I Pocket Knife: A Tale of Petty Tyranny and the TSA


PDA






sm
May 6, 2012, 03:29 PM
http://blog.independent.org/2012/05/04/i-pocket-knife-a-tale-of-petty-tyranny-and-the-tsa/

If you enjoyed reading about "I Pocket Knife: A Tale of Petty Tyranny and the TSA" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
P.B.Walsh
May 6, 2012, 03:58 PM
Thats just awful! One reason I do not like to fly.....

DNS
May 6, 2012, 05:47 PM
I refuse to fly also and if more did this stupidity would end quick.
This reminds me to hit up some of those auctions i keep hearing about.

hmphargh
May 6, 2012, 06:04 PM
I'm sorry that you lost your knife to the TSA. If it makes you feel better, you are actually allowed to throw the item away in the checkpoint trash instead of surrendering it to the TSA. Probably little consolation, but at least there is a chance that someone will find it later and bring it back to life instead of having it melted or destroyed by a government agent.

Snowshoe
May 6, 2012, 06:08 PM
It isn't just the TSA. I can't carry a pocket knife at work.

It is a terminable offense.

We have allowed ourselves to become an abomination to the Founders through our laziness and our acceptance of things we knew were wrong. "But football is on" or "They can't do that" or "I really don't NEED full auto anyway" or "It's for the children" or "I can't stand up for that, what would people think"

It will only get worse as our schools teach our children and we, as parents, do not.

jbkebert
May 6, 2012, 06:08 PM
If they only had a foot locker and a orange julis at the airport. These twerps would be where they belong. Pretty soon gecko45 will be patting you down before boarding:rolleyes:

Deltaboy
May 6, 2012, 09:36 PM
Well boys I have not flown since few years before 911. The Motherhen and Chicken littleness of the Fed and TSA has trashed our RIGHTS so much I refuse to fly anymore.

My wife flys but If I can't drive I don't go!!!!!!!!!

SleazyRider
May 6, 2012, 09:49 PM
I do not understand why the TSA can't have a stack of small manila envelopes available, to afford the passenger the opportunity to place the offensive article in the envelope, address it, and place it in a USPS box to be mailed back to the owner postage due.

hso
May 6, 2012, 11:33 PM
I remember flying when airport security would only be interested if you had a knife over 4 inches in length on you, but those previously absurd restrictions are long past and now there's no length that is acceptable.

Since we all know that you can't take anything like a knife into the sterile area of an airport or onto an airline flight it behooves us to check ourselves and our carry-ons to make sure we don't leave something we treasure at the security station where it ends up sold as surplus at auction.

I've been on 8 flights this year alone and I'm not nearly done for the year. I shake out every bag and turn out every pocket before I leave the house for a flight. If I'm gone more than overnight I check my bag and stash my 2 knives in with my shave kit which has a small pair of scissors and a flashlight along with my razor otherwise I do not carry a knife.

DesertFox
May 6, 2012, 11:44 PM
Flying privately just highlights the absurdity of it all. I haven't/won't submit to such illegal searches and seizures even if it means not flying commercial ever again.

SleazyRider
May 7, 2012, 04:32 AM
It occurred to me that it's possible---maybe likely---that a single confiscated knife could be sold and confiscated over and over again. Maybe it's an economic incentive to boost the economy! :D

Pilot
May 7, 2012, 07:35 AM
I have lost three of those little Leatherman Squirt, keychain multi-tools to the TSA. I travel on the airlines due to work, so don't have the time to get out of line and put it back in my car or figure out how to mail it home from the airport. At $25 - $30 a pop, that's a decent chunk of change. I have given up carrying one of these on my keychain, and do miss it for little tasks. I don't check any baggage, so can't even throw one in my bag.

The security theater that the TSA represents is disgusting to me. They are now expanding from airports to highways, train stations, and street corners. Welcome to East Germany.

bikerdoc
May 7, 2012, 08:32 AM
I refuse to fly.

But think about it. Arnt we the people you would want on planes if something happened.

Good productive citizen, tax payers, veterans, dads, grandpa's. People who know right from wrong and believe we should stand up to evil.

Why are we suspect? What good comes from groping grannies, and kids? Have I not vetted myself enough in 63 yrs of of productive living to be trusted?

Disgusting, illegal, immoral, and not the values of my U.S.

PRM
May 7, 2012, 10:26 AM
There are times that I've had to fly - all work/military related.

Otherwise, I refuse to fly. We are taking a vacation in a few weeks to go see our son who lives roughly 1200 miles from us in another state. Even at $4.00 + per gallon gas, I still refuse to fly.

My biggest beef with TSA was in 2010 when I was flying home from Afghanistan. I was with a plane load of soldiers coming home for R&R. We were all in uniform, and had done all the custom searches on the way home through Kuwait. The Atlanta airport is laid out so that to connect to another flight you have to go through TSA checks again. My lap top was questioned and I had to take it out and let them look it over (even though) it had a US Customs tag on it (minutes counting down until my next flight leaves). Then my boots set off the alarm. Apparently they had a steel shank as part of their construction. I was pulled from the line and had to take them off for inspection. All said, I barely caught my connecting flight home. The TSA employee was very amused at my situation... Total BS. I guess returning soldiers in a group, returning through one of the major airline hubs used by the military look like a threat. NO, I WILL NEVER FLY AGAIN IF ANY OTHER OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE.

jdh
May 7, 2012, 11:05 AM
The state surplus store in Austin has bins full of confiscated knives for sale. All I can say is some of you should be ashamed of the condition you let your knives degrade to.

PRM,
The one that made me think that TSA agents had collectively lost their minds was them taking a soldiers fingernail clipper from him, then letting him on the plane with his M4.

Carl Levitian
May 7, 2012, 11:39 AM
Okay, come on, a little emotional over reacting here.

If anyone looses a knife to TSA these days, then I don't believe they deserved to have it in the first place. They sure must not have cared about it to carry it to the airport. Come on, unless you've been living under a rock, everyone pretty much knows NOT TO BRING A KNIFE TO THE AIRPORT. Really simple.

In the years since 9-11, I've flown many times and taken a knife with me every time. I just shove it down in some rolled up socks in my checked bags. I get to the other end, collect my bag from the carousel and stick my knife back in my pocket.

I love that some idiots are still screwing up and loosing their knives, because it lets me pick from some nice knives at the local gun show where a lady always has a big box of TSA confiscated knives. I buy ton's of keychain sak's like classics and ramblers for 2 dollars each for give aways, and I've found a bone handle Case jack and a Buck folder. They were in dirty but good shape needing only a good scrubbing with dish soap and an old toothbrush. Now they are in service again with owners who will care for them. Unlike their former owners.

So many of you guys swearing never to fly anywhere, you're depriving yourself of a lot of great times in interesting locations. Okay, so you can't carry a knife on an airline. In the many times I've flown, I've never been unarmed, and TSA has never even my blackthorn stick, minimag AA flashlight, leather belt with heavy buckle, or Cross pen a second glance.

Yeah, it's a cute little story that sm posted, but when somebody looses a nice knife at the airport, the bozo deserved to lose it. He certainly must not have carried much about it.

DammitBoy
May 7, 2012, 11:58 AM
If anyone looses a knife to TSA these days, then I don't believe they deserved to have it in the first place. They sure must not have cared about it to carry it to the airport. Come on, unless you've been living under a rock, everyone pretty much knows NOT TO BRING A KNIFE TO THE AIRPORT.

This x3

zhyla
May 7, 2012, 12:10 PM
People make mistakes. It really sucks to forget about your $100 EDC in the rush of packing and getting to the airport. I've never had that problem but know two very smart, competent people who have. One had his confiscated and the other simply passed it thru the xray machine with his other stuff and picked it up on the other end :).

I know someone who usually flies with one of those pre-paid envelope/package things so he can mail would-be confiscated items back to himself.

PRM
May 7, 2012, 12:13 PM
So many of you guys swearing never to fly anywhere, you're depriving yourself of a lot of great times in interesting locations.

Carl,

You may be right. But, I don't figure I will ever see all the interesting places I can drive too. As long as the masses keep patronizing idiots, their behavior will continue. I know my lone protest probably won't make a difference. At least when I get hungry, I can get something besides a .5 ounce bag of salted nuts and a soft drink.

I know there are more fun ways to get to a destination.

Wolfebyte
May 7, 2012, 12:38 PM
Give it a bit, you may find it on Ebay..

Knives:
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=NTSA
Scissors:
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=tsa+confiscated

our property.. our tax dollars..

bomberbill357
May 7, 2012, 02:39 PM
2 things:
TSA is happy if you decide not to fly.
And secondly and most important, you don't have to "surrender" your knife. You can take it back out of the checkpoint, mail it to yourself, put it in your car, or throw it away outside of the sterile area.
Alot of the rules seem overly strict and arbitrary but I prefer them rather then living thru another 9-11. If 5 guys decide to hijack a plane with their bare hands, I figure they have the rest of us passengers to deal with bare handed and I like the odds.
Remember we all have a choice, airlines, cars, buses, boats etc
And I meamn that in the nicest way possible....

Cosmoline
May 7, 2012, 03:39 PM
What's not to like about flying? You check all rights at the parking lot for the privilege of being abused by TSA, robbed by the airlines and mistreated by the crews. Public-private partnership designed to strip you of your rights *and* your money. It's win-win.

The scary part is, a lot of folks in the major parties would love to see the entire nation ruled like an airport.

Pilot
May 7, 2012, 03:46 PM
If anyone looses a knife to TSA these days, then I don't believe they deserved to have it in the first place. They sure must not have cared about it to carry it to the airport. Come on, unless you've been living under a rock, everyone pretty much knows NOT TO BRING A KNIFE TO THE AIRPORT. Really simple.


Do you always think about what is on your keychain, especially a tiny multi-tool that nobody else gives a damn about? I fly a lot, and it is just not worth the hassle of taking it on and off before I go to the airport or get out of my car. Once in a great while, I'd forget to take the thing off my keychain, especially when in a hurry to make a flight on short notice.

Grmlin
May 7, 2012, 04:41 PM
In 2005 my father was flying to Mississippi at the screening area when he emptied his pockets he pulled out his buck pocket knife. It was one that my mother had given to him before she passed away. The agent he handed it to asked were he was going/staying. Shortly after checking into his hotel there was a knock at the door, the airline/agent had brought him his pocket knife. So there is/was still some humanity there. Since his stroke and passing it was lost in all his things. Wish I could have found it to go with the one my mother gave me at the same time. Some may just be a pocket knife but others are important memories. I was upset when I couldn't find mine and was extremly happy when I found it in my rideing jacket.

PRM- nice trike

MyGreenGuns
May 7, 2012, 06:05 PM
The terrorists won a decade ago, get used to it. This is not new.

I fly 3-4 times a year. I use the same backpack I take to the range.

If you do not take the time to scrutinize your items before you go, you deserve what you get. You KNOW they'll be looking.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 7, 2012, 06:43 PM
Alot of the rules seem overly strict and arbitrary but I prefer them rather then living thru another 9-11.

Those rules don't do a damn thing to prevent another 9-11. They are there to give the impression that something is being done, even though the actual rules themselves are ineffectual and pointless. The really puzzling thing to me is you correctly identify the rules as arbitrary and overly strict; but apparently feel that accepting arbitrary and overly strict rules on your travel is the lesser evil?

If 5 guys decide to hijack a plane with their bare hands, I figure they have the rest of us passengers to deal with bare handed and I like the odds.

You could give those 5 guys khukris or semi-autos, if the remaining passengers decide to attack them on an airplane, those 5 guys are going to lose. 9-11 was about mindset, not weapons. Prior to that time, getting hijacked typically meant you were going to be inconvenienced for a time; but you were probably going to walk away alive. The difference between UA 93 and the other flights is UA 93 understood that they weren't going to walk away unless they fought back.

bikerdoc
May 7, 2012, 07:27 PM
9-11 was about mindset, not weapons.

Bart said what I feel.

hmphargh
May 7, 2012, 08:00 PM
I do not understand why the TSA can't have a stack of small manila envelopes available, to afford the passenger the opportunity to place the offensive article in the envelope, address it, and place it in a USPS box to be mailed back to the owner postage due.
Nearly every major airport does offer the service that you mentioned. Most of them make you enter your address, swipe your credit card, and drop the item through a slot (usually the TSA agent does this last step, for security reasons).

I didn't want to bring it up in my earlier post because I didn't think it would add value, but if you are flying out of an airport that is large enough to have a parking garage, and the agent tells you that they do not offer this service, you should politely ask to speak to their supervisor. Even if they don't officially offer it as a service, you may be able to talk to supervisor into holding the item until your return trip or posting it for you if you happen to have a few dollars in your pocket to cover the expense (I have seen both of these things happen).

Bored1
May 7, 2012, 10:21 PM
Another reason to make roadtrips. I can't imagine holding on to the same pocket knife for that long!!! I always pickup the el cheapo $1 pocket knives at walmart and am lucky to keep it for 2 weeks, let alone 27 yrs.

Owen Sparks
May 7, 2012, 11:06 PM
Any pocket knife is an inferior weapon to a three foot long "walking stick" that can legaly be carried on any domestic or international flight. A big pocket folder or even a 12 inch Bowie is no match for a yard long stick in the hands of a man who knows how to use it.

Carl Levitian
May 8, 2012, 04:58 PM
"Any pocket knife is an inferior weapon to a three foot long "walking stick" that can legaly be carried on any domestic or international flight. A big pocket folder or even a 12 inch Bowie is no match for a yard long stick in the hands of a man who knows how to use it."
__________________

Absolutely!

Maybe that's one reason I don't care if I can't have a knife on a flight. I'm not about to engage in a knife fight in the air or on the ground. To me, a knife is absolutely the worst self defense tool around. Too dangerous to both parties. I'll take any kind of stick over a knife any day. And as discussed here many times, a stick can go anywhere with you.

I think a 2 foot piece of pickax handle should be handed to everyone coming on board the plane. If somebody tries to light up his underwear, everyone in arms length clobber him. At the end of the flight, drop your length of pickax handle in the blue bin by the door. Just like the 3-D glasses at the Imax theaters. No fuss no muss anti hijacker program needing only a minor cost to the airlines. To make it really appealing, all those who get a hit in on the would be terrorist gets a 50% rebate on their ticket. :D

Carl.

P.B.Walsh
May 8, 2012, 06:17 PM
Carl, I believe you have won "post of the day".....

TimboKhan
May 8, 2012, 07:43 PM
I hate to sound condescending to TSA workers, but in my opinion, if you want better airport security, start requiring more than a high school diploma. Require POST certification, or a college degree or a two year TSA certification or something. Also, pay those people commisserate to the level of service and duty expected. I can virtually guarantee that a smaller but far more professional, trained and well-paid TSA workforce will provide ten times the security at a similar cost that it takes to convince lackluster, uncaring workers to schlep around like they do now.

You can throw all the money at security gadgets that you want, but until you have a better trained workforce who thinks of their job as a professional career as opposed to just a job, all you are going to have is a bunch of semi-trained jerks with a inflated sense of authority making poor decisions based on the age-old bureaucratic principal of CYA.

JTW Jr.
May 8, 2012, 08:02 PM
Carl, I believe you have won "post of the day"....

perhaps post the year !

all I can say to those that lose a knife or other forbid item at the airport.. " quityerbitchin "

bikerdoc
May 8, 2012, 08:51 PM
So Carl ( who I count as a friend) and I get on plane with our canes. Somedude tries to ignite his skivvies. while two of buddies rush the cock pit. We subdue all 3 in short order. We get invited to the white house to get a medal from the prez.

On second thought lets not fly Carl. :)

SEE IT LIKE A NATIVE
May 8, 2012, 09:07 PM
Now with the latest "underwear bombers " I am thinking ,isn't all this pocket knife nonsense just that ? :cuss:Kevin

bubba in ca
May 10, 2012, 10:00 PM
The terrs on the 3 planes got away with it by surprize and because the cockpits weren`t locked. The Proud Civilians (braver than any TSA crew) on the Pennsylvain flight knew what the game was and had no trouble beating the terrs.

If the government would stop stealing pocketknives tommorrow, it would result in absolutely no new hijackings!

Ranger30-06
May 10, 2012, 10:23 PM
Just remember: Israeli airport police don't inspect a single person, they just watch every person in the airport. They also happen to have the safest airline system in the world.


Yes, profiling DOES work!

Carl Levitian
May 10, 2012, 10:51 PM
"So Carl ( who I count as a friend) and I get on plane with our canes. Somedude tries to ignite his skivvies. while two of buddies rush the cock pit. We subdue all 3 in short order. We get invited to the white house to get a medal from the prez.

On second thought lets not fly Carl."
__________________


You're right Doc. It wouldn't be worth it. :uhoh:

Carl.

Carl N. Brown
May 10, 2012, 11:16 PM
I have carried knives as tools since I was a kid with no thought to using them as weapons. I get a little put out at authority figures always assuming the worst of people. The only security concern might be if some psycho swiped the knife from me.

I probably won't fly again anyway, but the idea of having to do a mental Dog Bounty Hunter perp walk prep "Do you have anything on you that you don't want to be caught with in jail, get rid of it now" pre-flight interrogation of myself just makes me go aign.

JoergS
May 11, 2012, 02:38 AM
You know, I have to fly a lot on business, and I don't find it so hard to either put my pocket knife in checked luggage or simply leave it at home.

Air travels have always been stressy for me. Narrow seats. Often delayed. Lots of waiting. Noisy.

Not beeing able to bring a knife is probably the least important reason why I don't enjoy flights.

But on the other hands, without airplanes I wouldn't have seen some of the most beautiful places, wouldn't have met some fantastic people, wouldn't have gotten to the decent income I now have, and would have spent a huge amount of my lifetime sitting in cars (= traffic jams) and trains (= delays galore).

So all in all, it's a good thing that air travelling exists.

Would I prefer beeing able to bring my pocket knife along? Sure. Is it a big deal that I can't do that? Not to me, no.

SleazyRider
May 11, 2012, 07:39 AM
You know, I have to fly a lot on business, and I don't find it so hard to either put my pocket knife in checked luggage or simply leave it at home.

Air travels have always been stressy for me. Narrow seats. Often delayed. Lots of waiting. Noisy.

Not beeing able to bring a knife is probably the least important reason why I don't enjoy flights.

But on the other hands, without airplanes I wouldn't have seen some of the most beautiful places, wouldn't have met some fantastic people, wouldn't have gotten to the decent income I now have, and would have spent a huge amount of my lifetime sitting in cars (= traffic jams) and trains (= delays galore).

So all in all, it's a good thing that air travelling exists.

Would I prefer beeing able to bring my pocket knife along? Sure. Is it a big deal that I can't do that? Not to me, no.
The voice of reason. Thank you!

Sky
May 11, 2012, 11:08 AM
They are now expanding from airports to highways, train stations, and street corners.


Actually you left out bus stations/buses ie Houston a couple of weeks ago; google it channel 4 news.

CharlieDeltaJuliet
May 11, 2012, 01:09 PM
I am a private pilot and have been flying since 1992. Even though it cost alot more and usually is alot slower I prefer to fly myself rather than go through the hoops of the TSA. it has really gotten out of control. I understand trying to keep air travel safe, but this is a little too much. The last time I flew commercially, I watched a lady "violated" in one of their screening booths. It was sad. I feel like the prevention methods are getting completely out of hand.

Girodin
May 11, 2012, 02:51 PM
I am angry at the TSA. Despite all the technology available to them and other law enforcement agencies, they couldn’t figure out that a middle-aged man in a stable marriage, with no criminal record, with two decades of steady professional employment, two well-adjusted teenage kids, and more than 500,000 frequent flier miles under his belt was not a threat to himself or the passengers on that plane.


Because there is no way any person with ill intentions could find a person like that and get them, through duress (say by holding one of those well-adjusted teenagers or well-loved wife) to smuggle something in and then pass it off to them and use it for nefarious purposes.

This gent ought to familiarize himself with the principle of the least cost avoider. TSA could perhaps garner all that info. They could do all kinds of things to have made him not lose his knife. However, it is much easier, and cheaper, to simply put the onus on those that would fly to not bring contraband. Is that really asking too much of an adult? One can debate whether or not knives should be allowed in airports or any other secure facility but the fact is they are not and everyone knows it.

He was a nonperson, without rights or claims to civil liberties.

This is a ridiculous statement. Which of the owner’s rights or civil liberties were violated? They actually were rather nice by offering to let him go back and mail it home. In many places, trying to take a dangerous weapon into a secure area, such as the secured part of an airport, is a crime (or infraction) and the person could be detained, charged and tried. He could have missed his flight, been cited or even arrested, and ended up paying a $300 fine. I'd say the agents treated him alright.

See e.g. http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_10_052900.htm

TSA consciously and self-righteously tramples on the very civil liberties that this nation was founded to protect.

Again what civil liberty is TSA violating? I have law degree. I have studied a fair amount of constitutional law. I have a poly sci degree I have studied the founding of this nation and the men and principles involved a fair amount. For a long time I dealt with search and seizure issues almost daily. I fail to see what right has been violated here. The fact that he doesn’t attempt to articulate any is telling.

The owner was irresponsible. He did something everyone knows you cannot do, and now he is crying about how mean TSA is. If you want to argue it is an ineffective policy, then do that. If you want to argue it violates rights then articulate that argument, don't make a simple conclusory statement.

It isn't just the TSA. I can't carry a pocket knife at work.

It is a terminable offense.

We have allowed ourselves to become an abomination to the Founders through our laziness and our acceptance of things we knew were wrong

And where do you work? Is this a government job? Is it private?

I haven't/won't submit to such illegal searches and seizures even if it means not flying commercial ever again.

Please articulate in detail why a TSA checkpoint is an illegal search and how what is described in that blog post constitutes an illegal seizure?

DesertFox
May 11, 2012, 02:57 PM
Flying commercial is also a 99% certainty of picking up some kind of bug, costing at least hours, if not days of productivity upon reaching ones destination. Out of the last 5 times I flew commercial, I got sick... you guessed it... 5 times. The knives that I didn't lose were the least of my worries. I used to fly with a "CIA letter-opener" which amounted to a nylon dagger but even it fell victim at some clandestine location... I digress...

How many terrorists do we have here on The High Road? Stand up and represent! I see zero. TSA needs a fast-track for THR members, military/LEO, senior citizens et al who are obviously not a threat. Heck, pack every plane 25% with M4 wielding soldiers or other LEO and just forgo the searches altogether.

DesertFox
May 11, 2012, 03:07 PM
Please articulate in detail why a TSA checkpoint is an illegal search and how what is described in that blog post constitutes an illegal seizure?

Not exactly like the following but kinda:
It is through such nefarious manipulations that confusion regarding the relationship of a people and with its government emerges, wherein the Master -- the people -- become the Servant, and the Servant -- the government -- becomes the Master. Such is the transformation from Freedom to Tyranny when Rights are converted into Privileges.

So we have the right to freely travel and move about, with a TON of strings attached. Strings that get more numerous and invasive over time. We are being manipulated in the biggest of ways. 99% of this has already been written in history but we are collectively short-sighted.

Ranger30-06
May 11, 2012, 07:22 PM
Just curious, but isn't what the TSA doing a violation of the 4th Amendment (Freedom from illegal search and seizure)?

They don't have a warrant to search you or your belongings, or any legal reason to be stealing your stuff. Someone with some money should start a lawsuit... This is why we need to be vigilant about keeping the 2nd Amendment; so that it doesn't just disappear like the 4th.

Girodin
May 12, 2012, 12:07 AM
The fourth amendment actually states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.(emphasis added)

The fourth amendment does not prevent all searches, only unreasonable ones. There is also no per se requirement for a warrant in order for a search to be reasonable. There are a great number of circumstances in which warrantless searches are reasonable and constitutional.

Before that person with money starts their suit he or she may want to do a modicum of legal research. If he or she does then he or she will quickly discover that airport screenings have been upheld as not being a violation of that principle. See: United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc); U.S. v. Davis 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973); see also United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174, 178 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 111 (2006).


Airport screening searches are okay if they meet the following standard. It "is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives [] [and] that it is confined in good faith to that purpose." Davis, 482 F.2d at 913.

Given the need to secure certain areas, prisons, courts, airports, etc a search to enter is not unreasonable.


This is why we need to be vigilant about keeping the 2nd Amendment; so that it doesn't just disappear like the 4th

In a great number of ways the 4th has actually been bolstered since the time of the founding.

So we have the right to freely travel and move about, with a TON of strings attached.

Could you please cite to the part of the US constitution that gives you a right to freely travel? Lets assume that you have constitutional right right to travel. After all the SCOTUS has recognized it at least in terms of freedom to move between states. And federal law, 49 U.S.C. § 40103, provides "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace." International travel is subject to many more restrictions. That said, what are the "TON" of strings attached? That if you chose to travel by a plane you are not allowed to bring a dangerous weapon or explosive on board and that you must go through minimal intrusive security checks to assure you don't.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 12, 2012, 03:24 AM
Minimally intrusive? I suspect we have different concepts of both minimal and intrusive if you feel TSA meets that standard. I personally feel TSA ia arbitrary and capricious in their rules and if there is one thing I like less than having arbitrary and capricious rules strictly enforced, it is having them enforced by idiots who must be given "zero-tolerance" guidelines because they can't be trusted to exercise good judgment or common sense in determining how to handle borderline cases.

I've travelled in places that have as intrusive or more intrusive rules than TSA. The glaring difference was the professionalism of the people enforcing the rules and the absence of nonsensical rules that greatly contribute to hassle while offering little or no added security.

Creating TSA was a mistake. Its continued existence is an abomination.

Shadow 7D
May 12, 2012, 04:13 AM
See, this is the kick, when it all started it was PRIVATE security, provided by the airport or airlines. Then the Fed got involved...

And much like the entrance to military posts, "well you don't have to submit to a search, you don't have to enter...."
And as others have pointed out, all they are (or ever were) is nothing more than window dressing

think of this, how hard would it be to have a plant as an airport employee who drops a bomb in a cargo hold?
Or just send another set of 'printer bombs'???

just window dressing, sure it's much harder for a passenger to get a weapon on etc.
but what many forget is that it's only as strong as the weakest point, much like home security, the TSA is like the ADT yard sign, window dressing that may or may not work.

Ranger30-06
May 12, 2012, 09:14 AM
The fourth amendment actually states:



The fourth amendment does not prevent all searches, only unreasonable ones. There is also no per se requirement for a warrant in order for a search to be reasonable. There are a great number of circumstances in which warrantless searches are reasonable and constitutional.

Before that person with money starts their suit he or she may want to do a modicum of legal research. If he or she does then he or she will quickly discover that airport screenings have been upheld as not being a violation of that principle. See: United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc); U.S. v. Davis 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973); see also United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174, 178 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 111 (2006).


Airport screening searches are okay if they meet the following standard. It "is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives [] [and] that it is confined in good faith to that purpose." Davis, 482 F.2d at 913.

Given the need to secure certain areas, prisons, courts, airports, etc a search to enter is not unreasonable.




In a great number of ways the 4th has actually been bolstered since the time of the founding.



Could you please cite to the part of the US constitution that gives you a right to freely travel? Lets assume that you have constitutional right right to travel. After all the SCOTUS has recognized it at least in terms of freedom to move between states. And federal law, 49 U.S.C. § 40103, provides "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace." International travel is subject to many more restrictions. That said, what are the "TON" of strings attached? That if you chose to travel by a plane you are not allowed to bring a dangerous weapon or explosive on board and that you must go through minimal intrusive security checks to assure you don't.

Have you EVER flown? What part of TSA agents touching "personal places" is reasonable? No other country does what we do in the airport (except maybe in Britain, but they're nuts anyway...) and they have the same amount or less problems with their airline systems.

No thanks. I'll take the train or drive.

Sky
May 12, 2012, 11:06 AM
http://youtu.be/v-mOdRjnA0w

Fox news vid and Geraldo

FuzzyBunny
May 12, 2012, 02:48 PM
I refuse to fly as do all my family.
We all moved within 70 miles of each other now and that is great.

If I did HAVE to fly for some reason I would book a flight on a corp jet or a charter returning to its base for service. Take a limo up to the plane and go. There are many sites that will provide you a very nice wide leather seat on a corp jet deadheading to where you want to go. I will admit you have to be flexible on your departure and return time.

Other than that I/we will drive. With family close we have no need to to fly much of anywhere.

DesertFox
May 12, 2012, 09:31 PM
Could you please cite to the part of the US constitution that gives you a right to freely travel?

No because it isn't in there. It WAS in the Articles of Confederation. It was left out of the Constitution as it was considered a given - such a fundamental right as to be inalienable, like breathing.

Drivers licenses are another scam perpetuated to fool everyone into thinking that driving is a privilege and not a right. The only time a license should come in to play is if someone is conducting business while driving. Commerce is what requires the license.

Still not flying commercial, regardless of violation of rights or not.

Ranger30-06
May 12, 2012, 11:47 PM
No because it isn't in there. It WAS in the Articles of Confederation. It was left out of the Constitution as it was considered a given - such a fundamental right as to be inalienable, like breathing.

Drivers licenses are another scam perpetuated to fool everyone into thinking that driving is a privilege and not a right. The only time a license should come in to play is if someone is conducting business while driving. Commerce is what requires the license.

WHOOOOOOAAAAAAA dude! You obviously have never driven in Jersey! In a 20 minute drive, I could show you dozens of people that shouldn't be allowed to drive. Yes, I believe in a right to travel, but many people would be better served by a horse than 3000 lbs of steel with 200+ horsepower under the hood!

DesertFox
May 13, 2012, 12:00 AM
No, never in Jersey. And I guess technically one can get around on 50hp or less without license and prerequisites.

Some definitions on the books of "motor vehicle" actually state "for commercial purposes" or such. It appears that if one examines the laws closely enough, it can be applied against itself in such a way to nullify. Be prepared for a lot of hassle and some additional expense for taking this route and I personally would advise against it. That does not mean that it is not an option.

Still think flying commercial is for the birds...

Girodin
May 13, 2012, 01:07 AM
Minimally intrusive is the term used by the court, a term of art if you will, meaning the least intrusive means that assure the purposes of the search. The purposes of the search are to assure that certain items are not brought into the secured area. I believe that the means I have encountered when entering secure areas conform to that standard.

ArfinGreebly
May 13, 2012, 01:56 AM
Ninth Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

". . . shall not be construed to deny or disparage others . . ."

Such as, for instance, the right to travel freely.

One of those rights that was simply too obvious to enumerate.

I have had debates with a six year old child that contained phrasing like "but you never said I couldn't splash in the water, you said don't walk in it."

When you begin to enumerate all the prohibitions against bad things, you open the door to the argument that anything you didn't enumerate must therefore be okay to do.

When you begin to enumerate specific rights so as to protect them from encroachment, you open the door to the argument that "that's not an enumerated right" and therefore it must be a privilege.


Never underestimate the ability and willingness of lawyers with an axe to grind to engage in the logic and argumentation of a six-year-old.


Did you know that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to eat food? I mean, clearly if they'd meant for people to have access to unfettered binge eating, they'd have added the right to freedom of chow into the Bill of Rights. It's only reasonable, in light of the ever-increasing cost of health care as a public burden: we've got to license consumption of food.

JShirley
May 13, 2012, 02:07 AM
Alot of the rules seem overly strict and arbitrary but I prefer them rather then living thru another 9-11

No, a lot of the rules actually ARE arbitrary. There was a TSA-sponsored study completed about a year ago that found that the most onerous restrictions, such as the limitation on fluids, had no positive effect on passenger safety.

zignal_zero
May 13, 2012, 06:20 AM
but I prefer them rather then living thru another 9-11

I would trade dealing with one 911 per week for all the liberty we've lost since 1850 back.

Sheepdog1968
May 13, 2012, 10:54 AM
In my early 30s I stopped carrying the pocketknife my dad gave me when I was 7 for fear of loosing it. To this day I refuse to let anyone buy me a pocket knife for fear of feeling attached to it. I used to have a job where I flew 100,000 miles a year. I lost quite a few pocket knives after Sep 11 till I adjusted. The straw that broke the camels back to me was having to take off my shoes. To this day I prefer to drive if the distance is 1000 miles or less. My current job requires plying at most once a year. I wouldn't mind the restrictions as much if they would also profile passengers. I get upset by the whole attempt to be politically correct.

Sky
May 13, 2012, 12:12 PM
When you begin to enumerate all the prohibitions against bad things, you open the door to the argument that anything you didn't enumerate must therefore be okay to do.

When you begin to enumerate specific rights so as to protect them from encroachment, you open the door to the argument that "that's not an enumerated right" and therefore it must be a privilege.


Never underestimate the ability and willingness of lawyers with an axe to grind to engage in the logic and argumentation of a six-year-old.


Did you know that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to eat food? I mean, clearly if they'd meant for people to have access to unfettered binge eating, they'd have added the right to freedom of chow into the Bill of Rights. It's only reasonable, in light of the ever-increasing cost of health care as a public burden: we've got to license consumption of food.


Love it ^!

Girodin
May 13, 2012, 12:52 PM
Arfin, the constitution was intended to give certain rights to the federal govt. Certain provisions, including but not limited to the bill of rights were to act as limitation on those enumerated powers. The Federal government has no powers that are not expressly given to them. However, if a power is given to them then they are free to exercise it short of some limitations.

There are a various potential basis for the federal government to restrict one's travel, the commerce clause, or various others as informed by the necessary and proper clause are likely candidates. If that is the case the federal government is free to do as they like unless there is some limitation. Is the 9th, and some right included an effective limitation here? While your citation of the 9th is correct, there are two issue.

The first is of course what rights are included. That will by its very nature be rather open for debate. For example there is an argument and case law to support the idea that the right to abortion on demand is included. Never underestimate the ability of a clever person to argue that some right should be encompassed by the 9th. If one uses an originalist or textualist interpretation to the constitution then what is included is largely unknowable. Judge Bork has articulated that argument much better than I might hope to do.

Furthermore, the 9th may not really do what you think. You may want to read, at a minimum, the following SCOTUS case, U.S. Public Workers v. Mitchell 330 U.S. 75 (1947) ("If granted power is found, necessarily the objection of invasion of those rights, reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, must fail."). Justice Scalia has written in his opinions about the fact that the 9th amendment gives no positive rights and that judges have no authorization to attempt to identify what they might be. This was the conclusion reached by Bork as well.

Personally I subscribe to the idea that the 9th was intended to mean that no rights would be lost through omission and that in essence expressio unius est exclusio alterius would not be used to argue rights did not exist. However, this still leaves us with the problems above. I find Borks conclusions about what this means to be compelling. If one uses the 9th in another way there is a real threat that nearly anything, such as abortion on demand, would be found to fall within the rights reserved to the people.

I do, however, thank you for comparing my logic to that of a six year old.

Did you know that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to eat food?

Exactly it does not. There are of course other express provisions that would limit the government from denying you the right to eat food. You are precisely correct that there is no positive right to food. I cannot go to the government and demand they feed me. Believe it or not people in this country go hungry everyday. We have non government food banks and charities for a reason I of course have other rights I could assert were the federal government attempting to starve me.

I'd explain what I think of the thoughtfulness and logic of this argument but I'll show more consideration than you did. The above explanation suffices, and is generally how adults should communicate.


*Oh and as an aside the 9th as a historical matter has zero application against what states could do. There was discussion about states placing limitations on people bringing a knife into a secured area. Asking where in the constitution a purported right that would limit that can be found is a fair question. It certainly is not the 9th amendment.

SlamFire1
May 13, 2012, 01:06 PM
Well before 911 I flew in and out of Savannah Georgia. Either in that airport or the connecting airport there was a large framed display of handguns. Handguns which were torch cut to inoperability.

This were handguns that passengers tried to carry on board, either in carry on or their persons. I remember a Ruger Super Blackhawk and a Colt revolver.

Look the rules have changed and are more restrictive. American’s may not like them, but they sure as heck cheered for the “Patriot Act” and all sorts of restrictive legislation that burnt the bill of rights. When we did so we put in charge of all aspects of our lives, large Corporations that have a financial interest in keeping us under control.

Repent in leisure.

DAdams
May 13, 2012, 01:38 PM
Jorge pretty much nailed it. We used to give away multi tools as customer swag.
I had 10 in a bag right after 9/11. I was able to send them home from ATL to TPA from a kiosk. I think I inadvertently left a good knife in my carry on once and it was worthwhile taking it back to my truck.

I think they should allow people who have a permit take their handgun back to their car when they forget and leave them in their bag. :banghead:

I travel out of TYS and the TSA persons say that people coming back from vacationing in the Smokies try to come through security with battle swords and Frddie Kruger items after visiting Smoky Mountain Knifeworks. :)

DesertFox
May 13, 2012, 02:32 PM
Did you know that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to eat food? I mean, clearly if they'd meant for people to have access to unfettered binge eating, they'd have added the right to freedom of chow into the Bill of Rights. It's only reasonable, in light of the ever-increasing cost of health care as a public burden: we've got to license consumption of food.

Love it. Food has indeed become more of a public health hazard than tobacco, alcohol and firearms all clumped together.

ArfinGreebly
May 13, 2012, 04:45 PM
You know, I have worked with, for, and around lawyers. Some of the most cutting lawyer tropes I've heard have come from lawyers themselves. I've listened to lawyers compete with one another for the best lawyer bashing joke.

My statement wasn't personally directed, rather it was an observation of a general behavior.

<snip>

I do, however, thank you for comparing my logic to that of a six year old.

<snip>

I'd explain what I think of the thoughtfulness and logic of this argument but I'll show more consideration than you did. The above explanation suffices, and is generally how adults should communicate.

<snip>

You will note that my actual words were
Never underestimate the ability and willingness of lawyers with an axe to grind to engage in the logic and argumentation of a six-year-old.

You somehow believe that "with an axe to grind" describes you? Did you really need me to add "present company excepted?"

You find offense where none was offered.

And then you condescend to explain to me "how adults should communicate."


We find ourselves in a current culture of trading liberty for security, engendered by lawyers with axes and politicians stampeding the population to expand their scope of authority.

I am less interested in discussing why that's okay, and more interested in discussing how we regain the lost ground.

Explaining why it's "not possible" to know the full range of one's rights isn't really productive in that vector. Explaining why expanding encroachments "are legal" within the existing framework of case law isn't either.

I may not be able to rattle off US Code and and volumes of case law, but I have a keen sense of where my rights have been abridged.

Encroachments may "be legal" and yet still I find my liberties encroached.

It may not be entirely possible to articulate what's been lost and what there is about the current framework that constitutes that loss, but as it has been said before in another context, "I know it when I see it."

Girodin
May 13, 2012, 05:36 PM
Your statement was very clear that the statement that it is worth examining the source of the right constituted the logic of a child.

Explaining why it's "not possible" to know the full range of one's rights isn't really productive in that vector. Explaining why expanding encroachments "are legal" within the existing framework of case law isn't either.

I disagree with both statements. If one does not realize the inherent difficulty with identifying what constitutes rights then it will be very difficult to either form a logical way of arguing something falls in that category or to articulate why something doesn't.

Realistically there are two possibilities. A) let judges expound on what rights are included or B) let the legislative process do so. We have moved more to the second. Each has hazards. Leaving things in the hands of Judges who have, by design, no political accountability is somewhat of a scary thought.

Understanding how something fits into current jurisprudence is actually essential to having any shot and successfully challenging them or changing them. What do I know though.

Furthermore, not all encroachments on "liberties" are illegal. It is important to identify that and then realize the proper avenue is to work for change is the political process. This thread and the blog were not really about policy however. They were assertions about rights. There has yet to be any real articulation of what right is being infringed.

We find ourselves in a current culture of trading liberty for security

This is actually nothing new. It is a cycle that is clearly visible throughout history. On many fronts we have actually dramatically improved in terms of encroaching not just on liberty generally but on actual established rights. I would be first to say that too many people have been far too quick to hand additional power to the government in the wake of 9/11.

It is all well and good to say I want X. However, if one doesn't understand the legal realities then one has much less chance of bringing it about. I have worked at the legislature and in courts. Sticking your head in the sand as to the current juris prudence gets you nowhere. And I say that as a pretty staunch originalist. The fact is you aren't going to change the TSA situation with a legal challenge. The courts have already decided the issues and things are such that a dramatic shift is unlikely. That means the political process and policy arguments are the avenue.

Don't misunderstand, I think much of airport security is silly. However, it being silly is different than it being a violation of my rights. And for better or worse it being an encroachment on some liberty I think I ought to have is vastly different than it being an encroachment on something that a court might actually recognize as protected.

but as it has been said before in another context, "I know it when I see it."

This basic approach was used, briefly, to determine when something constituted obscenity. It was found to be a totally unworkable standard. It was in fact abandoned for the Miller standard. The basic issue with I know it when I see it is that it constitutes pure discretion and people will vary incredibly in when they see it.

ArfinGreebly
May 13, 2012, 07:12 PM
Your statement was very clear that the statement that it is worth examining the source of the right constituted the logic of a child.

Then I must apologize for the clumsy demarcation of the background material and the conclusion. The source of the right isn't a matter of childish logic, rather the rationalization of the efforts to undermine the right. It is that undermining that I refer to as the "axe to grind."


Explaining why it's "not possible" to know the full range of one's rights isn't really productive in that vector. Explaining why expanding encroachments "are legal" within the existing framework of case law isn't either.

I disagree with both statements. If one does not realize the inherent difficulty with identifying what constitutes rights then it will be very difficult to either form a logical way of arguing something falls in that category or to articulate why something doesn't.

Realistically there are two possibilities. A) let judges expound on what rights are included or B) let the legislative process do so. We have moved more to the second. Each has hazards. Leaving things in the hands of Judges who have, by design, no political accountability is somewhat of a scary thought.

Understanding how something fits into current jurisprudence is actually essential to having any shot and successfully challenging them or changing them. What do I know though.

Then I would be interested in a discussion of how to apply this to furthering the cause of chipping away at the plaque of these encroachments.

Furthermore, not all encroachments on "liberties" are illegal. It is important to identify that and then realize the proper avenue is to work for change is the political process. This thread and the blog were not really about policy however. They were assertions about rights. There has yet to be any real articulation of what right is being infringed.

The current security framework is ineffective, inconvenient, and offensive to human dignity and reason. Perhaps from your point of view you can do a better job of constructing an expression of what's really wrong with that.


We find ourselves in a current culture of trading liberty for security

This is actually nothing new. It is a cycle that is clearly visible throughout history. On many fronts we have actually dramatically improved in terms of encroaching not just on liberty generally but on actual established rights. I would be first to say that too many people have been far too quick to hand additional power to the government in the wake of 9/11.

And I would agree.


It is all well and good to say I want X. However, if one doesn't understand the legal realities then one has much less chance of bringing it about. I have worked at the legislature and in courts. Sticking your head in the sand as to the current jurisprudence gets you nowhere. And I say that as a pretty staunch originalist. The fact is you aren't going to change the TSA situation with a legal challenge. The courts have already decided the issues and things are such that a dramatic shift is unlikely. That means the political process and policy arguments are the avenue.

Don't misunderstand, I think much of airport security is silly. However, it being silly is different than it being a violation of my rights. And for better or worse it being an encroachment on some liberty I think I ought to have is vastly different than it being an encroachment on something that a court might actually recognize as protected.

I'm always open to a better articulation of the right approach. However, a cage that inflicts no direct pain and doesn't injure me unless I attempt to breach it is still a cage. A regulatory framework that puts me in a position of submitting to indignities, inconvenience, and expense to do something as ordinary as traveling by air may not technically "encroach" since, as the argument goes, such travel is voluntary, but I believe it goes well beyond silly. Any "security" activity that accomplishes no security but does so at great expense and inconvenience is more than just "silly."


but as it has been said before in another context, "I know it when I see it."

This basic approach was used, briefly, to determine when something constituted obscenity. It was found to be a totally unworkable standard. It was in fact abandoned for the Miller standard. The basic issue with I know it when I see it is that it constitutes pure discretion and people will vary incredibly in when they see it.

Yeah. This is a point of frustration with me. It's a bit like Gödel's incompleteness theorem axioms applied to human rights. You know they're there, you know they're valid, and yet it's not possible to prove them all.

Still, having to construct an elaborate set of arguments to counter and nullify every possible assertion that can be put forth by an axe-grinding political hack (doing his best impersonation of a six year old) simply to secure a right as simple and obvious as, say, travel (or eating food, come to that) is not, in my view, the best way to approach this.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 14, 2012, 03:56 PM
Minimally intrusive is the term used by the court, a term of art if you will, meaning the least intrusive means that assure the purposes of the search. The purposes of the search are to assure that certain items are not brought into the secured area. I believe that the means I have encountered when entering secure areas conform to that standard.

I would argue you are focusing on the wrong part of the argument. If I use the most minimally intrusive means to insure you aren't carrying any ball bearings anywhere on your body, is that reasonable?

To give an example, you can carry a 7" screwdriver or a 4" pair of scissors on a flight (http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/prohibited/permitted-prohibited-items.shtm); but you can't carry the pocket knife described by the original poster. You can't carry a hammer on board a flight but a 7" wrench is A-OK.

And then we have the genius prohibitions - like no bows or arrows... because I'm sure we are all aware of the ever present threat of a terrorist surreptiously concealing a bow and then knocking an arrow and hijacking the plane before passengers are even aware of it.

There should be no "minimally intrusive" search when it comes to enforcing arbitrary and capricious rules; because the whole purpose for searching is nonsense to begin with. This is nothing more than the courts deferring to the legislature and assuming there is a rational and valid reason for the prohibition, even when it seems clear there that the rational and valid reason was to be seen as "doing something" in response to constituent outcry. We get the government we deserve I suppose...

Girodin
May 14, 2012, 11:43 PM
What is bad policy is not always illegal. What is is good policy is not always legal. Again, it is critical to identify what are legal arguments and what are policy arguments.

This is nothing more than the courts deferring to the legislature

Legislature or administrative agency?

If it were actually legislative action deciding what could come in then a high amount of difference is completely appropriate. The courts are not the place for policy battles. Rational basis review is a very very low bar for a reason.

I feel you may be tossing around terms of art without intending their particular meanings.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 15, 2012, 08:54 AM
That is actually a good point you bring up.... most of what we are discussing are administrative regulations and amount to little more than abuse of Congressionally delegated powers. Sad that neither Congress nor the Courts appears to have the willingness to call it abuse and do something about it.

Sky
May 15, 2012, 04:40 PM
Go to any U.S. government office in this country or overseas and you will see more of the same (usually no pat down yet) to include no cell phones and possibly bullet proof glass. There are people in this world who do not like the American government or it's people and wish to do us harm for whatever reason. .Pick one?

NSA type thinking has embedded itself with the TSA and I promise their paranoia knows no bounds. The latest with the underwear bomber who was a U.K. embedded spy with the bad guys (good work U.K. bad work exposing him and the methods of gaining intel USA) might make it even more interesting for those of us who have to fly.

My first flight was over 60 years ago so I suppose you could say I grew up flying to include having my own aircraft for several years. It is amazing how much air travel has changed just in my life time; even on International flights the food is gagable in coach with the U.S. carriers that I have flown this last year; used to be eatable and decent; actually pretty good.

Some of the other flag carriers once away from U.S. controlled airports are a lot more civilized and usually just have the metal detectors or hand held devices unless your destination is the U.S. or one of it's protectorates; then it is like a mini USA pat down with apologies in the vicinity of the departure gate. The only line is for your flight.

We used to leave the flight deck and on occasion have people (kids usually) come to the flight deck.

I remember sitting in the Captains lap during take-off ( F.O. was making the t/o) when I was five or six and all the red lighted instruments on the DC-6 and knowing in my soul that one day I to would strive to become one of the people who commanded such an awesome machine. Everyone knew I wanted to fly before then but that sealed the deal.

The Captain was a friend of the family named William (Bill) T. Cherry; google him http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&a...CxGknScLQ..Bill actually hated Rickenbacker and thought he was a pompous %^%$#@. Rest in peace Captain Cherry.

Through a lot of hard work and schooling plus being at the right place at the right time (lucky, lucky, lucky) I achieved my life long goal. The pilots finally said enough and through common sense arguments and the threat of a general strike...... while in uniform and working we no longer had to do the general security checks and were allowed to pass through the crew line with an abbreviated check.

When I was still working we had to do the shoe thing just like everyone else; ( nail clippers and pocket knives were a no, no, even in your shaving kit because our bags were in the cockpit, yet we had a rather large fire ax in the cockpit) I retired before the body scanners became prevalent. Thought some of the things going on then were ludicrous and luckily I was not alone in my thinking but smart enough to know shooting my mouth off at the check points would accomplish nothing good for the cause. Everything comes from the top down in the form of policies and procedures.

Some things have changed yet more complicated now because of the actions of a few; weakest link and all that stuff plus not being a loved country or people ( by some nationalities) anymore does not help.

If someone bombed my neighborhood or killed one of my loved ones I would probably have an ax to grind even if I was a fence sitter before.

No one likes a stranger getting into your personal space or feeling abused. Money http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/02/tsa-agent-arrested-for-allegedly-stealing-5000-from-passengers-jacket/stolen , jewelry, drugs being gotten onboard aircraft, hahahha I heard they even got Kissinger at LGA a few days ago! No profiling he might as well have had a table cloth and a fan belt around his head and his favorite AK with all the unwanted attention he got! If TSA leadership focus was more into profiling with their job then things like http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/15/illegal-immigrant-20-year-worker-at-nj-airport/ or a myriad of other news worthy things that have come to our attention these last few years would have never happened. Everyone who has access to the grounds of an airport security badges and codes should be qualified to possess such.

I would like to say clean your own house before you put your hands on the American Public; alas that seems to hard to do with the current leadership and management. With all the money you have spent on intercepting emails, phone conversations etc etc it should not be to hard figuring out who is communicating with supposedly bad guys so put the info to good use. Maybe they just want to track them like the first underwear bomber http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17505 that started all this body scanner stuff that some really good experts say are easily fooled and put out more radiation than the public is being told....??

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/25/tsa-screeners-charged-in-la-drug-trafficking-probe/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/14/henry-kissinger-subjected-to-tsa-pat-down-at-new-york-airport/

I could spend all day dragging up dirt on the agency but the bottom line is there are some very good people working there who believe in what they are doing. Management tells them how to and what to do; some obviously abuse their position of trust and power.. There are abuses in any organization and it really makes people mad when some of the abuses stem from perceived stupidity. But hey you can't believe everything you see or read on the Internet.

If you enjoyed reading about "I Pocket Knife: A Tale of Petty Tyranny and the TSA" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!