Jesse Ventura sues the TSA for violating the Constitution

Not sure how the Constitution would play into this, you aren't required to fly, a certain level of security should be expected considering the current tract record of terrorists. The only question would be, do you want the government to spend many billions on non-evasive techniques, or a few billions on ones without it.

 

I think you mean "non-invasive" techniques, although the thought of non-evasive techniques is amusing. Other than that, I agree with your comments.

Tom

 

Your point isn't clear. From this post, I am uncertain which, if any, side you take in this issue?

Tom

 

I for one hope Jesse is sucessful in his suit. My wife has an internal defibrillator and is unable to walk through a body scanner because the electro-magnetic suppression of the defibrillator could confuse the internal device into thinking her heart isn’t beating, give her an unnecessary ‘jolt’. She also wears skirts due to religious observance. If she now travels on an airplane she'll have the pleasure of having a TSA high school grad feel her leg up to her unmentionables. Nice country we are living in.
Now here is my question, if the TSA finds an object on someone during these scans how are they going to prevent the terrorist (s) from blowing themselves up in the airport??

 

Well to start, you need to get off the "Left Wing" and get yer butt back in the aircraft!
The reason some of are not jumping on your band wagon, is that some of us are tired of wagons that go no where! If you do not like what the TSA, USA, and whatever alphabit soup agency proposes to make the act of flying safer, don't fly. While a majority of the religious zealots that would love to bring a plane full of infidels down are located outside of our borders, I would rather be safe, than a statistic. As the dust of the Russian airport bombing settles, it has become clear thar Airports, Aircraft, and other transport related industries are now "Fair Game", and just wait until further restrictions are imposed to keep yer butt safe. If Jessie feels the need to poke the TSA, fine, the rest us, well at least me, are not jumping on that bandwagon......

 

Where the Constitution plays into it: The fourth amendment, unreasonable search and seizure.

I believe we should have a high level of diligence against The Bad Guys. This does NOT include molesting a three-year-old, soaking people in urine, or feeling up whoever the hell they want for cheap thrills.

This is NOT a "liberal" vs. "conservative" issue - this is a civil rights issue.

 

As I alluded to, since the attack was at the arrival area, there are now people planning on further assults on "Your Rights" to prevent this sort of attack, I will give up what ever I think is necessary in order to prevent any sort of attack. As I said, if you do not like it, do not fly, it's a simple choice.
If you feel that anyone who thinks your barking up the wrong tree is attacking you.....get over it.

 

I don't think Jesse will ever win because the government holds the trump card --- National Security.
TSA is treating every passenger as a "possible" terrorist, so full body search is justified - suicide bombers
strap explosives on their body just like what happened in Russia yesterday.

 

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

"Those who stand by and think the world revolves around them are in for a serious wake up call...."

and here's another good one..

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares, will plow for those who do not...."
sorry I can not remember which Prius chatter uses this one.. I will update to give credit where credit is due!

and burritos says..

“Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest”

 

Okay, now I understand your view. In your house example as well as with flying, the issue revolves around personal liberty and public safety. Our constitution protects personal liberty, but only to the extent that it doesn't interfere with public safety. For example, if you turn your house into a meth lab, the government will invade your house, and probably take it from you. Likewise if you build bomb or stockpile explosives. Even yelling "Fire!" in a theater will get you in serious trouble. You are entitled to free speech, but not when it endangers the public.

There is no argument that the government restricts individual freedom to protect public safety. The only debate relates to when it is appropriate, how it is applied, and to what degree. There is a delicate balance between the public risk, and the damage done by restricting individual freedom.

In the case of airline travel, the government would argue that the damage to personal freedom is slight, while the risk to the public is significant. There is also the argument that airline travel is not mandatory. Those objecting to current security measures can choose to fly privately, or take some other form of transportation.

This is similar to driving on public roads. When we drive on a public road, we consent to give up some of our personal freedom for the public good: We cannot drive under the influence, speed, drive on the wrong side of the road, discharge firearms while driving, and any number of other concessions.

We can debate whether the TSA goes too far, but there is no debate that the constitution and common law allows this sort of thing.

Tom

 

Absolutely, which is how it should be.

Which does NOT give the government the right to have a full SWAT team kick down doors of random houses at 3:00 in the morning for no particular reason other than "spot check. Better safe than sorry, eh?"

 

You really need to stop being so full of yourself.... in your dream world you seem to believe that dissenting opinion should be treated as "less intelligent and down right disrespectful and attacking." How Democrat of you.......well, you need to snap out of it!
Last I looked, that's why it's a 2 party system, both sides are heard. If you don't like what you hear, get over it!
This is a PUBLIC forum, when it becomes "thjbr's forum", you can censor whatever you do not like, until then......