Yahoo: Jesse Ventura sues TSA

[LeesburgSkinFan]

MINNEAPOLIS – Former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura sued the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration on Monday, alleging full-body scans and pat-downs at airport checkpoints violate his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Ventura is asking a federal judge in Minnesota to issue an injunction ordering officials to stop subjecting him to "warrantless and suspicionless" scans and body searches.

More at link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_ventura_airport_security

[DRSmith]

What an idiot

So which country is going to let a plane land in it that has people who have not been checked?

since everyine goes through it for a reason it is not unresonable

[Box76]

So going through up to 10 minute rub downs, including genetalia, every single time this man tries to get on a plane is reasonable? Most folks know why Jesse gets singled out like he does.

[Homercles82]

A man who ran around in the 80's dressed in feather boas while getting grappled and hugged by men, with crotches 2" from his nose is upset he got searched.

[DRSmith]

So going through up to 10 minute rub downs, including genetalia, every single time this man tries to get on a plane is reasonable? Most folks know why Jesse gets singled out like he does.

No more unreasonable then me getting pulled over and my car search almost everytime I enter the US

A country has the right to protect itself from acts of violence

[AsburySkinsFan]

Can Jesse Ventura please go away.

[Tweedr01]

A man who ran around in the 80's dressed in feather boas while getting grappled and hugged by men, with crotches 2" from his nose is upset he got searched.

hahaha i think he may be pushing for more time spent around the crotch area during the search

[stevenaa]

No more unreasonable then me getting pulled over and my car search almost everytime I enter the US

A country has the right to protect itself from acts of violence

Not using methods that violate constitutionally protected individual rights. Not sure if I think pat downs and scans do, but there are limits to what our coutry, ie. government, can do. Individual rights and the freedoms we enjoy will always leave us succeptible to attacks of one form or another.

[DRSmith]

Not using methods that violate constitutionally protected individual rights. Not sure if I think pat downs and scans do, but there are limits to what our coutry, ie. government, can do. Individual rights and the freedoms we enjoy will always leave us succeptible to attacks of one form or another.

And if countries say there will be no more international flights from the US what will you do?

Do you oppose biometric cards and back ground checks if people want to avoid the pat downs and scans?

How much more do you think insurance will go up for airlines if they are sued for failing to prevent terrorist attacks?

[Box76]

Can Jesse Ventura please go away.

Why would you say that? Its not like he just makes **** up. He has the guts to confront politicians who then turn tail and hide like the scum they are.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Not using methods that violate constitutionally protected individual rights. Not sure if I think pat downs and scans do, but there are limits to what our coutry, ie. government, can do. Individual rights and the freedoms we enjoy will always leave us succeptible to attacks of one form or another.

I agree that there are certainly limits, and I'm not sure if these scans exceed those limits, but there needs to be answered whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy when on an airplane. Currently I'm split on the body scans because our right to privacy may very well need to be seen as secondary to the safety of others on an airplane due to the uniqueness of the in flight environment and security risks. Personally, I think that 100% luggage screening would be a better use of funding rather than the ad hoc body scans. There are currently only 68 airports that have the full body scanners out of 503 US airports offering commercial services that seems like a real security gap to me. After all of the 9/11 hijackers none of them entered through security at a major hub instead they came in through the regional airports...those same airports that don't have the body scanners. Looks a lot more like window dressing as an effort to maintain the illusion of security to me.

[Kosher Ham]

^^^ Didn't two of the planes fly out of Logan international airport ? That's a major hub.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Why would you say that? Its not like he just makes **** up. He has the guts to confront politicians who then turn tail and hide like the scum they are.

Please Jesse is a side show attraction and it's impossible to hear what he's saying over all the baggage he carries with him.

---------- Post added January-26th-2011 at 09:39 AM ----------

^^^ Didn't two of the planes fly out of Logan international airport ? That's a major hub.

Right, but then entered security through Bangor International in Maine and then flew to Boston.

*edit...looks like three entered through Newark NJ.

The point still stands though, the regional airports are still not as secure and once you enter through security in one airport you are free in any other.

[Madison Redskin]

I agree that there are certainly limits, and I'm not sure if these scans exceed those limits, but there needs to be answered whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy when on an airplane. Currently I'm split on the body scans because our right to privacy may very well need to be seen as secondary to the safety of others on an airplane due to the uniqueness of the in flight environment and security risks. Personally, I think that 100% luggage screening would be a better use of funding rather than the ad hoc body scans. There are currently only 68 airports that have the full body scanners out of 503 US airports offering commercial services that seems like a real security gap to me. After all of the 9/11 hijackers none of them entered through security at a major hub instead they came in through the regional airports...those same airports that don't have the body scanners. Looks a lot more like window dressing as an effort to maintain the illusion of security to me.

Actually, the 9/11 hijackers flew out of Boston’s Logan International Airport, D.C.’s Dulles International Airport, and Newark Liberty International Airport.

In any case, I recently flew out of Dulles and had to go through a body scan. While I felt somewhat uncomfortable knowing that someone was looking at a grainy picture of my junk (a high-resolution picture would have been far more enjoyable for the TSA screeners), I did not particularly mind. I realize that I do not have an unqualified Constitutional right to fly on airplanes. Moreover, I realize that terrorists would love to kill a lot of Americans and they seem to have a particular affinity for using airports and airplanes to do so. So, while I would prefer to fly without going through a body scan, I find the alternative (i.e., a slightly increased risk of death by terrorist) slightly less appealing.

[Hunter44]

I like Jesse but he's going about this the wrong way. Flying is a privilege not a right. If you don't like airport security procedures then don't fly.

[War Paint]

Why would you say that? Its not like he just makes **** up. He has the guts to confront politicians who then turn tail and hide like the scum they are.

I respect men like Ventura. Unfortunately, many people would rather be treated as if they are the criminals by the government to protect them from "terrorists". Frequent flyers don't want to be body scanned numerous times. It's not good to have x-rays frequently. Not everyone wants a picture of their junk taken. Not everyone wants to be patted down by some dumb ass.

According to this source, the chances of being blown up by a terrorist are extremely slim.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/odds-of-airborne-terror.html

Over the past decade, according to BTS, there have been 99,320,309 commercial airline departures that either originated or landed within the United States. Dividing by six, we get one terrorist incident per 16,553,385 departures.

These departures flew a collective 69,415,786,000 miles. That means there has been one terrorist incident per 11,569,297,667 mles flown. This distance is equivalent to 1,459,664 trips around the diameter of the Earth, 24,218 round trips to the Moon, or two round trips to Neptune.

Therefore, the odds of being on given departure which is the subject of a terrorist incident have been 1 in 10,408,947 over the past decade. By contrast, the odds of being struck by lightning in a given year are about 1 in 500,000. This means that you could board 20 flights per year and still be less likely to be the subject of an attempted terrorist attack than to be struck by lightning.

People need to quit giving away their freedoms for "safety".

[Madison Redskin]

I respect men like Ventura. Unfortunately, many people would rather be treated as if they are the criminals by the government to protect them from "terrorists". Frequent flyers don't want to be body scanned numerous times. It's not good to have x-rays frequently. Not everyone wants a picture of their junk taken. Not everyone wants to be patted down by some dumb ass.

According to this source, the chances of being blown up by a terrorist are extremely slim.

People need to quit giving away their freedoms for "safety".

Then it's safe to say that you were opposed to the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping and electronic surveillance programs, right?

[War Paint]

Then it's safe to say that you were opposed to the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping and electronic surveillance programs, right?

Yes, I am very opposed to it. Right after 9/11, when I first heard about the Patriot Act, I didn't see it for what it was at the time because I was still shell shocked by the attacks. Overtime, I think the Patriot Act is horrendous. Please don't turn this into a Bush vs Obama thing. They are both Big Brother puppets. I don't like either.

[Madison Redskin]

Yes, I am very opposed to it. Right after 9/11, when I first heard about the Patriot Act, I didn't see it for what it was at the time because I was still shell shocked by the attacks. Overtime, I think the Patriot Act is horrendous. Please don't turn this into a Bush vs Obama thing. They are both Big Brother puppets. I don't like either.

That's fair. I didn't ask that question to turn this into a Bush v. Obama thing. The reason why I asked is because several of my conservative buddies are absolutely opposed to the body scans, but strongly support warrantless wiretapping and electronic surveillance programs.

I agree that the odds of dying in a terrorist attack are small. However, I think the X-rays, body scans, patdowns, etc. are a small price to pay for the privilege (as opposed to right) to fly.

[War Paint]

That's fair. I didn't ask that question to turn this into a Bush v. Obama thing. The reason why I asked is because several of my conservative buddies are absolutely opposed to the body scans, but strongly support warrantless wiretapping and electronic surveillance programs.

I agree that the odds of dying in a terrorist attack are small. However, I think the X-rays, body scans, patdowns, etc. are a small price to pay for the privilege (as opposed to right) to fly.

My view is, if I am one of the unlucky 1 out of 10.5 million chance of being chosen to meet my demise from terrorism, then I would just mark it as "it was my time". That said, even if I was 1 of the 10.5 million to get involved with a terrorist incident, that doesn't mean I'll be killed. The terrorist might be tackled before he does anything, like the shoe bomber. It's so obvious that the government is trying to sell the people fear of the terror boogyman for more control.

[Corcaigh]

I agree that the odds of dying in a terrorist attack are small. However, I think the X-rays, body scans, patdowns, etc. are a small price to pay for the privilege (as opposed to right) to fly.

If this was the only weakness in airline security, then the argument might have merit. But if terrorists can bypass this type of security through luggage, freight, infiltrating airport services or simply entering the airline passenger screening system through an airport that doesn't have these measures, what are the x-rays and pat-downs accomplishing other than providing the illusion of security.

[Bang]

Seems simple enough.

If you don't like it don't fly.

Other modes of transportation are available, and it's not anyone's right to fly.

~Bang

[Madison Redskin]

If this was the only weakness in airline security, then the argument might have merit. But if terrorists can bypass this type of security through luggage, freight, infiltrating airport services or simply entering the airline passenger screening system through an airport that doesn't have these measures, what are the x-rays and pat-downs accomplishing other than providing the illusion of security.

I don't buy the "if we can't do everything, we shouldn't do anything" logic. Plus, luggage and freight are screened and these scanners are being rolled out to other airports.

---------- Post added January-26th-2011 at 01:47 PM ----------

It's so obvious that the government is trying to sell the people fear of the terror boogyman for more control.

I agree that many government officials exploit the public's fear of Mooslems, ghey boogeymen, etc. However, I don't think it's reasonable to argue that government officials are "trying to sell the people fear of the terror boogyman" to view low-resolution pics of their junk.

[War Paint]

Seems simple enough.

If you don't like it don't fly.

Other modes of transportation are available, and it's not anyone's right to fly.

~Bang

Bang, when do people finally draw the line? Some people have to fly for their job. Why not just go back to metal detectors? If people don't put their foot down, naked body scanners and pat downs will eventually make their way to bus stations and subways. Then after that, they'll eventually make their way to public events like football games and concerts.

QZM4Bpt3xZU

[elkabong82]

Give up freedom for security and you won't get either.

If better saftey precautions and procedures were taken on the planes themselves then there wouldn't be aneed for pat downs etc, the metal detectors would suffice.

Expand the size of the ****pit enough to where a couple monitors can fit in and an extra seat, put a video camera or two up, and have an extra person in the ****pit to monitor the passengers.

The pat downs and extra security are a joke and an impractical delay. They are trying to eliminate a terrorist being able to take over a plane. Sealing off the ****pit, adding procedures which prevent the door from ever being opened during flight, adding monitoring inside the plane, all take care of that.