I am neither rich nor famous. (Warning: Bypass if you are sick of TSA threads)

[Pacifist Patriot]

So if I find myself in a position to take a stand for civil liberties the next time I fly, it probably won't create a stir. Likely, my actions will be completely unworthy of note. However, I am doing the one thing I can do to protest the present policies of the TSA.

I have a plan. Hopefully one I won't have to use.

I am one of those who cannot and does not accept the admonishment to simply not fly. I serve on a non-profit board that meets in Washington, DC and New York City three times a year. Taking the train or the bus would take time away from my family and employment I can ill afford. Our next meeting is Sunday, December 5 and I am ticketed to fly via commercial airline.

If I am ordered to submit to a body scan I will "opt out" by solemnly informing them I object on three grounds.

1) Legal: The scanner violates my fourth amendment right by subjecting me to an unreasonable search of my person without probable cause.
2) Religious: My denomination affirms the inherent worth and dignity of every human being and these scanners violate such dignity, in my opinion.
3) Personal: I have no confidence the scanners do not pose a health risk.

If I am then instructed to submit to a pat down I will quietly inform them that only my husband and medical personnel who first obtain my permission for a legitimate medical reason are allowed to touch my breasts and any area of my body covered by my panties. The TSA agent may therefore proceed if she acknowledges I have not granted permission for her to touch these areas of my body.

If I must do so, I will request to speak to a supervisor and explain that reasons 1) and 2) above apply equally to the pat down as they do to the scanner.

I have not decided if I will disclose I am a victim of rape and could very well have a panic attack if someone touches me inappropriately. I do not know why I am perfectly comfortable telling anyone with a computer who finds DemocraticUnderground.com, but have a hard time seeing myself admitting this to a single individual face to face.

I do not know what will happen at this point, but I have memorized the phone number of the police and sheriff's departments with jurisdiction over the airports where I will be going through security. I have memorized the phone number of my lawyer (former ACLU attorney).

I will be courteous, soft-spoken and sincere. I do not anticipate trouble. I do not plan to cause trouble. I am prepared, however, to protect my fourth amendment rights and if that means missing my first meeting, I will do so.

In the meantime, I will continue to badger my congresscritters about tax breaks for the rich, illegal wiretapping/email snooping, troop withdrawals, foreclosure fraud, etc. I'm hardly obsessing or unable to see a much bigger picture, I am simply prepared.

Here's hoping you don't see me on the news!

Edited to correct typos, though I may still have missed a few.

[Little Star]

1. I hope you never have to use this plan. You are a brave soul. Kudos!

[Alameda]

2. Sigh, good luck and I hope you will not be harassed.

At least I'm glad people are standing up about this. It has taken too long IMHO>

[Alameda]

3. Sigh, good luck and I hope you will not be harassed.

At least I'm glad people are standing up about this. It has taken too long IMHO>

[Alameda]

4. Sigh, good luck and I hope you will not be harassed.

At least I'm glad people are standing up about this. It has taken too long IMHO>

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Realize Mr. Pistole started to prepare the dial down

In politico today

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x529602

[Pacifist Patriot]

7. Awesome! I'm all in favor of the powers that be seeing reason before I fly again.

I'm seriously hoping I don't have to open my mouth to say "boo" as I pass through security because it's a non-issue.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. I can see keeping one of these things to be used with

Probable cause...but not general.

And good luck

[LisaL]

23. He didn't say "dial down."

He said "evolve." Please understand "evolve" could be in either direction.
Maybe we haven't seen nothing yet.
I am curious who decides what is allowed and what is not?
For instance TSA agents are apparently allowed to put their hands under the waste bands of pants. Who decides how far down can these hands go?
Etc, etc, etc.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Read tea leaves

This is government speak for we are shocked at the reaction and have to find a way to save face...

Perhaps I hung around PIO's for a while, wait I did that as well.

Right now they're looking for a way to dial down without appearing to surrender. I'd love to be a fly in those meetings...

They know this will get far worst.

[LisaL]

29. One can only hope, but

so far all of the measures TSA has done have been escalating. It started with shoes being taken off, and now we are facing naked scanner and enhanced pat downs which include groin checks.
You understand why I am reluctant to believe they plan to dial anything down?

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. You forgot the chemical sniffers

They've been mostly been gone, no fuss no muss.

[LisaL]

31. I don't think anyone was objecting to those?

If they are gone I believe because they were too hard/expensive to maintain?

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. They are gone because they were all but effective

In this case what I almost expect is...we will keep one, and the putdowns for cases where we have probable cause...which incidentally, iff used this way, meets legal muster. That is if you happen to trip some serious security. The way they are doing this, it does not.

Of course people need to understand no security is 100% effective, and in my IMO the machines don't work and violate a few civil rights. But you knew that...

But i expect this as a save face...and then perhaps silently remove them.

[notesdev]

6. Bring a witness

and don't consent to be moved away from a public area

[taught_me_patience]

8. You could be making a very expensive mistake

How is your family going to feel when they hear the news you didn't make the visit because of a meaningless protest?

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Meaningless?

Obbey citizen...lord oh lord!

[taught_me_patience]

12. It will accomplish nothing. Therefore it is meaningless. n/t

[Pacifist Patriot]

14. Accomplish nothing? Perhaps.

But I'll have my dignity and know I've stood up for my principles and the law.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Yeah, it will do nothing

And that is why we never ever should fight back....

You are indeed a good subject...

[CreekDog]

21. Rosa Parks was meaningless?

Lots of others tried to sit in the front, without success.

But you're right. She shouldn't have done it, it was meaningless because it took years before it amounted to anything.

I wish you'd been there to warn her of her folly.

[Radical Activist]

36. Rosa Parks and a plan, srategy, and organization behind her.

She wasn't a random woman who didn't sit in back.

[CreekDog]

40. so that's what made her meaningful? backing? some random person shouldn't have done what she did?

because that would've been meaningless?

oh please go on, you're entertaining everybody here! :applause:

[Radical Activist]

41. Many random people did do what she did many times before.

You don't know their names, do you? No one does because having a plan, strategy, and organization is the difference between making a difference and making a gesture that does little more than bring personal satisfaction to the person doing it. There's nothing wrong with the OP doing what she plans if it feels right to her, but a personal gesture doesn't make her Rosa Parks.
That's your lesson in activism for the day.

[CreekDog]

45. actually i'm concerned about one of the machines they use that I can't opt out of

so it's not very pointless to me.

i'm happy to be an effective activist, but i may be traveling in the next couple weeks and about all I can do at this point is come up with a game plane to deal with CastScope at the airport the days that I fly.

i got nothing else.

but to sit and take it? an activist is telling me that?

wow.

[Pacifist Patriot]

46. I'm surprised you think you could get away with this.

For the record, I am no Rosa Parks. For one thing, there is no guarantee I will even need to say a word as I may very well not be targeted for additional screening. Let's not count the eggs in the basket, shall we?

However, Rosa Parks did not have a plan when she got on that bus, nor did she have an organization backing her. Revisionist history on that one and it shouldn't go without note. She was tired and didn't want to move. At the point she made that decision she could not have been aware what was going to happen next in her name. I'm a little tired of those who reposition her as some sort of activist saint. She was a tired human being who became a symbol and motivation for a boycott. I have no pretensions that I would even come close to what she became, nor do I want to be.

[laughingliberal]

49. I know. She always said she had no thoughts of starting a movement. Her feet were tired.

Amazing the kind of horse hockey we see, sometimes.

It was not pre-arranged. It just happened that the driver made a demand and I just didn't feel like obeying his demand. I was quite tired after spending a full day working.
Rosa Parks

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/rosaparks404138.html

[Radical Activist]

59. I'm not surprised you believe the naive fairy tail version of what happened.

You have much to learn.

For example, Rosa Parks attended activist trainings at the famous Highlander Folk School earlier in the year before the bus boycott. It was a focal point of radical action that trained many activists in the labor and civil rights movement.

http://www.highlandercenter.org/photo-gallery-rosa-parks.asp

[Radical Activist]

53. You've bought the mythology.

She was presented a certain way because it made a better story. She was a trained a activist and it was planned well in advance. It's important that we know how things really happen.

I realize you didn't claim to be Rosa Parks. I was making the distinction for another poster.

[Pacifist Patriot]

57. The Mythology?

:rofl:

http://www.africanaonline.com/2010/08/rosa-parks-overview/
On December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, Rosa Parks was arrested for disregarding an order to surrender her bus seat to a white passenger. Her protest galvanized a growing movement to desegregate public transportation and marked a historic turning point in the African American battle for civil rights. Rosa Parks was much more than an accidental symbol, however. It is sometimes overlooked that at the time of her arrest, she was no ordinary bus rider; she was an experienced activist with strong beliefs.

I have to ask...

So what?

[Radical Activist]

60. Rosa Parks attending workshops at the Highlander Folk School,

which trained many civil rights and union activists, earlier in the year before the bus boycott.

http://www.highlandercenter.org/photo-gallery-rosa-parks.asp

This is the grown-up version of history for those who can handle the facts about what really happened. There was a lot of organization and planning behind the one woman who refused to sit down.

[Pacifist Patriot]

63. You really don't get it do you?

It doesn't matter if she was already trained. She had a plan for the day she was too bloody tired to get up and move if some idiot told her she had to because of an illegal and immoral regulation.

It's not mythology. She was no icon, she was a normal person prepared for what might happen. Prepared, that's it.

[Radical Activist]

65. You're not getting the point.

It's important we understand that what she did was more than an individual act of courage.

http://www.highlandercenter.org/n-rosa-parks.asp

Our society teaches history through stories of remarkable individuals, and while Rosa Parks was indeed remarkable, her story is also about collective action, willed risk, intentional plans and mass movement. Sanitized versions of this story refer to Mrs. Parks as simply being tired on December 1, 1955 when she refused to give up her seat to a white man. She was not simply tired that day but tired of racism and segregation, tired of constantly being treated as a second-class citizen.

At the time of her arrest, Rosa Parks was a respected community leader already working to counter humiliating racist laws and traditions. She became secretary of the Montgomery NAACP chapter as early as 1943 and tried to register to vote three times before doing so for the first time in 1945. As a member of the NAACP, she worked on voter registration and youth programs, and in fact on that particular December 1st, she needed to get home to prepare for a youth workshop she was conducting that weekend.

[Hissyspit]

107. Because they learned from the "meaningless" acts of those people before them. nt

[laughingliberal]

61. I'm gonna take her word for it

My only concern was to get home after a hard day's work.
Rosa Parks

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/rosaparks135630.html

[Radical Activist]

64. She was secretary of the local NAACP,

she attended numerous trainings on desegregation, and you still believe she never thought of being an activist? She was an effective activist who knew how to make a good story for the papers. She was specifically chosen for her role, partly because she was a non-threatening woman and was well prepared.

http://www.highlandercenter.org/n-rosa-parks.asp

Our society teaches history through stories of remarkable individuals, and while Rosa Parks was indeed remarkable, her story is also about collective action, willed risk, intentional plans and mass movement. Sanitized versions of this story refer to Mrs. Parks as simply being tired on December 1, 1955 when she refused to give up her seat to a white man. She was not simply tired that day but tired of racism and segregation, tired of constantly being treated as a second-class citizen.

At the time of her arrest, Rosa Parks was a respected community leader already working to counter humiliating racist laws and traditions. She became secretary of the Montgomery NAACP chapter as early as 1943 and tried to register to vote three times before doing so for the first time in 1945. As a member of the NAACP, she worked on voter registration and youth programs, and in fact on that particular December 1st, she needed to get home to prepare for a youth workshop she was conducting that weekend.

[laughingliberal]

67. Her own words carry more credibility with me than yours or some

website you've linked to.

Your attempts to discourage people from standing up for themselves fall on deaf ears with me. It's the same tactic we've seen for years where the powerful want to create a 'sense of inevitability' lest the unwashed masses get any ideas.

[Pacifist Patriot]

68. I've heard the claims on both sides and as I wasn't present at the time...

I honestly don't care.

I know what I plan to do. I know whom I have notified I plan to do it. Organized? Individual? Who knows, who cares? Perhaps it will come to nothing. I will have acted according to my conscience.

[laughingliberal]

72. +1000 nt

[Radical Activist]

76. It's up to you

if you can't handle the grown-up version of history. I didn't link "some website." I linked the Highlander Center, the focal point of Southern civil rights and union activists in the South, and they're very proud to show pictures of her training there before the boycotts. So you don't have to take anyone's word for it. That's undeniable proof.

I'm calling for more effective activism, not a lack of it. The fact that you can't recognize real activism when it's pointed out to you suggests that you're a complete stranger to it.

Although you've done your fair share of creating a "sense of inevitability" about Obama disappointing us. It's a shame you can't see that tactic for what it is.

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. You forgot a few other details

Suffice it to say this is hardly equivalent and the resistance is not over the course of forty five years. Heck Brown vs Board was also the ideal case.

Here I beleve it is resistance now or it will take decades, if not a century...hardly the same situation going back to the special institution and farther back to the Virginia and Maryland plantation... This is also the grown up version of history, understanding the differences. Though the OP better make sure there is video or it will never happen.

[ima_sinnic]

123. it really is unbelievable that

a Democratic "activist" would seriously dissuade people from protesting an unconstitutional, draconian, intimidating, harrassing government policy.
Nothing like "activists" I've known. Must be some new 2nd millennium version of "activist": who can most "actively" do nothing?
It's called passive activism. Sit passively by and actively "trust the government," I guess.

[Hissyspit]

106. Rosa Parks knew of those people.

The plan, strategy and organization grew out of what those random people did.

[laughingliberal]

47. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

*sigh*

[CreekDog]

48. counseled by the activist that doing something is meaningless

um.

[Radical Activist]

51. No. That organization is necessary.

[CreekDog]

56. ok

[laughingliberal]

62. Yeah. Looks like we're whipped.

Might as well give up fights for all that justice and rights and stuff unless we can convince some powerful organization to stand with us.

:sarcasm:

[Radical Activist]

66. It's time to give up on the "me generation" libertarian form of activism

which relies on individual acts done alone, and realize that change comes through organized action done in coordination with others. It's an important lesson for people to learn if they want to start doing something effective.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[laughingliberal]

91. Yeah, might as well give up.

There are already big groups of people taking action against this new violation of our rights. Every individual is another voice.

[readmoreoften]

105. Yes I absolutely agree. Too bad your form of "activism" is organizing inside the Democratic Party

to support the Democratic Party at all costs. It's like applying Stalinist thinking to a backward center-right party and calling it "activism" and "radicalism" when you apologize for torture and imperialism and union-busting.

You're right. Solidarity in struggle is the key. But organizing movements and structures beyond the Democratic Party is what is needed.

[Radical Activist]

109. Just because I don't

"hate Barack Obama and his supporters" doesn't mean I do all my activism within the Democratic Party. Nearly all my offline work is in issue groups. In fact, if you knew about the work I do you'd probably be embarrassed by the various hateful assumptions and accusations you've posted at me (assuming you can feel embarrassment).
My "apologizing for torture and imperialism" must be something you dreamed about.

[reggie the dog]

126. then lead

you seem to be better organized than most, why not tell the woman how to become part of a bigger movement?

[laughingliberal]

52. Up is down. nt

[ima_sinnic]

104. Rosa Parks did NOT have a plan, strategy, OR organization behind her

but thanks for trying to find an excuse why We The People shouldn't protest the latest outrage by TPTB. The reminder that we are all nobodies with no chance of making a difference because we don't have "a plan, strategy, or organization" "behind us" is soooo helpful and worthwhile, especially since it is based on "facts."

[Radical Activist]

110. When you're ready

for the grown-up version of history you can start here. I didn't discourage the OP from doing what she wants. But we do have to be honest about the limited impact of purely individual acts done in isolation.

http://www.highlandercenter.org/n-rosa-parks.asp

[de novo]

112. You come off as really condescending.

Your tone doesn't help your points, it actually hurts them,

[Radical Activist]

113. So does all the

anti-Obama hate, spin and exaggeration. It doesn't help build support for any progressive issue. It actually hurts.

[de novo]

114. The OP doesn't mention Obama.

:shrug:

[Radical Activist]

115. So?

The comment wasn't about the OP.

[de novo]

117. I commented on your condescending tone,

you brought up a non-sequitur that had nothing to do with my comment or your original condescension. I was just offering a suggestion, that if you took a less confrontational approach, you may get a more positive reaction.

[Radical Activist]

119. I'm aware, and

I reciprocated with a helpful suggestion for you. You're welcome. :)

[ima_sinnic]

124. what EXACTLY is your point?

why would a "radical activist" be discouraging people from being activist?

for you, I guess "activism" means waiting for somebody to tell you what to do, which basically means doing absolutely nothing but going through the scanners like good little sheep, because Rosa Parks (according to you, the "activist") "had an organization behind her"--therefore, everybody give up and go home unless you're willing to go to meetings of your local peace and justice society nonviolent resistance training for about 10 years, inspire others to join you in protests, and get some heavy hitters behind you.

Without that, just give up.

[sabrina 1]

32. You are not familiar with the success already of some who did

take a stand such as the OP is talking about? After one airline pilot refused to be groped or photographed, and exposed to dangerous cancer rays, taking a leave of absence without pay, his actions was followed by others and the backing of the Airline pilots' union. TSA after first insisting that a pilot who refuses cannot fly, backed down and caved in.

I guess you would have called that first pilot's actions 'meaningless', but millions of Americans would disagree. That was the first stand taken and the people won.

The second back-down came after complaints about the groping of children. TSA backed down again, although not enough, there's more to be done. They have now backed off fondling children and removing their clothes, if they are under 12. Would you have called the fist complaints demanding that children be protected from these abuses, 'meaningless' also?

I think the OP's actions WILL accomplish something, especially since she is not alone, and a movement is now growing to end these abuses. There is strength in numbers, and she will have plenty of company. The Government has crossed far too many lines when it comes to our rights, this appears to be the line in the sand the people will not allow them to cross. Why so little faith in what people can accomplish when their cause is just and they are determined to fight? History contradicts your assertions.

[laughingliberal]

88. +1000. nt

[Pacifist Patriot]

13. I've never really considered advocating for constitutional rights to be meaningless.

But to each their own I suppose.

However, your response indicates you skimmed my post rather than read it. Can you share me where I'm going to be visiting family? Is this the level of attention you give everything you read before you respond?

[LiberalArkie]

18. Meaningless, like the dead civil rights protesters, like the Viet Nam protesters?

[laughingliberal]

54. A different breed we were in those days.

No doubt left in my mind about that, now.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[sabrina 1]

28. What could be more expensive than the loss of rights?

Was that comment meant to be serious?

[laughingliberal]

55. None so blind as those...

What have we become?

[Caretha]

38. You obviously did not read her post

She has a meeting to attend in DC, she is not going to see her family. :eyes:

[taught_me_patience]

95. Maybe the OP would try it in DC and not make it home to the family

same fucking concept.:eyes:

[Matariki]

81. You should take a course in civics and history.

:eyes:

[hlthe2b]

9. I applaud your courage to take a principled stand.... despite

risk to your own well-being. That you suffered so much in the past, but are bravely moving forward to try to effect positive change adds to my admiration of you. I wish you only the best.

[onecent]

15. I sincerely wish you the best! I am flying Wednesday

to Atlanta to visit my family. I am scared to death. I'm a widowed senior and I will opt out of the scanner because I don't believe it is healthy.
I will allow a pat down, as I don't think "either" of us will get a thrill..but I get tired of feeling like the gestapo is present.

I flew to DC last year when a nice looking young man had an agent ask him "Is this your bag"? He said, "Yes". The agent took out his
deoderant and his toothpaste and said to him rather mean 'Well, I guess you won't smell good when you get there". He was infuriated and asked
to see the name on his badge, and told the agent he was going to write a letter. I have no doubt that he did just that.

Good luck to you, I think we all need it in the future, for I believe this is only the beginning.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. I believe you are correct

[LisaL]

19. More power to you.

Take you cell phone with you and record it just in case.

[bigwillq]

20. I think it's cool

that you put a warning telling DUers what the topic of your thread is about.
:thumbsup:

[Pacifist Patriot]

24. Not entirely altruistic.

Now I have ammunition if someone whines about yet another TSA post. ;-)

[sabrina 1]

34. There cannot be enough discussion about the violations this

government has imposed on the constitutional rights of American citizens, and the citizens of other countries. So I would not worry about. Most people are angry and outraged over this and the only way to stop it is not to let go of the issue, until they learn what the people can do when they are united.

[Odin2005]

22. Good luck!

:hug:

[sabrina 1]

26. Thank you for taking a stand and good luck. You are doing what

the ACLU has recommended to people who do not wish to be touched or scanned, bringing the number of a lawyer, and contacting the police to file a complaint.

I am so proud of how people are fighting back against this violation of their rights.

:kick: and rec'd

[Laelth]

33. Good luck, seriously.

That's exactly what needs to be done to start a good legal challenge to the Constitutionality of this administration policy. Thank you.

-Laelth

[Pacifist Patriot]

37. That's really all I want to see.

I'm perfectly happy for someone else to lead the charge, but we most definitely need to see a constitutional challenge.

[Left coast liberal]

39. Good advise. I like your idea.

I have to fly in March. If I wasn't flying with my 6 year old son, I would take your idea verbatum and do this myself.

But with him with me, I don't want to make it worse.

I know, I am a cop out.

I just hate this whole thing.

Good luck! And tell us how it turns out.

Happy Thanksgiving everybody!

[coalition_unwilling]

94. You ARE NOT a cop out! You have conflicting duties, to your son

and to the Constitution. No one can fault you for choosing loyalty to your son's well-being over loyalty to the Constitution. If anyone does fault you, he or she needs a serious checkup for sanity.

[reggie the dog]

130. i have to fly with my 3 year old

if i want to bring her to the usa to see her american family.... that IF is getting more iffy each and every year and it has nothing to due with her american family members...... at least we wont get this shit coming to the usa, but on the way back there were be one us security check at ohare field in chicago..... damn it i want to visit my family, brother is too poor to visit me, sister is just getting on her feet and got no money this year.... grandparents feel too old for 12 hours in a plane.... i think i will still fly to the usa but i will not fly from chicago to florida to visit grandpa, i will drive my dads car.....at least that way my daughter will get to go camping in the mountains somewhere in east tennessee or east kentucky and get to go camping somewhere in the deep south in georgia on the way down.... (i know, its the south, only gonna bring 2 joints with so i could eat em if the coppers stop me because of my long hair)....

[TorchTheWitch]

143. you may also have this problem getting OFF the plane

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9614312

Yep, they're doing these invasive searches on people who have already flown and are only going through the airport to go to their next destination.

[reggie the dog]

144. i fly directly to chicago,

no stop in new york, i prefer to fly through spain, the uk or even better the netherlands
*

[TorchTheWitch]

153. the rules apply to the whole nation

What difference does it make that you'd be flying into Chicago rather than New York? Do you really think this is just some special rule that only New York airports have to follow?

[KoKo]

42. Be sure to report what you see if it compromises your privacy to the ACLU

They are asking for documentation to move forward with a lawsuit.

GOOGLE ACLU... I will give the link if I have time.

[KoKo]

44. REPORT TO ACLU you TSA EXPERIENCE...NAKED SCAN/BODY SEARCH, HERE:

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/airport-security

[Pacifist Patriot]

50. Not to fear, my attorney has already provided me with...

the materials and links I need. He's ready and waiting if need be, but obviously both of us are proceeding with the assumption that nothing will be needed.

[laughingliberal]

58. Godspeed and good wishes for you and your safety. nt

[Pacifist Patriot]

71. Thank you.

The funniest thing about this is seeing the Greatest Page recommendations rise and fall. I honestly didn't think anyone would consider this either worthy of rec or unrec. I'm going to do it whether anyone supports me or not. Cheers!

[laughingliberal]

74. ...

:toast:

[laughingliberal]

43. +1000 nt

[JamesA1102]

69. Or you are free to take the train

You don't have a constitutional right to fly on an airplane.

[Pacifist Patriot]

75. Yet another who fails to read in its entirety.

A train ride would:

a) take a full day on both the front and back end of my obligation thereby infringing upon my time with my family and at my job.
b) cost more than a plane trip (in your defense, I didn't mention that detail)

No, it most definitely is NOT a constitutional right to fly on an airplane. I never claimed it was and anyone who does so is an idiot. Not that I've seen that claim mind you. Nice try, didn't work.

Thank you for missing the point entirely. The constitutional issue is one of unreasonable search without probable cause. Back to school, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

[JamesA1102]

78. You're the one missing the point

Once you buy a ticket to ride on someone elses airplane you agree to their security procedures.

Plus A) There is no right in the constitution to take the fasted mode of transportation available.
B) There is no right in the constitution to take the cheapest mode of transportation.

[Pacifist Patriot]

82. No, not really.

Whether I choose air, rail or road, the government does not have the right to an unreasonable search of my person without probable cause.

I cannot disagree with you. There is no constitutional right to either the fastest or cheapest mode of transportation. Unfortunately for your argument, I've never claimed that there is.

[laughingliberal]

84. +1000 nt

[JamesA1102]

86. Yes really

When you buy a ticket to ride on someone else's airplane, you agree to their security regulations. If you don't agree with their security, you have the option of taking an alternate form of transportation.
No one is coming into your house and forcing you to be scanned or searched.

[Pacifist Patriot]

93. I am ticketed on Delta.

They have not established the security regulations. That was a governmental policy decision on the part of the TSA who is in no way affiliated with Delta Airlines. Are you really so thick you cannot grasp the distinction?

[JamesA1102]

96. Delta Airlines has to adhere to regulations

which include safety inspections, maintaince, etc. Either way you are still free to take another mode of transportation. No one is forcing you to take an airplane.

[reggie the dog]

128. how is there no constitutional right to take a plane?

of course there is, we have a constitutional right to freely move about, bus, train, foot, someone can drive us, plane etc.

[Pacifist Patriot]

132. I would agree we have a constitutional right to move freely about...

I said there is nothing guaranteeing a right to the fastest or cheapest mode of transportation.

Now that I've said that, I'm sure someone will jump in and point out that we are prohibited from moving about freely on military bases, courthouses, etc. But I think you probably get my point.

[reggie the dog]

141. of course we have a right

anyone who can pay their way can go anywhere they want by plane, or train. i can ride my bicycle to get where i want, i can walk, i can take a plane, dont believe the tsa bullshit that we have no right to fly on a plane, of course we do. we have a right to by apples and oranges why wouldnt we have a right to buy bread?

[JamesA1102]

134. Yes you can move freely

but you have no constitutional right to ride in a vehicle owned by someone else.

[reggie the dog]

142. like riding your own bike or

using your own shoes of course you have a right to ride in someone elses vehicle as long as you pay the fee THEY demand. the govt and their cops have no right to search you when traveling in a free country so long as they dont see you breaking the law. if the govt can make us get groped to get on a plane what would stop them from being able to do this so we could walk down the street?

[JamesA1102]

145. So you're saying the government has no right of regulation of airlines

No right of safety inspections. No right to license pilots. No right to make you go through a metal detector or x-ray your carry on bag.

[reggie the dog]

147. no right to invasive searches

licensing pilots is like licensing drivers, you do it because when your drive anything you put other peoples lives in your hands so i concede that licensing is not an infringement on rights so long as licensing requirements are uniform for all people.

seeing as a hijacked plane in the air poses a great risk to people in and below the plane i can see having some kind of security measures, but in my opinion feeling ones private parts and giving us a risk of skin cancer and seeing what we look like naked is unreasonable.

i understand the idea that with rights come responsabilities, i argue that we have just as much right to fly as we do to walk so that any searches have to be reasonalbe in nature.

[JamesA1102]

148. X-raying your bag without probable cause

is not an invasive search? So your argument boils down to it's wrong because it might be embarassing.

[reggie the dog]

149. i would prefer that they would just do away with all of the searches

and i agree that it is invasive to search our bags without probable cause. i see a difference between the government mandating that our bags be searched and the owners of the plane demanding that our bags be searched, i can willfully concede rights to a private company in order to be allowed to board their private property and rival companies could do away with the searches. honestly i have taken the bus and train many times with no searches whatsoever and i have not been scared. back in the 60's my uncles would get on the plane with their hunting rifle as their carry on and no one freaked out.... or so they say.. i really have no reason to doubt them though

[JamesA1102]

150. So you don't think the government has any obligation to keep

the airways safe?

[reggie the dog]

151. i do

they are already by far the safest way to travel, and have been for many many years. infiltrating terrorist organizations is a way they can keep the airways safe, or learn from israel and ask questions (25 minutes from parking to terminal)

[JamesA1102]

152. Israel is a very small country

to try to do what they do is totally unrealistic here.

[reggie the dog]

155. what does size have to do with it?

cant we just do the same thing at our airports?

[JamesA1102]

158. Size has everything to do with it.

The sheer volume of fights alone is much much greater here.

[RetroLounge]

77. or you are free to read the OP

"Taking the train or the bus would take time away from my family and employment I can ill afford."

:eyes:

RL

[JamesA1102]

79. But that is not a constitutional right nt

[Pacifist Patriot]

83. And no one has said that it is. Your point now?

[JamesA1102]

87. Since you don't have a right to fly on an airplane

and can take an alternate form of transportation, the scan and or search at the airport is not unconstitutional. When you buy a ticket to ride on someone else's airplane you agree to their security procedures. If you don't like that, you have the option to take the train.

[Lars39]

89. This is *government* funded security, not private airlines' security.

[JamesA1102]

97. And they have the right to use private security

if they don't like that supplied by the government. But you still have the right to take another mode of transportation. You don't have a right to travel by airplane.

[TorchTheWitch]

154. private security has to follow the same rules as the TSA

Using private security wouldn't keep anyone from having to submit to the scanners or the genital grope.

[Pacifist Patriot]

92. You do understand that TSA is government and not a branch of...

Delta, United, American, etc. right?

[JamesA1102]

98. And you understand you don't have a right

to travel on Delta or United or American.

[LisaL]

99. You don't have a right to travel on the train or a bus either.

Just stay home, will you?

[JamesA1102]

100. Exactly.

That is your choice to make.

[Pacifist Patriot]

108. We don't have "the right" to cross the street either if you carry out your train of logic.

But most of us would assume we could do so without facing a pat down or a request for our papers on the other side.

We all know terrorists are familiar with car bombs. Should we set up roadblocks along our interstate highway system?

I understand your argument, I just don't think it's the heart of the matter. I'm not challenging my right to fly. I'm arguing I should be able to do so in a way that is both secure and respects my fourth amendment rights.

[JamesA1102]

131. If you do so in a vehicle owned by someone else, no.

And doesn't x-raying your carry on bag violating your 4th amendment rights? It is a search of your posssesions without probable cause.

[Pacifist Patriot]

133. It is troublesome and there is truth in what you say.

I'm not sure how to reconcile the inner tension, but I experience a distinct difference between allowing my bag to be x-rayed or my body to be x-rayed. Perhaps because I feel there is increased security value in carry-on bags being checked, but do not see how the body scanners/intimate pat-downs increase overall security relative to their intrusion.

I'm not sure how your vehicle owned by another person comment ties in with our conversation, but I'll trust it means something to you.

[RetroLounge]

136. His point is to agree with anything the gov't does

so as not to shed any harsh light on Obama.

His patterns of posting with the gaggle is obvious.

RL

[JamesA1102]

137. Patterns of Posting????

Am I to take it that you've been monitoring what I post? How 1984 of you.

You've just shown that when you scream civil rights you're being a total hypocrite.

[Binka]

138. Give It A Rest Dude

It is NO secret what you believe here on DU, you post the same shit everyday.

[JamesA1102]

139. Another person stalking me

Wow! You guys really have no shame.

[Binka]

140. Stalking You?

Your posts are out there for everyone to see. How old are you 8? You post and people respond to it. The fact that your posts are so obviously and glaringly offensive does not mean you have stalkers. It means your posts are offensive and people remember that. Grow up kid. And donate to DU if you want to bitch and be taken seriously.

[JamesA1102]

146. Offensive???

If they're so offensive, why haven't the moderators deleted them. And there are hundreds of posters on this site, I don't keep track of others. I find it creepy and disturbing that you do.

[RetroLounge]

157. Creepy?

:rofl:

RL

[RetroLounge]

156. Yeah, the outrage is either hilarious or pathetic.

RL

[Binka]

159. Hilariously Pathetic?

The poutrage is priceless.

[laughingliberal]

73. K & R and kudos. nm

[Matariki]

80. Good luck and good for you.

What I've decided to do, if I have to fly while these horrible rules are still in place is to clearly state - "I do not give my consent for you to touch my genitals or breasts."

Not that I expect that to be respected, but I want them to KNOW that they explicitly DO NOT have my consent.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

85. Bravo for you and non-violent protest for human dignity. K&R

[Ilsa]

101. Good luck and thank you for taking a principled stand. nt

[struggle4progress]

102. Talk to a lawyer in advance. Phrase all of your question hypothetically.

Personally, I (not a lawyer) might guess your chances at success with an action like this would be rather improved by a prior effort to resolve the issues administratively: I suspect that you will discover quickly: (a) the Courts do not think you have a right to fly and (b) the Courts will probably be rather deferential to the Executive (and Congress) on security issues

[bluetrain]

103. I support you 100%

[Gormy Cuss]

111. You will be refused access to the boarding area

but I support you. I'm actually HOPING to see you on the news. ;)

[HipChick]

135. or escorted out of the airport

that's what happened to me..

[Poboy]

116. k&r

[TfG]

118. Someone once compared fighting for democracy

and what is right to a street fight for the soul of this country. Our country was founded on freedom and liberty and justice for all. Violating our civil liberties is part of this fight. If we succumb to this violation, we are letting those rights be trampled on, then what is next?

You are indeed brave to take a stand and I applaud you standing up for our civil liberties, especially given your past trauma. And no, it is NOT meaningless. It makes me wonder if as a people we've been asleep, allowing past violations to be tolerated.

Illegal wiretapping started by Bush wasn't right. What should people have done about that? Not use their phone if they don't like it?

That wasn't right then and this is not right now. Good luck. Hope all goes well for you.

[LisaL]

120. Using a phone is a choice, don't you know?

If you don't like somebody listening onto your phone conversations, just don't use a phone.
:sarcasm:

[TfG]

121. LOL

I forgot. :) Next time I'll just use snail mail. Oh wait, they'll probably scan that too.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

122. I have no reason for international air travel till next summer at the earliest, but

I do have a convention in Seattle to attend in May. I am seriously looking at Amtrak and driving.

If I choose one of those options, I plan to write to both Delta and United (the two airlines whose frequent flier programs I am enrolled in) and tell them that I am choosing not to fly.

Perhaps if enough of us did this, it would sink in.

The airlines have a lot of clout in Congress. After all, after 9/11, they received a one-time bailout equivalent to ALL of Amtrak's allocations from the past 30 years. That's some clout.

[reggie the dog]

125. don't be ashamed of having been raped

it's the asshole who raped you that should be ashamed, you have done no wrong. as for your idea at the airport i am with you all the way.

[Pacifist Patriot]

127. Oh I'm not ashamed. Just can't picture myself blurting it out to a stranger.

Though obviously I have no problem sharing it with anyone who has a computer. :-)

[TexasObserver]

129. recommended