Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by Lisa Simeone, Dec 21, 2011.
Considering there's been no actual suit filed, I'd say the site is aptly named.
This is how Rosa Parks did it. People think she was just some random woman, but she wasn't. This was a coordinated effort. (And other women had refused to move to the back of the bus before she did.) The civil rights movement wanted a sympathetic person, and Rosa Parks fit the bill. Pull that out of your back pocket when someone says, as they inevitably will, that we're trying to "fake" something, that we're encouraging people to lie, blah blah blah.
Does that mean non-white? What, exactly? You know, if the ACLU actually did their job cared about issues anywhere on par with their interest in fundraising to keep their barge afloat, this would probably be settled law by now. My fingered salute goes to the cowards at the ACLU, the women's "community", and others who have done NOTHING to prevent the continued abuse.
I'm not sympathetic, b/c I'm Krazy? Unemployed? (expletive deleted), I've got a presidential candidate and his Senator son who have more of a clue than the whole lot of lib lawyers who offer NO HELP. I'm afraid my experience, my willingness to challenge and in return receipt of only deafening silence, leads me to hate the liberal collaborators as much or more than the moron Stasi perverts themselves. Go ahead. Vote for Obama, you smug pieces of excrement. I'll take my chances with Republicans, Libertarians, and anyone who is willing to help take on these issues.
It depends on what your goal is - if you're going to go through the trouble (and cost) of bringing a lawsuit, then you want to do your best to make sure you win. By sympathetic I mean someone who many people can relate to. The elderly women who were strip-searched are the epitome of sympathetic.
As for the ACLU... I'm pretty sure I've posted about this before, so if you've heard this before, my apologies. The ACLU is very conservative in the cases they take. This isn't about money or fundraising, that's a separate issue, this is about not wanting to risk making bad case law. I can't stress enough how important this is - the stakes are high. If they take the wrong case and lose, then we all end up losing because the TSA might get even more leeway than they have now.
You should challenge them. Be an activist. You'd get a lot of support. Just be strategic in what you do - if you're going to get arrested, make it count for something.
Obama hasn't done anything at all about DHS/TSA. But you know what? Even if he wanted to, he can't. Neither would Ron Paul if he were elected president. It's up to Congress. DHS/TSA was created by statute and the way to get rid of them is to repeal that statute. I've seen precious few in Congress who have taken a stand against DHS/TSA.
And would you like to know why? First and foremost, it's the money. Huge piles of money. A close second is the fetish that our government has for gathering up information about us. They do not want to give that up, and will fight tooth and nail to prevent the spigot from being turned off.
Agree with Sunny Goth 100%.
I had lunch with Sommer Gentry the other day. She had just come off the train from Miami. 24-hour ride, sleeper car. She was leaving the next day for another business trip, this time to New Orleans, also on the train, also 24 hours with sleeper car. She has talked personally to sympathetic ACLU staffers. They told her the same thing Sunny Goth just said. They're afraid they'll lose. And if they lose, they'll make bad case law. They fear that more than anything. It will only make things worse.
And I'm going to chime in again with my experience at the ACLU-UDC-sponsored symposium on civil liberties I attended last April (video here). Five panelists, all on our side, and all said the same thing: this (the TSA) is a political problem, and it will require a political solution. Meaning by the polity. People have to demand that this stop. Don't look for an answer from the courts.
Listen, I find it frustrating, too, that the ACLU isn't taking this on. But I understand their worries. They know more about the hurdles in winning civil liberties lawsuits than anyone.
As for presidential candidates, I've said it before and I'll say it again: not one of them is going to do anything about the TSA. Not one. I don't care what they say.
If ACLU is to afraid to take action against DHS/TSA then I have nothing for them in the way of support.
boggie dog, I withdrew my support from the national ACLU (for several reasons -- see Wendy Kaminer's book "Worst Instincts: Cowardice, Conformity, and the ACLU"), but I still give money to my local chapter. Local chapters are doing great, important work. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Look, I am not even going to dignify responding to being told I should be "an activist" when the women whore lawyers at my local chapter ACLU, and the women whore lawyers who are the premier legal representation on rape cases locally, CANNOT RETURN A CALL.
This is not a money-making game. These are human beings who have been injured by being groped, in my case raped. And they have not been helped. I am not alone.
Keep the mealy-mouthed excuses for Obama as President being powerless to do anything "even if he wanted to." Talk about cognitive dissonance! Do we remember the White House petition? Please, Obama supporters, seek the treatment you need.
It's far worse than not taking a case. The ACLU raised money on the backs of people who were assaulted, stolen from, etc., pretending interest in their cases, and then DID NOTHING. Those are not separate issues. That is one shameful issue.
The ACLU has been SILENT. THEY ARE COMPLICIT. They reflexively support the union shop at TSA. Deal with it. I agree with Boggie Dog 100%.
Again, I defer to Sunny Goth. If the only lawsuit they can bring is going to make matters worse, then it's not worth bringing.
That doesn't negate the need for the ACLU to speak out about this, repeatedly, which they haven't done. You're right about that. And obviously I can't speak for your local chapter, only for my own.
And I'm right about the ACLU using TSA victims (only) to raise money.
I defer to no one, (which gets me into trouble frequently).
I told the national ACLU, orally and in writing, that I wasn't giving them any more money because of their worthlessness on the TSA. I gave money instead to my local chapter and told them I expected to see some movement on the issue this year.
There are a lot of other important civil liberties issues out there, such as warrantless searches on the DC Metro, against which the local chapter has filed suit.
We do what we can.
I would want my local chapter to state what percentage of direct contributions are sent on to the national level before giving a penny.
If these cases were easy, lawyers would be lining up to take them on contingency. I don't see a queue.
The ACLU has already intervened in several cases of interest to us here. They collected data on this particular issue for a long time, obviously fishing for a good case that is yet to materialize.
The FBI's new definition of rape should help. Rather than gripe about the ACLU's lack of action, work to bring about public understanding of that new definition, and work for local laws that attempt to reign in such behavior. By changing situations & understandings locally, over time it will become a better issue for oganizations like the ACLU to tackle.
If no one can make a case out of three ladies being strip searched, even partially, then we have no hope.
ACLU had TSA dead to rights on the Bierfeldt case and still let TSA off the hook.
The only group that I see taking any real action against TSA is EPIC. Perhaps they need more funding in order to take action.
The legal problem is that it's ostensibly a "consensual" search, posited on the bogus assertion that air travel is a privilege rather than a right. As much as you & I clearly despise the currently situation, it's not all that clear for the attorneys.
I agree with directly funding towards EPIC (and also EFF -- Electronic Frontiers Foundation). EPIC is more suited for dealing with the immediate obstacles. Clearing them away might eventually help present the ACLU with the clear-cut case that it needs.
I've wanted to support EPIC on this. From what I see on the website, only general contributions are accepted. I could not find a way to direct it to the TSA lawsuit. Does anyone have different information?
It's not that they're afraid to take action against the DHS/TSA, they're afraid of taking a weak case, losing in court, and then having to deal with the bad case law that results. And by 'weak' I mean nothing short of slam dunk case -- and those are hard to find.
Mike, you may have it exactly right but I have a hard time believing that ACLU can't find one thing to take action against TSA. I go back to the Biefeldt case, ACLU had it won and still gave TSA an out. Sorry, I have nothing good to say about that organization.
There really isn't much more to say. Bad cases make bad case law.
Case law is a BS excuse, that would have credibility if they were on the job otherwise, but sadly they are not. They collected data to collect names for soliciting donations. Period. The rest of it is BS.
Hard to find, especially when they don't look.
Give to EPIC, EFF, give to Affection, Barbell, and those in the fight.
The people lead, and the leaders follow. Don't waste your breath or money on the ACLU.
Separate names with a comma.