This is topic Do I have the right to refuse this search? in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/13811.html

Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
hlswatch
Fascinating article by a former police officer (24 years of service, retired as assistant chief of police Montgomery County, Maryland)

You really have to read the whole thing, I can't quote enough to give you a meaningful idea of what the article has to say without just pasting the article.

Some highlights:
TSA doesn't randomly screen at random.(they randomly screen people who look like they will comply)
TSA uses technology that doesn't work.
TSA doesn't have procedures set up to guide employees. (or supervisors)
TSA doesn't conduct effective searches.
TSA employees don't get proper training.
The importance of data collection.
The lack of data collection by TSA.
The significant issues that TSA can't do anything about because they aren't collecting the data.

The conclusion:
quote:
I believe what we have here is the beginning of the end of complacency. It is now apparent to me that in the haste to ensure compliance with procedures that are inconsistent if not inarticulable, TSA has hastened the likelihood of failure. If we do not insist that TSA work to create articulable policies that make sense, procedures that are explicit and consistent and training that supports both, then we are complicit in what will inevitably be an ultimate compromise of TSA.

That compromise may come in the form of terrorist attack, or it may come in the form of a collapse of public support. Either or both are inevitable. Either or both are preventable.

Aside from the interesting information the article provided, I also enjoyed the tone and writing style of the author. Very accessible without being dumb. Lot's of information without being dry.

[ December 17, 2009, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: philnotfil ]
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
TSA's sole purpose is to get the masses used to totalitarian police state procedures.

Show your paperwork.
Submit to an invasion of your personal privacy.
Submit to intrusive mechanical examination.
Do as your told.
Keep your mouth shut.
Don't even JOKE about certain things.

Keep your B-A-A-A-ing down to a minimum.

Move along Sheeple. [Exploding]
 
Posted by Funean (Member # 2345) on :
 
QFT:

quote:
You simply cannot solve problems that you do not want to identify.
and I would include "or cannot articulate."

Any procedure that is both routine, without clear objectives and parameters, and left to the discretion of underpaid, undertrained entry-level workers will quickly become corrupted and worthless.

This phenomenon alone will go a long way in preventing effective totalitarian police procedures. And nowhere in preventing actual terrorists from getting on planes. Sigh. More window-dressing from HLS.
 
Posted by Dave at Work (Member # 1906) on :
 
Interesting article.

I haven't traveled by air very much since 9-11 because of the problems with the "random extra screening" they did back then. I used to fly to Richmond and Huston to visit family but now I drive because it seemed that I was always singled out for the random extra screening. On 4 different trips following 9-11 I was pulled aside for the random extra screening on 3 of them. And I don't just mean once. It was at the security checkpoint and again as I boarded each leg of my flight in both directions for 3 out of 4 trips that I took over the first 2 years following 9-11. On the second of those trips I noticed that another passenger was also singled out in a similar way. We compared notes and found that there was a discrete code on both of our boarding passes and when we checked with a few other passengers who hadn't been singled out for the random extra screening they had nothing at that location on their boarding pass. The next trip I was not singled out and the boarding pass had nothing in that location. The on my 4th flight after 9-11 I saw that my boarding pass was marked in the same way, and sure enough I was randomly selected for extra screening. For the next 5 or 6 years I drove cross country to visit family rather that subject myself to that crap. I've flown a few times in the last couple of years and haven't been "selected" for extra screening, so they have apparently changed their methodology at some point.

At first I thought that maybe my name was similar to someone on the do not fly list, but I have the 7th most common first name and the 54th most common last name in America. I thought about appearance, but I am of just below average height and was slightly overweight at the time and my personal grooming and appearance were maddeningly centered in socially accepted norms at the time except for the close cropped haircut that I maintained the same way I had in the Marine Corps.
I think that back then then were so desperate to avoid the image of profiling that they let a computer do the picking and mark the boarding passes of the selected.

Sorry about the rant, the subject just causes me to want to vent.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
TSA was setup to guarantee a lot more Federal employees.

Personally, I've been waved through security when two TSA guards were chatting about TV and subjected to full pat down searches when I've left my belt buckle on. Though generally, they just let you take it off. The procedures are inconsistent at best.

The last trip I took with my Grandfather, we we're accompanied by his 86 year old girl friend. She has a metal-hip. So obviously they made her wait 10 minutes for an extra agent, who then did a full 3 minute pat down, wanded her, inspected her shoes and her luggage. While this was on-going someone else also tripped the scanner, but the agent was busy checking out Grandma Terrorist, so he was given a 30 second wanding and waved through.

The original Bush plan was to use private contractors to upgrade airport security. Private contractors can be fired and are aware of this. They have a vested interest in good customer relations and at least looking like they're doing their job.

Instead, the top Democrats in Congress decided not to miss an opportunity to expand the Federal payroll. Voila. We have a huge expansion of unionized Federal employees that can very rarely be fired, don't care about their customers and can use draconian force to get their way. Bullying seems to be the standard mode of operation. However, they are assumably, reliable democratic votes

The whole program should be abolished. It's just one step away from the NKVD.
 
Posted by TommySama (Member # 2780) on :
 
Heavy duty locks on the cockpit. Dogs trained to smell explosives.

Can someone explain to me why this is not enough?
 
Posted by PSRT (Member # 6454) on :
 
Because almost anything can be an explosive in the hands of people who know how to use it?
 
Posted by TommySama (Member # 2780) on :
 
Like what? Dogs can smell pretty good
 
Posted by PSRT (Member # 6454) on :
 
They can. The point isn't that they can't smell things, but that they'd be stopping almost everyone in the airport.
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
quote:
Private contractors can be fired and are aware of this. They have a vested interest in good customer relations and at least looking like they're doing their job.
That's why you always get good customer service whenever you call the 800 number of any private company...
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
Have you been to the DMV?
 
Posted by threads (Member # 5091) on :
 
I honestly wouldn't mind having less security in general. One of the nice things about our train system is that there is almost no security whatsoever. If I want to catch a train then I can plan to arrive 5-10 minutes ahead of time whereas if I want to catch a plane I have to plan to arrive over an hour ahead of time (for large airports). It would be interesting to see an economic calculation of how much money we lose by spending extra time in airports.

On the other hand, an attack on our train system would be easy to pull off and could cause a lot of destruction if executed on, say, certain parts of the northeast corridor. Unfortunately, implementing airport-like security on the train system would probably not be an effective way to curb that risk as airport security is easily foiled (as demonstrated through repeated undercover security tests).

Semi-random question: Is it possible to bomb-proof the cargo hold of an airplane? I suspect that the cost would be prohibitively high but a bomb-proof cargo hold+secured cabin door should provide a high level of security. It would be nice if security were integrated into the design of our mass transit vehicles rather than tacked on as a filter as it is now. We could potentially eliminate security lines altogether.
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
FiredrakeRAGE,

Have you ever called your cable company for customer support?
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
threads

Trains are also vulnerable to bombs on the tracks, which happened here a couple months ago.

I saw an old indian (dots not feathers) getting patted down in DC. Really dangerous looking terrorist. She was dressed in tradtional Indian clothing which both meant she looked foriegn, but also that she was showing way too much skin to be a fundamentalist muslim.

Such good PR for our country.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
The next trip I was not singled out and the boarding pass had nothing in that location. The on my 4th flight after 9-11 I saw that my boarding pass was marked in the same way, and sure enough I was randomly selected for extra screening. For the next 5 or 6 years I drove cross country to visit family rather that subject myself to that crap. I've flown a few times in the last couple of years and haven't been "selected" for extra screening, so they have apparently changed their methodology at some point.
That's pretty disturbing that they'd rely on such an obvious and easily beaten system. If the terrorists figure out the game (and I'm sure they have) then this kind of system is not only ineffective at preventing an attack, but makes one even easier to pull off.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TommySama:
Heavy duty locks on the cockpit. Dogs trained to smell explosives.

Can someone explain to me why this is not enough?

I'd also make sure the doors are stout enough to be kick-proof.
 
Posted by Dave at Work (Member # 1906) on :
 
quote:
That's pretty disturbing that they'd rely on such an obvious and easily beaten system. If the terrorists figure out the game (and I'm sure they have) then this kind of system is not only ineffective at preventing an attack, but makes one even easier to pull off.
I agree, but I don't think they still use that system. I think they needed a way to randomly choose people for extra screening that would avoid the biases of individuals in making the choices.

As I think back, the time frame that I took those flights in was Thanksgiving 2001 through Christmas 2002, rather than over a two year period like I stated in my earlier post. I flew a few times in 2007 and 2008 and saw no signs that such a system was still in use. I suspect that they have at least changed the methods used, though the blog post linked in the first post suggests that they haven't actually changed their underlying thought processes much, just how they apply them.

I remember that there was a lot of talk of profiling in the screening procedures that sprang up immediately after 9-11. I also remember all the National Guard soldiers patrolling the airport concourses in Chicago, Richmond and Huston with loaded M-16's back then. The government was desperate to calm the traveling public and at the same time trying to avoid giving the impression that they were singling out people by ethnicity. I can certainly understand a short period of security theater while they try to get their act together, but I question whether they ever got their act together at all.
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
I'd also make sure the doors are stout enough to be kick-proof.

Surely you're not suggesting that we can build doors strong enough to withstand a Chuck Norris kick?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
That's pretty disturbing that they'd rely on such an obvious and easily beaten system. If the terrorists figure out the game (and I'm sure they have) then this kind of system is not only ineffective at preventing an attack, but makes one even easier to pull off.

You'd be right, if this was any serious attempt to filter out terrorists. But since this is more about giving the appearance of doing something to give people confidence that something is being done, it's not such a big deal.

Really, if there was anything that actually needed to be changed, it would pretty much all have been tweaks that were behind the scenes rather than such flashy and generally useless methods.
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Drake:
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
I'd also make sure the doors are stout enough to be kick-proof.

Surely you're not suggesting that we can build doors strong enough to withstand a Chuck Norris kick?
Maybe we could settle for kick-resistant?
 
Posted by vulture (Member # 84) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Drake:
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
I'd also make sure the doors are stout enough to be kick-proof.

Surely you're not suggesting that we can build doors strong enough to withstand a Chuck Norris kick?
Why on earth would you need a door that strong? Chuck Norris is a good guy - no plane hijacker he. If he was on a plane, it would be safe even if it didn't have a cockpit door at all.

I feel dirty now for having colluded in a Chuck Norris joke.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
If Chuck Norris hijacked a plane, he'd steer it by kicking the wings directly.
 
Posted by TommySama (Member # 2780) on :
 
"Why on earth would you need a door that strong? Chuck Norris is a good guy - no plane hijacker he. If he was on a plane, it would be safe even if it didn't have a cockpit door at all."

I donno, he's pretty pissed at America right now. He said that Congress "Put a knife through the abdomen of unborn fetuses this year."

(Not a joke, actually said it).


Chuck Norris couldn't even fit inside a cockpit.


(That was a joke).

[ December 19, 2009, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: TommySama ]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
I fly a lot. In fact, just finished a 6 day 5 city run yesterday. I logged well over 100,000 miles this year and have dealt with the TSA quite a bit. Saying they're amateurish is a compliment. They're downright cartoonish. O'hare in particular makes me laugh every time I go through; more than once I thought the TSA agents were actually putting me on with some skit they devised. I went through Tampa (mentioned in the article) no less than 8 times this year and never once did I even notice "puffer machine" - they must have them in storage closets somewhere.
quote:
I am routinely screened because I look like someone who will readily comply.
And there's why most people are selected for extra screening. I have seen mother screened while their pre-elementary children wait alone on the other side of the screening area. I have seen little old ladies stutter in confusion during their pat down. I rarely get extra screening because I look like I won't appreciate the inconvenience. The one time I got picked to have my luggage opened, it truly was a comedy skit as I made comments, laughed and rolled my eyes at the agent. Not one attempt to do that since then.

It's all bull**** and everyone knows it and once enough people decide to stop complying with the security theater it's going to get pretty unpleasant for those front line screeners.

Next time you're in an airport, check out how many of them are there! Holy crap. It looks like they're going for a 1-1 agent/passenger ratio. If it comes down to these buffoons keeping us safe in the air, we are royally screwed.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
It's related so let's talk about it here rather than start a new thread. By now we've all heard about the Christmas day attempt to bring down the Northwest flight 253 - it almost worked, only a malfunctioning detonator prevented it. On Dec 27th:
quote:
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Sunday that the thwarting of the attempt to blow up an Amsterdam-Detroit airline flight Christmas Day demonstrated that “the system worked.”

Asked by CNN’s Candy Crowley on “State of the Union” how that could be possible when the young Nigerian who has been charged with trying to set off the bomb was able to smuggle explosive liquid onto the jet, Napolitano responded: “We’re asking the same questions.”

Napolitano added that there was “no suggestion that [the suspect] was improperly screened.”

So Janet, our Big Sister, says the guy was properly screened and everything worked as planned. A crappy detonator it seems was part of the plan according to Janet. I don't know what's worse, she tries such mindless bull**** on us or that she may actually believe it herself. But, with another 24 hours to think about just how insanely stupid that comment was, Janet tries again:
quote:
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano conceded Monday that the aviation security system failed when a young man on a watchlist with a U.S. visa in his pocket and a powerful explosive hidden on his body was allowed to board a fight from Amsterdam to Detroit.
Gee Janet, ya think? One year into the Obama administration and it's still amateur hour every day. Here's the new plan:
quote:
Among other steps being imposed, passengers on international flights coming to the United States will apparently have to remain in their seats for the last hour of a flight without any personal items on their laps. Overseas passengers will be restricted to only one carry-on item aboard the plane, and domestic passengers will probably face longer security lines.
OMG, that's so freaking brilliant! [Roll Eyes] Just when G2 thought they couldn't get any dumber. This new reactionary measure would have done nothing to prevent the most recent attempt. Janet's and Barry O's plan is still to rely on faulty detonators. Maybe sometime within the next day or two someone will pull Barry O and Janet aside and explain this thing to them using small words even they can understand.
 
Posted by threads (Member # 5091) on :
 
The TSA has been mind-bogglingly incompetent for longer than Obama's been in office.

The Things He Carried

I agree wholeheartedly with Schneier's view:
quote:
Schneier and I walked to the security checkpoint. "Counterterrorism in the airport is a show designed to make people feel better," he said. "Only two things have made flying safer: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers." This assumes, of course, that al-Qaeda will target airplanes for hijacking, or target aviation at all. "We defend against what the terrorists did last week," Schneier said. He believes that the country would be just as safe as it is today if airport security were rolled back to pre-9/11 levels. "Spend the rest of your money on intelligence, investigations, and emergency response."
I think our money would be better spent on trying to secure our aircraft rather than trying to sanitize each and every person and item that makes it on to an aircraft. Security-wise (ideally), this would lead to more security as the security of an aircraft would be mostly independent of the passengers. Money-wise, a secure aircraft requires less comprehensive preflight screening. This would be good for the economy as people would need to spend less time waiting around in airports.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
It's mostly a waste of money, period. We still lose more than a 911's worth in traffic fatalities annually.

We are easily motivated to address what seems urgent rather than necessary.
 
Posted by threads (Member # 5091) on :
 
While this wouldn't be a large issue in the first place if the average American were better at judging risks, I think that, given people's tendencies to respond absurdly to threat of terrorism, it is worthwhile to spend our time enhancing security.
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
Here's a terrible idea. I mean it's really, really bad. I shouldn't even bring it up. It's not even funny. Seriously.

But if we're talking about anti-terrorism shows just to make people feel better, I'm just going to throw this out there as something that would never, ever be a good idea, like the guy at the brainstorming session that always gets the eye roll.

Muslim-free flights.

That's all.

Again, this is something that should never even be considered. I hope I don't get a fatwah on my head.
 
Posted by TommySama (Member # 2780) on :
 
An even better place to start would be to not let known terrorists get on airplanes. But what do I know, I'm not in the intelligence community.
 
Posted by Dave at Work (Member # 1906) on :
 
That is what they are trying to do with the no-fly lists TommySama. The idea sounds great, but apparently the execution of the idea results in problems.

For example:

* Names not on the list that should be there. Poor communication between intelligence agencies?

* Common names on the list that mean lots of non-terrorists get flagged. Anyone ever heard of using a white-list?

* Once a name is on the list it never ever comes off even if later evidence removes the individual in question as a suspected terrorist. The headaches for those affected by the false positive matches will never go away.

I like the idea of preventing known/suspected terrorists from air travel, but they need to fix the execution of it. The current execution of the system clearly does not work
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
Why don't we hold the head of TSA accountable for this? Oh yeah, there isn't a head of TSA. Republicans are still blocking his appointment over the fear that he might allow TSA workers to unionize.
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 888) on :
 
Cherry, I might think you really disagreed with what you suggested, if it wasn't your modus operandi to constantly not mean what you say, and never say what you mean.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Why don't we hold the head of TSA accountable for this? Oh yeah, there isn't a head of TSA. Republicans are still blocking his appointment

Really you could have stopped there. The unionization issue may as well have been pulled out of a hat. They're blocking for the sake of bogging down the process and trying to undermine the administration.

They filibustered a bill that passed with 97 voted in its favor, just for the sake of dragging out the process. This is all about obstruction and little more.
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
> Aris Katsaris

> Cherry, I might think you really disagreed with what you suggested, if it wasn't your modus operandi to constantly not mean what you say, and never say what you mean.


In a world of deadly fatwahs, it's a valid survival tactic.

I don't know why the idea tickles me so much, though I suppose it must be simple racism (tickling myself even more with that one as I pretend to be so ignorant that I don't even know Muslim is not a race).

I could see a comedy skit on it though already:

Reservation specialist: "Yes, ma'am, window or aisle seat?"

Customer: "Window please."

Reservation specialist: "Would you prefer the veal, the steak, the chicken, or the vegetarian dinner ma'am?"

Customer: "I'm a strict vegan I'll have you know. Club sandwiches, not seals. So I'll have the vegetarian meal please."

Reservation specialist: "Yes, ma'am, of course. Now would you prefer a Muslim tolerant flight or non-Muslim flight ma'am."

Customer: "I truly need to make this protest in Copenhagen. We're going to Seattleize the place and really show them what-for, so I can't afford any delays, and I can't afford not to show up on account of getting blown up, so I'm going to have to ask for a Muslim-free flight this time. A Muslims allowed flight on my return trip will be fine though. After all, I'm no bigot."

-----------------------------------------

Yes, it's just being silly I know. Maybe even mean. If so, I apologize. Just don't chop off my head please.

But the point is that the political correctness surrounding the elephant in the room is getting pretty ridiculous. Yes, I understand his father turned him in. Yes, I know there are Muslims who wouldn't even hurt a fly. Yes, I understand the reference I just made to the end of the movie psycho.
 
Posted by TommySama (Member # 2780) on :
 
"Yes, it's just being silly I know. Maybe even mean. If so, I apologize. Just don't chop off my head please. "

Then don't grab a gun and start spraying it all over someone else's family, don't drop bombs on them, and hope that your enemy isn't America, which will come kill you in your home.

[ December 30, 2009, 02:58 AM: Message edited by: TommySama ]
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 888) on :
 
quote:
In a world of deadly fatwahs, it's a valid survival tactic.
I can tolerate cowardice as long as its quiet or at least ashamed of itself. Passive-aggressive cowardice irks me though.

quote:
I don't know why the idea tickles me so much,
Because you hate Muslims, duh, and you love finding ways to insult a billion people or two -- especially with methods that do absolutely nothing to combat terrorism.

A terrorist can kill as many people with a bomb in a subway station as with a bomb in an airplane. Would you also forbid Muslims from using the subway? Which means that you'd stop every single subway passenger and ask them to identify their religion? And take them on their word?

In the end you'd just have to ban darkies from entering, as the majority of Muslim terrorists are from the Middle-east or Africa. Your non-racism (because "muslims aren't a race") would become racism in actual implementation -- banning not Muslims but Middle-easterners and Africans instead.
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
> Aris Katsaris

> Because you hate Muslims, duh, and you love finding ways to insult a billion people or two

I'd prefer to think the reason that the idea tickles me so much is because it's funny, but to each their own I guess.

I was going to write the first thing that came to mind about how fascinating it is that some of the same people who leap to the defense of Islam are the very ones to trash talk all over Christians, but I realized how silly that would make me look if you weren't one of those people.

So, I just searched "Aris Christian" to see what would pop up, and this was one of the first things:

"Aris Katsaris

posted October 06, 2009 05:12 PM

Let's see - most of Christianity believes that Jesus went to the cross, so that mankind's sins be forgiven.

So, obviously the one phrase of him on the cross that specifically mentions forgiveness, is the one that indicates "liberal bias".

Rather than, you know, indicating the core message of Christianity.

These people know well what they're doing. They're fashioning god to their image; same as has always been done. But since Christianity no longer the religion of slaves and the downtrodden but of corporatists instead, it must be remade so as to remove all the talk of compassion and forgiveness and laborers and charity so as to transform it into the proper picture of a boot crushing a human face forever."

------------------------------------------

So it does seem like you are one of "those people" who will bust the balls of anyone who has anything but complimentary things to say about Islam but then you'll turn around and bash Christians.

Instead of speculating about why this is so, maybe first I'll just come right out and ask if there is a good explanation for this type of behavior. Is there?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
*blink* You think Aris is, in that passage, bashing Christians?
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
Certainly some of them at least, the ones who don't conform to the proper interpretation of Christianity as determined by ... whomever. Did I miss something?

Getting back closer to the original subject of these hyper-intrusive searches including the full body scans, one of my points is that we are increasingly having our sensitivities violated because of the actions of a pretty determinable group of people. Is it so wrong to ask if they share more of our consternation?

Am I really suggesting that we're going to have Muslim-free flights? No, I'm suggesting that if I'm going to be forced to show every beautiful bold centimeter of my glorious naked body to some undeserving TSA screener, then I've earned the right to joke about the religion most responsible for it. Let's face it. They've ruined things. Big time.

It's almost like Salman Rushdie had it exactly right with "The Satanic Verses". Let me put it this way, and this goes for Christianity as well. If it's so easy to misinterpret the message, then there is something seriously flawed with it.

Just looking up Salman Rushdie. I like this little tidbit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses

"Following the fatwa, Rushdie was put under police protection by the British government. Despite a conciliatory statement by Iran in 1998, and Rushdie's declaration that he would stop living in hiding, the Iranian state news agency reported in 2006 that the fatwa would remain in place permanently since fatwas can only be rescinded by the person who first issued them and Ayatollah Khomeini was no longer alive."

I mean we could go on and on, but defending this is pretty laughable. And not being able to laugh at it is even more ridiculous. It's almost like the liberals are putting us under some part of Sharia law where now it's verboten to criticize the "religion of peace". And it's further interesting that that religion is filled with the Orwellian type obfuspeak that liberals are pouring into our lexicon the way the Exxon Valdez poured oil into Prince William Sound. Anyway, I hope that's all I have to say on the subject as going on about it further probably risks a banning for some reason or other, like Rushdie was banned. Or a fatwah.

From wiki: "As of late 2009 Rushdie has not been physically harmed, but others connected with the book have suffered violent attacks. Hitoshi Igarashi, the Japanese language translator of the book, was stabbed to death on 11 July 1991; Ettore Capriolo, the Italian language translator, was seriously injured in a stabbing the same month; William Nygaard, the publisher in Norway, barely survived an attempted assassination in Oslo in October 1993, and Aziz Nesin, the Turkish language translator, was the intended target in the events that led to the Sivas massacre on 2 July 1993 in Sivas, Turkey which resulted in the deaths of 37 people."
 
Posted by vulture (Member # 84) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
Certainly some of them at least, the ones who don't conform to the proper interpretation of Christianity as determined by ... whomever. Did I miss something?

Apparently.

That was from a thread about a pretty deranged bunch of Christians producing a new version of the bible that removed its 'liberal bias'. It is poking fun at their objecting to 'forgiveness' as being liberal wishy-washy stuff that ought to be removed, while as Aris correctly points out, it is the single most important Christian doctrine, and the point of the whole thing.

He is objecting to the far right and out-and-out capitalists rewriting Christianity to reflect their own preferences. If he is demonising anyone, it is American free-marketeers and conservatives. He is defending Christianity as standing up for the rights of the poor, the slaves, the downtrodden, rather than being made in to a tool used by the rich and powerful to oppress others.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
So about refusing that search:
quote:

WASHINGTON – As the government reviews how an alleged terrorist was able to bring a bomb onto a U.S.-bound plane and try to blow it up on Christmas Day, the Transportation Security Administration is going after bloggers who wrote about a directive to increase security after the incident.

TSA special agents served subpoenas to travel bloggers Steve Frischling and Chris Elliott, demanding that they reveal who leaked the security directive to them. The government says the directive was not supposed to be disclosed to the public.

Frischling said he met with two TSA special agents Tuesday night at his Connecticut home for about three hours and again on Wednesday morning when he was forced to hand over his lap top computer.

Frischling said the agents threatened to interfere with his contract to write a blog for KLM Royal Dutch Airlines if he didn't cooperate and provide the name of the person who leaked the memo. "It literally showed up in my box," Frischling told The Associated Press. "I do not know who it came from." He said he provided the agents a signed statement to that effect.

In a Dec. 29 posting on his blog, Elliott said he had told the TSA agents at his house that he would call his lawyer and get back to them. Elliott said late Wednesday he could not comment until the legal issues had been resolved.

The TSA declined to say how many people were subpoenaed.


BTW, "This is the second time in a month that the TSA has found some of its sensitive airline security documents on the Internet."

The TSA, incompetent and apparently pretty powerful. You guys better watch what you say about them or you're liable to get a visit too ...
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
> vulture


> Apparently.

Oh. As long as he was fine with all non-Christians being doomed to an eternity in Hell, I guess that's cool then. Nothing discriminatory about that.
 
Posted by vulture (Member # 84) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
> vulture


> Apparently.

Oh. As long as he was fine with all non-Christians being doomed to an eternity in Hell, I guess that's cool then. Nothing discriminatory about that.

I'm sure you can be more coherent than this. Firstly you complain that Aris is anti-Christian and defends Islam, saying

quote:

So it does seem like you are one of "those people" who will bust the balls of anyone who has anything but complimentary things to say about Islam but then you'll turn around and bash Christians.

And when the refutation of that is provided, you complain about evangelical Christian doctrine and attribute it to him. Which is it? Is he bad person because he is anti-Christian and pro-Islam, or a bad person because he is an evangelical Christian (and NB I have no idea what Aris's beliefs might be, although since he is Greek I'd hazard a guess at atheist or Eastern Orthodox Christian; in either case I think you've still managed to attribute wholly fictional (and mutually contradictory) attitudes to him two times in a row - so I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make here).

[ December 31, 2009, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: vulture ]
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 888) on :
 
I'm agnostic, leaning to atheism. I was raised Greek Orthodox.

And I don't understand what hypocrisy Cherry is supposedly accusing me of, since unlike Cherry I've never wanted Christians barred from airplanes or anywhere else.

I do have a special hatred against the Greek Orthodox CHURCH, but that's because of their support of tyrants and genocidal killers, not because of their faith. I don't transfer the hatred of the organization to mere believers: I doubt Cherry has any Muslim friends (or that he would keep them if they knew he was saying such stuff), but I do have Christian friends and family.

[ December 31, 2009, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
Well, we can't do "muslim free" flights obviously. What we should be doing is profiling. We can be pretty sure the white lady from Wisconsin with 2 kids is pretty low risk. We can be pretty sure the black guy with Platinum status from Chicago is low risk. Etc, etc, etc. What about the 20-40 year old ME male? Not all 20-40 year old ME males are terrorists but it seems almost all terrorists are 20-40 year old ME males. Maybe we should give every 20-40 year old ME male an little extra hard looking over before we let him board the flight?

What's a ME male look like? G2 thinks we can all figure that out. Yeah, we'll catch some none ME males in that, sure; sorry about that. But we'll not be wasting our time and money on the obviously low risk people like we do now and then hoping they jump into action when the detonator fails like we currently plan on ... Christ that's moronic.

Air marshals, one a flight on every flight within the US and inbound international flights. El Al does it, it works. Been almost a decade since 9/11 and we still don't have enough air marshals? That's bull****. El Al profiles too ...

Have some real and consistent requirements for TSA screeners and real training once they're hired. These guys are beyond a joke. College degrees (maybe just 2 year degree to get hired but 4 for any supervisory position) and at least bilingual (don't have to be fluent, just enough to do the job).

A bomb sniffing dog or two at every security checkpoint, they could easily scan a great deal of incoming carry-on luggage and people. Those dogs are pretty damn good.
 
Posted by TommySama (Member # 2780) on :
 
"Well, we can't do "muslim free" flights obviously. What we should be doing is profiling. We can be pretty sure the white lady from Wisconsin with 2 kids is pretty low risk. We can be pretty sure the black guy with Platinum status from Chicago is low risk. Etc, etc, etc. What about the 20-40 year old ME male? Not all 20-40 year old ME males are terrorists but it seems almost all terrorists are 20-40 year old ME males. Maybe we should give every 20-40 year old ME male an little extra hard looking over before we let him board the flight?"

We could probably do a lot better by just having a few undercover agents follow known terrorists onto planes; or observing them before they get on the plane.

Planes seem to be high risk for terrorist attacks. After all, if there are bombs all over the US, it might be a lot easier to just blow up a few busy bus terminals in NYC than trying to sneak a bomb onto an airplane.
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
I have trouble feeling like the nation would be as upset about bombing of Port Authority as it is about a foiled terrorist plot on an airplane. I mean, think about it: who's in Port Authority? Poor people and black people. I mean, it's sad for them if they get blown up and all, but it's unlikely to change your average policy-maker's holiday plans to fly two thousand miles to see the grandbabies.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
Have some real and consistent requirements for TSA screeners and real training once they're hired. These guys are beyond a joke.

Yes!!!

quote:
Originally posted by G2:
College degrees (maybe just 2 year degree to get hired but 4 for any supervisory position) and at least bilingual (don't have to be fluent, just enough to do the job).

No!!!

Under what set of circumstances do you need to have a college degree to be a good cop? I'm pretty sure any good Irish beat cop from the 1880's could do a much better job than the current TSA employee.

We don't need useless credentials, we need motivated cops with a credible plan and a direct mandate. Of course, most of the current problem is as much poor management as anything.
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
Ah well, I can only wish I were this funny so I'd be making those big bucks. I guess I'll just have to settle for being more beautiful:

http://www.anncoulter.org/

IVANA TRUMP ESCORTED OFF PLANE: NAPOLITANO DECLARES 'THE SYSTEM WORKED'
December 30, 2009

At least she explained why Janet didn't take the father's warning seriosly:

"(To be fair, the father's warning might have been taken more seriously if he had not simultaneously asked for the U.S. Embassy's Social Security number and bank routing number in order to convey a $28 million inheritance that was trapped in a Nigerian bank account.)"

I take her point also about the indignity of not being able to use the bathroom for over an hour. What's the government doing? Taking a stake in adult diaper companies?

TSA screener: "Excuse me sir, but that underwear looks very suspicious. What is that?"

Customer: "Depends. Just in case I have to go."

TSA Screener: "Oh, is that also why you have a parachute in your backpack?"

Customer: "Yeah, also in case I have to go. And because you guys are a joke."
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
College degrees (maybe just 2 year degree to get hired but 4 for any supervisory position) and at least bilingual (don't have to be fluent, just enough to do the job).

No!!!

Under what set of circumstances do you need to have a college degree to be a good cop? I'm pretty sure any good Irish beat cop from the 1880's could do a much better job than the current TSA employee.

We don't need useless credentials, we need motivated cops with a credible plan and a direct mandate. Of course, most of the current problem is as much poor management as anything.

The acquisition of a college degree indicates you have someone that has the tools to think. It's not 100% accurate of course but given what the average high school produces it simply is not a reliable source of talent for this type of security work. We need someone that has the tools to think logically and interpret the rules developed within events as they occur in real time.

We cannot develop rules for every eventuality, these people need to be able to "think on their feet". The vast majority of high school graduates have not been given the education to allow them to do that and instead we end up with blind adherence to rules where obviously safe people are scrutinized beyond rationality at the expense of everyone involved. When the unusual happens - when we need these guys most - they're befuddled and just as likely to let it pass as they are to check further.
 
Posted by Al Wessex (Member # 6541) on :
 
"Under what set of circumstances do you need to have a college degree to be a good cop?"

You don't. College grads aren't trained to have the discipline for 9-5 analysis of this sort or for search and seizure. Security, military or police training are better than a BA in English. Then specialized training and testing on the specifics and OTJ supervised training for all hirees.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:
"Under what set of circumstances do you need to have a college degree to be a good cop?"

You don't. College grads aren't trained to have the discipline for 9-5 analysis of this sort or for search and seizure. Security, military or police training are better than a BA in English. Then specialized training and testing on the specifics and OTJ supervised training for all hirees.

A bachelor degree alone and then off to the front lines of security is not what G2 is saying - they would still require considerable training just as any other security/LEO. G2 has consulted with about 2 dozen police departments over the past decade or so. As best G2 can tell, they all require a bachelor's degree now. The last hold out on that made the transition last year and no longer hires those without 4 year degrees. Those already hired are frozen in their career and cannot be promoted until they get one (not sure how others grandfathered in). It's not just my anecdotal experience:
quote:
The majority of police departments require applicants to be 20 years old, a U.S. citizen, GED or equivalent and many now require an associate’s degree or bachelor’s degree to become a police officer. State and Federal agency jobs require applicants to possess a 4-year college degree. Being able to speak a second language fluently is a definite plus for applicants.
Those police departments not requiring at least a 2 year degree are usually sheriff's departments in G2's experience - not knocking the sheriff's department but it's a different beast than your average big city police department.

So why do you think State and Federal agency jobs (which the TSA is) require applicants to possess a 4-year college degree? Why is the TSA not held to that standard?

[ January 04, 2010, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by Al Wessex (Member # 6541) on :
 
Can't hurt to have a BA, but I read your comment as saying that was the basic requirement for the job. Thanks for clarifying.

" It's not just my anecdotal experience: "

Is it also G2's experience?

[ January 04, 2010, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: Al Wessex ]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
[LOL] , it is indeed also G2's experience. Man, that 3rd person thing is hard until you get into the swing of it. G2 appreciates the reminder!

[ January 04, 2010, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by Al Wessex (Member # 6541) on :
 
We say "you're welcome", and would point out that a first-person multiple-personality persona would be easier to carry off. At least, we think so (don't we, guys?).

[ January 04, 2010, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: Al Wessex ]
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
The amount of time it would take to properly screen airline passengers, using extant technology, would create such crowd in airports that the crowds would themselves be the targets of suicide bombers.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
The amount of time it would take to properly screen airline passengers, using extant technology, would create such crowd in airports that the crowds would themselves be the targets of suicide bombers.

Yes indeed. Shudder.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by vulture:
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
> vulture


> Apparently.

Oh. As long as he was fine with all non-Christians being doomed to an eternity in Hell, I guess that's cool then. Nothing discriminatory about that.

I'm sure you can be more coherent than this. Firstly you complain that Aris is anti-Christian and defends Islam, saying

quote:

So it does seem like you are one of "those people" who will bust the balls of anyone who has anything but complimentary things to say about Islam but then you'll turn around and bash Christians.


Cherry doesn't have to like or even to respect Christianity in order to get sick of people who bitch incessantly about it. There's nothing incoherent about that.

I haven't observed Aris to be one of such persons, and don't think Cherry's comment was fair to Aris, but just replying to Vulture's comment that it was incoherent.
 
Posted by stayne (Member # 1944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
The amount of time it would take to properly screen airline passengers, using extant technology, would create such crowd in airports that the crowds would themselves be the targets of suicide bombers.

+1, Insightful.
 
Posted by TommySama (Member # 2780) on :
 
"Cherry doesn't have to like or even to respect Christianity in order to get sick of people who bitch incessantly about it. There's nothing incoherent about that.

I haven't observed Aris to be one of such persons, and don't think Cherry's comment was fair to Aris, but just replying to Vulture's comment that it was incoherent. "

So... cherry was wrong to randomly accuse Aris of attacking Christians, but its okay because people do attack Christians too much, and so cherry was right to randomly attack Aris for things he doesn't do?, and it was wrong for vulture to point out that cherry randomly attacked aris for something he didn't do because other people do do it sometimes, so uninvolved observers may feel the need to get involved? I'm getting a headache
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"+1, Insightful'

It's the "sight", is all. Saw the story on morning news, saw the huge crowds created, the rest was obvious since the fundamental topic was People Who Explode Bombs in Large Clusters of Innocent Civilians.

This whole thing is a joke. (The War on Terror, airport security, et al) Both sides -- al-qaeda, USA -- are waving bogeymen around to distract their respective populaces from more meaningful and crucial realities.

I so look forward to the day the Next Big Thing happens and 400 million heads swivel in unison to obsess on it for a decade.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
This whole thing is a joke. (The War on Terror, airport security, et al) Both sides -- al-qaeda, USA -- are waving bogeymen around to distract their respective populaces from more meaningful and crucial realities.

Careful there ken...you're starting to sound like me...

[LOL]

I believe this latest incident was deliberately MIHOP or LIHOP to simply justify ratcheting up the police state measures on the American populace.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
I sounded like you on this long before you did, D. I recall when you defended our invasion of Iraq via War on Terror notions.

I'm the guy who was even against invading Afghanistan.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
I sounded like you on this long before you did, D. I recall when you defended our invasion of Iraq via War on Terror notions.

I'm the guy who was even against invading Afghanistan.

Does that mean I'm now sounding like you? [DOH] [Razz] [LOL]
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
I wouldn't insult you that deeply, D.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
Alrighty, G2 has just returned from his first flight of the year which was indeed a international hop. It was every bit the show G2 expected from security theater. Going out of the country, not much different than it's been the last few years although the customs guys were pretty pissy for some reason.

Coming back was a whole new show.

G2 was thus cleared for a return to the US. Total time from ticket counter to get past final inspection, about 2 hours. The lines were massive. This was about 8 AM so as the travel day spun up, G2 is sure it got worse.

Did this make the flight any more secure? Of course not. G2 flies about 100K miles a year both domestic and international, G2 is not on any watch list, G2 has no criminal record, G2 is not a muslim nor is ever he going to be mistaken for someone from the ME. That describes the vast majority of G2's co-passengers except for maybe the mileage although more than a few were frequent fliers. This flight was never in any danger from the passengers and everyone knew it. But how much time, energy and money is being wasted on this?

[ January 11, 2010, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
But how much time, energy and money is being wasted on this?
Quite a lot. As you point out, it's all "security theater." There's no need for any of it.

Of course, I don't believe there's any need for profiling, either.
 
Posted by Al Wessex (Member # 6541) on :
 
Yes, but G2 refers to himself in the 3rd person. That is most suspicious, even moreso if done in the security line. If you can't dial it all the way back to "I", at least try "we".
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
From the article in the OP:
quote:
What happened to me in Albany was not the promised “pat-down.” It was a full search conducted in full public view. It was also one of the most flawed searches I have ever witnessed.

From the outset, it was very clear that the screener would have preferred to be anywhere else. She acted as if she was afraid of me, though given that I had set myself apart as apparently crazy, perhaps I cannot blame her. With rubber-gloved hands she checked my head, my arms, my legs, my buttocks (and discovered a pen that had fallen into one of my pockets) and even the bottom of my feet. Perhaps in a nod to decorum, she did not check my crotch, my armpits or either breast area.

Here was a big problem: an effective search cannot nod to decorum.

These three areas on a woman, and the crotch area of men, offer the greatest opportunity to seclude weapons and contraband. Bad guys and girls rely on the type of reluctance displayed by this screener to get weapons and drugs past the authorities.

That has been fixed with the new enhanced pat down procedures. How "enhanced" are they? Let's see what Celeste, a rape victim, has to say:
quote:
Celeste is a seasoned air traveler. She estimates that she flies upwards of 60 times a year for her job and she knows all the ins and outs of most airports in the USA. Want to know which airport has the best sushi? Celeste can tell you. What she, and most other people didn’t know, was that on October 29th the TSA changed their security guidelines. “I flew to Chicago with no problems. Everything was the same as before. It was when I attempted to fly back to Minnesota that I found out about TSA’s new rules. What they did to me, in full view of everyone else in line, was like being sexually assaulted all over again. I was in shock. I hate myself that I allowed them to do this to me. I haven’t been able to stop crying since.”

<snip>

Coming back from Chicago, Celeste, like increasing numbers of travelers, was forced to make a difficult choice – either allow strangers to see her naked or allow strangers to touch and squeeze her breasts and groin in full view of other travels and TSA agents. “This was a nightmare come to life,” Celeste says, “I said I didn’t want them to see me naked and the agent started yelling Opt out- we have an opt here. Another agent took me aside and said they would have to pat me down. He told me he was going to touch my genitals and asked if I wouldn’t rather just go through the scanner, that it would be less humiliating for me. I was in shock. I couldn’t believe this was happening. I kept saying I don’t want any of this to happen. I was whispering please don’t do this, please, please.”

Since Celeste didn’t agree to go through the scanner, the enhanced pat down began. “He started at one leg and then ran his hand up to my crotch. He cupped and patted my crotch with his palm. Other flyers were watching this happen to me. At that point I closed my eyes and started praying to the Goddess for strength. He also cupped and then squeezed my breasts. That wasn’t the worst part. He touched my face, he touched my hair, stroking me. That’s when I started crying. It was so intimate, so horrible. I feel like I was being raped. There’s no way I can fly again. I can’t do it.”

Celeste’s experience is not an isolated or even unusual one.

Do you have the right to refuse this search? Sure you do. At that point law enforcement will escort you out of the airport. At least you better hope that's all that happens. In at least one case, they will call your employer and get you fired.

[ November 11, 2010, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
I've got an idea. It would require passengers who don't want to go through the machines to come in an extra forty minutes or so early though and cost forty dollars more (that includes the tip).

They should take you into a dimly lit back room with a massage table and have a masseuse of the gender of your choice give you a thirty minute massage. You’re practically getting one anyway, though you may prefer sports style or shiatsu or four-hands Swedish (costs extra) over TSA soft touch.

The masseuses are also trained and qualified TSA screeners, and they can have your clothes checked while you're on the table.

This way it could provide a happy ending for everyone. No, not THAT kind!
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
I've got an idea. It would require passengers who don't want to go through the machines to come in an extra forty minutes or so early though and cost forty dollars more (that includes the tip).

They should take you into a dimly lit back room with a massage table and have a masseuse of the gender of your choice give you a thirty minute massage. You’re practically getting one anyway, though you may prefer sports style or shiatsu or four-hands Swedish (costs extra) over TSA soft touch.

The masseuses are also trained and qualified TSA screeners, and they can have your clothes checked while you're on the table.

That would be absolutely genius!
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 888) on :
 
Yet more thread necromancy -- though the actual ADDITION to the thread is interesting enough that it could make a fine new thread on it own, I almost didn't reach to reading it, because for some reason it was seen fit to be squeezed into the 2nd page of an old dead thread.

This continuing constant necromancy is seriously deteriorating my reading experience in this forum.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
Why? It's directly relates to the topic - TSA searches, your right to refuse them and how invasive they are. I even quote from the OP and show you just how perfectly the latest developments relate to past actions.

Yes, the actual ADDITION to the thread is interesting enough that it could make a fine new thread on it own but to look back and have the entire context of it built up around these new developments gives the new stuff a depth that simply dumping it on yet another thread can't. If I had simply dumped it as you suggest, would you have known that an expert in this area had already conclusively shown that previous pat down procedures were ineffective? Doesn't knowing that make you think at least a little differently about Celeste's trauma at reliving her sexual assault by essentially being assaulted again by a TSA agent? Does looking back and seeing the litany of TSA failures at even the most basic levels change the way you see these new, invasive and potentially illegal and unsafe procedures lead you to think this is a good idea or bad? You wouldn't have any of that context without this thread.

I find threads that are brought back with the most recent news to be among the most informative and thought provoking on the forum as we see our opinions recast in the light of current events and can do a little hindsight check on what we were told then vs. now.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
As we think about Celeste, think about this one:
quote:
The middle-aged man in the blue shirt spoke gently, but directly, to Tabitha, as if he had done this a thousand times before with 12-year-old girls like her. In words tailored to her understanding, and designed to make what he was about to do seem normal, not creepy, the man in the blue shirt made it clear that if she didn’t do as he instructed she would not get to go to Disneyland. He merely wanted to show another man what was under Tabitha’s blouse and panties. Her refusal was so firm, and her face so alarmed, that he backed off and tried another tactic. If Tabitha would merely stand still while one of the man’s friends touched her body all over (caressing her in ways that no one ever had) then that would be the end of it, and she could go to Disneyland.
That's an intentionally provocative fictional dramatization of the new airline security protocol used by the TSA. But could it be true? Why yes, it most certainly could. From Reuters yesterday:
quote:
Some travelers are also livid about how children are being screened. During a trip last Sunday by a father and son through Orlando airport in Florida, the 8-year-old boy was selected for extra screening by TSA after going through the metal detector.

The father said the officer described the procedure before conducting it. Then he patted down the boy in the open security area, using the backside of his hands to check his genital area, he said.

"I didn't think it was going to be as horrible as he was describing," said the boy's father, Bill, who works as a lobbyist in Washington and did not want his full name used.

"We spend my child's whole life telling him that only mom, dad and a doctor can touch you in your private area, and now we have to add TSA agent and that's just wrong," he told Reuters

As Micheal Roberts put it:
quote:
After the shoe-bomber attempt, we had to remove our shoes. After the underpants bomber, we had to be electronically strip searched and groped.

What will happen, he asks, after the first time a terrorist smuggles a bomb on a plane inside his rectum or in a breast implant?

We're probably going to find out:
quote:
... Fadhel al-Maliki, a 35-year old Iraqi national, attempted to board an early morning, cross-country, US Airways flight out of Los Angeles International Airport. Hidden in his rectum was a device containing electrical wires, chewing gum and a rock. An airport screener noticed that al-Maliki was acting suspiciously. "He was nervous and sweating," I was told by the FBI.

Al-Maliki was asked to step aside and answer a few questions. Also according to my interview with the FBI, only after some heavy questioning about his odd behavior, and after being repeatedly asked by federal agents why he was sweating, did the former security guard admit to the untoward items hidden inside his lower body cavity.


 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
And the one guy caught was caught without using any of the security-theater options, but based on normal, effective investigative techniques.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
The defininitve answer on your right to refuse to be searched:
quote:
"Advanced imaging technology screening is optional for all passengers," TSA said in a statement released Monday. "Passengers who opt out of [advanced imaging] screening will receive alternative screening, including a physical pat-down."

But anyone who refuses to complete the screening process will be denied access to airport secure areas and could be subject to civil penalties, the administration said, citing a federal appeals court ruling in support of the rule.

The ruling, from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, says that "requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world. Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by 'electing not to fly' on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found."

Refusal may result in being subjected to a civil suit and a $10,000 fine.
 
Posted by Colin JM0397 (Member # 916) on :
 
This just shows we're rattling their cage, so they are upping the pressure.

Can't wait for the first lawsuit on that one. Show me the law I broke and who/where/when it was passed.

While the ACLU probably wouldn't touch it (they might, but are biased in what they support), some of the liberty non-profits will jump all over this one.
 
Posted by drewmie (Member # 1179) on :
 
I'm so sick of the "post-9/11 world" arguments. They're complete crap. I studied terrorism in college in the mid-1990s. By the time of 9/11, most of the terrorist groups I studied were gone or seriously undermined. Terrorism has been on the decline worldwide for quite a while. And yet, Americans are so completely freaked by 9/11 that we hyperventilate and overreact in the stupidest possible ways.

The lesson? America is very easily shaken and manipulated by terror. Whatever moral and philosophical spine we have has seriously atrophied.
 
Posted by Colin JM0397 (Member # 916) on :
 
Drew, you miss the point. This is not about terrorism and security - it's about getting the public to kowtow to totalitarian actions by federal officials. Every “real” security in the world looks at this theater and laughs – it’s ridiculous. If it was really about terrorism and making us safe, they wouldn’t be feeling up grandma and your kids.

A full blog post on that 10k fine garbage: http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html

The main thing to remember/know, if you elect to go this protest route, is to be perfectly calm and reasonable but know your right for what constitutes being detained. Ask if you are being detained, if they answer anything other than yes, then you state "since I am not being detained, I am leaving" and then leave. Even filling out the paperwork that very well is, technically speaking, "voluntary". If they are not going to detain you, then you are free to go.

Civil disobedience, but you absolutely must remain calm and polite at all times.
 
Posted by Colin JM0397 (Member # 916) on :
 
The complete history of how we went from point A to point B (naked scanners and crotch groping).
Scanners: Abdulmutallab, Reid, Chertoff, that Nicely Dressed Indian Man and the Great Terror Lobby
quote:
...Everyone must understand that ICTS is the worst airport security company ever to have existed…. FACT. They were running the show at Schiphol that day, just as they were at Boston’s Logan on 11th of September 2001, and as well when Richard Reid boarded his flight at Charles de Gaulle. This is the security company made up of crack Israeli ex Shin Bet agents, expert in counter-terrorism, that has the worst airport security track record in history. Prior to the 3 biggest air-terrorist acts in recent history this company actually managed to TURN OFF all procedures just at the moment when the terrorists were passing security. Mohamed Atta managed to breeze through the magnetic detectors with his boxcutters without so much as a beep. Richard Reid had already been identified as a potential threat, yet was allowed to board his flight. Abdulmutallab had all the markings of a suicide bomber and even his own father had reported him two weeks before, and the scanners just happened to be switched off that day. Either this company is really, really unlucky or its Israeli owners had a side-line more profitable than its airport security racket.

 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
The latest poster boy for fighting this is in hot water now:
quote:
The Transportation Security Administration has opened an investigation targeting John Tyner, the Oceanside man who left Lindbergh Field under duress on Saturday morning after refusing to undertake a full body scan.

Tyner recorded the half-hour long encounter on his cell phone and later posted it to his personal blog, along with an extensive account of the incident. The blog went viral, attracting hundreds of thousands of readers and thousands of comments.

Michael J. Aguilar, chief of the TSA office in San Diego, called a news conference at the airport Monday afternoon to announce the probe. He said the investigation could lead to prosecution and civil penalties of up to $11,000.

TSA agents had told Tyner on Saturday that he could be fined up to $10,000.

“That’s the old fine,” Aguilar said. “It has been increased.”

I have listened to the recording and Tyner was reasonably courteous and did everything he should have. Now he will be made an example of because he refused to have his groin felt up by TSA screeners.

I particularly like the arbitrary increase in the fine amount. Nice.

[ November 16, 2010, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
Might be- there's no guarantee at this point that he will be fined.

And where do you get the information that the increase was arbitrary?
 
Posted by Colin JM0397 (Member # 916) on :
 
He's being made an example of because he dares to speak out against the system. Plenty of folks are refusing this BS; not so many are recording it and then posting the info online.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
Certainly, but let's keep the facts straight- he's been threatened that he might be fined, he hasn't actually been fined. The maximum amount of the fine is generally set by statute, not an arbitrary number that's pumped up when someone feels like making it bigger.

There's absolutely going to be a vindictive probe for his challenge to abuse of authority, but ultimately, it's got to pass muster with a string of judges before it becomes final, which could, with a strong enough push, possibly even lead to rulings that cut back on the theater. Odds are against it, sure, but we haven't seen the outcome yet so claims that imply that he's already been arbitrarily fined are wrong twice over. This is the expected result of his civil disobedience, and I hope he gets the support he needs to let it play out properly and win some ground back.
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
quote:
While the ACLU probably wouldn't touch it (they might, but are biased in what they support),
I'm interested in whether you have any particular evidence upon which you are basing this statement. I have found them to be quite catholic in their defense of Constitutionally-protected freedoms; what is the "bias" that you see?

Regardless, you were wrong in this particular case:

http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/homeland-security-wants-see-you-naked
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
I don't think these scanners are as safe as they are letting on. Mark my words: more people will end up dying from cancer caused by these scanners than would have been blown up by terrorists in airplanes.

The fondling I don't mind so much, but I would prefer a little pillow talk first.

It's always nice to have a choice though:

Rads.

Or nads.

The latest is that there are no religious exemptions, and that I agree with because we all know which religion would want to be exempt and that would defeat the whole purpose of violating our bodies if not our rights.

One curious thing I noticed on my last trip through the airport though was that the dumpy middle-aged guy with the greasy hair relieving the other guy in the little scanner viewing room was carrying a box of tissue and a jar of vaseline. Not sure what that was about, and I didn't ask.
 
Posted by Colin JM0397 (Member # 916) on :
 
ACLU isn't exactly the biggest supporter of some rights - gun rights come to mind, for example. To me, that makes them selective about what they peruse. They are very good at what they support, but they don’t always support the entire bill of rights from what I see (which is limited to what filters through media online these days). Granted, the NRA and other gun rights groups pick up the slack there, so maybe it isn't bias.

That said, I do stand corrected in my assumption. Heard an interview with Tyner yesterday - he said the ACLU had touched base with him just to let him know they were there to help if he wanted it, but he had not yet taken them up on it b/c, as of yesterday at least, there was no fine/charges yet.

He also said he would fight it all the way if they push it.

If it goes to trial, it could be very good or very bad - depending on how much you trust the courts to knock down or support such BS in the name of "security". I'm hopeful, but the judicial system is far from impartial and non-corrupted.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
The latest is that there are no religious exemptions...

Children under 12 will be exempted from the groping. If there's nothing wrong with feeling around in a 12 year old's crotch what's wrong with squeezing the genitals of a 10 or 11 year old?

What this means is terrorists must hide their bombs in the pants of someone 11 years old or younger. Problem solved, at least for a terrorist. This is some brilliant freaking "security".
 
Posted by cb (Member # 6179) on :
 
Maybe this has already been brought up and I missed it, but why isn't everyone up in arms about this as a violation of 4th Amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure? Isn't probable cause supposed to be present? Do we give probable cause simply by being airline passengers? Are we so scared of terrorism that we are willing to allow ourselves to be considered guilty before proven innocent?

And what about the naked images that were saved for whatever nefarious reason in violation of the supposedly strict regulations against such actions http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1330327/Airport-security-breach-naked-body-scanner-images-leaked-online.html?ito=feeds-newsxml ? They can guarantee us privacy all they want, once the images are on a computer - even for just a moment - with the proficiency of hackers today, it become public property.

I keep hearing interviews with passengers, some of them saying "If it makes us safer, then I'm for it". I wonder where the line will be drawn. If the next suicide bombing is attempted by someone with a plastic bomb tucked up his nether regions will these same passengers consider full cavity search part of the price of an airline ticket?

The answer to our problem is not to expose people to X-rays or to violate their personal space...the answer is Israelification http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-bother .
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
4th amendment doesn't apply because you're technically opting into it by choosing to fly. You put yourself in the weird grey area between private business (the airlines and the airport itself) and public regulations that say that the TSA is the only option to actually conduct security. That's why you'll see most of the language around such incidents phrased so passive-aggressively (Not "we require you to be screened" but "You implicitly agree to submit to our screening")
 
Posted by cb (Member # 6179) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
4th amendment doesn't apply because you're technically opting into it by choosing to fly. You put yourself in the weird grey area between private business (the airlines and the airport itself) and public regulations that say that the TSA is the only option to actually conduct security. That's why you'll see most of the language around such incidents phrased so passive-aggressively (Not "we require you to be screened" but "You implicitly agree to submit to our screening")

The idea that when we become a customer of the airlines and step into the airport we tacitly give up our constitutional protections should be abhorrent to everyone.

Did you read my link about the methods used by Israel? They are the experts...why aren't we following their example? It makes much more sense to me.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
4th amendment doesn't apply because you're technically opting into it by choosing to fly. You put yourself in the weird grey area between private business (the airlines and the airport itself) and public regulations that say that the TSA is the only option to actually conduct security. That's why you'll see most of the language around such incidents phrased so passive-aggressively (Not "we require you to be screened" but "You implicitly agree to submit to our screening")

Comments like this are interesting in light of other topics in this forum like: Federal Agents Assume Right to Seize Laptops at Border

Everyone browse that thread then come back here for a compare & contrast. Quite interesting.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cb:
Did you read my link about the methods used by Israel? They are the experts...why aren't we following their example? It makes much more sense to me.

They did a modified version of this by having TSA agents prowl around airports looking for suspicious behavior. It didn't work out so well. I think the way the Israelis do it has some issues with scaling to US air travel proportions.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
Evolving:
quote:
Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri said prior to Pistole's testimony that she believed TSA was in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, because people would be hopping mad at TSA if Christmas bomber Umar Farouk Adbulmutallab had succeeded. She went on to say the new advanced imaging technology--which has caused uproar because of its leave-no-secrets imaging and potential health risks--is more of a blessing than a curse.
The "Christmas bomber" was an example of a TSA failure. Adbulmutallab did actually succeed in getting a bomb on a plane. The only reason the bomb did not go off was a faulty detonator.

quote:
"I'm wildly excited that I can walk through a machine instead of getting my dose of love pats," Sen. McCaskill said.
"Love pats"? I don't think Claire has a clue of what's really going on. And, those machines may or may not be safe. There is some genuine concern about repeated exposure there.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cb:
The idea that when we become a customer of the airlines and step into the airport we tacitly give up our constitutional protections should be abhorrent to everyone.

Constitutional protections are limits on what the federal government can do, not private citizens/businesses. Unless you're suggesting that we outright federalize the airlines, then private contract rules apply, not the restrictions imposed on government activity.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
4th amendment doesn't apply because you're technically opting into it by choosing to fly. You put yourself in the weird grey area between private business (the airlines and the airport itself) and public regulations that say that the TSA is the only option to actually conduct security. That's why you'll see most of the language around such incidents phrased so passive-aggressively (Not "we require you to be screened" but "You implicitly agree to submit to our screening")

Comments like this are interesting in light of other topics in this forum like: Federal Agents Assume Right to Seize Laptops at Border

Everyone browse that thread then come back here for a compare & contrast. Quite interesting.

No private companies are involved there, so border crossing doesn't have the same kind of loopholes to be abused.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
The "Christmas bomber" was an example of a TSA failure. Adbulmutallab did actually succeed in getting a bomb on a plane. The only reason the bomb did not go off was a faulty detonator.

You're saying that the TSA runs airport security in Amsterdam and Yemen as well?
 
Posted by LoverOfJoy (Member # 157) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
4th amendment doesn't apply because you're technically opting into it by choosing to fly. You put yourself in the weird grey area between private business (the airlines and the airport itself) and public regulations that say that the TSA is the only option to actually conduct security. That's why you'll see most of the language around such incidents phrased so passive-aggressively (Not "we require you to be screened" but "You implicitly agree to submit to our screening")

Comments like this are interesting in light of other topics in this forum like: Federal Agents Assume Right to Seize Laptops at Border

Everyone browse that thread then come back here for a compare & contrast. Quite interesting.

No private companies are involved there, so border crossing doesn't have the same kind of loopholes to be abused.
Are you saying that if the federal government mandated that private companies do the actual laptop seizing then it wouldn't have been a problem?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LoverOfJoy:
Are you saying that if the federal government mandated that private companies do the actual laptop seizing then it wouldn't have been a problem?

You're assuming action on the wrong end- they couldn't employ people to seize laptops, but they could mandate that companies add requirements to submit to laptop search and seizure to their contracts, since people have to option of simply not agreeing to the contract and accepting the services of the companies in question.

It's a loophole that can be abused pretty badly, which is why it's pretty important to recognize the way it works rather than trying to pretend that the Constitution applies to private individuals or businesses.
 
Posted by cb (Member # 6179) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by cb:
Did you read my link about the methods used by Israel? They are the experts...why aren't we following their example? It makes much more sense to me.

They did a modified version of this by having TSA agents prowl around airports looking for suspicious behavior. It didn't work out so well. I think the way the Israelis do it has some issues with scaling to US air travel proportions.
Possibly.

Or it could have to do with the level of training they agents received before initiating the program.

And, BTW who said it 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.

Now training, as it would take some time to properly train agents to recognize suspicious reactions, is the only down side I see to Israeli security measures. I'm willing to put up with other security measures until such training can take place as long as it is TEMPORARY!!!
 
Posted by Dave at Work (Member # 1906) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by cb:
The idea that when we become a customer of the airlines and step into the airport we tacitly give up our constitutional protections should be abhorrent to everyone.

Constitutional protections are limits on what the federal government can do, not private citizens/businesses. Unless you're suggesting that we outright federalize the airlines, then private contract rules apply, not the restrictions imposed on government activity.
So what you are saying then is that the act of purchasing an airline ticket from an airline or an agent representing the airline waives your right to your 4th amendment protections and that is okay since it is a private organization and not the government. Even if this were a valid argument, and I do not think it is, how does that make it okay for a government agency to act in violation of your 4th amendment rights? What I am saying is that if the argument is valid then it would still have to be that private organization or another private organization acting on its behalf that acts against your 4th amendment rights and not a government organization like the TSA.
 
Posted by Colin JM0397 (Member # 916) on :
 
"The "Christmas bomber" was an example of a TSA failure. Adbulmutallab did actually succeed in getting a bomb on a plane. The only reason the bomb did not go off was a faulty detonator."

There was zero TSA involvement in him being on that plane. He started in Yemen and transferred in Amsterdam. He also managed to get on that plane in Amsterdam WITHOUT having a passport - something the TSA would surely prohibit. Eyewitness accounts put a "sharp dressed middle-aged Indian-looking gentleman" with him and talking him through security. We could verify/dispel that if the security video from Amsterdam were to be released… But, surprise surprise, it’s unavailable.

It has all the makings of a setup.

On another note, am I the only one who finds it difficult to believe the organization alleged to have orchestrated 9/11 is reduced to relying on suicidal (and not in the good way for a bomber) imbeciles who can't even put together a proper bomb? (Richard Reid included)

It all reeks of BS.
 
Posted by cb (Member # 6179) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by cb:
The idea that when we become a customer of the airlines and step into the airport we tacitly give up our constitutional protections should be abhorrent to everyone.

Constitutional protections are limits on what the federal government can do, not private citizens/businesses. Unless you're suggesting that we outright federalize the airlines, then private contract rules apply, not the restrictions imposed on government activity.
Ummm, the TSA is a federal agency, not private. As a federal agency they should be respecting and honoring Constitutional strictures.

Out of curiosity, how do you conscious the idea that a private company operating in America isn't or shouldn't be governed by Constitutional law??

It historically has taken a large measure of probable cause to sanction bare body search (which is what this amounts to) by any kind of security. How the same people on this site who shouted (and still shout) and protested (and still protest) the invasion of privacy under Bush's security measures after 9/11 can sanction this outrageous assault on our persons of the most intimate nature is beyond me.
 
Posted by Colin JM0397 (Member # 916) on :
 
Alex Jones interview w/ John Tyner yesterday (15 minutes total) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8XnZPVcXhM&feature=player_embedded
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave at Work:
So what you are saying then is that the act of purchasing an airline ticket from an airline or an agent representing the airline waives your right to your 4th amendment protections and that is okay since it is a private organization and not the government. Even if this were a valid argument, and I do not think it is, how does that make it okay for a government agency to act in violation of your 4th amendment rights? What I am saying is that if the argument is valid then it would still have to be that private organization or another private organization acting on its behalf that acts against your 4th amendment rights and not a government organization like the TSA.

I didn't say that it was okay. "Okay" is a value judgement that's completely separate from "legal". Pointing out the legal reality of a situation is in no way making a judgement about whether it's the right thing to do.

And, again, the government isn't acting in violation of any rights here. There isn't any direct requirement from the government that you be searched- the requirement comes from your contractual agreement with the private company to allow a search before you get on their airplane. The company is legally within its rights to assert that precondition, just as you are within your rights to decline a contract with that precondition. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about what terms may or may not be in private contracts. The government can regulate the terms of contracts, which is what creates the loophole that allows it to indirectly require you to agree to submit to the search as a condition of accepting the contract.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
The "Christmas bomber" was an example of a TSA failure. Adbulmutallab did actually succeed in getting a bomb on a plane. The only reason the bomb did not go off was a faulty detonator.

You're saying that the TSA runs airport security in Amsterdam and Yemen as well?
This is precisely my point. The TSA does not and cannot control air safety as this demonstrates. Instead, it must rely on faulty detonators or other fortunate circumstances. No matter how many people they fondle, there will still be gaping security holes that cannot be addressed which will render these invasive searches irrelevant.

quote:
Originally posted by Colin JM0397:
There was zero TSA involvement in him being on that plane. He started in Yemen and transferred in Amsterdam. He also managed to get on that plane in Amsterdam WITHOUT having a passport - something the TSA would surely prohibit

But he flew in anyway didn't he?

[ November 17, 2010, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cb:
Ummm, the TSA is a federal agency, not private. As a federal agency they should be respecting and honoring Constitutional strictures.


It's not the TSA that you're buying an airline ticket from. It's the terms of the ticket agreement that you must submit to the search, not a direct power of the TSA.

quote:
Out of curiosity, how do you conscious the idea that a private company operating in America isn't or shouldn't be governed by Constitutional law?

Because they're governed by statutory law. The Constitution is the defining document of the Government, it's not a statute or regulation. You have legal protections in business transactions, not Constitutional ones.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
There isn't any direct requirement from the government that you be searched ...

That is patently false.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
The "Christmas bomber" was an example of a TSA failure. Adbulmutallab did actually succeed in getting a bomb on a plane. The only reason the bomb did not go off was a faulty detonator.

You're saying that the TSA runs airport security in Amsterdam and Yemen as well?
This is precisely my point. The TSA does not and cannot control air safety as this demonstrates. Instead, it must rely on faulty detonators or other fortunate circumstances. No matter how many people they fondle, there will still be gaping security holes that cannot be addressed which will render these invasive searches irrelevant.
You said it was a failure of the TSA. To be a failure of the TSA, it would have had to have been the responsibility of the TSA in the first place. Stopping him from getting on a plane was the responsibility of security at the airports he was screened at; the failure at that point is a security risk, but it's one that's completely tangential to the TSA, even if they used it as justification to step up the bull within the scope of their authority.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
There isn't any direct requirement from the government that you be searched ...

That is patently false.
The TSA can just stop you on the street and search you then?
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
You said it was a failure of the TSA. To be a failure of the TSA, it would have had to have been the responsibility of the TSA in the first place.

Are you saying it is not the responsibility of the TSA to provide security for flights? Well, it is. That's what they were created to do. Bis Sis agrees with me:
quote:
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano conceded Monday that the aviation security system failed when a young man on a watchlist with a U.S. visa in his pocket and a powerful explosive hidden on his body was allowed to board a fight from Amsterdam to Detroit.
"The aviation security system failed", that system being the TSA.
 
Posted by cb (Member # 6179) on :
 
Edited because of more current replies that furthered the debate.

quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
[QUOTE]
And, again, the government isn't acting in violation of any rights here. There isn't any direct requirement from the government that you be searched- the requirement comes from your contractual agreement with the private company to allow a search before you get on their airplane. The company is legally within its rights to assert that precondition, just as you are within your rights to decline a contract with that precondition. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about what terms may or may not be in private contracts. The government can regulate the terms of contracts, which is what creates the loophole that allows it to indirectly require you to agree to submit to the search as a condition of accepting the contract.

You have legal protections in business transactions, not Constitutional ones.

The Constitution is the law of the land upon which all other laws are predicated. That is why when a company infringes on Constitutional freedoms the Supreme Court of the Land has been brought into it through lawsuits.

Any contract that asks a person to give up Constitutional rights in order to partake of it's services should be sued out of it's socks.

And please keep in mind that the TSA IS a Federal Agency and IS bound by Constitutional dictates.

[ November 17, 2010, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: cb ]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
There isn't any direct requirement from the government that you be searched ...

That is patently false.
The TSA can just stop you on the street and search you then?
Did you know that the TSA has a reach beyond the airport? They cover mass transit:
quote:
Through the Surface Transportation Security Inspection Program, or STSI, we [the TSA] have deployed 100 inspectors assigned to 18 field offices across the country, to provide support to our nation’s largest mass transit systems.
Rail:
quote:
The Freight Rail Division will ensure the secure movement of all cargo on our nation’s freight rail systems and promote the free flow of commerce by working with our [the TSA] public and private sector partners to maintain a secure, resilient and sustainable network.
The airport is just the most common area of contact with the TSA. It's not the only place they operate.

For example:
quote:
The TSA today launched a test program to measure the feasibility of explosives screening for people and bags traveling on U.S. trains. Amtrak and Maryland Rail Commuter (MARC) passengers boarding at the New Carrollton train station will be screened for explosives starting May 4 as part of a pilot project to make rail travel safer, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced today.


[ November 17, 2010, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cb:
The Constitution is the LAW OF THE LAND and any company that operates within the borders of this AMERICAN nation is subject to that LAW!


The Constitution is the defining document of the US government. It's a contract that defines the structure of the government and ensures specific protections from its powers for the people. It is the law the government must abide by and that we can use to protect ourselves from overreach. It does not offer any private protections.

You can sign Non-disclosure Agreements with companies, and be sued in civil courts for breaking them. While there are some statutory regulations on them, they're not violations of the first amendment, because they're private agreements, not government mandates. (You'll note, similarly, that it's a civil suit that the guy above was threatened with- one, essentially, for a certain breach of contract- not a criminal offense) The constitution is irrelevant in matters of private contracts, except as it allows or restricts the ability of the government to regulate those contracts.

quote:
Any contract that asks a person to give up Constitutional rights in order to partake of it's services should be sued out of it's socks.
No contract can ask a person to give up constitutional rights. But constitutional rights only apply to direct government action. Even after you buy a ticket, you can decline to be searched, but the airline can (and, by regulation, must) decline to let you on the plane if you do so. The government can't impose any criminal sanctions or fines on you for declining the search, but you can be sued in civil court for breach of contract per the terms of the ticket.

quote:
And please keep in mind that the TSA IS a Federal Agency and IS bound by Constitutional dictates.
Indeed. And as such it can't legally force you to submit to the search- you'll note the guy above was not searched when he refused it. However it can legally enforce the contract that say you can't cross the line if you haven't been searched because there is no Constitutional guarantee that forces it to allow you access to private property or to get on an airplane.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Did you know that the TSA has a reach beyond the airport?
I hear that plums tend to be purple as well.

That's got nothing to do with the point. The TSA can't directly force you to be searched- but you can't force whatever form of transportation that's in question to carry you or admit you into their private property if you choose not to submit to the search that was a contractual requirement for admittance.
 
Posted by Dave at Work (Member # 1906) on :
 
quote:
Pyrtolin said:
And, again, the government isn't acting in violation of any rights here.

So the following right doesn't exist?

quote:
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.

 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave at Work:
quote:
Pyrtolin said:
And, again, the government isn't acting in violation of any rights here.

So the following right doesn't exist?

quote:
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.

Not in regards to private contracts. If you sign a contacts saying that you consent to, say, drug testing as a condition of employment, your employer can test you for drugs. If you sign a contract saying you agree to be searched before you get on a plane, you can be searched before you get on the plane. The amendment only applies to direct government action, not contractual agreements that you opt into.
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
If 1) the government requires that these provisions be included within a private contract, and
2) The government then operates an agency which carries out the duties thus contracted, then

everything else that remains is just a shell game. Agreed, Pyrtolin, that it is a shell game with the barest vestige of legality, but any court that didn't have its collective head up its bum would toss this out on its ear, not say 'why, in this state of heightened threat, we /need/ to circumvent these bothersome restrictions!'

Well, from what I've heard, people are opting to drive this holiday, for the most part, rather than fly--despite reasonably high gas prices. Excellent. If the airlines /do/ have the smallest amount of say in this whole process, maybe this will wake them up.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Did you know that the TSA has a reach beyond the airport?
I hear that plums tend to be purple as well.

That's got nothing to do with the point. The TSA can't directly force you to be searched- but you can't force whatever form of transportation that's in question to carry you or admit you into their private property if you choose not to submit to the search that was a contractual requirement for admittance. [/QB]

Yes, it has everything to do with the point. Quit playing with your plums for a moment and think.

The TSA can and does force you to be searched. Use Google and do a search beyond the limited personal perceptions you're applying to this. You might want to see what's happening out in the real world, it ain't what you suppose is happening.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
everything else that remains is just a shell game. Agreed, Pyrtolin, that it is a shell game with the barest vestige of legality, but any court that didn't have its collective head up its bum would toss this out on its ear, not say 'why, in this state of heightened threat, we /need/ to circumvent these bothersome restrictions!'

Exactly, which is why I hope that the TSA does push for a suit here so it can open up a possibility for better pushback. Either that or people are going to have to find more creative forms of civil disobedience to really get the point across.

The most amusing suggestion I've heard so far is to go ahead and drop your bags on the scanner, then your shoes, your socks, shirt, etc... all the way down.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
Yes, it has everything to do with the point. Quit playing with your plums for a moment and think.

The TSA can and does force you to be searched. Use Google and do a search beyond the limited personal perceptions you're applying to this. You might want to see what's happening out in the real world, it ain't what you suppose is happening.

Show me one case where it's grabbed a person at random and searched them or otherwise has not limited its activity to people trying to pass a security checkpoint and I'll fully agree that they've passed from simply being wrong into outright illegal activity.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Show me one case where it's grabbed a person at random and searched them or otherwise has not limited its activity to people trying to pass a security checkpoint and I'll fully agree that they've passed from simply being wrong into outright illegal activity.

Now you're weasling: "trying to pass a security checkpoint", "grabbed a person at random". They can and do searches anywhere they set up a checkpoint (which is anywhere they want really).

You were all het up about taking laptops but find sexual assault OK. Look, you know this type of invasive search is wrong. This contract angle you're trying is misguided too.
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
G2, he is /not/ arguing that he finds it okay. He's arguing that it's not illegal, and he's even arguing that it's not illegal /because/ the government is weaselling. Cut him some slack. [Wink]

(Edited to add) Pyrtolin: That would be pretty amusing. It would get them arrested for indecent exposure, but it would also garner this issue more publicity. Hmmm. [Wink]

[ November 17, 2010, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Chael ]
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
The most amusing suggestion I've heard so far is to go ahead and drop your bags on the scanner, then your shoes, your socks, shirt, etc... all the way down.

They'd arrest you almost immediately. And you'd miss your flight. And they won't let you through without proof of a flight. So are you willing to book a flight, just so you can get miss it to get arrested?

One flight in Pittsburgh a few years ago, I went to take off my shoes for the scanner. Something I had done for several flights over the previous month already and the guard shouted at me to put my shoes back on. Apparently at Pittsburgh, they didn't require your shoes to go through the Xray, yet.

The very next week on the return trip to Pittsburgh, I had to take my shoes off. I understand that they didn't require you to take your shoes off, but the standard policy of rudeness with TSA is sickening. He could have politely told me that they didn't require it or just let me go ahead an do it. It certainly took longer at that point to put my shoes back on than it would to have let me walk through the metal detector without them on.

They might as well be NKVD border security. And soon they get to unionize. It's hard to imagine TSA any less efficient and ruder, but I''m sure it's coming.
 
Posted by LoverOfJoy (Member # 157) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:

(Edited to add) Pyrtolin: That would be pretty amusing. It would get them arrested for indecent exposure, but it would also garner this issue more publicity. Hmmm. [Wink]

Or go commando and wear really loose pants and let them "accidentally" knock your pants down as they're patting you down. Then they are the ones that could get arrested. [Exploding]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
They'd arrest you almost immediately. And you'd miss your flight. And they won't let you through without proof of a flight. So are you willing to book a flight, just so you can get miss it to get arrested?
That's what civil disobediance is all about, really. Breaking the law and taking the stripes to make a statement.

Of course, it also depends on local ordinances. As I understand it,you might actually just some funny looks at, say, SFO because public nudity is permissible under certain circumstances, which roughly include making political statements.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LoverOfJoy:
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:

(Edited to add) Pyrtolin: That would be pretty amusing. It would get them arrested for indecent exposure, but it would also garner this issue more publicity. Hmmm. [Wink]

Or go commando and wear really loose pants and let them "accidentally" knock your pants down as they're patting you down. Then they are the ones that could get arrested. [Exploding]
Going for a kilt under similar circumstances would at least be likely to lead to a bit of awkwardness. especially if you go a little heavy on lubricant (to keep you legs from getting brushburn, honest)
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Going for a kilt under similar circumstances would at least be likely to lead to a bit of awkwardness. especially if you go a little heavy on lubricant (to keep you legs from getting brushburn, honest)

Oh, /excellent/ idea. Except they'd probably decide on a no-searching-people-with-kilts policy, sub rosa. I mean, that's something they can see and evade ahead of time, right? [Wink]
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
Speaking of checkpoints - I got stopped and had my vehicle searched at a checkpoint the other day. Which wouldn't have been surprising if, you know, I'd been trying to cross a national border or something.

As it was, I was trying to drive on a road in New York, but apparently by getting a driver's license I agreed to have my vehicle searched whenever the men with guns decide they want to.
Or, no, right - sorry, just being in a car is probable cause. That's how THAT one is legal.

~~~

I find the argument that full-body scans and/or genital palpation is allowed by the Constitution because, obv, the 4th amendment only applies to the federal government ridiculous.

Someone already put the text of it up - read it over again. It uses the passive voice. My right to security in my own person shall not be violated without probable cause. Who is restricted from violating me is not specified, which means that it's a general restriction.

I'm ready for my Thanksgiving travels. I actually don't think they have the fancy scanners at any of the airports I'll be using, but if they do, I'm not being scanned. And I'm also not being touched in my pudendum by a man. And I'm writing down the name of anyone who is going to touch me in the pudendum.

It's funny - I don't really mind being patted down thoroughly in airports in other countries, and it happens with fair frequency. But, you know - they don't make such a production of it (there is a person of the appropriate sex to do the patting, and they say, I'm going to pat you down now, and that's the end of it), and they also don't necessarily have our civil rights.

Cherry, I'm with you about the cancer risk. It's just ridiculous. We MONITOR our radiation exposure when we perform radiographs, etc - DNA damage is not a joke! I haven't had my children yet!
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
As it was, I was trying to drive on a road in New York, but apparently by getting a driver's license I agreed to have my vehicle searched whenever the men with guns decide they want to.
Or, no, right - sorry, just being in a car is probable cause. That's how THAT one is legal.


One thing about this: many times cops will purposely try to intimidate or imply that they have the right do things that they really don't...but if you consent to a search, than they do have that right.

I'm ready for my Thanksgiving travels. I actually don't think they have the fancy scanners at any of the airports I'll be using, but if they do, I'm not being scanned. And I'm also not being touched in my pudendum by a man. And I'm writing down the name of anyone who is going to touch me in the pudendum.

Supposedly pat downs will always be done by a same-sex TSA agent...and they are supposed to only use the back of their hand to touch your groin area.

If I have no choice, and have to fly, and I have to either choose radiation or groping by a TSA deviant, I'll suck it up and take the groping.

One things for sure though...our "post-9-11" world is resembling more and more of a police state.

Pray for revolution.
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OpsanusTau:
Speaking of checkpoints - I got stopped and had my vehicle searched at a checkpoint the other day. Which wouldn't have been surprising if, you know, I'd been trying to cross a national border or something.

As it was, I was trying to drive on a road in New York, but apparently by getting a driver's license I agreed to have my vehicle searched whenever the men with guns decide they want to.
Or, no, right - sorry, just being in a car is probable cause. That's how THAT one is legal.

If you are within 100 miles of the border your vehicle is subject to search without any other provocation.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
http://wewontfly.com/
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
Regarding the cancer risk, a reasonable argument has been made that skin cancer, testicular cancer, and other tissues near the surface have a reasonable likelihood of increasing due to the scanners, especially given that the groin is focused on for the scanning technology. Unfortunately the TSA/FDA has dismissed all concerns out of hand.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Someone already put the text of it up - read it over again. It uses the passive voice. My right to security in my own person shall not be violated without probable cause. Who is restricted from violating me is not specified, which means that it's a general restriction.
The use of passive voice doesn't change the scope of the document. Heck, until the 14th amendment was passed, the Federal government couldn't even force the states to uphold individual protections internally. The scope of the constitution is the Federal government and, to a lesser degree, the state governments.

But again, per the guy above, you are free to refuse the search. There are no criminal penalties for doing so. The guy refused to be searched and he was not searched. But, by the same token, the airline doesn't have to let him aboard, and he can be sued per the listed penalty for such a breach in his contract, so now we'll hopefully get to see if the legislative branch can actually fulfill its role as a check of this kind of nonsense and at least toss the case out, if not actively take a hatchet to the regulation because of how fundamentally abusive it is.
 
Posted by Colin JM0397 (Member # 916) on :
 
Ops, was the National Guard participating? There was a story of them doing that earlier this year in upstate for "guns and drugs" scans. In some cases they even have a full-vehicle version of the naked scanners. You think the backscatter will scramble your ovaries, what do you think a full car x-ray will do?

That said, as a few have pointed out, they will try to bully you into it, and it is bound to be quite inconvenient to you if you refuse, but you are within your rights to refuse a vehicle search.

The big thing, like at the airport, is to clearly state "I do not consent to any searches". "I am not resisting and will comply with any lawful requests."

Then you have to clearly ask "Am I being detained" and if they cannot answer yes, then you state "since I am not being detained, I can only assume I am free to go so I am leaving". If you listen to the dude’s recording at the airport that’s causing all this stink, he used this technique.

Of course, leaving can be difficult in a roadblock where they are, more or less, detaining you from proceeding. Also, the trick from what I understand is to have drug dogs there and, for anyone who refuses, to claim the dog alerted to your car – there is the “probable cause”.

We all have to make the choice – submit, or enact in some civil disobedience to make a point and be prepared for them to come down hard on us.

-------------------------

Searches in NY - http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/3978-ny-national-guard-violate-posse-comitatus

Their rational for Posse Comitatus violations are iffy if the troops used are National Guard. If they are Reserve or Active army, then it is a clear violation.

[ November 18, 2010, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: Colin JM0397 ]
 
Posted by Colin JM0397 (Member # 916) on :
 
Just found this - seems accurate and has a listing of roadblocks by state: http://www.roadblock.org/whattodo.htm
quote:
The point of the above discussion is to suggest that you engage the roadblock process from the standpoint that the current courts find them legal and a legitimate law enforcement tactic. Therefore, there is little to gain by launching into a tirade over the constitutionality of roadblocks, at least while you are stopped at one. However, this is not to say that all your rights are null and void once you enter a roadblock.

First, the police do not have the authority to search you or your vehicle, not without probable cause that you have, or are committing a crime. They may ask your permission for a search---which means they do not have legal grounds to force a search. Never permit a voluntary search of your person or your vehicle. The police may try to cajole you into permitting a search. The old ruse, "if you don't have anything to hide, why object to a search?" should be ignored, or met with a response that you value your right to privacy and do not consent to a search of your vehicle.

If, under any set of circumstances, the police force a search of your vehicle, assume the worse case scenario. If they can't find anything illegal in your vehicle, they will place something in your vehicle that will justify their search. This is a sad commentary on the state of affairs, but these events should be expected in a schizophrenic society that employs police state tactics to intimidate common citizens.


 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
Absolutely. But also keep in mind- civil disobedience means gracefully accepting the consequences. Be clear, calm and polite, get badge numbers or other ID but don't take any action actually gives them legal authority to act. If the they put you under arrest, rightly or wrongly, don't fight it just add it to your complaints later; if you try to resist arrest it's very likely that you'll lose almost all of the legal ground that you have to stand on.

Don't offer anything more than name, address, a basic statement of what your intent is, and "Am I being detained?" If you say anything more than that, then what you actually said becomes irrelevant once its the cop's word against yours in front of a judge, and the cop wins that fight.

This even goes if they try to do worse than an illegal arrest- protect yourself from serious harm, but don't strike back. Hitting an officer, even in self defense strips you of just about any legal protection you have. (Reasonable caveats apply- if your life is on the line, the legal high ground isn't quite as important any more)
 
Posted by Colin JM0397 (Member # 916) on :
 
If it gets that bad, it's also a good idea to vocally state (for anyone within hearing range) "I am not resisting, but I do not consent".
One trick I've seen cops use - on video, at least - is to hold someone down while pummeling them and shouting "quit resisting". I’ve also heard of cases where all other charges are dropped, but they stick the person with resisting arrest.

Kind of the real life version of South Park's "THEY'RE COMING RIGHT AT US!!!"
 
Posted by cb (Member # 6179) on :
 
OK so here's my plan. I will follow the advise given her and refuse a scan and opt for the body search stating loudly "I am not resisting, but I do not consent" and then when the pat down begins I will reenact the Meg Ryan's restaurant scene in "When Harry Met Sally". Mutual humiliation. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Colin JM0397 (Member # 916) on :
 
The NJ legislature takes action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H9HNEtrvEE&feature=player_embedded#!
 
Posted by cb (Member # 6179) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:


Pray for revolution.

Civil disobedience and lawsuits will be sufficient. We just have to stop saying, "Well, as long as it keeps me safe."
 
Posted by cb (Member # 6179) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Colin JM0397:
The NJ legislature takes action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H9HNEtrvEE&feature=player_embedded#!

THANK YOU MIKE DOHERTY!!!!!
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
A little comparison to then and now.

quote:
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

Our founding fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations.

Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.

That's from Barack Obama’s inaugural address, January 2009. If only Barry really believed that... [Crying]
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
For sure. [Frown]

eta:
I wasn't really super upset about the vehicle search, and didn't see the point of discussing it with the men with guns - I really didn't have anything to hide, wanted to get home, and complying took less time than talking to them about it would have done, especially since I had already stopped the car and waited in line for a while.

I can't get super worked up about people looking in my car; but I can get pretty worked up about being required to choose between taking a dose of radiation (which no research supports as safe) on my skin or letting a stranger stick his hands in my crotch.

(The devil inside me thinks it would be super funny if a lot of ladies with no particular issues about hands in the crotch started flying wearing skirts and no underpants. Or peeing on the searcher. "Oops! So sorry, I guess I just felt uncomfortable!")

[ November 18, 2010, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: OpsanusTau ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
You could take that up a notch in a similar way to the kilt.

Bonus points for creative use of food coloring...
 
Posted by Mariner (Member # 1618) on :
 
The weekend before last I was in Corpus Christie's airport. While there, amid all the annoying announcements about what color terrorism was today, was an announcement that making fun of the TSA will result in some sort of fine or other punishment.

Not only are they killing the 4th amendment, but the 1st is apparently out the window too.

(In all fairness, that may have been an airport-specific warning and not a nationwide policy. I didn't hear it in any other airport that trip, and I haven't heard anyone else mention it, but yeesh. And it does go along with the "don't touch my junk" thing. Do we surrender all of our rights to the TSA?)

I'm not sure I can agree with Pyrtolin's assertion that this is all legal because of the contract to carry that is implicitly signed when the ticket is bought. I looked up Delta's contract just out of curiosity, and here's what it says: "Delta may refuse to transport any passenger, and may remove any passenger from its aircraft at any time, for any of the following reasons: ...When a passenger refuses to permit search of his person or property for explosives, weapons, dangerous materials, or other prohibited items." Now yes, that does say you basically agree to have your person searched. But it only says that you can be refused entry on the plane, not that you can be fined for it.

It's also incredibly vague on what sort of search is allowed. And that is problematic. The searches now are very troubling, either because of the potential harm to your body or because of the thin line between the pat downs and sexual assault. So how much further do we allow this to go? Many people have already pointed out that there's no reason - if security is the main concern - that people shouldn't be subjected to cavity searches. Where do you draw the line? What if they discover a terrorist who swallowed his bomb before detonating it. Can the TSA order immediate operations to look up the contents of our stomachs? A line needs to be drawn somewhere, and I'm with Captain Picard on this one. Let's draw it here.

The biggest terrorism concern with planes is that they can be used as missiles, a la 9/11. If a plane blows up in midair, it's tragic, but not as devastating as taking out some skyscrapers. And nothing the TSA is doing is preventing another human missile style attack, because we are already completely defended against that now (unless a terrorist becomes a commercial airline pilot, but I digress). So why the big show? There are other ways of causing as much damage, havoc, and death as a plane blowing up that doesn't require bypassing as much security.

It is definitely time to tone the security down at the airports. They've crossed the line.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
There are other ways of causing as much damage, havoc, and death as a plane blowing up that doesn't require bypassing as much security.
For example, attacking the line of people waiting to try to get through security. That's a disaster waiting to happen it and of itself.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
Sorry if this was all ready posted. I just came across it.

An actual example of someone who refused to be searched and was expelled from the airport.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OpsanusTau:
I find the argument that full-body scans and/or genital palpation is allowed by the Constitution because, obv, the 4th amendment only applies to the federal government ridiculous.

Ridiculous or not, it did only apply to the federal government when written (this applies to the rest of the Bill of Rights as well), but was expanded to apply to state governments as well.

There are only two Amendments which a private citizen, acting in a private capacity, can violate.

The first is the 13th Amemendment. Own, buy, or sell a slave, and you're violating the constitution.

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?
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
Well - I mean I know that's how it's been interpreted.

I just find it ... not terribly convincing, to claim that a statement carefully made in the passive voice actually only applies to one particular kind of actor.

I know I'm not going to change the collective mind of the American legal system, and I'm not going to try. But at the same time, my personal conviction is that nobody has the authority to touch me without my consent; anyone doing so is using inappropriate and illegitimate force.

FWIW. Which is not much. I know.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OpsanusTau:
Well - I mean I know that's how it's been interpreted.

I just find it ... not terribly convincing, to claim that a statement carefully made in the passive voice actually only applies to one particular kind of actor.

It's context. Tenth Amendment would be virtually meaningless otherwise.

You think the 4th Amendment should restrict private actors? Parents need to get a warrant to search their kids' sock drawer?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OpsanusTau:
But at the same time, my personal conviction is that nobody has the authority to touch me without my consent; anyone doing so is using inappropriate and illegitimate force.

That's a strong natural rights argument, and I tend to agree with you. Government exists in order to secure rights. But not all rights are in the bill of rights.
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
Hmm. I have to guess, now, Pete. Are you referring to article four of amendment fourteen? [Wink]

"4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Thanks for a delicious spoof of the passive voice argument. [Big Grin] What do you think, OT? If you or I questions the national debt, are we violating the 14th Amendment? [Smile]

No; I think that clause 4 of Amendment 14 is a clear instruction to the courts, not to private citizens. The one that I'm referring to is a later amendment. And probably violated far more often than federal debt is questioned!
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
21, section 2. Living in PA, especially, I know plenty of people that hop over the border for booze to get away from our inane state system.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
Amusingly enough, the one time when I'd actually have had the opportunity to violate that one, I was already in MD before I remembered that I wanted to pick something up (which is where the friend that I was visiting lived anyway)

I was tempted to pick up mead in WVa once when I saw it at a gas station, but couldn't afford it at the time. I think PA has finally listed some options in that regard, so it's possible to get here now, but the overall situation is still absurd.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Pyr is correct.

quote:
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
This clause could not reasonably be restricted in application to state and federal governments.

I wonder if airlines investigate the licor laws of every state that they fly over. When flying over Kansas, and serving alcohol on Sunday, the airline may be violating the constitution. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
TSA Administrator John Pistole weighs in:
quote:
The changes close gaps identified both by would-be terrorists and by government investigators who covertly try to smuggle weapons through to test the effectiveness of screening, said TSA Administrator John Pistole.

"If you have two planes, one where people are thoroughly and properly screened and the other where people could opt out of screening, which would you want to be on?" he asked.

See what he did? This is the false dichotomy logical fallacy. It's either submit to molestation by TSA goons or nothing at all. Gee John, no reasonable middle ground here?
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
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]


 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
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.

 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
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.”


 
Posted by Colin JM0397 (Member # 916) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
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....
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 888) on :
 
quote:
"I'd rather be eyeballed than fondled...."
Same here. Can't we just skip the X-raying and patting, and just go nude?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Colin JM0397 (Member # 916) on :
 
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".
 
Posted by Brian (Member # 588) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
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!"
 
Posted by Jordan (Member # 2159) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Colin JM0397 (Member # 916) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
So why actually squeeze the boobs? Are they checking them for c-4 implants?
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
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
 
Posted by cb (Member # 6179) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Jordan (Member # 2159) on :
 
quote:
Kenmeer:
Watch the hyphen.

How did you know? I shifted the hyphen over almost by instinct!
 
Posted by Jordan (Member # 2159) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by cb (Member # 6179) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Dave at Work (Member # 1906) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by flydye (Member # 6554) on :
 
A blog where a guy stood up for his rights
 
Posted by cb (Member # 6179) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Colin JM0397 (Member # 916) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Dave at Work (Member # 1906) on :
 
quote:
Pete at Home said:
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?

I didn't say that. I said that President Clinton did not treat terrorism as being no big deal. I didn't agree with his viewpoint of things, but he did have a viewpoint and he acted based on it.

[ November 24, 2010, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Dave at Work ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave at Work:
quote:
Pete at Home said:
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?

I didn't say that. I said that President Clinton did not treat terrorism as being no big deal. I didn't agree with his viewpoint of things, but he did have a viewpoint and he acted based on it.
While there are a number of things about Clinton's presidency that I did like, I think that the above two incidents suggest that he did not take foreign terrorism seriously. Home-grown terrorism, I think he took too seriously, to the point where Oklahoma City was largely a response to his admin's ham-fisted handling of Waco and Ruby Ridge. He played hard where soft would have yielded better results, and soft where hard would have yielded better results. And the cruise missile strike seemed more like a distraction from his sexual escapades rather than a legitimate response to terror.
 
Posted by cb (Member # 6179) on :
 
Yes Pete. Clinton was too busy keeping his finger to the wind of public opinion to do anything powerful that even smacked of true leadership. There are many things about Bush II that drive me crazy, but his resolutions were strong and they kept this country safe from another 9/11 for 8 years.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I honestly think that if Clinton had been prez during 9/11 we would have seen mass roundups of Muslims on a scale not seen in America since WWII. Bush faced down the wave of public anger; Clinton would have body-surfed in it.

I'm curious if you'd admit that Obama, for all his other flaws, is more like Bush II in this regard -- following his own resolutions rather than holding his finger to the wind?
 
Posted by Colin JM0397 (Member # 916) on :
 
Lack of attacks does not mean we're safer. We are decidedly less safe. The old hyperbole "they hate us for our freedoms and our religion" is such BS, but we certainly are helping "them" hate us more with our imperialism and mission creep.

Question: if we went into Afghanistan to retaliate against AQ, and AQ, according to the latest reports, is less than 50 people in Afghanistan and, if you hold to the official lines these days, is reduced from a huge 9/11 attack to sending lone idiots who can't pull off an attack, what are we still doing in Afghanistan?

-----------------

All that aside, something you're bound not to hear from the bobbleheads in the MSM: the reason why there were no issues last Wednesday - they simply turned the scanners off!
http://www.naturalnews.com/030509_TSA_opt_out_day.html
quote:
Anticipating a nationwide grassroots surge of protests against naked body scanners and aggressive pat-downs, the TSA simply turned off its naked body scanners on Wednesday and let air travelers walk right through security checkpoints without being X-rayed or molested.

All across the country, air travelers are reporting that the TSA simply deactivated the naked body scanners and let people go right through without a scan. "Backscatter scanners are off. No scan. No patdown." reported a traveler from the Seattle airport. "Backscatter machines aren't being used at LAX," reported another traveler. "They're all roped off."

Much the same story is being reported all across the country.

This action tells us all sorts of fascinating things about the TSA and its fabricated security excuses. Perhaps most importantly, it proves that the naked body scanners are not needed for air travel security in the first place. When it wants to, the TSA can just turn the machines off and resort to baggage X-rays and metal detectors. That's worked for years, and it apparently worked today, too.

And yet, up until today, the TSA has insisted that the naked body scanners are absolutely essential to detecting hidden bombs, and that "travelers won't be safe" unless they use the naked body scanners. So all of a sudden today it's okay for the TSA to put air travelers at risk of being blown up?

The TSA can't have it both ways. Either the naked body scanners are vital for air security and they need to be running 24/7 to keep everybody safe, or they're just another security con game being played out for the financial benefit of Chertoff and others who profit from the sale of such machines.

How can the TSA -- with a straight face -- say that naked body scanners are vital for air security but not on the busiest air travel day of the year?

As you can see, there are some serious holes in the TSA's mythology, and interestingly, this National Opt-Out Day indirectly exposed them by getting the TSA to turn off the naked body scanners. This is effectively an admission that they aren't important to air security...

Additionally, traffic was a nightmare yesterday. Definitely a crap-load more folks driving last weekend than is normal. Charleston SC - Charlotte took 1hr longer than normal with no wrecks. Never seen it that congested even on Labor day, 4th of July and Memorial day weekends. I hear the same from a friend about Columbus – Cincinnati in Ohio.

Will be interesting to see if AAA puts out the data and people put 1-and-1 together.

[ November 29, 2010, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Colin JM0397 ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Colin JM0397:
Lack of attacks does not mean we're safer. We are decidedly less safe. The old hyperbole "they hate us for our freedoms and our religion" is such BS, but we certainly are helping "them" hate us more with our imperialism and mission creep.

Question: if we went into Afghanistan to retaliate against AQ, and AQ, according to the latest reports, is less than 50 people in Afghanistan and, if you hold to the official lines these days, is reduced from a huge 9/11 attack to sending lone idiots who can't pull off an attack, what are we still doing in Afghanistan?

Trying to stabilize Af to the point that it isn't a hole where AQ can just move back in the second our troops move out.

We didn't "retaliate" against AQ clinton-style, i.e. just to retaliate for the sake of retaliation. The point was to make us safer. If we move out, and AQ just moves back in and re-trenches, we're back where we started, obviously.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Colin JM0397:
All that aside, something you're bound not to hear from the bobbleheads in the MSM: the reason why there were no issues last Wednesday - they simply turned the scanners off!

un****ingbelievable
[DOH] [Exploding]
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
That's not unbelievable. It's entirely predictable. TSA is completely reactionary. So they tend to bounce around and take the path of least resistance.

Their own checks prove their security isn't working so they tighten up. There is a ground swell at the poor implementation, so they turn off the scanners. The reactions by themselves aren't really bad, it's that their implementations seem so chaotic and bureaucratic.

A thoughtful implementation of the body scanner's with a modicum of decent presentation and attempts to meet privacy concerns would probably have gotten met with grumbling consent. The heavy handed, arbitrary approach pissed off everybody.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
Yes, it has everything to do with the point. Quit playing with your plums for a moment and think.

The TSA can and does force you to be searched. Use Google and do a search beyond the limited personal perceptions you're applying to this. You might want to see what's happening out in the real world, it ain't what you suppose is happening.

Show me one case where it's grabbed a person at random and searched them or otherwise has not limited its activity to people trying to pass a security checkpoint and I'll fully agree that they've passed from simply being wrong into outright illegal activity.
quote:
A team of federal agents has been stopping tractor-trailers on Interstate 20 just west of Atlanta, inspecting each truck as it passed through a weigh station, and Channel 2 has learned its part of a counter-terrorism operation.

Channel 2's Linda Stouffer reported a flashing sign on the interstate directed the trucks to pull into a state-owned inspection station near Lee Road in Douglas County at the height of the evening commute.

Channel 2 Action News confirmed that agents from several federal agencies, including Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation, and the Transportation Security Administration were involved. The Douglas County Sheriff’s Office was assisting in the exercise.

and about the same incident:
quote:
"This is a live operation intent on deterring would-be terrorists or criminal activity," Nelson Minerly, spokesman for the federal agency, told the AJC.

The operation created a big distraction to motorists heading eastbound on I-20 in rush hour, and many motorists let the AJC and the WSB traffic center hear about it.

But the operation, which also involves the Transportation Security Administration, is top-secret before it happens, Minerly said.

“We don’t advertise when they’re going to happen or when they’re going to be," Minerly said.

Mostly trucks were being checked, Minerly said. Shortly before 6 p.m., nothing had been recovered in the operation, he said.

"There's no specific threat," Jon Allen, regional spokesman for the TSA, told the AJC.


 
Posted by cb (Member # 6179) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I honestly think that if Clinton had been prez during 9/11 we would have seen mass roundups of Muslims on a scale not seen in America since WWII. Bush faced down the wave of public anger; Clinton would have body-surfed in it.

I'm curious if you'd admit that Obama, for all his other flaws, is more like Bush II in this regard -- following his own resolutions rather than holding his finger to the wind?

That both didn't allow the winds of opinion to deter them, yes I will admit that. But, Obama is by far a stronger ideologue than was Bush.

If Bush had stuck to his conservative guns as strongly as Obama is sticking to his collectivist guns Bush would have used his little red veto pen much more often, would have used his clout to sell the privatizing of SS instead of the No Child Left Behind fiasco which increased the size of the useless bureaucratic nightmare of the Department of Education by 70%, and Bush would have been on the side of those who were calling for a full audit of the Federal Reserve.

If Bush were half the ideologue Obama is it would have helped to avoid the economic Tsunami of 2008 that gave us the biggest presidential progressive since Roosevelt and Wilson.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Setting aside the question of whether Bush was an idealogue, the fact that he wasn't a *conservative* (or liberal) does not mean that he was not an idealogue.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
A team of federal agents has been stopping tractor-trailers on Interstate 20 just west of Atlanta, inspecting each truck as it passed through a weigh station, and Channel 2 has learned its part of a counter-terrorism operation.
I'm not sure how "Trucks at a weigh station" is equivalent to "People at random". Trucks carrying commercial shipments aren't private citizens.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
cb, what do you think Obama has done that is "collectivist," as opposed to oligarchic?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Here's a great man bites dog story:

Elderly female passenger gropes TSA agent
quote:
Phoenix police say 61-year-old Yukari Mihamae is accused of grabbing the left breast of the unidentified TSA agent Thursday at an airport checkpoint.

TSA spokesperson Kawika Riley confirmed the altercation to msnbc.com in a statement: "On July 14 at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, local law enforcement arrested a passenger for assaulting a TSA officer during the screening process."

TSA staff say Mihamae refused to be go through passenger screening and became argumentative before she squeezed and twisted the agent's breast with both hands.


 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
A team of federal agents has been stopping tractor-trailers on Interstate 20 just west of Atlanta, inspecting each truck as it passed through a weigh station, and Channel 2 has learned its part of a counter-terrorism operation.
I'm not sure how "Trucks at a weigh station" is equivalent to "People at random". Trucks carrying commercial shipments aren't private citizens.
Some recent stories came across my news feed that reminded me of this. Let's see what's happened since Pyrtolin came up with the idea that truckers aren't private citizens entitled to 4th amendment protections:
quote:
... during the summer of 2011, TSA announced again its plans to search innocent Americans at train stations, bus stops, and truck stops.

<snip>

Just a few months after that, the National Football League (NFL) announced that it would be implementing TSA VIPR checkpoints at all 32 NFL stadiums across the country. The procedures at these checkpoints subjected football fans to full-body pat downs similar to what air travelers face at US airports

and

quote:
In October Tennessee became the first state to conduct a statewide Department of Homeland Security Visible Intermodal Prevention andResponse (VIPR) team operation which randomly inspected Tennessee truck drivers and cars.

VIPR teams which count TSOs among their ranks, conduct searches and screenings at train stations, subways, ferry terminals and every other mass transit location around the country. In fact, as the Los Angeles Times has detailed, VIPR teams conducted 9,300 unannounced checkpoints and other search operations in the last year alone.

Yeah.
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
Developments:
quote:
Rochester, N.Y. -- She says she had no warning that someone was going to search her car after she left to catch her flight. So the woman contacted News10NBC.

We found out it happened to her because she valet parked her car. Those are the only cars that get inspected.

So if security feels it is necessary to search some cars in the name of safety, why not search all of them?

Laurie Iacuzza walked to her waiting car at the Greater Rochester International Airport after returning from a trip and that's when she found it -- a notice saying her car was inspected after she left for her flight. She said, “I was furious. They never mentioned it to me when I booked the valet or when I picked up the car or when I dropped it off.”

Iacuzza's car was inspected by valet attendants on orders from the TSA. But why only valet parked cars? That's what News10NBC wanted to ask the TSA director about. We reached him by phone.

Berkeley Brean asked, “Are the cars in the short term lots and long term lots getting searched as well?”

John McCaffery, TSA, said, “No, those vehicles that are in the garage, short term long term parking, even if they carry pretty large amounts of explosives, they would not cause damage to the front of the airport. But for those who use the valet, the car could be there for a half hour or an hour so there is a vulnerability.”

News10NBC went to the valet parking and one of the attendants showed us the notice they put in the cars.

We asked, “You're required, they tell you, you have to search the car?” Valet Parking Attendant Frank Dettorre said, “I have to do it.”

highly trained and professional car parkers rifling your car. Sounds legit.
 


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1