Trip Report - SDF-DTW-AMS-BCN-MAD-JFK-CVG-SDF

Binyamin Dissen wrote:


The question is whether the searches are forced by the state or voluntary.

You have the choice to travel other than by air or if you wish to travel by
air using something other than a common carrier.

One of the conditions to travel by air via the common carrier is that you
allow your bags to be searched.

Simple when you think about it, isn't it?


You have a choice to travel by something other than car, but that
doesn't mean they can search your car just for wanting to use the road.

None wrote:

Well then Bill, by all means, CHALLENGE the TSA. Toss IV in their faces and
bulldoze your way through security and get on your plane. I mean, after
all, IV basically says you don't have to put up with that security bull****.

Then, in a few years once you get out of the crossbar hotel, come back and
tell us all about it.


Are you suggesting he would be jailed for years for telling them about IV?

"The Bill Mattocks" wrote in message
om...
Binyamin Dissen wrote in message
. ..
If you were flying your own plane, the comparison would be valid.
And I believe the rules would be the same.

I don't mean to sound flippant, but which part of Amendment IV don't
you understand?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It doesn't say 'in a car belonging to me' or 'in a plane belonging to
me'. It says the US federal government is prohibited from performing
"unreasonable" searches and seizures of my person, house, papers, and
effects. My 'person' is my body, and my 'effects' are my luggage.
There is no "probable cause," nor is there a "Warrant" involved in
airport TSA searches.

The only question to be answered is whether or not such searches are
"unreasonable." I believe that they are. You apparently believe that
they are not - but to maintain that IV simply doesn't apply is
ridiculous.

I'm not convinced that the 4th Amendment is applicable, at any rate.
Submission to inspection is voluntary. You can always refuse to be
inspected (though, of course, you won't be able to fly). You'll note that
the inspectors always ask, "My I look in your bag?" You can say, "No, you
may not," if you choose.



Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

what crap!
you have a lot of freedom, stuck in a metal coffin, in the air, I would
rather them check and double check
big deal I have to take my shoes off, I have nother to hide.
I wonder if God Forbid something happened to someone you know, would you
feel different than?

--
Larry.gold
Arsenal For Life
Thierry Henry:
Arsenal is my Paradise


"None" wrote in message
news

"mrtravel" wrote in message
. ..


The Bill Mattocks wrote:

"Larry Gold" wrote in message
...

who cares if you held up a few minutes extra, what's more important
than
your safety? your life


That's a dangerous attitude. You would be very 'safe' if you were
kept locked in your home by armed soldiers. Good idea?

More important than safety is freedom. Anyone who doesn't 'get' that,
doesn't really understand freedom.


Correct. America lost a lot more than human lives that day.

And Americans continue to loose more every day

Larry Gold wrote:
what crap!
you have a lot of freedom, stuck in a metal coffin, in the air, I would
rather them check and double check
big deal I have to take my shoes off, I have nother to hide.
I wonder if God Forbid something happened to someone you know, would you
feel different than?

Constitutional rights are not about whether or not you have something to
hide.

Larry Gold wrote:
what crap!
you have a lot of freedom, stuck in a metal coffin, in the air, I would
rather them check and double check
big deal I have to take my shoes off, I have nother to hide.

How will you feel about being X-rayed? How will you feel about the full
body cavity searches? What about the high colonics and the three day
detention procedures? When will it stop? At what point will people decide
that enough is enough?

I wonder if God Forbid something happened to someone you know, would you
feel different than?

Yes. I'd feel even MORE angry about going through all these ineffective
procedures when it's clear they aren't actually improving security. People
are dying needlessly and the TSA is wasting their time checking out shoes.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Larry Gold wrote:

what crap!
you have a lot of freedom, stuck in a metal coffin, in the air, I would
rather them check and double check
big deal I have to take my shoes off, I have nother to hide.


How will you feel about being X-rayed? How will you feel about the full
body cavity searches? What about the high colonics and the three day
detention procedures? When will it stop? At what point will people decide
that enough is enough?

He wouldn't mind, as he has "nother to hide"
So, maybe he wouldn't care if BB put cameras in his living room, or
recorded all of his phone conversations.

Binyamin Dissen wrote in message . ..
Glad you are backing down from your trunk of the car comparison.

I don't see where I was doing that. In fact, I'm about to bring it up
again.

The question is whether the searches are forced by the state or voluntary.

If a citizen has a 'right to travel freely', then the question as to
whether the search is mandatory or voluntary becomes moot. Assuming a
citizen has the right to travel freely by whatever public conveyance
they wish, then a search by federal agents prior to such conveyance
being permitted is, ipso facto, mandatory.

So, do US citizens have the 'right to travel'?

Yes.

In Kent v Dulles (357 U.S. 116), in 1958, the Court of Appeals,
Washington DC, held that ''The right to travel is a part of the
"liberty" of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of
law under the Fifth Amendment.''

This court case, as in many others questioning the 'right to travel',
revolved around persons denied issuance of US passports. In each
case, the government was ordered by the appropriate court to issue the
passport requested - it cannot be denied without 'due process of law'.

And WHY is this important to my argument that the US cannot deny air
travel to those who refuse to undergo mandatory inspection (mandatory
in the sense that if one refuses, one cannot fly by commercial air)?

In Aptheker v. Secretary of State (378 U.S. 500), in 1964, the US
Supreme Court held that ''Congress could have chosen less drastic
means of achieving the national security objective without such
sweeping abridgment of liberty.''

And there we have it. The Congress is obliged to select the least
intrusive means of achieving national security objectives with regard
to the liberties of US citizens. Could it have done so in the case of
the TSA? Yes, certainly. The proposal to use (and beef up
significantly) private security firms was on the table, but was not
selected. Such a choice would have been constitutional, but it was
rejected by the US Congress (in my opinion).

You have the choice to travel other than by air or if you wish to travel by
air using something other than a common carrier.

Yes, and one has the choice to travel by mare's shank instead of by
car - but if you choose to travel by car, your trunk still cannot be
searched without probable cause or a warrant by the police, can it?
The ability to find alternate means of travel does not enter into it.

One of the conditions to travel by air via the common carrier is that you
allow your bags to be searched.

No. If the common carrier has such a requirement, that is their
right, and as a private contractual agreement between passengers and
airlines, this is of course legal. But when the federal government
performs the search, this is in clear violation of Amendment IV, as
I've shown above.

Simple when you think about it, isn't it?

Not at all - the issue is complex. John Gilmore is currently pursuing
such a case in the court system - time will tell if he is successful
or not. If the issue were simple and clear-cut as you say, his suit
would have been dismissed rather rapidly as being without merit.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

mrtravel wrote in message . com...
You have a choice to travel by something other than car, but that
doesn't mean they can search your car just for wanting to use the road.

Correct. Despite the good intentions of the state to deter drunk
driving and disrupt interstate commerce of illegal goods, they cannot
abrogate the rights of citizens by doing so, even under the rubric of
driving being merely a privilege instead of a right.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

The Bill Mattocks wrote:
mrtravel wrote in message . com...

You have a choice to travel by something other than car, but that
doesn't mean they can search your car just for wanting to use the road.


Correct. Despite the good intentions of the state to deter drunk
driving and disrupt interstate commerce of illegal goods, they cannot
abrogate the rights of citizens by doing so, even under the rubric of
driving being merely a privilege instead of a right.

So, should I be subject to a search if crossing the country by plane
instead of car or bus?