[DaveB]

The mind reels. These are the same people who are going to keep the next batch of crazies from flying airliners into buildings? :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

From http://boingboing.net/

A kid who put a note telling TSA snoops to stay out of his luggage was busted on trumped-up "bomb-threat" charges for penning the following and putting it in his bag: "[Expletive] you. Stay the [expletive] out of my bag you [expletive] sucker. Have you found a [expletive] bomb yet? No, just clothes. Am I right? Yea, so [expletive] you."

Boy, good thing the eagle-eyed, sticky-fingered underwear fetishists on search-detail were on their toes, otherwise, this kid might have been able to board an airplane with a deadly sarcastic note in his checked luggage. You know, the more I think about this the worse it gets. The TSA is poor mouthing at Congress, saying that it's run out of money and can't adequately defend our skies, and yet it can spare its highly trained crack professionals to go chasing off on ridiculous power-flexing exercises like this?

And before anyone posts the inevitable, "But the kid showed poor judgment in putting that note in his luggage," comment in the Discuss link, let me point out three things:

He is a kid; kids are supposed to have poor judgment -- that's why we don't let them vote. If our national security depends on teenagers abstaining from foolishness, we are doomed.

The TSA screeners are adults. What's more, they're adults who are supposed to be professional risk-assessors. If the people who found that note couldn't evaluate its risk any better than they did at Logan airport, we are doomed.

Look me in the screen and tell me that you haven't had the exact same thought while having some blank-eyed bureaucrat rummaging through your dirty underwear. If that sentiment endangers aircrafts, we are doomed.

db :fire:

[Zedicus]

I noticed it was a British Airways Flight, I'm starting to wonder if they are trying to put themsellves out of buisness or something...

[MicroBalrog]

Land of the free...

[Standing Wolf]

Clearly, the kid has a bad attitude and an over-sized mouth; if those were crimes, however, virtually all representatives of the Democratic (sic) party would be in prison.

[KC]

"But the kid showed poor judgment in putting that note in his luggage"

BS! This is the same as the guy who was kicked off the plane for wearing the "Suspected Terrorist" button. More people should be doing this. This kid has been reading his Heinlein...

[Don Gwinn]

If he's been reading Heinlein, he didn't read it very well. A Heinlein character would have said that with excessive politeness and no profanity. He'd have gotten the same message across without making himself look stupid.

I wonder if his parents were with him? If so, I would think the simplest solution would be to hand them the note with a smile and a compliment about the fine, polite boy they've raised. Then wish the entire family a good flight and, if there's time, enjoy the look on his face. Maybe his parents wouldn't care, but mine would have chewed my butt all the way across the Atlantic.

[KC]

"A Heinlein character would have said that with excessive politeness and no profanity."

That is very true.
People can easily ignore a message for how it is said, not for what it says. Something that we all forget to remember occassionally.

[faustulus]

we are doomed.

Yeah pretty much hit the nail on the head.

[gunsmith]

only outlaws will be teenagers

[Wildalaska]

Obnoxious liddle bastid desreves everything he gets..

WildgotsomebeatinsmyselfAlaska

[Ian]

What, for being upset when Federal goons rummage through his belongings? :confused:

[4v50 Gary]

Shut down TSA and return it to private security. Buncha security guards who overnight become civil servants. :rolleyes: TSA is federalized ineptitude.

[Augustwest]

:cuss:

Stupid of the kid, but there's no way that note can be construed as a threat by a halfway thinking person.

Maybe we are doomed.

[Cosmoline]

There are plenty of folks, from all political parties, who want the entire US to look and function like an airport or public school.

That should strike some terror into all of us, because we will be the first against the wall.

[JohnBT]

The kid's a jerk and deserves to be soundly thrashed about the shoulders and head.

I don't feel no terror and I ain't lining up against no wall neither. So there. Looks like there's enough people out there fretting themselves into a lather that I don't need to work at it too hard for the time being. We still outnumber them.

The kid's still a jerk and a glutton for punishment. I say we oblige him.

John

[cordex]

Obnoxious liddle bastid desreves everything he gets..
From his parents, yes.
Not from Fed.gov.

Kid needs some serious parental discipline and maybe to take some creative writing courses. Not to have his trip delayed by thin-skinned TSA screeners.

[Erik]

He deserves what he gets. (Which in the end will not be any charges, I'd wager.)

[cordex]

He deserves what he gets.
*sigh* More of this?

So a kid deserves negative Federal intervention in his life because he places a harmless piece of paper covered with an unimaginative profane message in a bag that he owns and is paying (or that his parents are paying) to have shipped to a given destination?

Come again?

His note was rude, not threatening. It is the job of his parents to punish him, not Federally employed luggage diggers.

"Deserves what he gets" indeed.

[Sean Smith]

Parents should lower the boom.

Criminally, it is a non-issue for reasons that ought to be obvious.

What I find interesting is how the screeners seem to disproportionately search through the bags of young, pretty members of the opposite sex. Because you know those Al-Qaedaites are dead sexy.

:rolleyes:

[T.Stahl]

Land of the free...
No, I think this is about the country formerly known as the "Land of Hope and Glory, Mother of the Free." (c) by Edward Elgar, IIRC :D

[Cosmoline]

"Looks like there's enough people out there fretting themselves into a lather that I don't need to work at it too hard for the time being. We still outnumber them."

Where have I heard that before....

[rrader]

Kid needs some serious parental discipline and maybe to take some creative writing courses. Not to have his trip delayed by thin-skinned TSA screeners

TSA screeners are responsible for the lives of several hundred people every time they inspect a piece of luggage. I would certainly hope they would raise an alarm when they find a hostile note with the word "bomb" in it in a piece of baggage destined to be loaded on an aircraft. The context of the use of the word "bomb" doesn't really matter.

[DaveB]

The context of the use of the word "bomb" doesn't really matter.

Garbage. What we're seeing here is the exercise of power for its own sake.

No reasonable person would have taken the note as a threat - except as against some mouthbreathing 'screener's' pride.

You're OK with that? It makes you feel safer?

db

[cordex]

I would certainly hope they would raise an alarm when they find a hostile note with the word "bomb" in it in a piece of baggage destined to be loaded on an aircraft. The context of the use of the word "bomb" doesn't really matter.
"Wasn't that concert the bomb?"
"That comic really bombed his last set."
"The news reported that there was a bomb that exploded somewhere in Iraq yesterday."
"Thank Allah that TSA has invested in new bomb sniffing equipment so that we can all be safer."

You want a very different country than I do. Maybe one without that first bit of the bill of rights.

I don't think for a second that the glassy-eyed TSA employee truly suspected the kid or his bag constituted any real threat. Someone didn't like the punk's attitude and decided to abuse their authority because - as so many of you seem to support - "he deserves what he gets".

Pish and tosh.

[HankB]

Small people in positions of authority LOVE to exert that authority. It's nothing more than government-approved bullying.

Like that time right after "drunk pilots" made the news and a woman (pre-9/11) commented that she hoped the pilots on HER flight were sober. THEY HELD UP THE :cuss: :cuss: FLIGHT TO ADMINISTER A BREATHALYZER TEST TO THE PILOTS AND BLAMED THE WOMAN PASSENGER! :cuss: :cuss:

What needs to happen is that EVERYONE who has a bag opened out of their presence reports something - ANYthing - as being stolen. And files a claim. For at least enough $$ to cover the cost of laundering/dry cleaning the clothes they had in the bag.

[JohnBT]

"Where have I heard that before...."

I don't know. Give it some time and maybe it'll come to you.

Meanwhile, I'm still sadly amused by the crying and whining over a little teenaged snot with too much time on his hands and enough proper parental direction and influence. That's the way the world is I guess. Some days better, some days worse.

Personally, I think they should have made him eat the note and then sent him on his way.

John

[Cosmoline]

Actually, before the TSA made that kid eat the note, I WANT THEM TO EAT THE FRICKING LIGHTERS THEY TOOK FROM MY LUGGAGE! Good lighters, too. These people are beneath contempt, even the ones who happen to be Americans and not third-world gutter scrapings. They steal from us, search us and subject us to absurd degredations up to and including warrantless strip searches. Make no mistake, once you cross the border into an airport you have entered enemy territory.

[KC]

JohnBT, Wiladalaskatheguywhokeepsextendinghisnamewithnospaces, and others who share their viewpoint:

Which aspect of this issue do you have the most problems with: that a kid did this, or that it was done at all?

[dustind]

JohnBT, it is not about the kid, it is about rights. I do not know why you think the TSA has the right to abuse people who piss them off.

The kid was not threatening anyone, and he did not break any laws. We will see how you feel when some federal employee violates your rights when you have not done anything wrong other than get on their bad side.

Why even bother with laws or courts, lets just give the police and federal agents the power to punish people the way they feel like.

America was never meant to be a country where people are jailed for possessing a piece of paper that aggravates a federal agency.

[Sergeant Bob]

It just amazes me that people who run around shouting Molon Labe! Molon Labe! actually support this kind of crap.

[hammer4nc]

I'd bet that the majority of those who support vindictive actions by "officials", are themselves "public servants" who can't retaliate against the "liddle bastids" they are forced to deal with on a daily basis...and applaud when someone else acts out. I think that was called transference?, or was it substitution? back in psych 101?

[biere]

Why did the tsa agent waste his or her time reading the paper. If paper is not a weapon and is not a bomb making material I would expect them to pass it over quickly while they do their job of finding contraband.

And if the tsa did not read all books, notebooks, diarys, and other items with printed or written words they singled out this boy just because he left a piece of paper out.

Overall I don't worry about these things anymore because I don't and won't fly and there are so many lovely examples showing that the thought police are here and many "free" people agree with the thought laws.

What if the kid used a code to say the same thing? How about just another language that tsa folks are unlikely to know?

This article shows that someone who is paid to do a job feels that he or she can throw around thier power when they feel they are being picked on. So nice to know someone in power is happy to be a bully when they feel like they are being picked on.

I will agree the kid is rude, that is not some thing a tsa agent should care about.

[rrader]

Hammer4nc:

I'd bet that the majority of those who support vindictive actions by "officials", are themselves "public servants" who can't retaliate against the "liddle bastids" they are forced to deal with on a daily basis...and applaud when someone else acts out. I think that was called transference?, or was it substitution? back in psych 101?

Or maybe they just have to get on aircraft every now and again and appreciate the TSA screeners erring on the side of caution.



Cordex:

"Wasn't that concert the bomb?That comic really bombed his last set."
"The news reported that there was a bomb that exploded somewhere in Iraq yesterday."
"Thank Allah that TSA has invested in new bomb sniffing equipment so that we can all be safer"You want a very different country than I do. Maybe one without that first bit of the bill of rights.

I don't think for a second that the glassy-eyed TSA employee truly suspected the kid or his bag constituted any real threat. Someone didn't like the punk's attitude and decided to abuse their authority because - as so many of you seem to support - "he deserves what he gets".

None of your passages are hostile like this kids note. You don't know this TSA employee and to characterize him or her as a glassy-eyed and power-hungry is kind of over-the-top. Baggage searches aren't a violation of any of the Bill of Rights under these circumstances.

"Hey f*ck you TSA a*shole, you aint gonna find a f*cking bomb in this bag"

I don't see any BOR violations for TSA to act on this one.


DaveB
Garbage. What we're seeing here is the exercise of power for its own sake. No reasonable person would have taken the note as a threat - except as against some mouthbreathing 'screener's' pride.

You're OK with that? It makes you feel safer?


The average TSA screener makes around $22K. You really think folks go into these jobs for some kind of power trip? Most I have met are retired LEO, hate the TSA job and want to find something better.

No I have no problem with this TSA screeners actions. These aren't trained criminal psychologists who can look at a note and decide it's harmless. This TSA screener did exactly what he was trained to do, bring anything potentially threatening to the safety of an aircraft to the attention of security.

Safer, no I don't see how anything short of El-Al style security will stop AL-Queda.

[MicroBalrog]

Safer, no I don't see how anything short of El-Al style security will stop AL-Queda.

I'm not sure you know anything (and surely not more than me) about El-Al security. I flew El-Al last summer (Ben-Gurion - Amsterdam). My luggage was not searched (only X-rayed). I was not "wand-raped", cavity-searched, nor made to strip. Works for us.

[bbrins]

They should have just handed the note to his parents and let them discapline him. I wonder what the screeners would have done if he had a stack of Guns N Ammo, SWAT magazine, etc.

[rrader]

MicroBalrog:

I'm not sure you know anything (and surely not more than me) about El-Al security. I flew El-Al last summer (Ben-Gurion - Amsterdam). My luggage was not searched (only X-rayed). I was not "wand-raped", cavity-searched, nor made to strip. Works for us.

Your luggage was indeed searched, via x-ray.

I'm not sure you know anything (and surely not more than me)

[Sarcasam on] Sure thing, whatever you say [Sarcasam off] :D

[hammer4nc]

The thread started with a blog/rant; which may have been made up. However, here's a link to the actual story, w/ a few more facts: http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/214/metro/Teen_arrested_at_Logan_for_alleged_bomb_threat_in_his_bag+.shtml

Perhaps criticism of the bag checker is misplaced...you would expect their training to flag anything remotely suspicious. However, you'd also expect some adult/supervisor in the chain to step in and say: "The family's vacation is ruined, detained in a small room for 8 hours etc., - the kid has learned his lesson". Not so. The kid is arrested and charged with a felony by the DA. If anything is to be criticized here, it's TSA management and the judicial process IMO.

I mean, imagine you're the prosecutor. The indictment would sound like a bizarro version of an old Woody Allen classic (where the bank teller refuses to be robbed 'cause the robber (Allen) has misspelled "gun" as "gub"...)

In the bizarro indictment, "no bomb, just clothes" gets translated into "bomb". The prankster becomes a terrorist. Words have no meaning in the world of zero tolerance.

[cordex]

You don't know this TSA employee and to characterize him or her as a glassy-eyed and power-hungry is kind of over-the-top.
You're right. I have no idea how glassy-eyed or power-hungry he is. Vindictive, nosey and petty would be better descriptors, I think. All apply directly to the action at hand rather than general description of the screener themselves. Sound good?
Baggage searches aren't a violation of any of the Bill of Rights under these circumstances.
Hmmm...
One could make an argument based on the Fourth, but I was thinking about arresting someone based on an angry, but non-threatening note they placed inside a bag with their own possessions. Doesn't strike you as a violation of the First?

But seriously, folks, why stop at airline baggage? Everything going on to a bus or train should be searched as well. Or taxi. Or private car, for that matter.

[rrader]

You're right. I have no idea how glassy-eyed or power-hungry he is. Vindictive, nosey and petty would be better descriptors, I think. All apply directly to the action at hand rather than general description of the screener themselves. Sound good

No it doesn't sound good. You are still projecting a whole lot onto the initial screener who was probably saying to himself "better safe than sorry"

As for non-threatening notes, as long as they don't mention explosives they're none of TSA's business, even if they're insulting, and any TSA screener who lets their performance be affected by such should be fired.

As for the BOR, yes you're right you can make arguments based on unreasonable search.

[Ian]

rrader -
Baggage searches aren't a violation of any of the Bill of Rights under these circumstances.
I don't see any exception in the 4th Amendment that allows the Fed to search private bags on private airline companies without warrants. You do remember that the searchers are Federal employees, and the searching is mandated by law, and not done on the airline's prerogative, right?

I don't see how anything short of El-Al style security will stop AL-Queda.
You are suggesting that some theoretical level of security WILL stop people will evil intentions, and that's a laughable notion. People escaped from Nazi death camps. People smuggle drugs in modern maximum-security prisons. People snuck across the Berlin Wall. What could possibly make you think that an airliner can be made secure? :scrutiny:

Frankly, I think it's fairly likely that this kid was yanked off the flight simply because having a note in his baggage was abnormal. He wasn't an average sheep,willing to meekly submit to whatever regs he encountered. He also didn't make a 'normal' protest, by speaking politely to supervisors and such. Instead, he left a profane expression of contempt in has baggage, where it would be found by a hired bag searcher. That was 'different' and thus it was 'potentially dangerous.' It didn't need to be an actual threat of any kind, it simply had to be unusual in order to grab attention and be judged illegal. And THAT is fearful tyranny in the making.

[M1911Owner]

Baggage searches aren't a violation of any of the Bill of Rights under these circumstances.Amendment IV

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 particularity describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I guess I've been sleeping too much and missed it--when was the Fourth Amendment repealed? Or amended with, "except when deemed appropriate by the Transportation Safety Administration"?

[rrader]

M1911Owner:

So you consider airport baggage screening an "unreasonable search?"

[M1911Owner]

It's fine, if they have a warrant, issued upon presentation of probable cause to a judge, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Orthonym]

So all the note had in it was 1. insults and 2. a statement that there was NOT a bomb in the bag? Wow! I'm glad I gave up on airlines years ago. What if they'd had people like that goon when I was quasi-suspected of shipping an exploding kitty-cat and got right frosty with the idiot airline clerk? :what:

[dustind]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the fourth was calling searches and seizers unreasonable. It was not saying that it only applied to what was deemed an unreasonable searche or seizure.

As long as the goverment is involved I will not submit to any search or seizure without a warrent or probable cause.

[Bruce H]

And people wonder where the Timothy McVeigh's of the world come from. It is all about control.

[rrader]

BruceH:

And people wonder where the Timothy McVeigh's of the world come from. It is all about control

You're much more likely to find a new Tim McVeigh or Terry Nickols among the subset of Americans who get seriously bent out of shape over a simple baggage search then from the subset of TSA screeners.

[rrader]

M1911owner:
Orthonym:
Dustind:

Assuming arguendo that the TSA baggage screening is a violation of the 4th amend., how are you proposing to ensure airline security, make everyone fly naked?

Didn't we have a thread from a guy who wanted ideas on how to carry a NA Arms 22 concealed in a nudist camp?

[M1911Owner]

You're much more likely to find a new Tim McVeigh or Terry Nickols among the subset of Americans who get seriously bent out of shape over a simple baggage search then from the subset of TSA screeners. rrader, I'll grant you that the McVeigh sort probably don't come from the likes of TSA screeners. What you get from the likes of the TSA screeners are the Adolf Hitlers, Josef Stalins, Napoleon Bonapartes, and Sadam Husseins of the world.

It's the "give up a little freedom here, give up a little there," process that creates a powerful government that is available to be taken over by an Adolf Hitler, and a populace that is willing to let it happen until it is too late.

[Bruce H]

rrader who do you think I was refering to? Your posts and your sig. don't jive very well.

[Ian]

Let the airlines make their own security policies, rather than have the Feds force a national plan on them. Let the free market find the best security methods.

[rrader]

BruceH:

rrader who do you think I was refering to? Your posts and your sig. don't jive very well.

:scrutiny:

I don't see whats so socialistic about preventing Al-Queda from pulling off another act of mass genocide by simply extending airport screening techniques that have been in place for nearly 40 years for international flights to domestic flights. Ever been through customs? Aren't those Federal Agents searching your luggage there at the US Customs counter?

Moving the screening to a Federal agency doesn't make it any more or less intrusive, or any more or less socalistic. All it does is prevent the airlines from hiring illegal aliens to do the screening.

How you are confusing an anti-government nut-job like Tim McVeigh with TSA screeners is a mystery. You do know he hated government and any form of government control with every atom in his body don't you?

[Bruce H]

rrader I wasn't refering to the TSA personnel. I was refering to the note writer. This country has been going downhill since 1932. The bigger a mess gets the faster in accelerates into madness. We could try El Al but looking at people instead of things wouldn't be PC. All I know is we have a whole nother bunch of govt. enployees as a knee jerk reaction to a one time hit. Let people carry their own security and fire all the needless foolishness. Never happen tho, because control is never relinquished.

[Wildalaska]

The kid was still an obnoxious little creep and deserves everything he gets...

AS for the TSA...screen me, screen you,, screen them, just make sure no bombs go off...y'all wanna dig through my underwear be me guest...I got nothing to hide..

WildwhatanonsensethreadAlaska

[M1911Owner]

Assuming arguendo that the TSA baggage screening is a violation of the 4th amend., how are you proposing to ensure airline security, make everyone fly naked?There are several questions that you are asking here, two of which are: How does one go about mitigating the dangers posed by having large, fragile buildings that are full of fuel flying through the air, and secondly, how does one do this within a constitutional framework?

Addressing the second question first, the problem is that these warrentless searches are completely unconstitutional. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, it clearly spells out what is requried to authorize a search, and these TSA searches are way, way, way outside what is allowed by the constitution.

If it is determined that weaker protections against searches is required, then the only constitutional method to get there is the amendment process. To my knowledge, no such amendment has been made.

I am aware of the rational that, "Air travel is optional. If you don't want to submit to a search, then don't travel by air." I suspect that, if you research the writing of the Framers, that you will find that it is quite clear that among the natural, unalienable rights that are supposed to be protected by governments, is freedom of movement. The above rational is greatly at odds with that right.

Addressing the first question: I don't know that anyone has an satisfactory answer to how to prevent evil people from misusing aircraft. The TSA-style searches clearly are not a solution, as demonstrated by the 9/11 hijackers who succeeded in their efforts by using innocuous-looking box cutters. Since that time, many people have succeeded in boarding airliners with various weapons, both by intent and by accident. I don't believe that the TSA screenings will have any efficacy whatsoever in stopping another 9/11 attack.

I suspect that arming pilots would help.

I also believe that we would be safer if passengers were allowed to carry weapons. Regarding the oft-repeated concerns about a gun battle in an airliner, I have two points. Firstly, the presence of armed passengers would in itself reduce the chance of an incident occuring in the first place, because potential hijackers would be aware that an airliner is now a "hard target", with rather low likelihood of success. And secondly, I'd much rather take my chances in a gunbattle in an airliner than be at the mercy of hijackers. An airplane can take a great deal of damage and still fly, as demonstrated by the number of bullet holes in some of the WWII bombers and fighters that successfully returned home.

I think that reversing the trend towards larger and larger aircraft would help. A plane that's twice the size of a 747 is a much more attractive and devastating target than, say, a 707. (The government could, I believe, properly mandate this change through the authority granted by the Commerce Clause.)

[Ian]

y'all wanna dig through my underwear be me guest...I got nothing to hide..
Good for you, Wildalaska. But perhaps you will think about changing your opinions down the road when you DO have something to hide. The objections to these laws are not solely about how they are being applied now; they are about how they can be applied in the future. When the TSA starts setting up roadblocks and searching cars, will you still have nothing to hide? How about when they combine that with a ban on the possession of 'assault weapons?' Or any guns at all? Will you simply toss them out and applaud the government's efforts to combat violent crime?

The income tax started out with a maximum rate of 7%. Drug prohibition began with a $1 tax required to get a license to sell narcotics. Who would have imagined in 1934 that you could eventually be jailed for over a decade for a shotgun 1/2 inch to short? These things always start small and grow - and the more they grow, the more permanent they beome. We need to stamp them out now, while we can do so.

[c_yeager]

"[Expletive] you. Stay the [expletive] out of my bag you [expletive] sucker. Have you found a [expletive] bomb yet? No, just clothes. Am I right? Yea, so [expletive] you."

If i was tasked with searching bags and found this id sure as hell give som major scrutiny towards the owner of such bag. And id probably be all officious and put the fear of god in him. But, in the end cut him loose without any marks on his record etc. Of course considering the qualifications for TSA work i doubt anyone even considered this course of action.

[Orthonym]

Did THEY not formerly have a sign at airport checkpoints saying something like "You are not required to submit to search, but persons refusing to submit to search will not be admitted"? It's changed, now, though. The securitoids are Feds now and I (no lawyer) think that toggles the Fourth Amendment. (Y'know, where it says "...unreasonable searches and seizures...") Oh yeah, don't forget the Fifth:"...without due process of law;":fire: :cuss: :fire: :cuss:

Maybe Dave Kopel had a better idea. In something he wrote whose currently readable location escapes me right now, he pointed out that some airlines used to offer a choice of smoking or non-smoking flights. His modest proposal was for offering armed or unarmed flights. That way, people who trusted other people more than themselves could have what they wanted, and we prudent (aka paranoid) folks could suit ourselves as well. Betcha the "armed" tickets would be cheaper!

[JohnBT]

I still say the kid decided to play with fire and he got burned. Actions frequently have consequences, don't they? He was yanked out of line for acting or actually being mentally unbalanced - or just for being plain stupid enough to taunt the screeners with rabid invective. Who knows what stunt he might have pulled on the plane? I don't and the screeners are paid to look into it and make a decision. I'm glad they did their job.

Anybody remember the signs at the airports reminding everyone not to make jokes or even mention bombs and such? These warnings were around for years before TSA.

Regarding the so-called freedom to travel...go ahead, the original settlers walked or rode everywhere and you can too without showing your papers. The government and the airlines have no obligation to provide free travel anymore than the freedom of speech requires anyone to give you free tv/radio time. You have to pay for it. You have to follow the rules of flying or risk the consequences (there's that word again) - wear seatbelts when asked, no smoking, no pinching the flight attendants, no unguided tours of the cockpit, etc.

To those who yell "YOU AIN'T SEARCHING MY STUFF" I can only say "Have a nice walk, bus ride or drive." Air travel is voluntary and boo hoo, life ain't just about what you like.

And if you drive, don't speed or run red lights. There are rules about that, too. Also, don't drink. Roadblocks for the detection of drunks are legal. :)

John

[HankB]

The average TSA screener makes around $22K. You really think folks go into these jobs for some kind of power trip? Most I have met are retired LEO, hate the TSA job and want to find something better. Well, yes. Probably upset about the low pay, and now they have AUTHORITY and get to exert it on someone. ("Re-Spect My Au-Thor-I- Tay" like the pottymouthed kid on South Park.)

And I don't know who you've been talking to at TSA, but virtually ALL of the ones I've encountered are nowhere near retirement age, or even early retirement age, from law enforcement or anywhere else. They look like refugees from the challenging world of food service. (It took too much practice to get "Can I Biggie Size that for you?" right . . . at least in English.)

[Kharn]

WildAlaska:
AS for the TSA...screen me, screen you,, screen them, just make sure no bombs go off...y'all wanna dig through my underwear be me guest...I got nothing to hide..
Would you want one of those TSA guys going through your wife's or daughter's underwear? I definitely wouldnt.

Kharn

[seeker_two]

Before TSA, you could make the arguement about "if you want to fly on MY airline, you have to submit to the screening." Security was privately-owned & managed. And you COULD choose something else.

Now, with TSA being a Federal agency in every airport, it is MANDATED by the Constitution to recognize & abide by the Constitutional limits set on ANY Fed LEO.

When the Federalization happened, I said that either TSA would be bound by the Constitutional limits set or it would have to actively violate those limits--to the delight of any civil-rights attorney. And you can see what happened...:barf:

To those who yell "YOU AIN'T SEARCHING MY STUFF" I can only say "Have a nice walk, bus ride or drive."

I DO, and I WILL! I enjoy the drives where I can actually SEE this great country instead of missing its beauty at 10,000 ft. Besides, being crammed into those flying cattle cars after enduring the Federally-mandated rectal exam doesn't sound like my idea of a fun vacation. If it's your idea--different strokes..:scrutiny:

[BenW]

just make sure no bombs go off...y'all wanna dig through my underwear be me guest...I got nothing to hide..

"I got nothing to hide" is the roadsign pointing the way to hell. I've got nothing to hide when I fly either. I also have nothing to hide at my home. That doesn't mean that I want government representatives strolling in and out of my home 24 hours a day for "the security of the nation." Today it's your luggage, tomorrow it's your bedroom.

[brownie0486]

Having read the entire thread, I can make the determination that there are those who could care less if the bags were checked and those who a vehemently against the luggage searches.

My take is this:

I have to fly to Idaho in October from New England for the Riddle or drive to that location. I will bring about 2500.00 in knives with me for this event.

If I fly, I will likely arrive sans knives after the TSA screeners open the bags and see what goodies are in them. Or, I could get pulled out of line, off the plane, etc after they find them and have to explain why I am transporting them.

I'll obviously be driving to Idaho. Picking up another Riddler in Ohio on the way and then sharing the drive and room expenses until returning in a week back to his house where I'll drive home to NE.

All this will take 12 days. If I flew it would be 6 days. That means I am spending an extra 6 days of the vacation driving so that I am armed during this time and know that the knives won't come up missing when I arrive in Idaho.

I don't have to worry about being hijacked, being questioned by idiots, being searched by the same people, having my personals gone through and then probably stolen when they see what I am transporting in the luggage.

I get to enjoy the ride with a good friend, see some of my country, travel armed and able to defend myself should the need arise, and listen to the radio/cd/tapes, etc.

Though I tend to agree that the TSA'ers won't stop a terrorist if they want to use a plane again, I am not displeased with their rummaging through luggage looking for bombs,etc. possibly being stowed away in a piece of luggage either. They may never catch something evil this way, but they certainly won't catch evil if they don't search.

As to the wife's undies being searched if we fly, well, let them handle them all they want. You would have to expect some of them will be pervs by nature and get off on that sort of thing anyway whether they were TSA fed employees or private security, I don't think you can get away from that fact any way you slice it. Now she may not like it but then if you fly, thats what you can expect or you can do like I'm about to, and drive/walk/etc in lieu of the convenience [ in time ] of flying.

The kid was being a kid. Most don't know enough about life yet to realize that action would bring the possible consequences it has in this instance. I don't think they'll do much to him except make him an example so others will see the news and not copycat this into a major problem nationwide.

It's not a question of whether you have anything to hide or not. It comes down to whether you should be subjected to searches and tighter controls relative your immediate area.

Do I like being searched? No, but like others who feel that way, I know I'm not a threat to the US citizenry. The problem arises because the TSA's/cops/etc DO NOT know who you are or what your intents may be unlike yourself. It's fear of the unknown, and as we know from our ancestry, that fear manifest itself on many ways.

We get upset at the inconvenience and even more so at the perceived intrusion into our private lives. If you are flying you are no longer in a private environ but mutually sharing space with others going the same way. I'm not sure you should expect any privacy while traveling publicly after 9-11. It just doesn't seem realistic to think you can keep any resemblance of privacy with the serious potential for another attempt to take one out of the sky by who knows what means.

Will we catch all the potentials? Of course not. Will be catch some of the potentials? Probably. Will we deter others from easily sneaking a det device into checked luggage? Maybe. One thing is clear however--if we do nothing about checking/tightening the belt being discussed here we are doomed to a repeat of 9-11. Perhaps not just like that days events but something just as nasty I'm sure.

Don't whine about your freedoms being diminished. Your rights being violated. Circumstances dictate more prudence than we had before 9-11.
We'll learn to live with those intrusions into our lives or we will eventually die from our own non-feasance addressing the issues.

We live in changing times. Thats no different than my dad lived through, ort his dad live through before him. Times change, society changes with it or gets left by the wayside.

I'm not happy about the way things are on this issue or by what caused all this to change our lives. The fact remains it's a new world after 9-11, and certainly a different USA since then. We adapt or we cease to exist. Thats the nature of natural selection since the first microbe pulled itself up and out of the oceans and started to adapt to it's new world.

Don't whine, suck it up and move forward folks. Whether I or any here like it or not, we'll be living with this a long time, better get used to it and adapt.

My adaptation is to drive myself and take the extra days necessary to get where I'm going. It's only an incovenience if you make it one, otherwise it's an adventure.

Brownie

[seeker_two]

All this will take 12 days. If I flew it would be 6 days. That means I am spending an extra 6 days of the vacation driving so that I am armed during this time and know that the knives won't come up missing when I arrive in Idaho.

I don't have to worry about being hijacked, being questioned by idiots, being searched by the same people, having my personals gone through and then probably stolen when they see what I am transporting in the luggage.

I get to enjoy the ride with a good friend, see some of my country, travel armed and able to defend myself should the need arise, and listen to the radio/cd/tapes, etc.

We're on the same wavelength here...:cool:

Don't whine about your freedoms being diminished. Your rights being violated. Circumstances dictate more prudence than we had before 9-11.
We'll learn to live with those intrusions into our lives or we will eventually die from our own non-feasance addressing the issues...

We live in changing times. Thats no different than my dad lived through, ort his dad live through before him. Times change, society changes with it or gets left by the wayside...

Don't whine, suck it up and move forward folks. Whether I or any here like it or not, we'll be living with this a long time, better get used to it and adapt....

:scrutiny:

THIS is where you start to worry me. Hitler, Mao, and Stalin used similar "justifications" to institute their policies. And we know what those results were. And I DON'T want to see it here...:fire:

[DaveB]

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me. - Pastor Martin Niemöller

db

[brownie0486]

My grandfather had more freedom than my dad.
My dad had more freedom than I.
I'll have more freedom than the next generation.

It's a fact of life, the US can not live in the 1800's or 1900's as some of us would like to see. We have been shoved into the 21st century by our enemies abroad and from within.

If we didn't have to be PC, we might still enjoy the days when we had no cares. Technology has advanced the world immensely, but it has also made it smaller. We are no longer isolated by two great bodies of water as in the olden days.

We learn to adapt or we cease to exist. The way of nature. I don't like it, but I will learn to adapt and live with it.

I don;t thionk the feears of searching your home will materialize anytime soon, if ever, but one never knows. More states are issuing CCW's than are taking the right away. Some thing s will be worse, but some will be better.

It's a compromise we must be willing to accept at least partially for the sake of the general public [ sheeple ] who do not have the means to protect themselves or even care to try.

No matter what happens, I'll survive on instinct and training as in days gone by. My father used to say " I never thought I'd see the day when ----[ fill in the blank ] "

Well, now I say the same thing about paying for water, etc.

Should have bought that natural spring I used to fish 40 years ago.

Brownie

[Cosmoline]

The average TSA screener makes around $22K. You really think folks go into these jobs for some kind of power trip?"

No, I think they get them to line their pockets with valuables they take from our luggage. They are worthless drones, all of them. And yes, the skies would be MUCH safer if they fired the entire mass of them and tore down the x-ray stations and metal detectors, then let us ride with CCW's.

Another point: If any one of the Founding Fathers were asked to partially disrobe or take off his shoes and be patted down, he would not only object, he would probably demand satisfaction the old fashioned way. What TSA does IS a violation of our rights in the most fundamental way. Government is not to lay hand on us, and we are allowed to be secure in our persons and possessions.

[Orthonym]

You know the one I mean: Think Bounty, Bligh and 3 inches of freeboard. The boat officer saying, " YOU! SIT DOWN RIGHT NOW! Sorry, ma'am, but if you stand up and stretch again without leave I WILL shoot you!" Yes, necessary in that situation, I just hope and believe things aren't quite that bad yet.

Oh, wait, I remember that people have already been forbidden to stand and stretch in airliners a few times.

[seeker_two]

It's a compromise we must be willing to accept at least partially for the sake of the general public [ sheeple ] who do not have the means to protect themselves or even care to try.

NOW we're deep into "shivers-down-the-spine" territory...:what:

brownie: I understand what you're trying to say---but I have the fear that your next post on this topic will incorporate the phrase "...for the children"... :scrutiny:

[rrader]

Cosmoline:

No, I think they get them to line their pockets with valuables they take from our luggage. They are worthless drones, all of them. And yes, the skies would be MUCH safer if they fired the entire mass of them and tore down the x-ray stations and metal detectors, then let us ride with CCW's.

No they are not all "worthless drones" or theives as you suggest.

Your worthless comment is one of great snobbery and ignorance.

The skies would be safer without them? No, we'd just have more 9/11 style attacks..

[cordex]

The skies would be safer without them? No, we'd just have more 9/11 style attacks..
Riiiiiight ... because TSA pseudo-police digging through checked undies and personal effects would have stopped a few guys with tiny knives from taking over a few airplanes.
Not a chance, buddy. Terrorists are better at adapting than societies. They want to blow something up, and they'll find a way to do it. They might even play by the rules right up until they start killing people (see: 9/11). TSA would have been, and currently is impotent and unable to stop a dedicated group of attackers willing to die.

[brownie0486]

seeker_two :

I don't have any, don't want any, and can't stand most others kids as well. Even my nephews and nieces are only tolerated mildly until they become adults.

With me, it's never for the children.

Brownie

[Quartus]

Aside from the principles involved, I've been very pleasantly surprised at the conduct of the TSA folks. As far as courtesy and professionalism, they've been a big improvement in many airports. (I fly a lot.) I suspect MOST of them are great people. I am sure that SOME of them are pilfering luggage. (That's just based on a knowledge of human nature.) I just haven't had a problem with them so far.

Having said that...

You're much more likely to find a new Tim McVeigh or Terry Nickols among the subset of Americans who get seriously bent out of shape over a simple baggage search then from the subset of TSA screeners.


That's probably true. Among those who love freedom will be a few who fail to balance that with a love of justice and respect for human life.


From a subset of TSA screeners, and those who think this kid got what he deserved, will come the Brown Shirts of New Amerika. Alas, it's not IF anymore, it's WHEN, because too many either refuse, or (I guess) are just too stupid to learn from history.

This isn't about a snot nosed kid. (Yes, he's a snot nosed kid. If he were mine, he'd get his butt warmed.)

It's about abuse of power. If some screener can't see that note for what it is, and can't tell that a note like that represents NO threat, he (or she) has no business at all being in such a position of power. And anyone who thinks otherwise is not qualified to vote.


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin.

And I might add, eventually they will have NEITHER.

[seeker_two]

With me, it's never for the children.

!!!TOLD YOU SO!!!

:neener:

j/k

[KC]

"just make sure no bombs go off...y'all wanna dig through my underwear be me guest...I got nothing to hide.."

Riiight. Whats your address? We'll call up the local cops and imply that you may have been cooking meth in your kitchen, and we will see how happy you are to let them toss your house.

You have either not condidered the impact of your statement, or do not care (which itself begs the question, "why are you on this board?"). The TSA is just another federal jobs program to employ people who cannot do any useful work and evil SOB's on a powertrip.

If you really think what they are doing, and the way they are going about it, is right and proper, you really are trying to hide in the middle of the herd.

Edited by moderator

[dustind]

brownie0486 and some others. What was lost is not worth it.

You could hijack a semi full of *XXXX* and drive it into a building. You could go on a shooting spree, or intentionally run people over until you are stopped. There are thousands of ways to commit terrorism. We have to draw the line somewhere, sure an airplane can destroy a building, but so can many other things. If we allow our rights to be removed because one thing is a bit more dangerous than the next, then they will all be removed one by one until we hit the bottom of the slippery slope and the fourth amendment does not exist.

An almost perfect analogy would be other countries's gun control. People were afraid so they started banning. At first they banned the machine guns, then semi auto rifles, etc. It never stopped until they had nothing left to ban. They did not become safer because they focused on the tools, not the people.

We all seem to agree that freedom was lost in airports, evident by brownie choosing to drive rather than fly. Do any of you think the TSA can stop people from taking plastic knives or clubs onto a plane? You can already bring pencils and pens, and canes on board. What is the TSA hoping to prevent? Someone from getting rifles or bombs into the cabin, because that is about all they can do. What could terrorists do before that they can not do now?

The fact that airplanes are private property does not give the feds the right to search people. That has always been true. If this was done privately it would not be an issue. I can strip search anyone who walks into my house, no biggie. If the police told me they would do that to anyone who walked into my house I would start WWIII on my lawn. The difference between before and now was that if I did not like the treatment I could choose to fly with another airline. The people had the ultimate power over them, if we were unhappy they would go out of business, and the free market would change to the people's needs. Now we have no power, we gave up a lot of freedom, and gained almost no security.

You can not stop people from killing people by going after the tools, that rarely works. We should go after the people, and stop them one way or the other. Better foreign policy and actually hunting them down would be great. Even if we could take air plains out of the picture by grounding all of them, or by perfect security America would not be much safer. We also need to get better doors in the cockpits and firearms to any willing pilot, that would guarantee no more planes would be taken.

EDIT: The big problem is no one is accountable for their actions, if this was done in the free market the abuses and horror stories would stop dead. People would not put up with it if the airports were acountable, the airports would be forced to cange immediately or go out of buisness to their competitors who treated people better. You can not fight city hall, or the fed.gov, if something happens you are screwed unless you want to change countries. We need competition or this will get worse.

[Wildalaska]

A few responses:

Ian I wont ever have anything to hide. I dont see how voluntarily submitting to a search of my luggae to ride an airplane when we are at war with terrorists who use airplanes impacts my rights. I dont share your parade of horribles and I prefer to take my chances with life rahter than the small inconveniece of digging thru me bags.

Ben W I dont share your parade of horribles about the govt rummaging through my house...look at it this way...can you postulate that flying is implied consent to a warrantless search of your bags? Customs can do it at the border...roadblocks for DWI pass constitional muster....difference?

Kharn...my wife hates the TSA for that reason..she also doesnt want to get bombed...

KC your use of the term idiot in reference to my post deserves no response other than to send it off to a moderator and add you too my ignore list

WildihateflyinganywayAlaska

[dustind]

"Ben W I dont share your parade of horribles about the govt rummaging through my house...look at it this way...can you postulate that flying is implied consent to a warrantless search of your bags? Customs can do it at the border...roadblocks for DWI pass constitional muster....difference?"

I do not believe that flying is implied consent for the government to do anything. If the airport wants to do a body cavity search and make people fly nude, and if they did not recieve gov money I would have no problem with it. I would not even think of flying with them, and hope they go out of buisness, but no ones rights would be violated. If you want to search me when I come and go on your property that is fine, but not the government, we have the fourth amendment for that very reason. There is a huge difference between the gov and private citizens. (Edited for clarity)

I am not sure how I feel about customs, but entering or leaving the country is a slightly different matter.

DWI checkpoints do not violate the fourth, at least in the supreme's opinion, because there is not a search going on. I slightly disagree, I think that what is in your lungs is yours, etc. If DWI checkpoints were considered searching they would have been struck down.

[JohnBT]

Hey, we have a "Disseminator of Hatred and Discontent" on this board. One that's self-proclaimed anyway, but I digress.

If my momma caught me tagging myself with that title she'd whup me a good one. Or maybe even a new one. And I be afeared of what was coming next even though she'll be 79 next month.

Now, about them going through the womenfolk's undies. All I gotta say is that they better not enjoy it too much. The womenfolk, that is. ;)

John

[BenW]

Wildalaska - The problem is that we become frogs waiting for the water to boil. I DON'T have anything to hide at the airport. They can search my bags all day long and not find anything menacing. I have to fly a lot for work, but I now only fly once a year for vacation ( I used to fly at least four times a year to find warm water to scuba dive in). I cut down because I don't like dealing with the security headaches on my own time (i.e., interference with my freedom). If my boss (ironically the US GOVT) wants to pay me for standing in search lines, that's their problem. I'll grab a book and stand around all day.

The point is about LETTING them do this without a squawk because it doesn't bother me or it doesn't bother you. Being silent may not lead us down the road to unwarranted home searches next year or in ten years, but what about in thirty or forty years? As I recall, taxes were to be a temporary implementation to "help the country". People got use to them, and now look how that program has expanded to the point of the abuse of citizens.

[Cosmoline]

How's the view from inside all that sand, Wild? :D

Here's the problem. The security at airports is a PERFECT example of how rights can be lost gradually. In the early days, there was no security. Then there were a batch of hyped-up hijackings, and some basic security was put in place. With the basic elements for warrantless searches in place, our fine protectors decided to take advantage of them. Thus was born the practice of strip searching and drug sniffing to fight the self-proclaimed "War on Drugs." To "save the children," of course!

Now that started to wind down, and PRESTO, we have a "War on Terror," and we're all suspects.

The same thing has been going on in public schools, as well.

It's a great example of why we must react, and strongly, when these measures first rear their heads. Otherwise the worst thing possible happens. WE GET USED TO IT. Then it isn't so bad. You take off some clothes, then some more clothes. Then all of them. Then it's time for a de-lousing shower. Just a quick one! No harm in that. There's a war on lice, you know. It's us or them. So just step in this room and try not to pay attention to the fingernails embedded in the walls.

See how this works?

For myself, I'm going to keep the ammo dry and avoid the airports. Not much else I can do. So I guess there's something to Wild's approach. Learn to love the feel of the gloved hand from a TSA official! It's there for our protection, since that old woman next to you may have a bomb up her rear.

:barf:

[Ian]

Brownie - Would this be an accurate summation of your view? "It sucks, but since it's gonna happen, you ought to just lie back and enjoy it." :scrutiny:

[geekWithA.45]

the kid has a bad attitude and an over-sized mouth;

Frankly, we could all use a dose of that.

By rights, We, the heirs to liberty are entitled to nothing less than a whopping dose of cheerfully expressed rage. for the mess they've made of it all.

The BOR is NOT toilet paper, and the more people that get audibly grouchy in public about it, the better.

[JohnBT]

I'm still hearing a lot of complaining, but no solutions on keeping the planes safe. If you're not going to search then what are you going to do - go with the honor system? We've seen how well that worked.

It was one thing when they were taking hostages and the Isaelis, for example, could fly rescue teams halfway across Africa to free almost all of the passengers. The stakes are different these days - they aren't taking hostages and making ransom demands.

How are you going to deal with the problem if you don't do searches?

John

[ravinraven]

I noted in a reply from STANDINGWOLF the following. " democratic (sic) party...." That should have been "...democratic (sick) party..." Actually just the term "sick party" would have sufficed.

rr

[hammer4nc]

John BT,

Here's just two suggestions for keeping planes safe, for starters:

Effective immigration policies.

Major attitude adjustment for national intelligence communities.

All the post-9/11 analyses indicate that the intelligence information on the terrorists was setting off alarm bells within the system, big time. The alarms were ignored. Likewise, I'll invite you make the case that immigration policy has been substantially improved since 9/11. Some indications quite the opposite.

Rather than take effective action, they've increased the size of bureaucracies who've proven to be ineffective (without changing focus), and created new bureaucracies. Typical. Its always going to be easier to make a big show of confiscating nail clippers and GI Joe plastic m-16's, at airport checkpoints. Having our national police forces staging major raids to confiscate already de-milled weapons from a known/existing importer, because someone has re-interpreted a rule. Thats a good example of misplaced resources, there are many more, and its BS.

Ever heard of the BIG PICTURE?

[brownie0486]

Ian:

Not really.

It sucks, so I don't fly.

It sucks, but the alternative is to possibly allow another towel meister loving terrorist unrestricted access to the belly of the plane.

Doesn't anybody remember the Lockerby [ spelling ] over Scotland debacle? They took the plane down with a bomb planted in luggage.

Though I don't enjoy being searched, having the bags searched etc, I can understand why it is necessary in order to provide the security we all want while traveling via airlines.

Understanding that it now a prudent part of security measures to check bags going into the belly of the plane, my hope is that they do a good job of checking the bags. The alternative is very unpleasant to think about.

I certainly don't feel as others have mentioned that our homes are to be searched next. That is a far stretch one takes in comparing the two, and almost has the sounds of paranoia attached to it relative the thought process to speak it.

Does it matter who makes the decision to search the bags? The gov, the private industry? I see no difference. A search is a search, right or wrong on it's own merits. Certainly the merits are not subject to who instituted those measures but the measures themselves.

I'll be driving or not going at all. I don't want the hassle thats involved at the ports in checking bags, security checks, long lines and the off chance they miss something and I have to get violent with an unruly on the plane.

Thanks, but no thanks, my only worry will be if the plane being taken out of the sky is going to fall on me.:uhoh:

Brownie

[Al Norris]

brownie0486 wrote:
Does it matter who makes the decision to search the bags? The gov, the private industry? I see no difference. A search is a search, right or wrong on it's own merits. Certainly the merits are not subject to who instituted those measures but the measures themselves.

Yes, it most certainly does matter.

A mandatory search on private property by agents of the property owner is completely legal and within the rights of the property owner.

A mandatory search by agents of the government without probable cause or a warrant based upon probable cause is unlawful regardless of whether the search is on private or public property.

Even if one were to lower the bar to reasonable suspicion, it would still be unlawful. As it is not reasonable to suspect each and every piece of baggage to contain a weapon or each and every person flying to be a terrorist/criminal.

An agent of the property owner, operating on said owners property can make that assumption. An agent of the government, operating under the color of law cannot.

[brownie0486]

You agree to the search by way of using their airlines today. No one is making you fly any plane.

They [ the private owned airline ] gave/granted the feds permission to perform the searches. The airlines are under the jurisdiction of the FAA [ a fed ], and so they do have authority to enforce regulations "they" create for the industry as a whole.

Sounds like they have the authority and the blessings of the airlines to me.

Thats would mean the feds and the corporations have come to terms and agreed this is necessary. Well within the scope of their authority [ the feds ] through the regulating fed agency that oversees all airline issues in the US.

Thats why I asked if it mattered. In this regard, the two are actually one entity. The air marshals weren't started/activated by the airlines, but by the feds as well. The airlines will always defer to the feds [ FAA ] relative security. This is nothing new.

BTW--Private property is subject to search once it is in the public domain [ as in an airport or loading dock ].

When you put your trash on the curb to be removed, it no longer becomes private property and can be confiscated and searched at random by any LE agency who cares to pick through it. Even when the trash is ON your property, it can be removed and searched by LE types. Case precedence has been established for years relative the expectation of privacy.

No rights being violated here that I see. Your luggage is private property while it is in your hands and under your control. Set it down or relinquish it [ the control ] to another in a public area and your property can be searched.

Don't think that is right? They are doing it with your knowledge as well. You know you have to leave the bags unlocked for them to search them now when you give up control of your bags to be put into the belly of the plane. You give them authorization by the action of handing them the bags to be loaded onto the plane, whether it is explicitly granted by you or not.

Don't want them searched? Don't fly. Whats so hard about this that people can't understand?

Again, I don't like it anymore than the next person. If I fly, I grant them authorization to search automatically. It's not like someone got caught going through bags when no one knew they were doing so.

An airport is not your home. You do not have the same expectation of privacy at the port like you do at your home. People don't pass through your home like grand central station where there are common areas accessable to the public.

Brownie

[DaveB]

The original point was not: should we search passengers and their stuff (Y/N).

The point was: should TSA screeners exercise professional judgement about what constitutes a threat, or should they not.

If not, then the TSA must post a specific set of rules, and must follow those rules without exception.

If so, then staff the TSA with professional LE and military types (like the Israelis do) and let them do their jobs.

When they screw up, as they did in this teenager's case (my opinion), they take the heat.

When they do a good job, it's kept quiet - don't give away our methods - and my kids get to their destination.

db

[seeker_two]

They [ the private owned airline ] gave/granted the feds permission to perform the searches. The airlines are under the jurisdiction of the FAA [ a fed ], and so they do have authority to enforce regulations "they" create for the industry as a whole.

So, if an airline (i.e. Southwest) decides that they don't want TSA to conduct searches for their airline, that airline can tell TSA to "buzz off"? I don't think so...

BTW--Private property is subject to search once it is in the public domain [ as in an airport or loading dock ].

Pretty broad interpretation there. So, if you park your car in a public lot, it's OK to be searched w/o your consent? How about if you're walking with a bag on a public street? And when is something NOT in the "public domain" (according to your statement)?

Your luggage is private property while it is in your hands and under your control. Set it down or relinquish it [ the control ] to another in a public area and your property can be searched.

And what about carry-on luggage? When has one relinquised control of it? Or is this just the "public domain" thing?...

Don't want them searched? Don't fly.

I don't. And I'm offended that one has to surrender my Constitutional rights to a Federal (as in "sworn to uphold the Constitution") agency in order to partake in a commercial transaction. And I'm offended that a lot of airline workers are going to lose their jobs thanks to an un-Constitutional government agency that won't feel any consequence for their actions. :fire:

[JohnBT]

Okay, I still say the kid got what he deserved - more or less. Making him eat the note would have provided more immediate reinforcement.

hammer4nc - "Effective immigration policies."

How will that help anything? Many of them are already here. Many of them can still come here legally and still sneak in unlawfully. Might improve things 5, 10 or 20 years from now, but I really sort of doubt it.

hammer4nc - "Ever heard of the BIG PICTURE?"

You trying to be cute or do you really think I'm ignorant, uneducated and a shallow thinker?

As far as the TSA needing to improve...what doesn't need to improve? Should we halt all security measures while we argue about how to make everybody happy?

John

[brownie0486]

seeker_two:

In order of your questions:

No, I stated the feds have jurisdiction so the airline does not have a say in how security is performed/handled.

Pull your car in a parking lot that has a sign that all contents would be subject to search and yes, it can be searched as entering the lot you have agreed to the stipulation voluntarily. They didn't force you to enter the lot.

Walking with a bag? No--It's under your control, see the difference?

When is something not in the public domain? When it's in the private domain of your car, home, pockets, etc. and you have the expectation of privacy, which of course you do not at the airport when you check bags.

Carry on luggage? You have immediate control of it don't you? You do not give up control of the carryon like you do the bags which go into the belly of the plane.

It's a commercial transaction which is and has been regulated by the feds since it's inception. The searches are not new here folks, we have had them forever it seems. The searches are just more extensive/intrusive/invasive than they were before. I think that might show some prudence on thye govs part after 9-11 don't you?

If I were offended everytime soemone lost their job, I'd be offended 24/7/365. Losing ones job is always a possibility isn't it? I don't believe the feds have a monopoly on job losses due to world events.

What uncontitutional gov agency are you talking about here? You were not specific and I can not comment further until that has been clarified. If you respond with the gov name also please enclose your point of views as to their unconstitutional actions.

Can the system be improved? Of course, do we need this system in place, of course.

Brownie

[seeker_two]

Walking with a bag? No--It's under your control, see the difference?

So a person can refuse to allow TSA to search a carry-on bag w/o due process, probable cause, or a warrant? I'd like to see that...

When is something not in the public domain? When it's in the private domain of your car, home, pockets, etc. and you have the expectation of privacy, which of course you do not at the airport when you check bags.

Same question...

What uncontitutional gov agency are you talking about here?

Transportation Security Agency. Basically a federalization (seizure of control) of the private security agencies at the airport. TSA can also carry out warrantless searches w/o probable cause in violation of the Constitution.

[TallPine]

What uncontitutional gov agency are you talking about here?

The Departmint of Spelling Errrors, of coarse. :D

[Intune]

C'mon, the whole trash search analogy is bogus. Your trash is assumed to be something you've discarded, thrown away. Your luggage in the driveway by the trunk of your car is NOT fair game to LEO's. For thieves, yes!

The screening is overkill. It is done to make people feel safe, "feel" being the key word. Anyone with half a mind could find a way to put an explosive device on an aircraft. Hell, they're supposedly well funded, they can buy their own plane and take their time making the best flying bomb possible. Knitting needles and nail clippers, bah! Anything less than a bomb should NOT be a federal offense. "Sir, you can't bring a pistol on board. Please utilize one of the lockers or return it to your car. Thank you."

I was about ten feet from an airport metal detector about five years ago and reached into my pocket to start getting my change, etc out. When my hand closed around my NAA .22 I almost had to sit down. I went so pale that my wife asked me what was wrong. Returned to car, no harm done. Should I have a FELONY on my record for forgetfulness?

If the x-ray machine for checked bags comes up with an image of a package with wires they should get the owner and open that bag in their presence. How many bombs have they found in bags so far?

A warning for shooters. Last time I flew they asked if they could swab the handles of my carry on for explosive residue. No prob. While the guy was doing it I asked him if I had gone to the range that day would cordite set his machine off. He said that I would be in for a long talk in another room.

:what:

[brownie0486]

seeker_two :

The walking with a bag was public way on the streets, not the airport which is under the control of the feds. They can search all they want at the airport. Would you have them need a warrant if they suspected through information provided by another flyer that you may be a threat? I know I wouldn't have a problem with them searching another who looked or acted suspicious.

They didn't seize private security at the ports. They replaced private security. You don't sieze private companies unless you are the IRS. Replacing is not the same as seizing something.

Are the security checks basically useless? sure they are. Would you suggest we now change the system instituted by the feds for one similiar to the israeli's? You don't like being searched, having your bags searched, your freedom taken from you at the drop of a hat? Go fly out of one Ben Gurion and tell us all how you feel about their attitudes and your "rights" there. They profile, they pull you from the line, they interview you, they tell you you are not flying if they so desire and give no explanation at all, nor do they have to.

Those people have lived what we are just beginning to experience here in the US for 30 years. They handle it pretty well, and their citizens realize it is necessary to ensure the terrorist types are squashed/stopped before they become an issue for the most part at the ports.

Your trash is indeed something you have discarded, unfortunately others had to take the issues to court as they felt it was theirs until it was picked up and thrown into the hauler. They were deemed incorrect, even when that trash is still on their private property.

Screeening does make the sheeple feel good and not much else. With all the issues everyone has about their rights being violated with the system in place now, imagine what these same people would be screeming when effective measures were instituted that actually worked. Course to be effective, people will have to deal even more with the issues of legal searches won't they?

You want safety? You'll give up some of those freedoms then, otherwise there is no way to keep you safe. Catch 22? I don't know but I do know the most effective ways top thwart terrorism are considered unjust and against the constitutional guarentees we have enjoyed in the past. You can't have it both ways, so make the decision right now that you will allow the searches and some semblance of safety or you won't allow searches and take the chance this open society isn't bombed into the next millenium.

Those are the choices, unless someone can come up with a way to make us as safe as possible but not violate someones "rights" in doing so [ which no one here seems to be able to conjure up on their own so far ].

You can't have it both wways folks, so I'm open to how you would make us safe in the air and not violate ANYONE's rights in doing so. You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all the people all the time.

I'm driving. You have the same choices, fly or find alternative transport. To whine over how someone is going about thwarting this nasty business of terrorism we are embroiled in yet have no readily available alternative actions to suggest doesn't solve anything here.

Course, the whiners will whine about the feds and their actions forever and always find some cause to find fault with others actions if they are inconvenienced the least little bit.

BTW--On the spelling issue, if you don't understand what I write you can let me know, otherwise I think the spelling is not something to worry about on a forum post. It's not like I'm writing to my english teacher here.

Brownie

[seeker_two]

brownie: I think the only thing we're going to agree about is that we both prefer to drive rather than take the Federal Pre-Flight Rectal Exam... :fire:

As for the rest of your statement: the world view you present positively TERRIFIES me--and would terrify the Founding Fathers as well...:what:

As for spelling: I don't grade for spelling or grammar--just content.

Your grade: C+ ;)

[JohnBT]

I think it would a hell of a lot more than some airport security to terrify the Founding Fathers. The King of England didn't scare them, did he?

John

[brownie0486]

seeker_two :

I like that, we can agree to drive at least here.

Stay safe

Brownie

[seeker_two]

You too, B-man...:cool:

[Al Norris]

The whole concept of federalizing a private industry is not only repugnant to the Constitution, it would indeed terrify the founders.

The fact that many of you have become sooo used to this idea, does not make it right.

Incrementalism, is the word.

Back to the thread....

The kid was stupid. The note should have been given to the parents. Let them deal with the little snot. But to hand a felony on the kid? Before 1990, it would never have entered my wildest nightmares.

[rrader]

Al Norris:

The whole concept of federalizing a private industry is not only repugnant to the Constitution, it would indeed terrify the founders.


I think the opposite viewpoint is more valid, when was the Constitution ever amended to allow the Federal Government to delegate a police function like searching luggage to private businesses?

It's just the same as private businesses operating privately owned prisons for the States. Unconstitutional IMO.

Federalizing the screeners puts that police job back with the government where it always belonged.

[brownie0486]

Didn't they federalize the pony express as well way back when?

I'm sure we would find many such federalizations over the course of American history that would have been better off left privatized.

Some people just don't want the gov types getting involved in their lives and take it as a personal assault on them.

Course these same people will be collecting social security checks from Uncle one day and be happy their gov saw fit to set up that system as well.

Perceptions become ones reality too often when the facts don't warrant that thought process.

Brownie

[Al Norris]

rrader wrote:
I think the opposite viewpoint is more valid, when was the Constitution ever amended to allow the Federal Government to delegate a police function like searching luggage to private businesses?
I believe you have it exactly backwards. You are buying a flight ticket (literally, a contract to perform) from a private business. Your luggage is being transported by that business. That business is renting/leasing space to operate. Private property. Privately owned business. Property rights. There is no delegation of police powers here... until, by the magical power of unlawful legislation, it makes a private business and its property a federal installation. A usurption of the rights of the property owner.

Your prison allusion is a canard. A rather poor one at that.

[brownie0486]

You are buying a ticket from a private entity that is expressly regulated and run under federal guidelines, which also rents space for their operations from corps that are also federally regualated and fall under the feds guidelines.

Most private corps are not federally regulated or mandated to perform functions under the feds control and supervision. If your thoughts run that way, reconsider the above. It's apples to oranges when talking about private corps/businesses which normally are not under feds control or regs and the airline industry.

Does the FAA investigate private plane crashes? of course.
Does the FAA mandate safety requirements and maintenance shcedules for these private planes? of course.
Does the FAA inspect these privately owned airlines on a periodic basis? Of course

Theres the apples

The oranges would be any other private business not thusly under direct control of a fed agency.

I own a business that is not federally mandated or regulated by a fed agency. The airlines are another ballgame alltogether.

Otherwise the airlines would have their own investigators out there at crash sites, be responsible for their opwn maintenace schedules, etc [ which they are not ].

The feds have had their fingers in the airlines business forever, nothing new here. Whats all the fuss about? It isn't like they just got involved after 9-11 ya know?

Brownie

[org]

The airlines do send their own investigators to crash sites, and they are responsible for their own maintainance, but even so, I don't see what that has to do with security.

[brownie0486]

They are not responsioble for their own maintenance, the FAA dictates their schedules of maintenance based on the type of aircraft it is. Their employees carry our the fed mandates on maintenance.

They may send their own investigators, but the FAA has jurisdiction and control over the scene.

The security issues are relavant in that all aspects of the industry are regulated by a fed agency and their mandates. Why wouldn't the feds also control that [ security ] aspect of the industry as well?

See the relevance now?

Brownie

[org]

The feds don't provide maintenance schedules or procedures. The feds review the procedures outlined in the Mx Manuals provided by the carrier. The manuals are based on procedures from the manufacturer (and Federal Aviation Regulations), but can have changes by the carrier, which must be accepted by the FAA. Big difference. What the FAA does is checks for compliance with FAR's, they don't write the manuals.

Any failures of procedures or actual maintenance goes back on the carrier, not the FAA. If the carrier bears the penalties for failed maintenance, the carrier also bears the responsibility.

Each carrier has it's own maintenance program; some may be identical to others, but some are very different. Same with operations. The FAA only oversees carriers, it doesn't run them.

Crash investigations are overseen by the NTSB, who can actually find fault with the FAA as well as any other party.

To reinterate, the air carrier is RESPONSIBLE for everything, not the FAA who is simply a combination cop/district attorney, so to speak.

I'm not a FAA employee, but I have been in the airline business for a couple of decades plus, and I slept in a Holiday Inn Express the other night.

[cordex]

Why wouldn't the feds also control that [ security ] aspect of the industry as well?
Because of Constitutional restrictions on what they can and can not stick their nose into. The Commerce Clause (loosely interpreted as it is) lets them get away with controlling huge aspects of the aviation industry. The Fourth Amendment prohibits them from conducting the searches that they are conducting without warrant or express permission.

"But Cordex, haven't you heard? Buying an airplane ticket means that Fed.gov can do whatever they want."

Wrong. This is no more accurate than saying that getting a driver's license is tacit permission to allow police to search your car without warrant, probable cause or consent. Or buying a bus ticket is consent to allow TSA screeners to dig through your pockets and bags. After all, don't want them searching you, don't travel. Or just walk.

[mjydrafter]

I understand the "b-word in the airport" thing, but a felony:rolleyes:

I won't try and guess what a terrorist will try, but I just don't think they would draw attention to themselves by placing a sarcastic note in thier bag.

The kid did something stupid (that's a new one, huh), but the punishment doesn't really fit here.

I think ruining the family vacation would be enough to make the remander of his time under the family roof, and future holiday visits, unpleasant at best.

[Quartus]

It's just the same as private businesses operating privately owned prisons for the States. Unconstitutional IMO.


Uh, would you care to quote the part of the Constitution that is violated here? It should be good for a laugh.


The kid did something stupid (that's a new one, huh), but the punishment doesn't really fit here.

I think ruining the family vacation would be enough to make the remander of his time under the family roof, and future holiday visits, unpleasant at best.

The stupid kid did nothing that should have been punished IN ANY WAY by the TSA or any government official at any level. He committed no crime.


How far down have we come when supposed conservatives/libertarians see nothing wrong with a U.S. citizen being criminally charged for writing a sarcastic note?

[Cosmoline]

Doesn't anybody remember the Lockerby [ spelling ] over Scotland debacle? They took the plane down with a bomb planted in luggage.

Though I don't enjoy being searched, having the bags searched etc, I can understand why it is necessary in order to provide the security we all want while traveling via airlines.
-----

Yes, and they still could. I have no objections to having checked-in luggage sniffed for bombs or scanned for bombs. If they have reasonable suspicion based on a finding, they should be able to quickly obtain a warrant and secure and search the article in question. That's the way it works in the free world.

The best way to stop attackers armed with box knives? SHOOT THEM DEAD! There you go. Just allow CCW on the planes. Are you afraid of freedom?

[Cosmoline]

Otherwise the airlines would have their own investigators out there at crash sites, be responsible for their opwn maintenace schedules, etc [ which they are not ]."

The airlines DO send their own investigators, who work closely with the NTSB. And the airlines are responsible for their own maintenance schedules. They are approved by the FAA, but they originate with the carriers.

None of this gives the feds any implied right to force me to take my shoes off, disrobe, or have their gloved hand up my rear.

[brownie0486]

Didn't know they were doing caivity searches.
Very interesting.

Warrants are never "quick" and certainly not quick enough to make a difference when time may be of the essence.

Actually, if exigent circumstances are present, no warrant is necessary in the free world [ USA ].

Approved by the FAA, sounds like they have the ultimate decision making process then.

Brownie

[Intune]

Cos, I don't mind the x-ray, bomb sniffing procedure for checked bags. It's the "open whatever bag we want to" that I don't like. Find something that looks like a bomb, come get the passenger and ask them to open it. Same with carry-on. Pocket knives and nail clippers is crazy. Toy gun? Tell the person to keep it in their bag or the Air Marshal may shoot them.

[Intune]

Well, if they're not doing cavity searches then I could have brought my NAA .22 on the trip! :D First one that says my BlackHawk too is gonna get one in the kisser!!! :eek: Do terrs know about NAA? Well sure. So all these scans are doing is depriving citizens of sharp objects that they own.

It's easy to lease a 727. Why go through the security hassle if all you want to do is bring down a large bldg and kill a few thousand people.

[Quartus]

The best way to stop attackers armed with box knives? SHOOT THEM DEAD! There you go. Just allow CCW on the planes. Are you afraid of freedom?



The problem with THAT approach is that you won't even have any ATTEMPTS anymore, which would deprive Big Brother of another excuse to control the sheeple.


Can't have that, now, can we? :rolleyes:


But I see that most have missed the point. It's not about whether or not we should have searches. (That's an important debate, though.)

It's about how much abuse of power we will tolerate. FELONY charges for writing a sarcastic note. Not a threatening note - a SARCASTIC note.

So what's next? Felony charges for expressing a dim view of such activities?

No difference in principle. No different from what ACTUALLY happened to two people in Chicago under the Clinton regime.

[dustind]

The analogy between garbage and luggage does not work, I expect privacy in my luggage, regardless if it is a carry on or not.

To make things better, privatize the security, that way abuses stop dead in their tracks. The airlines do not want unhappy customers who hold them responsible for their actions. People will buy from the people who treat them the best. The feds regulating the security would be a decent compromise. Put decent doors to lock people out of the flight deck, and arm pilots, no one will event attempt to hijack a plane then.

I wonder when did criticizing the feds become a crime? This libertarian is not happy. Absolutely no one took it as a threat, just an insult. How would some of you feel if the note said.

To whom it may concern,
I am not a terrorist, I do not have a bomb.
Have a nice day.

I bet that kid would have been waved through. :fire:

Whether or not something is needed is irrelevant to whether or not it is constitutional.

I also really disagree with the if you do not like it, drive or walk idea. What if that concept was applied to state lines. Or trains, busses, and boats. People do have the right to travel, I am not making that up, and planes are nessisary to get to many places.

[Quartus]

The analogy between garbage and luggage does not work, I expect privacy in my luggage, regardless if it is a carry on or not.

SCOTUS ruled on that when some folks went through Henry Kissinger's garbage and found some embarrassing information. And promptly published it. Kissinger sued.


SCOTUS ruled that garbage had been abandoned therefore there was no reasonable expectation of privacy. Therefore the 1A rights of the reporters trumped his privacy rights. Hmmm. Seems reasonable to me.

[zahc]

It didn't need to be an actual threat of any kind, it simply had to be unusual in order to grab attention and be judged illegal. And THAT is fearful tyranny in the making.

That describes most of the (minor) trouble I get into. People lock up like computers when faced with someone who dares to be different.

It just amazes me that people who run around shouting Molon Labe! Molon Labe! actually support this kind of crap.

very well said

[standingbear]

the kid wrote the b word.i really dont think it would have mattered how he wrote it.he still had that forbidden b word on that paper.why i wont fly.anything could set these screeners off and have em getting their undergarments in a bunch.duh..kids do act irrationaly and need a bit of corrective action but this is just a bit much.

[Oleg Volk]

Mouthing off to TSA was unwise. It is equally unwise to pick on rabid or hungry wild animals capable of mauling a person. That said, IMO TSA was squarely in the wrong. Finding the note, they shouldn't have read it, and if they did, they should have ignored its contents.

[Cosmoline]

Didn't know they were doing caivity searches.
Very interesting."

Oh, they've been doing those to fight the mere war on drugs! One woman unlucky enough to fly to Haiti a few times got the full treatment several times in a row.

Today it's take off your shoes hand give us your valuables. Tomorrow it will be bend over and have a can of vasoline ready!

[seeker_two]

It just amazes me that people who run around shouting Molon Labe! Molon Labe! actually support this kind of crap.

Me too... :(

[Erik]

"Baggage searches aren't a violation of any of the Bill of Rights under these circumstances."

Correct.

You imply consent by stepping into line. (Literally and legally.)

[Sergeant Bob]

Don't be surprised when waking up in the morning is deemed "implied consent" ;)

[Al Norris]

You imply consent by stepping into line. (Literally and legally.)
I'd love to continue this, but....

Ya know, all this is really neither here nor there, at this moment. What is really the problem is that someone can write a stupid note that doesn't threaten anyone and be charged with fricken a felony.

What The Frail Is Next?

[brownie0486]

Implied consent, ya I like that.

You are not made to fly, the airlines may be a private entitiy but they are also going with the feds recommendations on searches, banned items, etc. and as a private business may/can institute the security measures deemed necessary by the feds.

Does anyone believe that they are not going to protect their assets by following the guidelines set forth by the feds?

I can see it now, one airline says no way to the recommendations of the feds and does not search passengers/luggage. The terror guys find out and fly that airline, hijacking the damned plane and killing everyone on board. Now where does that leave an airline who would not conform to the industries established protocol after 9-11? Now do you understand why they conform to the feds regs? It's really quite simple.

Implied consent to wake up in the morning? Thats not even close to what we are talking about here. All that does is incite and cloud issues. Classic rhetoric which has no bearing. " Look, the sky is falling"

Brownie

[hammer4nc]

While the discussion about the constitutionality of searches at airport gates is interesting, I don't see how one could justify NOT searching bags and scanning passengers in today's environment.

The practical and salient question in this case is: "Does this enforcement action represent an effective use of resources?" The obvious answer is NO. Rather, it represents pointless and vindictive waste of valuable manpower, that could better be spent on the true terrorist targets. I bet Osama has this news clipping taped to his bathroom mirror, confirmation that the US govt. are idiots.

Yet, fixation on these non-targets is so typical of bureaucrats...it apparently justifies their existence? What it really does is cause them to overlook real threats. FBI/CIA/BATF had a flood of intelligence on terrorist activity prior to 9/11, which they ignored because they were too busy counting FAL domestic trigger parts, if you get my drift.

How anyone can think tweaking some 17yo with felony charges on this incident, is a good thing, is really beyond my comprehension.

[JohnBT]

"The Capital Region Airport Commission (CRAC) is an independent authority whose fourteen members are appointed by the local government jurisdictions of the City of Richmond and the Counties of Henrico, Chesterfield, and Hanover. The members direct the growth, operation, and business activities of the Richmond International Airport..."

Looks like the Richmond Airport (RIC) isn't the private property I thought it was. It can't be but so independent if all 14 members are appointed by the government.
________

"How anyone can think tweaking some 17yo with felony charges on this incident, is a good thing, is really beyond my comprehension."

Okay, I can accept that.

John

[Quartus]

I don't think you'll find very many airports (of any size) that are private property. Typically they are owned by the county or city, or by a special government body of some kind.