Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura is suing the TSA and Homeland Security for humiliating and ‘offensive’ pat-down procedures he’s been subjected to during airport security checks that included ‘warrantless, non-suspicion-based offensive touching, gripping and rubbing of the genital and other sensitive areas of his body.’ Ventura, who had a hip replacement procedure in 2008, says he was unduly targeted due to his disability. His lawsuit, filed yesterday in Minnesota, claims the pat-downs violated his privacy, his 4th Amendment right and legally meet ‘the definition for an unlawful sexual assault’.”IANL, but I'd think that suing under the Americans With Disabilities Act would score extra irony points. I mean, all Right Thinking People agree with the ADA, right?* And all Right Thinking People support the Progressive Lightbringer's Homeland Security Philosopher Kings, right?
Can we all just agree that this is the definitive disproof to Progressive's charming notion that if we just vote in The Right People, all will be for the best in the best of all possible worlds? I keep saying that Progressives should be heavily invested in good governance. Please show us some, folks. A good start would be for the Left to start screaming for Janet Napolitano's head on a pike (violent metaphor alert! Note to the irony-challenged: metaphorically speaking, of course).
* Actually, they do, or should, at least for most of it.
4 comments:
Maybe for what a "reasonable" person would think of as "reasonable," but certainly not what a lawyer reads it as.
And even still, the libertarian in me is *highly* skeptical of the government telling a private business owner how to design his facilities.
I noticed that, too, and posted on it. Maybe this will revers the Cranial Rectal inversion in the .gov. I doubt it, but maybe.
Seems like this is a case of using the enemy's rules against them (oops, there I go again, using 'eliminationist' rhetoric). Alinsky would be proud!
I am of the strong belief that Jesse Ventura is a nut-job – but he is my kind of nut-job. However, I will take back all the bad things I’ve ever said about him if he gets something done here. I just simply do not understand how the concept of this:
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.
…has become so foreign to our “masters” in government. How in the hell does my decision to fly from Spokane to Seattle suddenly become probable cause for a strip-search of my person and a rifling-through of my personal effects by a government lackey?
Post a Comment