Teenage terrorist busted for sarcastic note!

[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?

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.

 

[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."

 

[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]

a slight correction

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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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...

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

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