Jesse Ventura sues TSA over Airport scanning/groping/harassment

[Lena]

News that Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura is striking back against being personally subjected to TSA harassment by suing the federal agency is sure to re-ignite a TSA revolt that has led many airports to consider abandoning the TSA altogether and replacing them with private security, while the TSA has until the end of today to respond to a FOIA request filed by former Congressman Bob Barr that could send further shockwaves through the Homeland Security-controlled federal body.

Having first privately told Alex Jones back in November of his intention to sue the TSA in a lawsuit that directly names DHS chief Janet Napolitano and TSA head John Pistole, yesterday’s announcement of legal proceedings against new invasive groping measures introduced last year has provoked a tidal wave of media coverage.

The TSA has become embroiled in a number of lawsuits and legal challenges over the past few months as the agency’s policies are flagrantly abused by TSA staffers in numerous blatant examples of sexual harassment, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and wanton disregard for the 4th amendment to the Constitution.

Nowhere was this more evident than in the case of Lynsie Murley, 24, of Amarillo, Texas, who received compensation from the agency after TSA workers pulled down her blouse, exposed her breasts and then laughed in her face, leaving Murley, “extremely embarrassed and humiliated” according to the lawsuit.

rest of article: http://www.infowars.com/ventura-lawsuit-to-re-ignite-tsa-revolt/

Meanwhile Barry Soetoro makes lame jokes about patdowns at State of the Union speech.


Obama Makes TSA Joke About Airport Grope Downs At State Of The Union

[Lena]

what is in the Constitution - and what is not?
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

RIGHT TO TRAVEL

As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

4th amendment:

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.

So one could argue that the TSA searches violate the 4th amendment (since there is no probable cause supported by oath to assume that I carry a bomb under my ass - even though I have a bombshell figure) - and possibly the right to travel (if you refuse the radiation scan and the patdown).

Probably violates other laws as well.

Look at all the new laws about cell phone use while driving.  Is that a loss of freedom?  It's public safety.  The only difference is they're not touching you.

I think the "ban" against using a cellphone while driving is only half-baked.
Many people envision their calling-partner while talking and thus can't properly concentrate on what's going on around their cars.
But they didn't ban headsets....
Operating your radio while driving is not forbidden, but certainly the cause of many crashes, also drinking coffee or lighting a cigarette.

Doing these distracting things while driving a car is DIRECTLY handicapping your ability to drive and you're at a high risk to infringe the rights of others while doing so.

Now, you could argue that I infringe upon your right "not to be blown to bits by an underwear bomber" when I refuse a TSA patdown, but how far can this false security go? Take the recent bombing at the russian airport for example: They HAVE very high security, probably also scanners, but the bombing took place OUTSIDE of the security area. How far shall we extend the surveillance? Do you want a total 1984 policestate to be "secure"?
(I know you dont, just asking the imaginary "you".)
And on a sidenote: terrorism is in 90% created or supported by governments and their secret services in the first place.

[albrecht]

Jesse won his lawsuit over the alleged punching incident that he said was made up.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/29/jury-awards-ventura-18m-in-defamation-case-agaisnt-american-sniper-estate/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fnational+%28Internal+-+US+Latest+-+Text%29

[onan]

I miss Lena.

[The General]

I miss Lena.

Ha ha. YEAH!  That's the spirit!  Hey, she should be unbanned now, let's send her a message!

[Juan]

I miss her, too.  Seeing one of her threads pop up made my heart flutter.

[Grov505th]

Jesse won his lawsuit over the alleged punching incident that he said was made up.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/29/jury-awards-ventura-18m-in-defamation-case-agaisnt-american-sniper-estate/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fnational+%28Internal+-+US+Latest+-+Text%29

What I like about the whole thing is the guy he sued is dead, so instead of just dropping it he went ahead with the lawsuit.  What a POS.

[yumyumtree]

You said it, I didnt. I started a thread under C to C Guests on the Ventura-Kyle lawsuit.

As I remarked there, there's an old saying" when somebody says it's not the money but the principle if the thing, it's often the money."

I guess that the Chris Kyle story is being made into a movie starring Bradley Cooper. I expect that Mrs. Kyle will get some money from this and therefore be able to pay the judgement. I wonder if Jesse Ventura was thinking the same thing? I don't suppose that Jesse Ventura will be depicted in this film, but if he is, I wonder who should play him?