TSA's Grip on Internal Travel is Tightening

[Jackie S]

I made a trip accross the Lynchburg Ferry a while back, and the Coast Guard and Harris County Sheriff had a Homeland Security Inspection set up. They also just happen to have Drug Sniffing dogs on hand.

If you tried to turn around to avoid the encounter, they also had a Harris County Patrol car there to chase you down.

They were running everybody for warrants, insurance, inspection stickers, drivers liscence, and of course ole "rover' got to stick his nose in the car.

It was all legal because you were about to get onto the Ferry, or at least I guess that was their basis for doing this.

And before anybody asks, no, I did not get arrested.

[Randy4Candy]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Got nothin', do you, Timmy?

Even if timpage had "nothing," he'd still be several paces out in front of you, cute-old-SHIT-FOR-BRAINS.

[Randy4Candy]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

And before anybody asks, no, I did not get arrested.

So, this means your point is what? I thought you Teawipe wangnertz got all wet between the legs when gome good ol' boy ossifer of the lawr was doing his Dirty Harry Thanng?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

I made a trip accross the Lynchburg Ferry a while back, and the Coast Guard and Harris County Sheriff had a Homeland Security Inspection set up. They also just happen to have Drug Sniffing dogs on hand.

If you tried to turn around to avoid the encounter, they also had a Harris County Patrol car there to chase you down.

They were running everybody for warrants, insurance, inspection stickers, drivers liscence, and of course ole "rover' got to stick his nose in the car.

It was all legal because you were about to get onto the Ferry, or at least I guess that was their basis for doing this.

And before anybody asks, no, I did not get arrested.

Been done for decades during bird hunting season in South Texas by Game & Fish with the help of Feds and Locals. DHS now gets the umbrella coverage for the Feds.

Also, that presence could indicate "something was up" and "profiling" is prohibited or problematic at best.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

I disagree. Any attempt by any law enforcement agency to expand their power or to keep tabs on We the People is an infringement on our rights against unreasonable search and seizure. I don't want to be watched - by anyone - for any reason. Organized by law enforcement is unacceptable. Those powers don't need to be expanded.

I hear you LL, I'm not overly in love with the constant surveillance by businesses and governmental bodies everywhere.

It's your position that the security screening requirements at airports are an unreasonable search and seizure? 3,000 dead Americans on 9/11 would disagree. And so would the SCOTUS.

My point is that COG, as usual, overstates the case in furtherance of his opinions and irrational fear of the government. I'm not in favor of government snooping either. But, there's a middle ground here. We live in a dangerous world with crazy hyper-motivated religious whackos out there who want to do us harm. Reasonable security measures have to be undertaken. I don't see what is currently being done as being an unreasonable trade-off between our privacy and our security. And, I certainly don't see what is being done as the creation of a police state. That is ridiculous. Police states exist to keep a regime or political entity in place. As much as COG and the rest of the whackos would like to think that all of this is an Obama scheme to perpetuate his presidency beyond what the Constitution allows, it just isn't (that's the underlying theme here, right COG?). At worst, it's an attempt by our legislators to try to keep us safe.

Frankly, the drug laws have done more to undermine our 4th Amendment rights than the Patriot Act, the NDAA and the TSA. Far more.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by timpage

It's your position that the security screening requirements at airports are an unreasonable search and seizure? 3,000 dead Americans on 9/11 would disagree. And so would the SCOTUS.

....

Speaking for dead people now? As far as I know each one of those 9/11 hijackers were screened. Even in 2001 I had to throw my bags in a scanner at most major airports.

[i'va biggen]

think some of these guys were the same ones praising sheriff Joe..

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

When I get on an airplane, I don't give a FUCK about YOUR freedom. Just about MY safety. I hate going through airport security, especially when the lines are long and the TSA douchebags can't seem to do their job, but I hate being blowed up a lot worse, I tell you what. I like the new full body scanners. Quick and easy.

Illegal search by cops, corporate security, etc., is another, unrelated story IMHO.

For a change, the SKY IS FALLING on COG!

Well, I give a fuck about your liberty even if you don't. I also give a fuck about your safety even if you don't give a fuck about mine. So, now that we know where we stand on that may we continue?

Getting on an airplane is different than driving from your house to work, the store, to your girlfriend's, to pick up your kids, etc. The government has no right to assume that the millions and millions of cars on the road at any given moment has potential "terrorist" in them. You sound like Lindsay Graham, "Shut up, you don't get a lawyer." There are more than a few precedents for air travel to be hijacked not on the Lynchberg ferry as Jackie said.

The sky isn't falling, but your liberties, just like the rest of ours, are in danger.

Originally Posted by timpage

It's your position that the security screening requirements at airports are an unreasonable search and seizure? 3,000 dead Americans on 9/11 would disagree. And so would the SCOTUS.

See above, and let's hope the SCOTUS won't / doesn't.

Originally Posted by timpage

My point is that COG, as usual, overstates the case in furtherance of his opinions and irrational fear of the government. I'm not in favor of government snooping either. But, there's a middle ground here.

There is no middle ground. Either you believe in Liberty or your don't. There is no way, in fucking hell, the POTUS or anyone in the Enforcement Branch should have unfetted accesses to the We the People of the United States of America for any reason. Period. The end. Let alone the because of the excuse of the enegmic "terrorist" boogie men. That's a catch all world that means whatever-the-fuck-I-want-it-to-mean.

I like you. You are one of the middle ground liberals that make sense, but I cannot compromise on Liberty. I'd rather 10 criminals go free than ONE innocent person be confined. You do realize they can snatch YOU off the street for no reason other than YOU are suspected of being a subversive and hold you INDEFINITELY or until the "War on Terrorism" is over. That's what Hitler did. That's what Stalin did. That's what North Korea is doing. WE defend Liberty not strip it. What "they" have done is convince sentient people like you that YOU are not in danger. That "they" are protecting YOU. "They" aren't. "They", as we will all find out as this unfolds, are bureaucrats that have petty fiefdoms and "they" will run that mule into the ground right along with the rest of us to make their fiefdoms bigger and stronger. Oh, and safer.

Originally Posted by timpage

We live in a dangerous world with crazy hyper-motivated religious whackos out there who want to do us harm. Reasonable security measures have to be undertaken. I don't see what is currently being done as being an unreasonable trade-off between our privacy and our security.

24-Hour news do-loops have taught you that we are in "danger". We aren't. Three lucky planes got through. That's it! It's not worth stripping our Republic and Liberty over. It scares me that people like you can be convinced that we are an any danger from a few men in flowing robes far, far across the globe. We are NOT in danger from spooks. We are in danger from our own government. The Founding Fathers saw this danger, it's the reason we have the 2nd Amendment.

Originally Posted by timpage

And, I certainly don't see what is being done as the creation of a police state. That is ridiculous. Police states exist to keep a regime or political entity in place.

It starts somewhere. Hitler was duly elected. And look what that got the German people. (I won't blame the whole of WWII on him; that was more of a epic battle in the death of Imperialism IMHO.)

Originally Posted by timpage

As much as COG and the rest of the whackos would like to think that all of this is an Obama scheme to perpetuate his presidency beyond what the Constitution allows, it just isn't (that's the underlying theme here, right COG?). At worst, it's an attempt by our legislators to try to keep us safe.

No, it didn't start with Obama. It started with Lincoln and presidential power has been incrementally increased until the 'police actions" in Asia and exponentially by the current presidents and the "War on Terrorism". The "police actions" laid the ground work for the illegal war in Iraq. The Patriot Act was the precursor to the egregious NCAA 2012 AND 2013. It's our Nact und Nebel Decree.

Originally Posted by timpage

Frankly, the drug laws have done more to undermine our 4th Amendment rights than the Patriot Act, the NDAA and the TSA. Far more.

I would agree that the possession laws, and I would go on to say the current fervor to "enforce" immigration laws, are both egregious.

[CJ7]

the biggest freedom of all remains untouched ...

everyone has a choice how they travel

anyone who doesnt like trains, planes, buses or piss stops dont freaking use them ... nobody is holding a gun to your head.

The End

[Chica Chaser]

Originally Posted by timpage

It's your position that the security screening requirements at airports are an unreasonable search and seizure? 3,000 dead Americans on 9/11 would disagree. And so would the SCOTUS.

For clarification, the 911 hijackers used box cutters. At the time, box cutters were perfectly legal to carry on to planes. They walked right through airport security with them legally.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by CJ7

the biggest freedom of all remains untouched ...

everyone has a choice how they travel

anyone who doesnt like trains, planes, buses or piss stops dont freaking use them ... nobody is holding a gun to your head.

The End

How about cars, CBJ7? Did you miss the part where the TSA will be monitoring highways?

Yes, you did. Because you're an idiot, and the Obama government can do no wrong. Your worship of all things Obama is quite disturbing.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

How about cars, .... the part where the TSA will be monitoring highways?

Well, that will take the edge off the unemployment numbers ..

.......... if "we" can just pay for it .....added to gasoline tax on the "users"?

Was the "harebrain" idea cooked up in California?

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

How about cars, CBJ7? Did you miss the part where the TSA will be monitoring highways?

Yes, you did. Because you're an idiot, and the Obama government can do no wrong. Your worship of all things Obama is quite disturbing.

highways are and have been profiled for decades ... say hello to the DEA

[CuteOldGuy]

So you are ok with the abandonment of probable cause and the notion of being innocent until proven guilty before the law? Ok. Just checking. As long as we're safe, who needs freedom?

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

So you are ok with the abandonment of probable cause and the notion of being innocent until proven guilty before the law? Ok. Just checking. As long as we're safe, who needs freedom?

your same old response is getting old, really really OLD