Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Do I have the right to refuse this search? (Page 5)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Do I have the right to refuse this search?
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
You think the 4th Amendment should restrict private actors? Parents need to get a warrant to search their kids' sock drawer?

This is kind of a misleading path to go down. In your example, it is really not my kids' sock drawer. It's mine. I bought it and all the contents in it. It's in the house I pay for and I have the right to control the contents of my private home (certainly I will be held responsible for it). When my kid moves out and gets his own sock drawer, then it's his.

Same with employers. I can make, as a condition of your employment, that I can read the emails you send on company behalf and that I provide for your use. You don't like it, find some place else to work because you have that option. With government intrusion, I do not have that option.

If you go back to the laptop thread, you see where I quote the section on routine vs non-routine searches. At the border, a routine search (e.g. your laptop, pocket contents) is done without any 4th amendment violation occurring and this is well supported case law going back to the inception of the United States.

A non-routine search without reasonable cause is a 4th amendment violation. In that thread, the example was a body cavity search. For the government to do an anal probe, they need a pretty damn good suspicion they're going to find more than last night's pasta up there.

In my opinion, the strip search created by the new scanners is non-routine. The TSA could not demand you take off all your clothes (or maybe they can now) and do a real live, in the flesh, strip search. I also do not think putting their hands down your pants and playing with your junk is a routine search. In both of these cases, they need a reasonable suspicion that you're up to something or they are indeed violating your 4th amendment rights.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
quote:
There's only one other way that you can violate the constitution as a private citizen acting in a private capacity. And most Americans have probably done it at one time or another. Any guesses?
But "in violation of the laws thereof"? Do most states still have laws against drinking liquor?
No, but many states have laws against importing alcohol bought in other states. A portion of those have been struck down, but PA's law stands, at the very least.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cb:
And, BTW who said it [the El Al security model] didn't work so well? I don't recall hearing or reading where that scaled down version was especially disastrous or allowed more attempted terrorism than does our present system.

It's more likely it was too much work or the TSA employees complained or the union objected or some kind of complaint was filed about profiling.

The fact is, the Israeli security works. If we have the personnel to cover the security we have now I can't imagine that taking those same TSA agents and having them ask simple question instead of harassing customers would require much growth in TSA employee ranks.

I wanted to come back to that. It's not that it doesn't work well because it does. It's a question of scale.

Isaac Yeffet, the former head of security for El Al and now an aviation security consultant in New York lays out the qualifications for a screener:
quote:
We must look at the qualifications of the candidate for security jobs. He must be educated. He must speak two languages. He must be trained for a long time, in classrooms. He must receive on-the-job training with a supervisor for weeks to make sure that the guy understands how to approach a passenger, how to convince him to cooperate with him ...
Earlier in the thread I suggested requiring a 2 year degree as a minimum and preferred the 4 year but that's not popular (at least not in this forum). Look at how much training goes into it, we can do that here but what cost? The basic TSA screener is almost certainly not up to the El Al standards to even begin such training.

Then there's volume. El Al, it is very small airline by U.S. standards, with only 38 aircraft, 46 destinations, and fewer than two million passengers in 2008. In 2008, Ben Gurion Airport served 11.1 million international passengers and 470,000 domestic flights. That's comparable to Sacramento. Compare it to a major airport like DFW 640,000 flights with 56 million passengers. Add in O'Hare with 890,000 flights and 64 million passengers. That's just 2 airports.

Yeffet adds:
quote:
When you come to the check-in, normally you wait on line. While you wait on line, I want you to be with your luggage. You have to meet with me, the security guy. We tell you who we are. We ask for your passport, we ask for your ticket. We check your passport. We want to find which countries you visited. We start to ask questions, and based on your answers and the way you behave, we come to a conclusion about whether you are bona fide or not. That's what should happen.
If this interview takes even 1 minute per passenger on average, we'd need one helluva lot of screeners to handle the volume nationwide.

So I think we could do it but it's a lot to do, maybe more than we can do.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It sounds like you'd need the airline employees at the ticket counter to be qualified to ask these questions. And to remove online checkin.
Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
If this interview takes even 1 minute per passenger on average, we'd need one helluva lot of screeners to handle the volume nationwide.

So I think we could do it but it's a lot to do, maybe more than we can do.

No, it wouldn't be impossible. It would require a level of professionalism on par with Federal law enforcement or maybe a half-step less. But it's doable.

Look at the underlying numbers. Currently the US charges $5 per flight as a direct security tax.

Let's assume that each personal interview requires 5 minutes on average. Let's further assume that kind of professional is going to cost $100 per hour. Let's further assume that agents are only effectively interviewing 80% of the time. So up the average time to 6 minutes.

That's an average cost of $10 per flight per interview. So if we raised the current tax from $5/flight to $15/flight, that would allow the US to implement El Al style personalization. (That ignores the salaries of all the current TSA agents, so the actual cost would be less than $15/flight).

But of course El Al profiles. That's a key component of their security regime.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some more fun:
boingboing.net

quote:
So we're in line, going through one at a time. One of our Soldiers had his Gerber multi-tool. TSA confiscated it. Kind of ridiculous, but it gets better. A few minutes later, a guy empties his pockets and has a pair of nail clippers. Nail clippers. TSA informs the Soldier that they're going to confiscate his nail clippers. The conversation went something like this:

TSA Guy: You can't take those on the plane.

Soldier: What? I've had them since we left country.

TSA Guy: You're not suppose to have them.

Soldier: Why?

TSA Guy: They can be used as a weapon.

Soldier: [touches butt stock of the rifle] But this actually is a weapon. And I'm allowed to take it on.

TSA Guy: Yeah but you can't use it to take over the plane. You don't have bullets.

Soldier: And I can take over the plane with nail clippers?

TSA Guy: [awkward silence]

Me: Dude, just give him your damn nail clippers so we can get the f**k out of here. I'll buy you a new set.

Soldier: [hands nail clippers to TSA guy, makes it through security]


Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not as much fun:
cbsnews.com

quote:
As a 3-year breast cancer survivor Bossi said she didn't want the added radiation through her body, but reluctantly agreed.

"The TSA agent told me to put my ID on my back," Boss told WBTV correspondent Molly Grantham. "When I got out of there, she said because my ID was on my back, I had to go to a personal screening area."

Bossi was taken to a private room where two female Charlotte TSA agents began what she calls an "aggressive" pat-down.

Bossi said the exam halted when they got around to feeling her right breast - the one where she'd had surgery.

"She put her full hand on my breast and said, 'What is this?' Bossi recalled. "And I said, 'It's my prosthesis because I've had breast cancer.' And she said, 'Well, you'll need to show me that.'"

Bossi was asked to remove her prosthetic breast from her bra and show it to the agent.

quote:
A TSA representative told WBTV that agents are allowed to ask to see and touch any passenger's prosthetic, but aren’t supposed to remove them. Later, the TSA contacted the station and said they would review the Bossi matter.

Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not fun at all:
kmov.com

quote:
Business traveler, Penny Moroney, was flying home from St. Louis to Chicago. Like all other airline passengers, she had to go through security first. When the metal in her artificial knees set off the detectors, she had to undergo more screening. When Moroney asked if she could go through a body scanner, she was told none were available.

A pat down was the only alternative.

Moroney explains “Her gloved hands touched my breasts...went between them. Then she went into the top of my slacks, inserted her hands between my underwear and my skin... then put her hands up on outside of slacks, and patted my genitals.”

“I was shaking and crying when I left that room” Moroney says. “Under any other circumstance, if a person touched me like that without my permission, it would be considered criminal sexual assault.”


Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On that 2nd one, if anyone happens to travel through Charlotte airport, remember this little trick. All gates & concourses are connected. Even if your gate is A-whatever, you can get to it by going through the B, C, or even D security checkpoint.

As of right now, there was only enough money to upgrade two security gates with the scanners - that's the security gate for the B and D concourses. Therefore, simply avoid the B and D gates, and go through A or C.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wonder how TSA would react if you told them:

"Look, instead of you groping me, how about I simply strip down nude?"

I'd rather be eyeballed than fondled....

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
You think the 4th Amendment should restrict private actors? Parents need to get a warrant to search their kids' sock drawer?

This is kind of a misleading path to go down. In your example, it is really not my kids' sock drawer. It's mine. I bought it and all the contents in it. It's in the house I pay for and I have the right to control the contents of my private home (certainly I will be held responsible for it). When my kid moves out and gets his own sock drawer, then it's his.
If that logic held water, then why is it that schools can only search lockers "in loco parentis"? After all, parents don't own the school lockers.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
quote:
There's only one other way that you can violate the constitution as a private citizen acting in a private capacity. And most Americans have probably done it at one time or another. Any guesses?
But "in violation of the laws thereof"? Do most states still have laws against drinking liquor?
Under certain circumstances, yes. Every state has some laws against drinking under some circumstance or another.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Apparently some airports (and some states) are looking at alternatives. Have a look: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/new-york-orlando-join-anti-tsa-rebellion-while-tsa-mounts-pr-effort.ars
Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"I'd rather be eyeballed than fondled...."
Same here. Can't we just skip the X-raying and patting, and just go nude?
Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You'd be arrested for indecent exposure. OTOH, if you just wore a thick long coat and long stockings, with nothing underneath, THEY would tell you to remove the coat for the search, and I'm not sure what would happen at that point. Anyone want to be a guinea pig for a test case?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
You think the 4th Amendment should restrict private actors? Parents need to get a warrant to search their kids' sock drawer?

This is kind of a misleading path to go down. In your example, it is really not my kids' sock drawer. It's mine. I bought it and all the contents in it. It's in the house I pay for and I have the right to control the contents of my private home (certainly I will be held responsible for it). When my kid moves out and gets his own sock drawer, then it's his.
If that logic held water, then why is it that schools can only search lockers "in loco parentis"? After all, parents don't own the school lockers.
"In loco parentis", for the public school graduates, is Latin for "in the place of a parent" or "instead of a parent". Via wikipedia, this refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent. So Pete is bascially asking, if that logic held water, then why is it that schools can only search lockers "instead of a parent"? Kind of doesn't make sense as a question.

About those searches, Legal Zoom lays it out:
quote:
The Supreme Court early on decided that need by teachers and administrators to maintain order outweighs the privacy interests of students in a case called New Jersey v. TLO. But that does not mean that school officials can just search anybody at any time. School searches are only justified according to the Supreme Court "when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of school."
You see how there must be "reasonable grounds for suspecting" a student has something going on that is illegal or against school rules? That's what's missing in these TSA searches. There is no reasonable grounds for the search.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hillary Clinton on Face the Nation yesterday:

quote:

Bob Schieffer: " ... would you submit to one of these pat downs?"

Hillary Clinton: "Not if I could avoid it. (laughs) No, I mean, who would? (laughs)"

Yeah.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I really think that all members of Congress, the executive branch and the judicial branch should have to go through TSA screenings. And not a special executive screening, but the same one the rest of us use.

I suspect there would be changes almost immediately after Nancy Pelosi had a TSA screener stick his hand down her pants.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
SNL piles on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5Om2Evyubc

On a serious note, I fully expect another "foiled" attack, or maybe even a full fledged attack in the next 6 weeks. Gotta put the sheep back in the pen, and no better way to do that than scare the crap out of them (again). Maybe it's time for another Al Awlaki luncheon at the Pentagon to coordinate one more inept moron with a "bomb".

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Brian
Member
Member # 588

 - posted      Profile for Brian   Email Brian   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2:
quote:
In your example, it is really not my kids' sock drawer. It's mine. I bought it and all the contents in it. It's in the house I pay for and I have the right to control the contents of my private home
Pete:
quote:
If that logic held water, then why is it that schools can only search lockers "in loco parentis"?
I believe Pete was pointing out that your 'I own it, I can search it whenever I want to' argument was not actually the one settled upon by public schools. Rather, they had to argue that they were acting as parents, and the extension of that contrast is:

no, you can't search it just because you own it, but you can search it if you are the parent of the one who owns (controls) it.

Posts: 359 | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thank you, Brian. Well-articulated.

The school owns the locker, but can only search it by acting in the place of the parent.

[ November 22, 2010, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You'd be arrested for indecent exposure. OTOH, if you just wore a thick long coat and long stockings, with nothing underneath, THEY would tell you to remove the coat for the search, and I'm not sure what would happen at that point. Anyone want to be a guinea pig for a test case?
I can still see some problems arising from this practice...

"Nobody is THAT big - that must a prosthetic."

"No, it's not. It's real"

"There's no way I'm touching that thing. You check it"

"Nuh-uh. You do it."

Let's get Mikey to touch it - he hates touching everything"

"He likes it! Hey Mikey!"

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jordan
Member
Member # 2159

 - posted      Profile for Jordan   Email Jordan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am loving this thread if only for the great ideas of how to make the poor TSA employees suffer. cb, if I ever have occasion to fly through an American airport, I will make sure to practise beforehand. [Big Grin]
Posts: 2147 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jordan:
I am loving this thread if only for the great ideas of how to make the poor TSA employees suffer. cb, if I ever have occasion to fly through an American airport, I will make sure to practise beforehand. [Big Grin]

Whoah there. Avoid it if you can and whatever you do don't joke about it. The TSA is just this side of the Stazi. They have absolutely no sense of humor.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
True. The reason no one says anything when these kids are being molested is b/c they know any word out of line will result in, at least, being drug off for extended questioning, and, at worst, arrested on some BS charge.
Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A determined psycho can put a bomb in his car and blow it up in a chosen traffic congestion.

Virtually every 'security protection' that has come from 911 has produced little if any security and gobs of violations of civil liberties.

Not to mention a buncha bogus-ass wars.

Watch the hyphen. I'm not accusing America of waging ass-wars.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So why actually squeeze the boobs? Are they checking them for c-4 implants?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
Virtually every 'security protection' that has come from 911 has produced little if any security and gobs of violations of civil liberties.

To be fair, putting better doors on cockpits with peepholes and leaving them locked during the entire flight was a good idea. And probably sufficient to to completely stop any 9/11 type attacks.

The rest of the security system is designed to stop suicide bombers getting on a plane and it won't be too long before terrorists just decide to give up on planes and go for the subways, trains and crowded holiday malls.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
So why actually squeeze the boobs? Are they checking them for c-4 implants?

Yes. The fear is that terrorist will use prosthetics to hide bombs/weapons.

White House: Terrorists Have Discussed Use of Prosthetics to Conceal Explosives

quote:
U.S. intelligence has picked up terrorists discussing the use of prosthetic or medical devices to conceal explosives, sources tell ABC News.

The revelation about the intelligence, which is not new but relevant to debate over new security measures at airports, comes as the White House today acknowledged that the implementation of the security procedures has not gone perfectly.

Link
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cb
Member
Member # 6179

 - posted      Profile for cb   Email cb       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Anyone else think we're being forged to accept such measures as normal?

NO ONE should be ok with these Secret Service type measures. What is wrong with Americans today?

Posts: 347 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We elected Republicans, who campaigned almost exclusively on fear in order to increase the power of the executive branch. Then we elected someone who said he'd reduce the power of the executive branch, but lied about it.

Simultaneously, we are being fed by media and political cultures which profit from fear.

I am on record as having said, back in 2000, that the best thing we could do in response to 9/11 was to basically treat it like no big thing. I still believe that.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jordan
Member
Member # 2159

 - posted      Profile for Jordan   Email Jordan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Kenmeer:
Watch the hyphen.

How did you know? I shifted the hyphen over almost by instinct!
Posts: 2147 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jordan
Member
Member # 2159

 - posted      Profile for Jordan   Email Jordan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
JWatts:
Whoah there. Avoid it if you can and whatever you do don't joke about it. The TSA is just this side of the Stazi. They have absolutely no sense of humor.

Well, exqueeze me, but if a man in uniform is getting that close and personal with me, I expect to be getting something out of it. Air travel is plenty expensive, so I might as well take it as a free service! (Besides, as a Briton, I bet I could spark a minor international incident.)

At the very least, cb and I could both get checked together and as we walk away I can enquire, "Was it as good for you as it was for me?" [Smile]

Posts: 2147 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cb
Member
Member # 6179

 - posted      Profile for cb   Email cb       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
We elected Republicans, who campaigned almost exclusively on fear in order to increase the power of the executive branch. Then we elected someone who said he'd reduce the power of the executive branch, but lied about it.

Simultaneously, we are being fed by media and political cultures which profit from fear.

I am on record as having said, back in 2000, that the best thing we could do in response to 9/11 was to basically treat it like no big thing. I still believe that.

Treating terrorism as if it is no big deal is exactly what Clinton did his whole 8 years and it brought us was 9/11. OTOH, we haven't had another attack since we answered the threat. I'd say hitting the aggressor was the right tactic. We can argue the appropriateness of the tactics by which the threat was answered forever - but answering the threat was definitely the better choice than ignoring.

I agree that fear is the number one tool used against us to get us to, inch by inch, relinquish our freedoms. The fact that our outrage can be silenced by the TSA out of fear of fine or further harassment is evidence of just how many of our freedoms we have already willingly relinquished.

Posts: 347 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cb:
Treating terrorism as if it is no big deal is exactly what Clinton did his whole 8 years and it brought us was 9/11. OTOH, we haven't had another attack since we answered the threat. I'd say hitting the aggressor was the right tactic. We can argue the appropriateness of the tactics by which the threat was answered forever - but answering the threat was definitely the better choice than ignoring.

I agree that fear is the number one tool used against us to get us to, inch by inch, relinquish our freedoms. The fact that our outrage can be silenced by the TSA out of fear of fine or further harassment is evidence of just how many of our freedoms we have already willingly relinquished.

I don't think that President Clinton was treating terrorism as if it was no big deal. I think that he honestly believed that he could use cruise missiles to punish terrorists and terrorist harboring states and therefore it was unnecessary to put lots of Soldiers and Marines on the ground to be shot at like in Mogadishu. I seem to recall that it was considered a measured response and therefore an appropriate one by the world political community at the time as well. Was it the right decision? I don't know, but I do know that you cannot only blame the Clinton Administration here. The actions in the Middle East of all previous Administrations, at least as far back as Carter and probably farther, are just as likely to have contributed to a terrorist backlash against the United States that culminated in 9/11 and the current situation.

I think that the one positive security measure that came out of 9/11 was the securing of cockpit doors to keep potential hijackers out of the cockpit. All the rest is just theater to comfort the traveling public by showing that something is being done to protect their safety.

I hope that the recent uproar about the eroding of our civil liberties in the name of security will not be short lived. I hope that we will push back against the liberties taken from us by TSA, DHS, and other government agencies in the name of security. I hope that we as a people will demand that our civil rights be respected even if that means we are a little less secure in our air travel.

Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye
Member
Member # 6554

 - posted      Profile for flydye   Email flydye       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A blog where a guy stood up for his rights
Posts: 702 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cb
Member
Member # 6179

 - posted      Profile for cb   Email cb       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jordan:
At the very least, cb and I could both get checked together and as we walk away I can enquire, "Was it as good for you as it was for me?" [Smile]

We'll compare notes and compose critiques. [LOL]
Posts: 347 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by flydye:
A blog where a guy stood up for his rights

That's hilarious. It is so blatantly obvious that TSA is dysfunctional at best. It's clear they don't really know why they do the things they do. It all comes down to 'Standard Policy', which is anything but standard as it seems to vary by location and time.

And exactly what is the point to making someone who just got off a plane go through a pat down and scanner.

Is it to catch the lucky, but lazy terrorist. Who somehow managed to sneak through boarding security with a weapon, but fell asleep on the plane and never had a chance to use it?

Or maybe the lucky, sneaky & not very bright criminal. Who has decided that he's going to bomb the NY subway system and travel by plane to get there?

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Highlighting absurdity by being absurd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrIJr-klDv8&feature=player_embedded#!

Skip to :50 to get past the stupid opening.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dave, you think cruise-bombing a pharmaceutical plant and letting Osama Bin Laden go when the Sudan offered to turn him over to us were appropriate responses to terrorism?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1