Colorado man claims he was 'sexually assaulted' by TSA

[The Northerner]

DENVER -- Geoff Biddulph of Berthoud, Colo. is a frequent flyer. He travels at least 30 times a year for business and has been "pat down" by airport security all across the world.

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

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

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

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

Read more: http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-colorado-man-claims-he-was-sexually-assaulted-by-tsa-20110415,0,686151.story

[Buzz Clik]

1. This guy needs some perspective.

[seabeyond]

2. he simply needs to understand a stranger groping his dick makes you feel safer

i hear ya.

[woo me with science]

3. +100000

I was going to reply, but you did it so well.

[xchrom]

6. +1 brazillion. nt

[The Northerner]

9. I couldn't agree more

[sabrina 1]

11. Very well stated!

I too was going to respond, but I think you handled it perfectly ...

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Buzz Clik]

14. No, you didn't hear me.

Talk to someone who has really been sexually assaulted, and this bit of whining will disappear.

[seabeyond]

16. ah. well, i dont do degrees. but i can imagine that a person who had been sexually molested would

be effected 100x's fold

none of it is ok.

[Buzz Clik]

26. I never suggested it's okay. But it most certainly is NOT sexual assault.

[franzia99]

37. How do you figure? It's an unconsented to sexual contact; fitting the sex assault definition in

many if not all states. There are different degrees of sexual assault; and I can't think of a single state where touching someone's genitals without their permission isn't sexual assault.

[joeunderdog]

85. Yeah, fondling of privates never hurt anyone.

Are you for real?

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

[sabrina 1]

105. You don't get to decide that. If you have no problems being

groped by strangers, that's your business. I otoh, do not want you making that decision for me.

[SDuderstadt]

106. And I...

don't you making public safety decisions for the rest of us.

[sabrina 1]

110. Don't know what you mean by that comment.

But I do get to decide if I have been assaulted, not you and not some 'agent' who is not even a law enforcement officer. Not that that would get them off the hook either.

Interesting that when the TSA had the opportunity to actually carry out their claims that they could force people to do as they say, they did not. Under the threat of a lawsuit, they backed away. Guess they were not as sure as you are of how those claims would fare in a courtroom.

[SDuderstadt]

111. I see...

YOU get to decide if you were assaulted?

I'm sure that would surprise the American legal system.

[sabrina 1]

113. Yes, every victim gets to decide whether or not they were

assaulted, sexually or otherwise. Then, they report the crime. If there is enough evidence to support the claim, the case will move forward. If, as has happened so often in the past, a prosecutor decides not to go forward with prosecutions, the victim can use the civil courts.

Who doesn't get to decide are strangers who know nothing about the case, such as people on internet forums who weren't there.

[SDuderstadt]

114. "Who doesn't get to decide are strangers who know nothing about the case, such as people on...

internet forums who weren't there"

Which would, ironically, include you.

[sabrina 1]

116. True, but I'm not the one saying that this person has no

case. That would by you. I am willing to let the court decide.

[SDuderstadt]

117. That's my opinion....

same as yours.

Get it?

[sabrina 1]

118. Can you explain, since you are so convinced that

these tactics are legal, why every time someone challenges them, the TSA backs down? Apparently they are not as convinced as you are.

Seems to me just watching their reactions, that they will take advantage of the American people until they push back, as the pilots have eg. That their 'rules' are not based on the law at all and that once challenged, they back away rather than have them tested in court.

[SDuderstadt]

119. "why every time someone challenges them, the TSA backs down"

Maybe you should document that instead of merely asserting it. In the meantime, do you understand the legislative basis for the promulgation of the TSA rules?

[sudopod]

124. And I for one

am uncomfortable with how you always cling to the side of authority, no matter how ridiculous is looks.

Too many people like that in a democracy can lead to bad things.

[SDuderstadt]

127. I like facts, dude....

wherever they lead.

You want to keep your posts focused on them.

[sudopod]

129. Are you any kin to the guy who wrote "Nuclear Reactor Analysis" by chance? nt

[SDuderstadt]

131. If you just want to fight...

go fight with yourself.

[sudopod]

133. I was serious, lol.

I own (and have been owned by) this book.

http://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Reactor-Analysis-James-Duderstadt/dp/0471223638

[SDuderstadt]

136. You're assuming....

that's my real last name.

It's actually my mom's maiden name.

[SDuderstadt]

147. Why are you asking me personal questions? n/t

[Name removed]

20. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sudopod]

123. Ok, coach. nt

[franzia99]

35. lol

[snooper2]

157. Well, if I wasn't circumcised it would be a good place to hide some weed

:P

[hlthe2b]

4. Yes...why can't everyone just stand up, salute & be a "good German"?

:eyes:

[LisaL]

5. He must have been one of those "arrogant people who

question passenger screening procedures."
:sarcasm:

[Buzz Clik]

30. LOL!!!

You are trying to put this on the same plane as the Nazis and the holocaust?

DU ... home of the hysterical.

[timtom]

99. You're pretty unbelievable in your cavalier regard

for the very obvious erosion of our constitutional freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures.

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

It's worse.

At least at this stage.

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

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

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x903064

[reggie the dog]

7. he was sexually assulted

the cops rubbed my balls and dick many times because i "looked like a druggie". they would stop us while we were riding our bikes across town, search us, rub our private parts and make fun of us saying we had small dicks. sometimes we would get stopped multiple times in a week. They started doing this when i was 11, after nearly 4 years of this kind of treatment i actually started to smoke weed. i have been scared of cops and see them as an enemy ever since they touched me like that "for my own good". i feel no safer and the cops rubbing my private parts as a pre teen fucked me up more than any of the drugs i ever did later on in life.

[Buzz Clik]

15. By definition only -- and a very generous definition at that.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

21. So if Larry Craig came over and against your will did the same...

what would you call it?

[Buzz Clik]

27. If Larry Craig were wearing a TSA uniform performing his job, he'd be another TSA lackey.

If Larry Craig the Congressman shoved his hand down my pants in an other empty airport bathroom, it would be sexual assault.

[Matariki]

32. So a uniform gives someone the right to sexually assault you?

I don't think that attitude is conducive to a free society.

[Buzz Clik]

41. You seem to be missing a really vital point: it wasn't sexual assault.

Jeebus.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

33. "performing one job" does not include what occured in this story

The through and repeated fondling of ones genitals is not part of the "enhanced patdown"

[Buzz Clik]

42. Okay. I agree. I completely and totally agree that this clown should be fired.

Sexual assault? No. It was not sexual assault.

[franzia99]

40. Uh, touching someone's genitals without consent fits the legal definition of sexual assault

Whether you think that's generous or not isn't really relevant.

[Buzz Clik]

43. It's sure as hell is relevant to this conversation.

:wtf:

[franzia99]

44. You don't make the law brother.

[Buzz Clik]

46. And you do?

This entire thread has launched into sillyville.

[franzia99]

48. Here's the Colorado definition, complete with links

I don't write the law, but my opinion happens to match the Colorado definition of the crime

http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll/cocode/1/2e00f/2faad/30122/301f7?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0#JD_18-3-404

18-3-404. Unlawful sexual contact

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

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

http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll/cocode/1/2e00f/2faad/30122/30127?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0#JD_18-3-401

18-3-401. Definitions.

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

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

[SDuderstadt]

49. Keywords:

if that sexual contact is for the purposes of sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse

[franzia99]

50. Which is a question of fact for the jury to decide.

[SDuderstadt]

51. Oh, for the love of Mike...

it will not go to trial.

[franzia99]

52. Are you the prosecutor and/or judge with jurisdiction over this?

You've engaged in no factfinding. I find it hard to believe you can reliably say whether or not this will go to trial.

[SDuderstadt]

53. Neither have you...

if you think state law trumps federal law.

[franzia99]

54. Um, flesh out that argument please. Your point is unclear.

[SDuderstadt]

55. TSA regulations are...

developed pursuant to authorization by federal law.

No DA is going to bring this case and no judge is going to permit it to proceed.

[franzia99]

58. 2 arguments: First, the Constitution trumps federal law, and the 4th amendment is interpreted to

mean that people cannot be searched without probable cause. So were this to go to court there are many who believe the regulations requiring these searches will be struck down on the grounds that they're subjecting people to searches without probable cause. Probable cause means you have particularized facts that reasonably suggest that someone may be committing or has committed a crime.

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

Edit:

And even if a prosecutor refused to bring this, the alleged victim could bring a 1983 claim where he sues the government for violation of his civil rights. Again, this is a question for the finder of fact. Based on what's been reported, it looks like there's a colorable claim.

[SDuderstadt]

59. Dude...

with respect to your first "argument", security checkpoints do not require "probable cause", nor do other kinds of administrative searches. No prosecutor is going to bring such a weak argument.

With respect to your second "argument", as I said earlier, this will never, ever go to trial.

[franzia99]

60. Sadly though, your argument is unpersuasive.

Also, there was a good article in the Washington Post citing authority under which the patdowns could be struck down under the 4th amendment. I suggest you give it a read.

[SDuderstadt]

61. Take it up with the Supreme Court...

I'd love to see your "good article".

[franzia99]

62. Shouldn't be too hard to find if you put in a minute of effort. Not to mention, you've never

addressed a scenario where what the tsa agent did went beyond proper procedure, which the media report suggests. When it comes down to it, you have no basis for saying with any degree of certainty that this wasn't unlawful sexual contact and that it won't go anywhere.

[SDuderstadt]

63. That's a prediction....

"did went"?

[franzia99]

64. It's a question for the finder of fact, as I've said.

[SDuderstadt]

65. Which is why I labeled what I said as...

a prediction.

[tblue37]

132. His grammar is correct. He said "what the TSA agent did," which is a

noun clause acting as the subject of the verb "went." That ("what the agent did") went beyond normal procedure. He did not write "did went" as though he intended it as a verb phrase, which you seem to be implying he did.

[LisaL]

73. So any TSA agent can do anything to any passenger with impunity?

[SDuderstadt]

76. No...

nor did I say that.

[LisaL]

90. You just said that no judge will permit this case to proceed?

Why? Why exactly shouldn't this case proceed? Alleged victim appears to be willing to testify.

[SDuderstadt]

92. First of all...

it's not a "case". Secondly, I highly doubt any DA will prosecute because the allegation does not rise to the level of sexual assault. No judge will allow it to proceed based upon the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Hint: I am making a prediction here, not a statement of fact.

[franzia99]

100. Predict what you want, but your "supremacy clause" argument is WEAK

As I've said above, your supremacy clause bit fails to address two major arguments. But it's a free country so you're welcome to rest your hat on that if it makes you feel better.

[SDuderstadt]

107. Do you think capitalizing "weak"....

makes your "argument" more convincing?

Please state the two arguments I've "failed" to address.

[reggie the dog]

79. why not? sexual assault is a state crime, not a federal one

[SDuderstadt]

83. Dude...

it doesn't meet the test for "sexual assault". Beyond that, research the "supremacy clause" of the U.S. Constitution.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/preemption.htm

[franzia99]

101. Are you an actual attorney? Because you're butchering the legal analysis.

[SDuderstadt]

102. Says you n/t

[franzia99]

103. Yah, funny, I'm probably one of the few lawyers on here.

You're holding up the supremacy clause without considering any of the other issues. You sound like an armchair lawyer.

I can handle disagreement because everyone's entitled to their opinion, but at least provide a good reasoned analysis.

[SDuderstadt]

104. Sure you are n/t

[franzia99]

108. Okay, so I'll take this as an admission that you aren't. People should be informed

that to just cite the supremacy clause here and stop at that is a really poor legal analysis. For starters, the federal government could enact a law that's unconstitutional, at which point the supremacy clause is not going to protect it in conflicts with state law. Here there are good arguments that these patdowns violate the fourth amendment. We'll see what the supreme court says, but to throw up the supremacy clause and say that ends the analysis is just ridiculous. You mentioned before that the court has upheld the use of checkpoints, which is true, but I don't remember any cases that involved fondling someone's genitals. The contact here is more intrusive than what was upheld in the checkpoint cases.

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

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

So to just say supremacy clause doesn't quite cut it here. I'm calling you out because I don't want people to be misled by you. I'm not trying to be mean to you but you don't understand the legal issues.

[tblue37]

135. Of course, the current SCOTUS is packed with RW Bush appointees. nt

[tpsbmam]

57. Wow

You get to be judge and jury as to what constitutes sexual assault and what doesn't. Just plain wow.

[reggie the dog]

66. so when you were a kid and teen and the cops kept stoppin you

and felt your balls and dick to look for drugs that you didnt even use you didnt feel violated? you dont feel violated when grown adults put their hands in your pants against your will?

[tpsbmam]

122. Getting back you way late....either I responded to the wrong post or you did....

I was sticking up for you and criticizing the poster who was dismissing what you went through. I think what you went through most certainly felt to you like sexual assault, and would have felt the same to me. I was criticizing the person who felt that he/she could minimize what you went through.

[reggie the dog]

152. i posted in the wrong place, sorry and thanks for sticking up for me

sorry for the mix up

[_ed_]

87. Is it some kind of contest?

Isn't this like saying you haven't really been raped unless you've been gang raped?

[Union Scribe]

146. Lol, I've never seen anyone argue a point like that!

"Well, yeah, if we're going by, like, the definition in question, but..."

[Warren DeMontague]

24. Yeah, well, the Merkin Public is only outraged now because it is affecting THEM.

When the 4th amendment was junked for people who looked like hippies, or who were driving around the country with grateful dead stickers on their cars, or for cancer grannies smoking a joint to ease the nausea of chemo, most Merkins didn't give a shit. Still don't.

What they don't realize is that this crap has been going on for decades.

[reggie the dog]

67. the shit they did to hippies like me

is nothing compared to what the cops do to black people or latinos. i give a shit and have for quite some time, but most people dont. it is sad when kids out riding bmx bikes have to be molested because they may have flowers in their pocket.

[Warren DeMontague]

98. Agreed. The biggest component of the drug war is a racial one.

No doubt.

[joshcryer]

36. that's my penis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAepItFDXc4

[hlthe2b]

8. I think YOU need some perspective...

1. This is a frequent flyer, a businessman who travels worldwide extensively. I'm guessing that gives him some comparative "perspective."
2. He is serious enough to have filed a complaint with BOTH TSA and the Denver Police and has requested a copy of the video surveillance.
3. Denver Police is investigating. They have NOT dismissed this complaint out of hand, which means they take his account quite seriously.
4. When is it ever appropriate to grab someone's crotch without cause? When?


Perspective, indeed. :eyes:

[Buzz Clik]

17. Meh. Bullshit.

He was harassed and maybe embarrassed and sick of the shit. I'm sick of it, too. I spend an hour getting ready to travel, and they spend 60 seconds undoing all my efforts. It's invasive and maybe unnecessary, but IT IS NOT SEXUAL ASSAULT.

[hlthe2b]

18. You contradicted yourself upstream...

:shrug:

I HAVE worked with those who have been sexually assaulted. I can assure you that "purpose" of the grope doesn't make a whole lot of difference when they relive one of the worst incidents of their lives.

[Buzz Clik]

28. Yeah, well, so have I. And I disagree with completely.

If you had the experience you claim to have, you would recognize instantly that sexual such (as with rape) is not a sexual act but an act of violence against the victim. To call this sexual assault is spitting in the face of every true victim of sexual assault.

[hlthe2b]

29. You disagree that you contradict yourself?... Check it.. Post #15

and, heavens if you aren't more sensitive to the issue of sexual assault and re-victimization than that...???? Well, I'll leave it there. Sad...

[Buzz Clik]

31. I disagree with you.

[hlthe2b]

34. You are free to do so..

and I am free to say you deviate from professional standards of care for victims of sexual assault for whom re-victimization (including from inappropriate TSA contact) is a very real potential. In denying this as an issue, I would find it difficult to refer anyone-- who had experienced such trauma-- to you for the care you claim to deliver. I would, quite frankly, have to question your compassion for these victims.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hlthe2b]

47. You don't get to misstate misframe, or misrepresent everything

that I and others have said. I have said nothing of the kind, but am not going to defend what is obviously a problematic policy in general, and a specific incident that underscores why it is so open to abuse. Abuse that YES, can have very real impacts on a prior victim of sexual abuse. You argue that it is essentially no big deal and that the complainant should "just get some perspective." You are being so disingenuous, I would recommend that others follow in my lead and simply ignore you. I certainly will. BTW, your sigline is quite offensive. The previous poster is quite right to say so.

[LisaL]

71. The unlawful sexual contact does not have to be violent.

So to claim it has to be makes no sense whatsoever.

[reggie the dog]

81. unwanted contact with my sexaul areas is violence in and of itself

[LisaL]

69. Oh for crying out loud.

Have you not read the definition of unlawful sexual contact: sexual contact can be for the purpose of sexual gratification?
Violence against the victim is nowhere to be found in that definition, so WTF are you talking about?

[reggie the dog]

80. as when cops felt my privates because i "looked like a druggie"

years before i even tried pot, the agent in this case did this as an act of violence, they want the public to "submit". they let their power go to their head. it is like the ancient laws permitting the king to fuck any scottish bride on her wedding night.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blueamy66]

39. Hey...get used to it.

I was told in another thread that I don't know what domestic abuse is.

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

[SDuderstadt]

86. Unintentional irony n/t

[bobbolink]

19. "Denver Police is investigating. "

:rofl:

A few gallons of white wash will take care of it.

[hlthe2b]

22. Look, I have my issues with DPD...

but I also know that when they want to whitewash something, they will find a way NOT to investigate-- there are lots of ways to "discount out of hand" when they are so predisposed. They are not doing so.

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

So, no, I can't say they have no bad apples (as recent incidents confirm), but they don't deserve that level of contempt, either.

[bobbolink]

25. I guess for people who haven't been victims of *their* contempt, they don't deserve any

level of contempt.

You have YOUR vision, and I have MINE.

The whole police department needs to be cleaned out and sanitized and start over fresh.

[tpsbmam]

56. Maybe he DOES have perspective

He's a frequent traveler and I'm sure has been through many pat-downs and security checks of varying degrees. This one was clearly different for him. IMO it's wrong to simply dismiss his complaint based on your conjecture. How do you know this wasn't different? You have nothing to go on save for your bias.

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

Bull.

[xchrom]

10. i listened to the video clip and there is a tsa person something along the line of 'tsa has 'served'

over 250 million passengers.


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

i get service at a restaurant -- i do not get 'service' from the tsa.

[notesdev]

13. It's meant along the lines of

"You got served!" - TSA

[Shagbark Hickory]

23. Well duh. Didn't he notice the other people in line ahead of him getting assaulted?

[joshcryer]

38. Watch the report, he's a frequent flier, this was different for him.

[Initech]

68. I really wonder why this hasn't been challenged as a violation of 4th amendment rights yet.

[SDuderstadt]

70. Because security checkpoints don't require...

probable cause.

[LisaL]

72. But the search has to be reasonable.

I don't see why grabbing someone's genitals as this guy alleges was done to him is reasonable.

[SDuderstadt]

75. Keywords: "as this guy alleges"

Personally, I'll wait to see if his allegations bear out before just blindly jumping on the TSA.

At the same time, the "reasonableness" requirement also takes into account the legitimate means needed to protect against a real threat. I have been subjected to the enhanced patdown several times and not once was I "groped" or "sexually assaulted". That doesn't mean that Biddulph and/or others weren't. However, given the huge number of flights/travelers with roughly 3% subjected to these measures raises a logical question. Why aren't these complaints far more widespread?

[LisaL]

88. Yes of course these are allegations.

So I fail to see why a jury or a judge shouldn't decide whether this guy was sexually assaulted. Here we have an alleged victim saying he was sexually assaulted and it appears the alleged victim is willing to testify. Why exactly shouldn't this go to court?

[SDuderstadt]

89. Because I don't believe that any DA will prosecute...

based upon the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.

[LisaL]

91. So, nothing that TSA agent does can lead to prosecution, using your

logic?

[SDuderstadt]

93. Jesus...

I already said no. Quit putting words in my mouth and learn to read.

[LisaL]

125. You just claimed no DA will prosecute...

Why? There is an alleged victim apparently willing to testify. So why exactly no DA will prosecute this?

[SDuderstadt]

128. It's a prediction and...

I have already explained it.

[Initech]

74. I still think this would be illegal search and seizure.

[SDuderstadt]

77. Well...

you can think whatever you want. Someone going through a security checkpoint has a far more limited expectation of privacy. Privacy does not trump public safety.

Take it up with the Supreme Court.

[Initech]

78. If it happens to me, maybe I will.

See that's the great thing about this country - you can challenge laws you don't like in front of SCOTUS. I personally believe these pat downs are extremely violating and a direct 4th amendment. The fact is that they don't have probable cause to search someone's private areas. It's just mortifying that they're even attempting doing this.

[SDuderstadt]

82. As I said before...

they don't need probable cause. The issue is more the reasonableness of the search. It had to be balanced against republic''s expectation of safety. In this case, it's pretty high.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hippo_Tron]

94. Because the 4th amendment doesn't give you the right to fly on an airplane

[Initech]

95. It's about searching someone's bags illegally, not about flying.

[SDuderstadt]

96. It isn't "illegal"...

reading the Constitution is not a substitute for case law, dude.

[sudopod]

126. Can you imagine asking Thomas Jefferson if it's ok to grab his crotch?

I wonder what he would say. XD

[SDuderstadt]

130. Nobody's crotch is...

"grabbed".

[sudopod]

134. Patted firmly with a cupped hand? nt

[SDuderstadt]

137. Have you been through the actual...

enhanced patdown?

[sudopod]

138. Does it matter? nt

[SDuderstadt]

139. Yes n/t

[sudopod]

140. Why? nt

[SDuderstadt]

141. On what basis do you know...

that anyone was "grabbed" or "groped"? People don't exaggerate?

[sudopod]

142. Not everyone lies. nt

[SDuderstadt]

143. Exaggeration is not necessarily "lying"...

I never, ever called anyone a liar.

Serious question: how can someone "grab" or "grope" with the back of their hand?

[sudopod]

144. I don't know. I guess you had to be there? nt

[Name removed]

145. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sudopod]

149. LOL, it appears that you're upset. ;) nt

[Hippo_Tron]

97. Nobody is forced to have their bags searched by TSA

You can simply choose not to fly. The 4th amendment covers forced searches and seizures.

[sabrina 1]

109. You don't know much about your own rights. No wonder

you are so willing to give them up, so easily.

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

These TSA agents are not even law enforcement agents.

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

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

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

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

[Innomen]

112. Dangerous argument, Slippery slope.

In my opinion the whole justification "well you don't have to patronize X service" for right infringement needs to be questioned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just sharing.

Edit: This is especially important in a capitalist society with a service economy where virtually everything I need to live has to come from a private business.

[sabrina 1]

120. Yes, you do have a right to fly.

49 U.S.C. § 40103 : US Code - Section 40103: Sovereignty and use of airspace

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

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

It looks like all this needs to be settled in the courts.

[Innomen]

158. Agreed.

+1

[Initech]

148. Exactly this.

It's like that editorial I was reading the other day where the guy was giving the Giants fan shit because he chose to go to the Dodger game wearing his Giants shirt. Sure, he could have not gone to opening day, but if he wanted to, he shouldn't have been subjected to *THAT*. That's what I am trying to get at. You're exactly right - it's a public service, you're paying to use it, but they don't own you once you enter the building.

[seabeyond]

115. we HAVE to go into the court house. the court houses have naked scans. is THAT against 4th

amendment?

[Initech]

150. I've had jury duty several times and never been subjected to one.

And yeah I still think it does. They should not be scanning us like this, period.

I actually have jury duty next week, so I'll be sure to report if my court house has one.

[seabeyond]

151. i know there are courthouses in florida that have them. they have held onto the pictures and

supposedly got in trouble. we have no choice but to go into court. so at tht point it is a demand to use naked scanner.

it certainly is not all over the country, though other court houses are talking about getting them

[reggie the dog]

153. when i went to trial in craig county virginia

there was not even a metal detector, there were armed police though, by the way, i was found innocent due to illegal search and seizure!

[seabeyond]

155. ok. and a lot of courts across the nation does not have naked scanner. there are a few

the point of the poster is, since flying is not a right it is ok that they do strip searches (naked scanners) and groping. having to go to a court takes away an option of doing or not. the courts in florida that have the naked scanner, then are making people that have to go, do something that is against the right.

and more and more courts are talking about getting them

[reggie the dog]

156. ah, i see

they oblige people to be seen on the naked scans.

[Modern_Matthew]

154. There's no room for opinion on this. It's wrong to be touched without consent and...

everyone has a right to travel freely throughout the country without submitting to such draconian bullshit. End of debate.

[Innomen]

159. Agreed, however.

The real debate is one that relates to many other areas of public life. I have freedom of speech but not the right to be on tv, I have freedom to travel but not the right to a plane ticket.

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