobs creation project for the tax feeders.

Jeff said...

I assume that this trumps the 4th amendment. Please explain why it trumps my UNALIENABLE rights.

Jeff said...

Please explain why an organization that Blatantly Ignores the 4 amendment is constitutional.

My UNALIENABLE rights and I are waiting.

Geoffrey said...

TSA, are you kidding me with your official response?! I think you should really have an ombudsman or even any editor look at your texts before you launch them out in the world. Your legal "analysis" is absolutely wrong, and your assurances would make even the most trusting start to worry about your antics.

Sleepy Paul said...

Go right ahead and raise the number of complaints again.

I don't complain while I travel because **I don't want to be harassed by TSA employees**. This does not mean I enjoy being patted down.

Anonymous said...

I am a Canadian, and I would just like to say that I am making sure to deliberately avoid making any sort of connecting flight through the US on my vacation next month. It will cost more but the TSA is despicable and I do not want to give my money to such a corrupt system. Many other international passengers have the same mindset. The TSA will cost America's aviation industry dearly until their removal.

Anonymous said...

When an agency like the TSA is created, the terrorists win.

Why?

Because terrorism is about creating fear. And what does the TSA represent? Fear.

Well, golly gee.

Anonymous said...

How ridiculous it is for the TSA to cite the Constitution in its own defense! While citing one section, it is completely ignoring two others – namely the Fourth and Tenth Amendments.

Anonymous said...

HAHAHAHAHAHA!! its ANONYMOUS!

Anonymous said...

Consider this a complaint for the hundreds of times I've gone through 'security' over the last two years. Please read the fourth amendment and explain to the public how your agency can consider this in harmony with said amendment.

Anonymous said...

As a reminder, the online complaint form can be accessed here: https://apps.tsa.dhs.gov/tsacontact/DynaForm.aspx?FormID=10

I hope that the public can help correct your misguided assumption that the public is happy with your services due to lack of complaints.

Anonymous said...

This is per Bob Greenslade@tenthamendmentcenter

Nowhere in this provision does it state the federal government is supreme and above the States. It simply states that the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme.

Alexander Hamilton addressed the extent of this clause in Federalist Essay No. 33:

“[I]t is said that the laws of the Union are to be the supreme law of the land… It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution…”

In the New York Convention of 1788 considering ratification of the proposed constitution, Hamilton responded to the criticisms being leveled against this provision:

“I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this--- that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government. The states, as well as individuals, are bound by these laws: but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding. In the same manner the states have certain independent powers, in which they are supreme…”

In Hamilton’s words we see 3 key principles:

1-the separation of powers between the States and their federal government.

2-the enumerated powers come after the separation of powers and are confined to their side of the separation of powers fence.

3-limited government.

When the federal government departs from these principles and enacts laws outside the scope of its powers, those laws are not “supreme or binding” because that government does not exist outside of its limited sphere of power.

AAAaaaannnnd.....you're done.

Anonymous said...

I'm a little surprised that you TSA folks have heard of the constitution.

Did you get a chance to read the part that says “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches” without “probable cause?"

I used to fly once or twice a year and got used to taking off my shoes and having my toothpaste and mascara inspected for my own safety, but I do have a line and crotch searches and nude radioactive photography are just unacceptable.

Very sad. I hope someday you figure out something better.

IraqVet said...

Protonius has got it going on...well argued and finely pointed out. I don't think Blogger Bob or his team can refute Protonius, at least not with any real credibility.

If you haven't read his 4 part post, you should.

Anonymous said...

What a fascinating and simultaneously bogus constitutional defense of your actions.

With respect to the TSA my Constitutional analysis begins and ends with the fourth amendment. Irrespective of Big Sis the Ambiguous One's opinion, there is absolutely NOTHING reasonable about blanket, invasive searches of children and the elderly. Nor could any reasonable person believe that an agency who hasn't caught a single terrorist in a decade of operation, can be trusted as to the reasonability of any search.

But by all means please do continue your line of constitutional argument; it will be great entertainment watching both ACLU AND militia types respond in kind.

Anonymous said...

I can't remember ever seeing any blog that elicits so much venting of anger, frustration, disgust, contempt. Those that are venting will look at the 600-odd comments and see a trend. TSA's Public Affairs people will see a small group of malcontents.

;o)

Anonymous said...

Stop making wars all over the world and we won't have people trying to kill us just like so many other countries around the planet that live in peace instead of building an empire. The Nazis use the Communist to scare people into giving up their rights. The USA is using radical Muslims to scare people into giving up their rights. Hitler passed the Enabling act after the Reichstag fire. The USA passed the Patriot act after 9/11. Hitler used the attack on a German radio station as an excuse to invade Germany, the USA used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq, Afghanistan, and attack countless countries. The USA gun control law of 1968 was based on Nazi gun laws. These are all excuses for tyranny.

Anonymous said...

I look forward to the disbanding of the TSA and an end of treating Americans like criminals.

Respect the constitution, quit trampling it. The TSA has no constitutional authority to break state law. They also have no right to search a person or their property without reasonable suspicion of a crime having taken place; ergo the TSA has no right to search random people in an airport/busstop/subway/etc...

Anonymous said...

hey bob! do you ever feel like this ship is sinking and that you better get off of it before you end up in prison?

Al Ames said...

Bob[Not the Blogger]: "Again, you are not forced to go through pre-board security, and, thus, when you do, your consent to a search is implied. Of course, if you refuse, you may not and cannot go on to fly. Boarding a private company's flight is not a Right."

Bob, boarding a company's flight is a privilege I buy from the airline NOT the government. If I buy a ticket from an airline, barring breach of the contract of carriage, they can't deny my boarding the flight. TSA and the government actively interfere in that.

"So, there is no Fourth Amendment issue where there is implied consent."

Please cite the court case. Judges have not ruled on the current method of screening.

If you know what I consent to, ask me. Consent is often "given" under duress due to the fact that TSA is holding something of value we paid for (a plane ticket) hostage until we meet their unreasonable demands. It's like having a mugger point a gun at you and then saying that you consented to giving the mugger the money. You have no right to complain. After all, you chose to give the guy your money.

"Somebody tell us where the constitutional issue is where there is consent to a search."

One can't give proper consent if they're not informed (TSA purposely hides info from the public) and also if it's made under duress. TSA has passengers by the short and curlies, holding something they paid for hostage until they submit to whatever demand (reasonable or not) a screener makes of them.

"After all, nobody complains about the constitutionality of drunk checkpoints which you CAN avoid by going down a side street."

Apples and oranges. I can't avoid TSA by choosing a different airline, airport, or concourse. And checkpoints of various kinds HAVE been successfully challenged in courts. There were limits put on the sobriety checkpoints due to these challenges.

Al

K Short said...

Maybe you forgot another couple amendments in you "article" FARCE?! mainly the 4th. You are all going to pay by ending up in prison as perverts and pedophiles! You break so many laws and yet you lie and call it safety. You are horrible people, all of you and the worst is BIG SISTER Pig Napolitano!Dont worry, and laugh while you can, youll pay for this legally because i believe this country is starting to wake up and realize its behind bars in a Police State. Keep up the puppet security show while you can, and ill bve there cheering when you end up in PRISON!

Anonymous said...

TSA, get over yourself. The American public, whom you are suppose to serve not sexual assault, despise your very existence. As one commenter said, we aren't asking for zero security but rather reasonable security! No child should ever have to ask "Why did (s)he touch me there?" No parent should ever have to explain that!

Adam said...

Bob it seems the mods here didn't have the heart to post my comment, I take that as a compliment and present this to you again:

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the "Underwear bomber" attempted to blow up NW Airlines Flight 253 on 25DEC09. His bomb failed to explode (bad design) and he was subdued by passengers. In the investigation certain details emerged which suggested obvious ways (at least to me) to prevent another Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

1 - Monitor blogs closer: Umar blogged at length about his hatred of America and his terrorist ideology. I am guessing this blog would not have been hard to find with certain automated search programs.

2 - Coordinate with foreign countries: The UK placed Umar on their do-not-fly list.

3 - Improve your own communications: Umar's father warned US authorities that his son had become a radical and would attempt an attack. What strength it must have taken for a father to turn in his son, what integrity to betray his own blood to a foreign country. The more tragic part: that warning never made it where it was supposed to go.

4 - Umar boarded a US bound flight from a terminal in Amsterdam without any ID, allegedly with help from a US official. At the very least, this suggests the terminal at Amsterdam needs review. Probably all foreign terminals do.

If you can, please help me to understand why it was not those 4 points acted upon, but arguably the least important element of the entire plot: the bomb that didn't explode that lead us here?

How can you justify the amount of money and procedures paid to this insignificant failure of a weapon, and do nothing to address the failures that allowed Umar onto a US bound plane? How can you justify deployment of these body scanners that have since been proven would not have detected Umar's underwear bomb? You ARE aware he *changed into* that bomb in-flight, and wasn't wearing it at the terminal, right?

Anonymous said...

There is a good reason why there are so little complaints. We are made to feel that if you complain you will be detained and possibly prosecuted for causing any disruption. I myself opt out of tempting fate with cancer and go for the "freedom pat" Some airports are complete dicks about the pat down, most are not. I travel a lot and have had the pat down about 20x this year alone so far.

TJ said...

Anonymous said...
" Pistole says, "The pat-down doesn't touch the genitals."

Texas says, "Fine, we'll make the touching of the genitals during the pat-down illegal."

The TSA blog team says, "Well, that's not going to work."

Clearly, someone within the TSA is very confused."

I'd say that Pistole is the one who is confused, because today's patdowns absolutely do touch the genitals.

Anonymous said...

Wow "Blogger Bob", this is "Uncle Grumpy" of Heart of the Issue fame. Sorry to let you know cowpoke, but that is not the meaning of article 1 section 2 in any way shape or form.

I would recommend you pay attention in class sonny, as Uncle Grumpy is about to give ya some learnin'....

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

This section of the Constitution is intended to allow the States to disavow Un-Constitutional acts of the government, in your particular case I would refer you to the Fourth and Tenth Amendments.

In other words, The constitution is the supreme law and any federal laws made in line with the constitution are supreme. No where does it say that states cannot regulate federal government.

The Fourth Amendment protects “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches” without “probable cause”.

As far as we can recollect, no where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has the right to touch Americans’ private parts in the first instance.

Your and your Bosses version of what the Constitution means is a complete and utter perversion of the greatest Founding Document ever created in any country of this world.

Next time you cite the Constitution, understand what you say.

Grumpy

Anonymous said...

The TSA may be within the law etc. with all of this but they will never win the moral argument. It's simply immoral to pat down kids and old ladies as part of fishing expeditions inflicted upon innocent people.

It's as if each TSA agent is blind and cannot see the person in front of them. Like machines, they pat down young and old alike, wasting time and energy targeting obviously innocent people.

If they used a bit more intelligence, which is unlikely given the sort of people who work for them, they would pat down those that are more suspect than little girls or old ladies in wheechairs.

So go ahead TSA, lay out the reasons why you are legally OK to do what you do. It doesn't make you right though.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

There is no probable cause needed to search since entering the secure area is, by itself, implied consent. So, there is no constitutional issue.

Municipalites operate airports according to FAA rules cuz the airports need money to maintain safe airports. So, they agree to run things the way FAA wants them. TSA operates according to this scheme. FAA wants safety and municipalities want the money. Symbiosis.

Anonymous said...

I see about 600 complaints just under this post.

Go Texas!

Anonymous said...

What kind of coward puts up with the abuse of rights with TSA? What kind of coward changes how they live in the face of "terrorism". People defending this are cowards.

Allen said...

Oh boo-hoo TSA! Looks like Texas is moving to protect the Constitutional rights of people. No more legal and perverted violation for you! TSA, I know you are very sad about this.

Anonymous said...

Let us stop the hands in pants policy, one state at a time, starting with Texas!

RB said...

The Texas bill only addresses the touching of the genitals, anus, breast.

If the TSA pat down does not touch these areas as claimed by TSA Secretary Pistole then just why is TSA so concerned?

If the current pat down does not involve these areas would not TSA want restrictions placed on their employees who exceeded the pat down?

RB said...

On the complaint issue, people don't complain about TSA because it is a waste of time.

I filed a complaint about a TSA employee at DFW for an incident late February. Here we are mid May and still no resolution or report from any investigation.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...May 17, 2011 5:05 PM
You claim you only got 898 complaints in a year but I see over 600 complaints on this page alone.
*****
It can be assured that the 600 or so postings is a very tiny representation of how many are upset.

First, many millions are not aware of this blog, so their voices are not heard.

Second, many that do know of it do not post anything as they have vented their frustration on other webpages.

Third, how many millions NEVER fly, or have not flown in the past three years? To them it is not that big of a deal. Not worthy of their time.

And, how many times do the TSA Goons threaten passengers?
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=34959

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40291856/ns/travel-news/

"Don't touch my junk"

Etc. etc. etc. You can Google tonnes of stuff regarding TSA abuses. And don't forget the thieves rummaging through our luggage.

Isn't it rather strange, twenty years ago many people feared flying because of the minute possibility of a plane crash.
Today, many people have fear of flying, not because of the flight itself, but of what they must endure between the ticket counter and the airplane.

TSORon said...

Hey Bob, kind of curious, obviously my comments were posted at one time due to the responses we can see, but have since then been removed. What happened?

Anonymous said...

--Fact: No one is exempt. Everyone is subject to the same screening. TSA is sensitive to religious and cultural needs, but everyone must be screened effectively.

That's a lie. Speaker of the House Bohner doesn't even *GO* through Security.

Please correct.

Anonymous said...

Hey Blogger Bob:

I know you and this dog-and-pony show of a blog are disconnected from reality, but if you can stop fondling passengers long enough, you should read this:

http://www.propublica.org/article/scientists-cast-doubt-on-tsa-tests-of-full-body-scanners

Bob [not the blogger] said...

RB says:
The Texas bill only addresses the touching of the genitals, anus, breast.

Bob [not the blogger] aks:
Does it also apply to police, deputies, state and highway patrols? If not, why not? Isn't anybody offended when THEY touch genitals, the anus and/or breats?

And how come all the critics are choking on the fact that the very walking through onto the checkpoint is implied consent to a search and, thereby, voids any concern about unreasonable search? What's unreasonable about it when you alarm the mag, or even when you knowlingly subject yourself to a search just by being on airport property?

RB said...

Bob, a Law is something I can read.

Where is the TSA Law regarding TSA Pat Down searches. When did Congress pass this law and what was the name of the Bill.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Anonymous said May 18, 2011 7:41 AM:
What kind of coward puts up with the abuse of rights with TSA? What kind of coward changes how they live in the face of "terrorism". People defending this are cowards.

Bob [not the blogger] aks:
What "Rights" are being abused, given that you imply your consent to a search merely by walking onto the checkpoint, in fact, by just being on the airport property? Where is the infringement?

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Anonymous said May 18, 2011 12:42 PM:
Speaker of the House Bohner doesn't even *GO* through Security.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
When I was pre-TSA Checkpoint Security Supervisor, then-Governor Fife Simington [AZ] followed his security around and through the exit lane. The armed agents are allowed to sign in.

However, I told the governor that he had to walk through the mag cuz he was unarmed. He did.

So, technically, if the speaker of the House wishes to enter the secure area through the checkpoint, he must go through the mag, just like everybody else.

If he goes onto the ramp through another door, with his security team, he is already cleared by another form of security, and it's not the checkpoint's problem.

Anonymous said...

You obviously don´t count online complaints made in this forum in your statistics, which makes them null, since most people use online resources to complain currently.

RB said...

Bob [not the blogger] said...
RB says:
The Texas bill only addresses the touching of the genitals, anus, breast.

Bob [not the blogger] aks:
Does it also apply to police, deputies, state and highway patrols? If not, why not? Isn't anybody offended when THEY touch genitals, the anus and/or breats?

And how come all the critics are choking on the fact that the very walking through onto the checkpoint is implied consent to a search and, thereby, voids any concern about unreasonable search? What's unreasonable about it when you alarm the mag, or even when you knowlingly subject yourself to a search just by being on airport property?

May 18, 2011 2:43 PM


...............
Consent is based on knowing what it is your consenting to. TSA screening purposely keeps the person from knowing what will be done so no consent can be given.

I suggest you read the Texas Bill and answer your own questions.

Anonymous said...

Bob, not the blogger, let me set you straight:

The consent you said is implied is not; it is coerced. If we want to get on an airplane we must subject ourselves to harmful radiation, possibly harmful microwaves or a pat down that, under any other circumstances, would be considered sexual assault.

As for police officers being allowed to do those kinds of "rub downs", yes, they can do them, but only on a prisoner in their custody. They cannot do such a search during an ordinary traffic stop.

Get your facts straight.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

RB said:
Bob, a Law is something I can read.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
We'll take your word for it.

RB said:
Where is the TSA Law regarding TSA Pat Down searches.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
A specific law is not necessary any more than it is necessary for other law enforcement to have a law to pat you down.

Pat down is part of the search process to which you agreed with you walked onto the checkpoint.

RB said:
When did Congress pass this law and what was the name of the Bill.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Such a law is unnecessary since searches are covered by the Fourth Amendment. If you imply consent to a search merely by walking onto the checkpoint -- and you do -- there is no Fourth Amendment issue.

Anonymous said...

Former Marine here, you know why I got out? Because all I saw myself doing was propping up an increasingly fascist government; most notably the incessant power grab by the TSA.

BD said...

I would like to know how to effectively and formally complain. Perhaps you could do a post about this, Blogger Bob, in the interest of transparency? With a total count under 900, I would bet that my letters to my congressional delegation, airlines, and the TSA itself did not count. The Feedback Form I was offered at the airport this week implies it will be handled locally, not forwarded to "headquarters". What can I do to make my voice heard?

TSORon said...

Some Anonymous poster said….
TSORon said:
"As for bomb components, we find them every hour of every day."

No, TSORon, you don't. I won't reveal any classified information except to say that, no, this is incorrect.

But you knew that, didn't you?
--------------------------
Bomb Components are not classified, in fact you can get enough information from the internet to build just about any bomb you like. Believe it or not you used a bomb component when you posted your thoughts here, even though you may not realize it.
But then again if you had access to classified information then you already knew that, right?

Bob, I figured out what happened, the folks here could not keep the posts straight and posted responses to a comment I made in another thread (sigh).

Anonymous said...

Texas type legislation comcerning TSA screening procedures is not the solution to this controversy.Automatic Target Recognition (ATR) is. No individual image is produced in ATR, no TSO sees nude pictures and polititions and courts would not be needed. With ATR, passengers would readily accept AIT screening, and they would quickly learn to pass the screening thus avoiding much of the pat-downs. To try to legislate these procedures is a waste of time because the courts are likely to set asside the law anyway.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

RB says:
Consent is based on knowing what it is your consenting to.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
You know, based on news reports and conditions in the world and on signage around the airport. Unless you have been under a rock, or a hermit with absolutely no knowledge of the world condition, you know. In any case, it is assumed you know. So, it's up to YOU to find out if you actually don't know.

RB says:
TSA screening purposely keeps the person from knowing what will be done so no consent can be given.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
TSA keeps nothing from you. Information is readily available. It's up to YOU to get it. TSA is not a babysitter.

Anyway, the law recognizes "implied consent."

RB says:
I suggest you read the Texas Bill and answer your own questions.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Irrelevant. I know enough about it from reports and what is said here to know what the bill says; I know from personal experience that the critics are wrongly guided by misconceptions and misinformation.

Earl Pitts said...

@BD: "I would like to know how to effectively and formally complain. Perhaps you could do a post about this, Blogger Bob, in the interest of transparency? With a total count under 900, I would bet that my letters to my congressional delegation, airlines, and the TSA itself did not count. The Feedback Form I was offered at the airport this week implies it will be handled locally, not forwarded to "headquarters". What can I do to make my voice heard?"

You can formally complain all you want. If anyone has found and EFFECTIVE way to complain, outside of public shaming, I'm sure many would love to know about it.

@Bog[not the blogger]: By your logic, I can put a sign on the street on the sidewalk outside your house and say that anyone that that enters that zone is subject to rape, robbery, and abuse. Does that mean by entering that area, you, your wife/partner, kids, friends, etc, can legally be raped, robbed or abused because you gave your implied consent by entering that zone?

Didn't think so. Illegal is illegal. Putting a sign up saying one consents to something simply by being there wouldn't fly in court.

The courts have held that screening isn't consented to until the person makes an affirmative action to begin the screening process, such as placing bags on the conveyor or walking thru the WTMD. Simply being in an area isn't enough.

Additionally, searches are still supposed to be limited. Courts have ruled that searches are to be LIMITED in scope and using the least intrusive means necessary to accomplish the end. Not only have the searches exceeded the scope, they certainly aren't the least intrusive means to accomplish the goal.

I don't know that consent can ever be truly given freely given that TSA is holding something of value of hostage. It's saying that unless I submit to an illegal search, I can't use what I bought. That's not consent. That's duress.

Earl

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Anonymous said...
Bob, not the blogger, let me set you straight...

Bob [not the blogger] says:
I already got it straight.

Anonymous said:
The consent you said is implied is not; it is coerced.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
If that were the case, you wouldn't have the oportunity not to go through security. You HAVE that opportunity to turn around and take another transportation mode. Nobody fores you to go through pre-board security; but, once you do, you imply cnsent to a search.

Anonymous said:
If we want...

Bob [not the blogger] says:
This is choice, not coercion.

Anonymous said:
...to get on an airplane we must subject ourselves to harmful radiation, possibly harmful microwaves or a pat down that, under any other circumstances, would be considered sexual assault.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
You are free to pick another way to get where you choose to go. If you choose to fly, you must go through pre-board security. If you choose to fly, you imply consent to a search. It's that simple.

Of course, critics of TSA like to ENRON their arguments -- that is, inflate them in order to make what they criticize seem more than the reality.

There are police officers all around the airports. If you have a case of sexual assault, call one-a them and see how far your complaint of "sexual assault" gets you.

Anomymous said:
As for police officers being allowed to do those kinds of "rub downs", yes, they can do them, but only on a prisoner in their custody.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Irrelevant. They may pat down even BEFORE technical custody.

Anonymous said:
They cannot do such a search during an ordinary traffic stop.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Yes, they can, if they are alamred about the possibility of the suspect being dangerous. The alarm must be based on visible, verifiable, objective evidence -- probable cause. PC, in the form of an alarm, exists during pre-board screening.

Anonymous said:
Get your facts straight.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
As you can see, I do.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Howz BD's voice different from any other complainers? Whether through somebody else, or him, his voice is heard, and his complaints rejected. He's not satisfied that HE's the one who gives consent to a search merely by walking through onto the checkpoint. If he wants not to give consent, he should not walk through onto the checkpoint. It's THAT simple.

SarahB said...

I refuse to fly while my children are at risk of being molested by ineffective and power hungry TSA agents.

Anonymous said...

THe next time a TSA officer conducts a pat-down of a law-abiding taxpaying American please know the citizen is most likely withholding what they really think about the TSA...you are what you are.

Nick said...

The TSA charges the tax payers $8 billion a year to get molested. There have been thousands of theft reports linked to TSA and over 500 agents have been fired for said theft. And for all this how many boogie men have they caught? None and they never will. The TSA is a bad joke and a waste of our tax money.

IraqVet said...

Quite some blog you have here Blogger Bob...the only people missing are you, your team and the Constitutionally ignorant masses, otherwise it's a great forum. I especially like Protonius's four part comment.

Perhaps we could a piece on the history of domestic security from the Stamp Act to DARPA ;>)

Anonymous said...

Why so few people report or complain about TSA? Is it becuase TSA does a fenomenal work, like Bob implies?

No. TSA is the police power of the Government at work, kind of a KGB army at the airports. We all know, you complain, they retaliate...make you loose your flight, embarrassing pat downs ...temporaty kidnaping...arrests under bogus pretext...

You want to see the real number of complains from us, Bob? Put passenger advocate lawyers right there, where the TSA thugs are! Let us tape and record each and every TSA intervention, and make each and every TSA employee accountable. They mess up, fire them...don't just transfer them to a desk job! You can't Bob? Because they're union workers? Not my problem. I didn't vote for the TSA....and I'll make sure I will vote the TSA out next election...

Anonymous said...

Jefferson is not the only Founder who wrote that States have the right to nullify unconstitutional laws.

Here is what Alexander Hamilton said about the limits of the Supremacy Clause in 1788:

"... it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society [USA] which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies [the States and the People], will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such."

That is Hamilton arguing that both the States and the People have the right to nullify federal laws that exceed the enumerated powers.

Frisking children and old ladies who just want to get from point A to point B is not an enumerated power.

Anonymous said...

Cheering for Texas!

Anonymous said...

Let's give Blogger Bob the benefit of the doubt here with respect to his creative interpretation of the Constitution. He is probably fed this stuff by TSA PR people who couldn't tell you the first thing about the Principles of '98, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, the 10th amendment, or the difference between a Jeffersonian and a Hamiltonian. For all we know, Blogger Bob is a staunch Jeffersonian who is repulsed at having to advocate the idea that a sovereign state, such as Texas, is helpless to defend its citizens against laws its legislature finds to be cruel, or otherwise unauthorized by the Constitution. These are the same principles states used to shield their citizens from horrible Federal laws like the Fugitive Slave Act. It wouldn't make sense for our friend Blogger Bob to say, for example, that Wisconsin was in the wrong to nullify that terrible piece of legislation. Therefore, I am confident that he probably agrees with the vast majority of posters here, that Texas is a sovereign state duty bound to interpose itself between its citizens and the federal government if the state determines that its citizens are being harmed by the later. After all, the federal Government only exists because of the consent of the several states that formed it. Blogger Bob couldn't really believe that those same states are helpless to resist the extra-Constitutional whims entity that they created. So come on, lighten up guys, he probably doesn't get a say in what he has to post.

Anonymous said...

Bob [not the blogger] aks:
What "Rights" are being abused, given that you imply your consent to a search merely by walking onto the checkpoint, in fact, by just being on the airport property? Where is the infringement?

Sorry, but "implied consent" doesn't give permission to do anything they want. They are still obligated to follow the law. You can't give consent for someone to do something illegal.

SSSS for some reason said...

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Such a law is unnecessary since searches are covered by the Fourth Amendment. If you imply consent to a search merely by walking onto the checkpoint -- and you do -- there is no Fourth Amendment issue.

Yes, there is.

First, to imply consent requires *informed* consent. Too many of the procedures I am 'consenting' to are vague, random, inconsistent, and if I ask I am told it is SSI and I can not know. And in my experience asking about the process puts me in a separate line with a different and punitive level of examination.

If you drive through a DUI check point Law Enforcement Officers can check you for intoxication, but they can not also search your trunk or glove box or anything not immediately visible. And that is what makes a DUI checkpoint an 'Administrative Search' and court tested to comply with the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution. The level of the searching done is reasonable and within limits. And, this is the important part, you can avoid the check point by using alternate streets and the Police are not allowed to follow you and detain you for bypassing the check point.

Then, in general, if a Law Enforcement Officer detains you and searches you, there are limits on how that search is done, when, and why. An Officer can detain you under reasonable suspicion of wrong doing and search you for items that could be considered dangerous to yourself, the Officer(s), and the immediate public. That search is effectively limited to weapons or any contraband you have on your immediate person. An Officer can not detain you, frisk you, and then ask you about something else. That means that an Officer of the Law can't stop you for speeding and then search your car for drugs or large sums of money.

TSA Agents are not Law Enforcement Officers. They do not have the same options available to them regarding the searches done at the airport. And the method manner of the searches performed by the TSA fall well outside the 'Administrative Searches' judgement, which if I didn't make my point clear above is limited to Law Enforcement. And, if your still not following the point, TSA are not Law Enforcement and therefore can not use the Administrative Search exception to validate what is done.

So by way of a long rambling post, what the TSA is doing IS a violation of our 4th Amendment Rights. It is NOT an Administrative Search, it can NOT be Implied Consent by virtue of its existence because it is not informed consent, and I won't even go into all the different violations of the other Constitutional Amendments, starting with Article the First.

And I'll end this by repeating myself.... Write your Elected Officials. Its the only way to actually get something done to end the TSA.

RB said...

posted by Blogger Bob at 12:01 PM | 752 Comments | Links to this post

«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 734 of 734 Newer› Newest»
................

Bob, can you explain the discrepency of the post stated and the actual number of posts?

Sandra said...

Bob [not the blogger] says:
TSA keeps nothing from you. Information is readily available. It's up to YOU to get it. TSA is not a babysitter.

~~

If the "information is readily available" why is it that we hear over and over again by the TSA: "we can't tell you that because it's SSI?"

The TSA has even told courts that screening procedures can't be released because they are SSI.

You're beginning to sound a great deal like an alleged screener who posts here and at another site and is most often wrong in his comments.

screen shot

WiFi_Girl said...

Am I the only one annoyed by how much the TSA "wishes" and "hopes" for a brighter future....and how they are always "reviewing", "reviewing" and "reviewing", but nothing changes to treat the public with common sense and reason?

And their "fuzzy math" is frustrating as well! If you're looking for a very small percentage of travelers hat could be dangerous...why do you only pat-down less than 3% of the travelers? If I'm looking for the rotten apple in a barrel, do I only check 7 apples out of 300? Or do I train myself on how a rotten apple looks like, how they smell, how soft they are, how are they dressed, where were they born, how they behave during interrogation ...and then get those apple out of the barrel?

Anonymous said...

We wish we lived in a world where....

we could walk down the street without danger

we could drive on the roads without danger

we could cross a bridge without fear of it callapsing

we could ride a public bus without fear of being mugged

By TSA's logic, they should be able to search us any time any where.

Where does it end?

Riding a plane is not a crime and does not warrent (warrentless) body searches.

Anonymous said...

States may not be able to regulate the federal goverment, but the federal government can't suspend the Bill of Rights.

P.S. it's a bit of a stretch to say that Texas is trying to regulate the federal government.

Anonymous said...

Bob [not the blogger] says:
If that were the case, you wouldn't have the oportunity not to go through security. You HAVE that opportunity to turn around and take another transportation mode.

Please tell me, 'Bob [not the blogger]', what other mode of transportation is a reasonable replacement for flying? What other mode of transport can get me cross-country in ~6 hours? What other mode of transport can get me to Europe, Africa, Asia, South America, or Austrailia in a time period even slightly comparable to flying??

Answer: there is none. THUS, for people who need to travel to such places quickly, THERE IS NO CHOICE but to fly.

Anonymous said:
They cannot do such a search during an ordinary traffic stop.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Yes, they can, if they are alamred about the possibility of the suspect being dangerous. The alarm must be based on visible, verifiable, objective evidence -- probable cause. PC, in the form of an alarm, exists during pre-board screening.


How many alarms are there? How many weapons or bombs are found? Are there enough weapons or bombs found to mean an alarm is "probably" a weapon or bomb?? I doubt it. So, it's more like 'unprobable cause'.

RB said...

WiFi_Girl said...
Am I the only one annoyed by how much the TSA "wishes" and "hopes" for a brighter future....and how they are always "reviewing", "reviewing" and "reviewing", but nothing changes to treat the public with common sense and reason?

And their "fuzzy math" is frustrating as well! If you're looking for a very small percentage of travelers hat could be dangerous...why do you only pat-down less than 3% of the travelers? If I'm looking for the rotten apple in a barrel, do I only check 7 apples out of 300? Or do I train myself on how a rotten apple looks like, how they smell, how soft they are, how are they dressed, where were they born, how they behave during interrogation ...and then get those apple out of the barrel?

May 19, 2011 12:00 PM

....................

You are stating the obvious, well except for TSA.

What TSA calls security clearly shows the public that TSA knows nothing about the matter.

Anonymous said...

JoshD said...

You people are idiots. it is not a vio0lation of your 4th amendment right at all. Last I checked it isn't your right to fly, it's a privelage. And in order to use this privelage you are allowing them to do pat-downs every time you buy an airline ticket. If you don't like the idea of the patdowns then find a different way of transportation. But it is no way a violation of your right.

May 14, 2011 1:07 PM

...............................

Sorry Josh, I believe it is you that is the idiot. The 4th Amendment states that we are to be secure in our persons. We cannot be searched without probable cause or a warrant describing the places or person to be searched.

There is no clause that says this right is void if we are engaging in a "privilege". Besides, in many places in the world things we call rights they call privileges. Does the government have the right to take all of those privileges from us as well? The fact is that the government has overstepped its bounds.

It's the equivalent of letting a polar bear out of its pen in order to protect us from a yappy chiwawa.
After all, tyrants have done more damage than any terrorist has ever done.

- Bob if you don't post this because of the idiot reference, you shouldn't have allowed his comment for the same reason.

Anonymous said...

After reading all these comments I wonder if Bob's reached the point of polishing up his resume. I know I couldn't live with myself doing his job. Shame, Bob, shame.

Anonymous said...

Having been submitted to one of these new fangled pat downs (rub down would be a better description, since no patting was involved), I agree with the Texas House. This is sexual assault, and must be stopped.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Such a law is unnecessary since searches are covered by the Fourth Amendment. If you imply consent to a search merely by walking onto the checkpoint -- and you do -- there is no Fourth Amendment issue.

SSSS says:
Yes, there is.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
You give your consent merely by walking through the doorway to the secure area. It is what it is. If you don't like it, take a train, a boat, a bus, drive, or walk to your destination. It's as simple as that. But, if you choose to walk through the doorway to the secure area, you imply your consent to a search.

SSSS says:
First, to imply consent requires *informed* consent.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
You have been informed, especially by signage all around the airport. It's up to YOU to read the signs.

You are also informed by the nature of the times and news reports. Again, it's up to YOU to read them.

SSSS says:
Too many of the procedures I am 'consenting' to are vague, random, inconsistent...

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Of course, if you informed yourself with the information readily available, you would find that they are not vague, random, nor inconsistent.

SSSS says:
...and if I ask I am told it is SSI and I can not know.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Cannot know what, specifically? What do you need to know that you haven't been told in one form, or another?

SSSS says:
And in my experience...

Bob [not the blogger] says:
And perceptions.

SSSS says:
...asking about the process puts me in a separate line with a different and punitive level of examination.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
What do you ask and HOW do you ask? Maybe you show a particular hostility that, in their minds and according to their objective standards, rules and regulations, catagorizes you. I wouldn't be surprised, if your hostile and accusatory tone that you display here you displayed there.

SSSS says:
If you drive through a DUI check point Law Enforcement Officers can check you for intoxication, but they can not also search your trunk or glove box or anything not immediately visible.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
DUI checkpoints reconcile drunken driving "alarms." Gloveboxes and trunks got nothing to do with drunken driving, initially. Further investigation may turn up reason to go into gloveboxes and trunks.

So, if you alarm, TSA must reconcile the alarm, and that -- triggered alarm [prob cause] -- means patdown.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

SSSS says:
And that is what makes a DUI checkpoint an 'Administrative Search' and court tested to comply with the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
That's cuz they are looking specifically for drunks driving. There are indicators that set off "alarms." They are specific to drunkenness. They are prob cause. If they see something that indicates further illegality, they may investigate.

TSA has a much larger and broader problem. TSA's prob cause is the alarm.

SSSS says:
The level of the searching done is reasonable and within limits.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
TSA's mission is much broader, given the nature of the threat. The drunk driver is a much more limited threat.

SSSS says:
And, this is the important part, you can avoid the check point by using alternate streets and the Police are not allowed to follow you and detain you for bypassing the check point.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
You can avoid the pre-board checkpoint by going home, taking the train, bus, or car, or just walking.

SSSS says:
Then, in general, if a Law Enforcement Officer detains you and searches you, there are limits on how that search is done, when, and why.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
They may do what is necessary for security and safety.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

SSSS says:
An Officer can detain you under reasonable suspicion of wrong doing and search you for items that could be considered dangerous to yourself, the Officer(s), and the immediate public.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Precisely what TSA does.

SSSS says:
That search is effectively limited to weapons or any contraband you have on your immediate person. An Officer can not detain you, frisk you, and then ask you about something else.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
They are not looking to reconcile a general alarm. TSA is. The alarm is the PC.

SSSS says:
That means that an Officer of the Law can't stop you for speeding and then search your car for drugs or large sums of money.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Which TSA is not doing. TSA is not stopping you for having a specific item, then searching for something else. TSA alerts to an alarm and needs to reconcile that alarm.

SSSS says:
TSA Agents are not Law Enforcement Officers.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Actually, they are. They are in the Executive Branch, the enforcement branch. They represent the State and carry out the laws of the State.

SSSS says:
They do not have the same options available to them regarding the searches done at the airport.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Actually, they do. The rules, regulations and laws say that they do. They are there to reconcile alarms which are the PC necessary to detain you for the time it takes to make sure you have nothing that can be used effectively as a weapon to cause danger to the flying public.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

SSSS says:
And the method manner of the searches performed by the TSA fall well outside the 'Administrative Searches' judgement...

Bob [not the blogger] says:
[There is only one "e" in "judgment."]
No, they don't. There is no Fourth Amendment issue where implied consent is given merely by walking through the doorway to the secure area. You may choose not to walk through the doorway. Once you walk through the doorway, and you alarm, you may not continue and you may not leave until the alarm is reconciled. Technically, at that point, you are in a form of custody.

SSSS says:
....which if I didn't make my point clear above is limited to Law Enforcement.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
TSA is there to enforce pre-board laws, rules and regs.

SSSS says:
And, if your...

Bob [not the blogger] says:
"You're."

SSSS says:
... TSA are not Law Enforcement...

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Except that they are. They enforce federal law.

SSSS says:
...and therefore can not use the Administrative Search exception to validate what is done.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
All they need is probable cause -- that is, visible, verifiable, objective evidence of illegality; not possible and not certain, just probable. That evidence is the alarm.

However, PC really doesn't matter when you are in a secure area. That you are there implies consent to the search, if there is to be a search.

SSSS says:
...what the TSA is doing IS a violation of our 4th Amendment Rights.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Not where there is PC which is the alarm, and not where consent to the search is given, as when a policeman asks the driver stopped for speeding whether he can search the car and the drive gives his permission. The drive cannot claim "Fourth Amendment" after he has given permission.

SSSS says:
...it can NOT be Implied Consent by virtue of its existence because it is not informed consent...

Bob [not the blogger] says:
You ARE informed by any number of sources in and out of the airport. In any case, consent is assumed. If you don't like it, you may turn around and go some other way.

Now, TSA COULD ask you, before you enter the secure area, whether you consent to a search, if necessary. If you say, "No," you stop there and turn around and go home.

However, via various signage, at least, they already tell you, and the rest is up to you, whether to continue, or not fly.

SSSS says:
...Write your Elected Officials. Its the only way to actually get something done to end the TSA.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Al-Q agrees with you.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Sandra, you're not entitled to know everything.

There is ample signage around the airport to alert you to the fact that you may be searched. You know ahead of time, and, if you want not to be searched, you may leave the airport property.

The information availabe to you is all you need; you don't need to know how the conveyor belt works, nor the workings of the electronic circuits of the mag, nor what kinda cologne the screener is wearing in order to do what you are there to do.

You know there is the chance that you will be searched, and you have the information as to why people are being searched and what TSA is looking for. What else do you need to know?

Anonymous said...

Here's the latest TSA disaster: TSA forgot to tell police at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport that they were conducting a bomb drill. Police arrived on the scene with guns drawn believing it was a real incident.

What if someone had been shot? I'm sure TSA would tell us they were "reviewing" the problem. Isn't that what they always do?

Could we PLEASE fire TSA -- top to bottom -- just fire them all? I think it's time.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

What "Rights" are being abused, given that you imply your consent to a search merely by walking onto the checkpoint, in fact, by just being on the airport property? Where is the infringement?

Anonymous says:
Sorry, but "implied consent" doesn't give permission to do anything they want.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
They aren't doing "anything they want." They are responding to and reconciling alarms set off by people like you. THAT's the job. The alarm is the PC. Even if you don't consent to a search, the PC they need is the alarm. However, you "pre-consent" just by walking onto the checkpoint.

Anonymous says:
They are still obligated to follow the law.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
And they do.

What you dan do is get Congress to change the law so as to let some people through without reconciling the alarms they set off, and checking others. Al-Q will be glad to help with that.

Anonymous says:
You can't give consent for someone to do something illegal.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
WHEW! Good thing TSA is doing nothing illegal, given that TSA has

1. prob cause and/or
2. your consent.

Either, or both, of these voids Fourth Amendment concerns.

Anonymous said...

Well BloggerBob, if the Supremacy Clause actually DOES mean what you say it means, then I would like to ask you in all seriousness why a Constitutional Amendment was MANDATORY for:

-The nationwide abolition of Slavery
-The nationwide expansion of voting rights to non-whites, women, and everyone 18 and up (in THREE different Amendments, no less)
-The Federal Income Tax
-Direct popular vote of US Senators
-The nationwide Prohibition of the sale, manufacture, and transportation of Alcohol (yet, the language of that Amendment did not prohibit its consumption)
-The repeal of a Constitutional Amendment (specifically speaking, the "Prohibition Amendment")

Bob [not the blogger] said...

WiFi_Girl says:
Am I the only one annoyed by how much the TSA "wishes" and "hopes" for a brighter future....and how they are always "reviewing", "reviewing" and "reviewing", but nothing changes to treat the public with common sense and reason?

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Well, I'm annoyed by those who say TSA needs to treat people with what they call "common sense" and "reason."

Whose "common sense," and whose "reason"?

How will we know which "common sense" is THE "common sene" TSA should use cuz, after all, everybody has a different sense of what is "common sense." And everybody's "reason" is not the same. So, how do we decide?

Anonymous said...

Defund the TSA,call your Senator and tell him or her to defund the TSA.Shrink this beligerant animal down.

Anonymous said...

Supremacy clause? How about the 4th and 10th amendments of the Constitution? Get real TSA.

f2000 said...

Bob [not the blogger] says:
WHEW! Good thing TSA is doing nothing illegal, given that TSA has

1. prob cause

---------

That explains the random part of random pat downs then.

Sandra said...

SSSS says:
TSA Agents are not Law Enforcement Officers.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Actually, they are. They are in the Executive Branch, the enforcement branch. They represent the State and carry out the laws of the State.

Now you have proven for all to see that you don't know what you are talking about. :-)

RB said...

Bob [not the blogger]I take it you work for TSA.

If so your comments make clear why TSA is such a large mistake.

gnorwost said...

"Bob [not the blogger] says:
Actually, they are. They are in the Executive Branch, the enforcement branch...."

As are the:

American Battle Monuments Commission

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Corporation for National and Community Service

The Institute of Museum and Library Services

Peace Corps

TVA

and many other agencies.

Screeners at airport checkpoints are NOT law enforcement officers.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Bob [not the blogger] said...

Bob [not the blogger] says: [There is only one "e" in "judgment."]

May 19, 2011 5:06 PM---

-----

Really cool with your "spelling" prowess, eh?

Have you ever heard of a dictionary?

[From Merriam-Webster]

Definition of JUDGMENT
1
a : a formal utterance of an authoritative opinion b : an opinion ...

...Variants of JUDGMENT
judg·ment or judge·ment

-----
cool, eh?

Anonymous said...

"When all is said and done, does this override the Constitutionality of the Fourth and Tenth Amendments?"

When the Supreme Court uses the "Commerce Clause" to rule in favor of the conviction of a MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENT in California, then you know that the 10th Amendment means nothing in the eyes of the Feds! This despite the fact that the Federal Government actually needed a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit ALCOHOL at the Federal Level, as well as a Constitutional Amendment to take it off the books!

Anonymous said...

Bob (not blogger) asks: Whose "common sense," and whose "reason"?

Not yours!

Not the TSA's

When dealing with me...
MINE!

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Sandra says:
Now you have proven for all to see that you don't know what you are talking about.

Bob [not the blogger] translates that:
"You don't agree with me. So, that must mean you don't know what you're talking about."

Nnnnow we get it.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Bob [not the blogger] says:
WHEW! Good thing TSA is doing nothing illegal, given that TSA has

1. prob cause

f2000 says:
That explains the random part of random pat downs then.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Of course, pat downs are not random. They come when the alarm is triggered. So, those of you who trigger the alarm are responsible for the pat downs.

TSA doesn't need probable cause, actually. All TSA needs is your consent, and TSA has that consent when you choose to walk onto the checkpoint. You COULD choose not to go through the checkpoint, but, if you choose to go through the checkpoint, it's assumed that you know you are subject to search. In other words, you imply your consent merely by walking through the doorway onto the checkpoint, the secure area.

Anonymous said...

Bob [not the blogger] said:
"Actually, they are. They are in the Executive Branch, the enforcement branch. They represent the State and carry out the laws of the State."

Wow! I know a very nice lady who is a contracting officer for the DoD. As such she, 1. Works for the Executive Branch, 2. Is responsible for ensuring the Federal Acquisition Regulations which are "laws of the State" are enforced.

She's a Law Enforcement Officer!

Except, she's not.

And TSOs are not either, except by Bob's definition.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Anonymous says:
Defund the TSA,call your Senator and tell him or her to defund the TSA.Shrink this beligerant animal down.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Yes, al-Q agrees with that.

Anonymous said...

Bob [not the blogger] .

B, you make statements that are not true. You do more harm than good to the agency you are trying to defend. Keep up your work.

Anonymous said...

Some Anon said: "I won't reveal any classified information except to say that, no, this is incorrect."

Out of nowhere TSORon replies: "Bomb Components are not classified". Then goes on from there. TSORon, that anon never said bomb componets are classified! Read what he wrote and try responding to it instead of spinning straw man arguments.

Anonymous said...

Bob [not the blogger] incorrectly says: [TSA are Law Enforcement Officers because]
they are in the Executive Branch.

By your reasoning everyone in the executive branch are law enforcement officers. And Obama is the Top Cop. According to you the Social Security Administration and the Peace Corps are cops too. lol You too funny.

Anonymous said...

TSORon said "you used a bomb component when you posted".

And I used weapons (my hands) to post this. So you clear a bazillion bomb components and two bazillion weapons (peoples hands) every day. Bless you for saving us from this menace. We can't expect much else from people who 'save' us from tie clips and solid inoperable toy guns. And boast ofthis as a security 'success'.

Anonymous said...

Bob [not the blogger] is annoyed because people want to be treated with common sense and reason. He does not know how TSA would do that.

He probably would have no idea how to get the TSA to treat us with courtesy and respect either.

Anonymous said...

Bob [not the blogger] said...
"If you don't like [TSA scans and gropes] take the train, a bus, a boat, or walk.

You are new here and not very well informed. The scope of the TSA extends to operations on trains buses and boats. (The "T" in TSA stands for transportation.)

RB said...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/18/tsa-vs-texas/

By Richard Diamond
-
The Washington Times



"Mr. Simpson’s bill also provides an escape clause, allowing TSA agents to escape prosecution by citing “an explicit and applicable grant of federal statutory authority that is consistent with the United States Constitution.” This highlights two facts: TSA has no law explicitly authorizing the groping of passengers, and the constitutionality of this invasive technique is dubious.

Providing transportation security is certainly not among the federal government’s enumerated powers. In fact, it’s a function not well-suited to government. So far, instead of catching terrorists, the TSA itself has terrorized toddlers with sippy cups, seniors with medical implants and infants with “explosive” diapers. Agency operatives can treat the public with contempt because, as unionized employees, they have guaranteed lifetime employment. Agency leadership can continue to do whatever it wants because Congress has proved too cowardly to act."

Anonymous said...

Would someone who did not receive a patdown ever complain about it? Probably not. So why use the fuzzy math when calculating your complaint rate? Take your 252,000,000 and multiply it by 3%. Now calculate your complaint rate please. Still small at about 0.01%, but more realistic. You do not inspire confidence if throw out numbers without thinking it through.

RB said...

If Bob [not the blogger] is representative of TSA employees then it is clear why TSA is in such deep trouble.

Anonymous said...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/sneaky_tsa_jet_stowaway_0miTelAaiJJXHmmpCg8wJN

I have to wonder if the TSA pats down their own before they steal a flight. Tell me, does the Supremacy Clause allow this too?

Anonymous said...

TSORon without facts to support his views said: "the folks here could not keep the posts straight and posted responses to a comment I made in another thread."

You are wrong. You were purposely bumped here so more people could learn about the claims you are making.

Ayn R. Key said...

Bob, according to you the TSA doesn't touch our "naughty bits" during the manual searches of our bodies. This law bans touching of our "naughty bits". Therefore this law says you can't do what you aren't doing - there should be no problem.

Then why is there a problem?

Anonymous said...

I've never had the highest opinion of Texas, but I have to admit, they have the right idea in this case. Bravo!

Anonymous said...

From "Anonymous" May 20, 2011 6:58 AM

And I used weapons (my hands) to post this. So you clear a bazillion bomb components and two bazillion weapons (peoples hands) every day. Bless you for saving us from this menace.

For Non-Blogger "Bob", i am sure his next idea would be to have the TSA hand cuff all passengers at the checkpoint and to remain that way while on the air plane.
a very good idea bob! remember each of the 9*11 "terrorists" had two hands each.

it is OK for you to take credit for this wonderful idea that will keep us feeling Safe.

SSSS for some reason said...

Bob [not the blogger] said...
Anonymous says:
Defund the TSA,call your Senator and tell him or her to defund the TSA.Shrink this beligerant animal down.

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Yes, al-Q agrees with that.

~~~~~~~~~

Really? Is this some new version of Goodwins Law that I am not aware of?

Anyway... Whatever your opinion is of TSA, it is not an effective level of security they are providing. The aircraft are not safer, the passengers are not safer, the whole system is not safer. And, like most illusions, if you just take a moment and look you can see all the wires that are making them fly.

The passengers are going through enhanced security procedures to keep terrorists off of the plane.

The baggage, not so much.

The cargo, even less so.

The TSA seems to be operating under the assumption that the primary, maybe even the only, goal of the bad guys is to take control of an aircraft and try and repeat a September 11 style attack.

Wrong!

The terrorist want to disrupt the system. They want to do bad things to American's. They want to cause damage and kill people and generally as much as they can of both those options.

Enhanced screening of the Passengers without increased scrutiny of the baggage and cargo is kind of like installing three extra locks on your front door while your backdoor and windows are completely unlocked and open.

And, I will repeat myself again because it can't be said enough.... write your elected officials and tell them to make this stop or they will no longer be an elected official. Anything less is just less.

RB said...

"Texas House of Representatives Seeking to Ban Current TSA Pat-Down"


Bob your post headline is either a blatant lie or tells us that TSA is in fact feeling up genitals during pat downs. Which is it?

The Texas bill does not ban pat downs, all it does is make it a criminal act to feel the genitals, anus and breast during a pat down.

John Pistole has stated that the TSA pat down does not contact the genitals.

So what's the story? Are you just posting a pack of lies again or did your boss John Pistole lie to America?

f2000 said...

Bob [not the blogger] says:

Of course, pat downs are not random. They come when the alarm is triggered.


Ahem.

Per the TSA:

"In addition, some passengers may also receive a pat-down as part of our random, unpredictable security measures. "

It's part of the barely relevant myth/fact write-up at the top of this post.

Anonymous said...

federal employees can be arrested for violation of state law. Happens all the time. Anyone reading this who is patted down in a manner the traveler finds offensive, invasive or sexual can ask a attending airport cop to investigate. Then call the local newspapers and county or state district attorney. Blogger Bob and his apologists are not the final word.

Anonymous said...

Air travel is not a constitutional right. You have given "implied consent" when buying a airline ticket. You have "voluntarily" purchased a ticket from a private company. You waived your 4th Amendment rights, like when you allow a policeman to check your car trunk.These searches and screening patdowns are not deemed "unreasonable". U.S. vs Davis......Also Americans sadly to say in my opinion are spoiled, incovenienced and complacent. Never forget Oklahoma city and 9/11.I can see the bad guys(terrorists) Americans and others, smiling while reading most of negative blogs toward the TSA and all the multiple layers of security measures that have deterred air disasters here in the last 10 years. The only people violating our rights are terrorists and other ill-willed passengers. They will never stop trying. Americans are now being recruited by extremeists. Also the Uni-bomber, the bomber at Atlanta's Olympic park, Timothy McVay, other massacres by shootings and other near miss bombings here by young and old....Americans. We are getting to high and mighty,very dangerous. Muslim exremeists have tried lately with the shoe bomber, underware bomber and the liquid explosive terrorists in August,2006.....Many nasty, mean and false accusations are said about the Government, TSA and the screeners. Handguns are found at a the check points daily. TSA doesn't feel a 6 year old or 80 year old are thinking of doing evil, it's others with them that "may" be using them for possible bad intent. Happens in the Middle East and can happen here.....Racial profiling doesn't work,bad guys come in different colors and don't advertise.When my family fly's at 35,000 feet, I'm glad "everybody" has been thoroughly screened.I've been padded down. The screener explains the procedure and they are not sexually harassing me, really now, such exaggerations.If only we could think and see what the bad guys want to do,we Americans would appreciate the current screening procedures.....Thank you TSA, keep up the good work and let all this hatred not hinder your hard work.

Anonymous said...

Yay Texas! Way to go!!!

Sandra said...

f2000 wrote:

"Bob [not the blogger] says:

Of course, pat downs are not random. They come when the alarm is triggered.


Ahem.

Per the TSA:

"In addition, some passengers may also receive a pat-down as part of our random, unpredictable security measures. "

It's part of the barely relevant myth/fact write-up at the top of this post."

~~

Got a rejoinder for that one, Bob [not the blogger]?

No, I didn't think so. You'd better quit posting because you're just making yourself look worse and worse with each new entry.

screen shot

Michael said...

This whole thing turned me off flying into the US altogether... and I am glad for it. My travels have been much more interesting.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said.......
When my family fly's at 35,000 feet, I'm glad "everybody" has been thoroughly screened.I've been padded down. The screener explains the procedure and they are not sexually harassing me, really now, such exaggerations.If only we could think and see what the bad guys want to do,we Americans would appreciate the current screening procedures.....Thank you TSA, keep up the good work and let all this hatred not hinder your hard work."

Everyone has not been screened to the same standards, never have and never will be. It is physically not possible.

You are not padded but patted down, and regardless of your previous statements this does not preclude someone getting something bad on a plane. It only keeps honest people honest so to speak.

The problem is not in being patted-down, but the extreme of said pat-down which "real" LEO's can't even perform without extreme probable cause. They have very strict rules about what they can and cannot do.

The ruling you speak of only allows for a administrative search only as in depth as needed under the circumstances that exist at the time of the search. In other words TSA's newest version has not been court tested as of yet, so the jury is still out on it's legality.

I'm glad this theater makes you "feel" better but considering the TSA's track record, it is nothing more than theater for the masses.

George said...

Blogger Bob is entirely correct about the Supremacy Clause. However, the action of the Texas Legislature suggests that concerns and opposition to the pat downs are greater than the TSA is willing to admit. And the TSA's preferred approach of denying, ignoring, or minimizing the concerns and opposition won't make it go away.

The low number of complaints received through official TSA channels that Bob touts almost certainly do not reflect the true extent of complaints about the pat downs and the screeners who inflict them. Rather, they most likely reflect low usage of the official complaint channels.

Most passengers are probably unaware of how to file an official complaint. And those who are aware of it are probably very reluctant to file complaints. The most important reason is that it doesn't do any good. Even with the new tracking numbers, the complainer has no way of knowing what corrective action was taken, if any. As Bob has repeatedly explained, TSA employees enjoy an absolute right to privacy, so even if the complaint notes a clear violation of TSA rules the passenger can never know if any action was taken. So why bother filing an official complaint when there's no meaningful feedback to indicate that it achieves anything?

Another reason is the fear that filing a complaint will lead to some kind of retaliation, including placement on a watch list. The fear may be unfounded, but the secrecy surrounding those lists makes the fear very plausible. And the TSA probably finds this fear very useful in reducing the number of complaints.

The TSA's complaint process seems most useful for generating numbers that Blogger Bob can use to justify dismissing, ignoring, or minimizing the many valid concerns passengers have.

Anonymous said...

1.7 million people fly a day and there's 787 blogs on this topic and ill say ~10% are repeat blogs. so thats approx 700 blogs about this topic. so in the week or so since this topic has been posted there have been 700 blogs while roughly 12 million people have traveled. doesnt seem like this blog represents ALL of America?!?! again lets start doing something important than complaining on here and contact your voted representatives that put tsa in action. all 700 of you write them and set them straight. im sure in 2 years we will get rid of them!!! horray!

Anonymous said...

George wrote: Most passengers are probably unaware of how to file an official complaint. And those who are aware of it are probably very reluctant to file complaints.

Some passengers have reported that when they attempt to file a complaint or ask for a complaint form, the TSA personnel demand their boarding pass and ID to be photocopied. I wonder why?

Others are told by TSA staffers at the checkpoint that there's no such thing as a complaint form.

Adam said...

again lets start doing something important than complaining on here and contact your voted representatives that put tsa in action.

-------------------------------

I have written my State senators and representatives on numerous occasions. I hope they have the courage to follow Texas, Alaska and New Hampshire's initiative. In the meantime it is perfectly valid to express our discontent directly to the TSA's public face - don't put up a blog if you can't take the heat. With almost as many comments on this thread as the total number of complaints the TSA claimed, obviously the problem is bigger than they admit.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said....
"Everyone has not been screened to the same standards, never have and never will. It's physically not possible".....The current standards are thorough. Oh, I know, every screening should be 100% the exact same way. Just make it very predictable and make it a complete routine, just to make us Americans feel comfortable and warm inside, no surprises, cookie-cutter...Not Smart...When I've traveled and I'm in the checkpoint line, I've heard at times a passenger say when setting off the metal detector a couple of times, "At the other airport they(passenger) didn't set it off. May or not be true, doesn't matter. I'm glad it's a little different. The bad guys probably test the screening standards, trying to circumvent it. They probably love reading all of the frustrated blogs wanting lax screening. There isn't a 100% way of stopping bad guys, nobody's perfect including ourselves. TSA standards are the best for now and evolve with new technology and recent retrieved intelligence from authorities. Everyone is screened to the same standards but screening is different for people who alarm, passengers with disabilities, small children, military, crew members....I have also heard when I'm in line a passenger say to a screeneer when about to get additional screening, "What, do I look like a terrorist". Can't believe this mentality.( By not understanding security measures, now your an expert???, I'm not, but) and you shouldn't be screened because of your looks, age ???? Once you exclude, they will exploit(bad guys).....And by saying your not padded down but patted down, doesn't keep bad guys off but keeps honest people honest. OK ??, untrue and just semantics. Current screening methods are not intrusive or sexual, honestly now. It's not a 100% perfect, who and what is. You know people sometimes stretch the story when upset(ego/pride). If it's not perfect people complain, unbelieveable....."And" screeners I've noticed use a sliding motion which is explained. Better safe than sorry! It would be nice to tell a screener you appreciate what they do.

Anonymous said...

adam said:
"I have written my State senators and representatives on numerous occasions. I hope they have the courage to follow Texas, Alaska and New Hampshire's initiative. In the meantime it is perfectly valid to express our discontent directly to the TSA's public face - don't put up a blog if you can't take the heat. With almost as many comments on this thread as the total number of complaints the TSA claimed, obviously the problem is bigger than they admit."

way to go adam! and lets get it straight, its a heavily unConstitutional blog!!! because they sensor or delete all negative posts. so lets stick it to em all 10000 of us!

Carmen said...

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution states that federal laws *which are in line with the Constitution* are the supreme law of the land (along with the Constitution itself).

As soon as a federal law is in violation of the Constitution, it is NOT the supreme law of the land. The states then have the right (and obligation) to protect their citizens' constitutional rights.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said....
"Everyone has not been screened to the same standards, never have and never will. It's physically not possible".....The current standards are thorough. Oh, I know, every screening should be 100% the exact same way. Just make it very predictable and make it a complete routine, just to make us Americans feel comfortable and warm inside, no surprises, cookie-cutter...Not Smart...When I've traveled and I'm in the checkpoint line, I've heard at times a passenger say when setting off the metal detector a couple of times, "At the other airport they(passenger) didn't set it off. May or not be true, doesn't matter. I'm glad it's a little different. The bad guys probably test the screening standards, trying to circumvent it. They probably love reading all of the frustrated blogs wanting lax screening. There isn't a 100% way of stopping bad guys, nobody's perfect including ourselves. TSA standards are the best for now and evolve with new technology and recent retrieved intelligence from authorities. Everyone is screened to the same standards but screening is different for people who alarm, passengers with disabilities, small children, military, crew members....I have also heard when I'm in line a passenger say to a screeneer when about to get additional screening, "What, do I look like a terrorist". Can't believe this mentality.( By not understanding security measures, now your an expert???, I'm not, but) and you shouldn't be screened because of your looks, age ???? Once you exclude, they will exploit(bad guys).....And by saying your not padded down but patted down, doesn't keep bad guys off but keeps honest people honest. OK ??, untrue and just semantics. Current screening methods are not intrusive or sexual, honestly now. It's not a 100% perfect, who and what is. You know people sometimes stretch the story when upset(ego/pride). If it's not perfect people complain, unbelieveable....."And" screeners I've noticed use a sliding motion which is explained. Better safe than sorry! It would be nice to tell a screener you appreciate what they do.

May 22, 2011 5:00 PM


You continue to fail in getting the point.

You are of course welcome to your opinions and can continue with being a TSA supporter if you wish, but I will continue with mine since your reply has shown me nothing that can/will change my mind.

Have a great day.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Air travel is not a constitutional right. You have given "implied consent" when buying a airline ticket. You have "voluntarily" purchased a ticket from a private company. You waived your 4th Amendment rights, like when you allow a policeman to check your car trunk.

You are wrong about several things.

First, while air travel is not specifically listed in the constitution as a right, neither is it prohibited. Generally, if something doesn't break any laws, it's allowed.

Second, you buy your ticket from the airline, but they aren't the ones doing the screening. The TSA run by the government. If the airline screened you then the 4th amendment wouldn't apply. Since it's being done by the government then you have to consider the 4th amendment. At what point is it no longer consent but coercion? Since many people are required to fly for their jobs I don't think you can really claim they are free to choose not to fly.

Anonymous said...

""You people are idiots. it is not a vio0lation of your 4th amendment right at all. Last I checked it isn't your right to fly, it's a privelage. And in order to use this privelage you are allowing them to do pat-downs every time you buy an airline ticket. If you don't like the idea of the patdowns then find a different way of transportation. But it is no way a violation of your right.""

Where does the constitution say flying is a privilege?

The constitution is setup such that rights are many and powers are few. If you don't stand up for your rights, you have no rights.

Anonymous said...

TSA Pat-Downs at Proms????

This confirms it - Government despice individual liberty and is moving forward to erradicate it.

Blogger Bob, how can you, or any of your coleagues, be in favor of this? How? HOW?!?!?!?!

«Oldest ‹Older   601 – 800 of 1032   Newer› Newest»