By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 17 February 2012
Edit Thread
SamuelRSmith said:
Kasz216 said:

You know, i never really had that big of an issue with the TSA pat-downs.

Now the various people they have to administer it to due to "perceived fairness" that's another issue.

When you have to pat down a 4 year old or a 97 year old woman that's never left the country, you've kinda forgotten that there is a big difference between "Racial Profiling" and "Profiling" which does sometimes include race, sex and gender... because some crimes are VERY disproportionately committed by certain races, sexes and genders... and ages for that matter. (And yes, I do mean to have sexes and genders separate... there is a difference.)

Actually as I recall, there is a law banning transgender people from flying that just passed in Canada.

Well, the TSA infringes on your right to privacy, and the freedom to travel (which the Supreme Court determined was protected by the Constitution under the 9th Amendment). Pre-screening (checking up on passengers' activities before the flight) is an infringment on the 4th amendment, and potentially on the first (as they may refuse travel based on something you've said). It also infringes on the 10th amendment, as the ability to regulate such things are not defined in the Constitution, therefore it is a state issue.

The issues of the effectiveness of patdowns/profiling/whatever don't really come into it, until you address the above concerns.

Sure

1) It's not really infringing on your right to travel, you can still travel.   Just not by plane if you don't fit the criteria.

It's no more infiring then forcing someone to pass quaifications to get a drivers liscense.  These are very specific circumstances that can be dangerous.

There's still planes, trains, buses and boats.

 

2) You're protected against unreasonable search and seizure... not all search and seizure.  TSA patdowns happen when you repeatidly fail a metal detector/body scanner or something is picked up on either of those. 

Those are perfectly reasonable criteria considering the above.  Espiecally since you can refuse and just leave.   Like Rand Paul did recently in protest of said policy.

 

3)  There isn't a police force in the US who is going to ignore you as a suspect if you say something that indicates you might be guilty of a crime... I'm not seeing how that's any different here.