brownie0486
Member
seeker_two :
I like that, we can agree to drive at least here.
Stay safe
Brownie
I like that, we can agree to drive at least here.
Stay safe
Brownie
Teenage terrorist busted for sarcastic note!
- Thread starter DaveB
- Start date
- Status
seeker_two
Member
You too, B-man...
Al Norris
Member
The whole concept of federalizing a private industry is not only repugnant to the Constitution, it would indeed terrify the founders.
The fact that many of you have become sooo used to this idea, does not make it right.
Incrementalism, is the word.
Back to the thread....
The kid was stupid. The note should have been given to the parents. Let them deal with the little snot. But to hand a felony on the kid? Before 1990, it would never have entered my wildest nightmares.
The fact that many of you have become sooo used to this idea, does not make it right.
Incrementalism, is the word.
Back to the thread....
The kid was stupid. The note should have been given to the parents. Let them deal with the little snot. But to hand a felony on the kid? Before 1990, it would never have entered my wildest nightmares.
rrader
member
Al Norris:
I think the opposite viewpoint is more valid, when was the Constitution ever amended to allow the Federal Government to delegate a police function like searching luggage to private businesses?
It's just the same as private businesses operating privately owned prisons for the States. Unconstitutional IMO.
Federalizing the screeners puts that police job back with the government where it always belonged.
I think the opposite viewpoint is more valid, when was the Constitution ever amended to allow the Federal Government to delegate a police function like searching luggage to private businesses?
It's just the same as private businesses operating privately owned prisons for the States. Unconstitutional IMO.
Federalizing the screeners puts that police job back with the government where it always belonged.
brownie0486
Member
Didn't they federalize the pony express as well way back when?
I'm sure we would find many such federalizations over the course of American history that would have been better off left privatized.
Some people just don't want the gov types getting involved in their lives and take it as a personal assault on them.
Course these same people will be collecting social security checks from Uncle one day and be happy their gov saw fit to set up that system as well.
Perceptions become ones reality too often when the facts don't warrant that thought process.
Brownie
I'm sure we would find many such federalizations over the course of American history that would have been better off left privatized.
Some people just don't want the gov types getting involved in their lives and take it as a personal assault on them.
Course these same people will be collecting social security checks from Uncle one day and be happy their gov saw fit to set up that system as well.
Perceptions become ones reality too often when the facts don't warrant that thought process.
Brownie
Al Norris
Member
I believe you have it exactly backwards. You are buying a flight ticket (literally, a contract to perform) from a private business. Your luggage is being transported by that business. That business is renting/leasing space to operate. Private property. Privately owned business. Property rights. There is no delegation of police powers here... until, by the magical power of unlawful legislation, it makes a private business and its property a federal installation. A usurption of the rights of the property owner.
Your prison allusion is a canard. A rather poor one at that.
brownie0486
Member
You are buying a ticket from a private entity that is expressly regulated and run under federal guidelines, which also rents space for their operations from corps that are also federally regualated and fall under the feds guidelines.
Most private corps are not federally regulated or mandated to perform functions under the feds control and supervision. If your thoughts run that way, reconsider the above. It's apples to oranges when talking about private corps/businesses which normally are not under feds control or regs and the airline industry.
Does the FAA investigate private plane crashes? of course.
Does the FAA mandate safety requirements and maintenance shcedules for these private planes? of course.
Does the FAA inspect these privately owned airlines on a periodic basis? Of course
Theres the apples
The oranges would be any other private business not thusly under direct control of a fed agency.
I own a business that is not federally mandated or regulated by a fed agency. The airlines are another ballgame alltogether.
Otherwise the airlines would have their own investigators out there at crash sites, be responsible for their opwn maintenace schedules, etc [ which they are not ].
The feds have had their fingers in the airlines business forever, nothing new here. Whats all the fuss about? It isn't like they just got involved after 9-11 ya know?
Brownie
Most private corps are not federally regulated or mandated to perform functions under the feds control and supervision. If your thoughts run that way, reconsider the above. It's apples to oranges when talking about private corps/businesses which normally are not under feds control or regs and the airline industry.
Does the FAA investigate private plane crashes? of course.
Does the FAA mandate safety requirements and maintenance shcedules for these private planes? of course.
Does the FAA inspect these privately owned airlines on a periodic basis? Of course
Theres the apples
The oranges would be any other private business not thusly under direct control of a fed agency.
I own a business that is not federally mandated or regulated by a fed agency. The airlines are another ballgame alltogether.
Otherwise the airlines would have their own investigators out there at crash sites, be responsible for their opwn maintenace schedules, etc [ which they are not ].
The feds have had their fingers in the airlines business forever, nothing new here. Whats all the fuss about? It isn't like they just got involved after 9-11 ya know?
Brownie
brownie0486
Member
They are not responsioble for their own maintenance, the FAA dictates their schedules of maintenance based on the type of aircraft it is. Their employees carry our the fed mandates on maintenance.
They may send their own investigators, but the FAA has jurisdiction and control over the scene.
The security issues are relavant in that all aspects of the industry are regulated by a fed agency and their mandates. Why wouldn't the feds also control that [ security ] aspect of the industry as well?
See the relevance now?
Brownie
They may send their own investigators, but the FAA has jurisdiction and control over the scene.
The security issues are relavant in that all aspects of the industry are regulated by a fed agency and their mandates. Why wouldn't the feds also control that [ security ] aspect of the industry as well?
See the relevance now?
Brownie
The feds don't provide maintenance schedules or procedures. The feds review the procedures outlined in the Mx Manuals provided by the carrier. The manuals are based on procedures from the manufacturer (and Federal Aviation Regulations), but can have changes by the carrier, which must be accepted by the FAA. Big difference. What the FAA does is checks for compliance with FAR's, they don't write the manuals.
Any failures of procedures or actual maintenance goes back on the carrier, not the FAA. If the carrier bears the penalties for failed maintenance, the carrier also bears the responsibility.
Each carrier has it's own maintenance program; some may be identical to others, but some are very different. Same with operations. The FAA only oversees carriers, it doesn't run them.
Crash investigations are overseen by the NTSB, who can actually find fault with the FAA as well as any other party.
To reinterate, the air carrier is RESPONSIBLE for everything, not the FAA who is simply a combination cop/district attorney, so to speak.
I'm not a FAA employee, but I have been in the airline business for a couple of decades plus, and I slept in a Holiday Inn Express the other night.
Any failures of procedures or actual maintenance goes back on the carrier, not the FAA. If the carrier bears the penalties for failed maintenance, the carrier also bears the responsibility.
Each carrier has it's own maintenance program; some may be identical to others, but some are very different. Same with operations. The FAA only oversees carriers, it doesn't run them.
Crash investigations are overseen by the NTSB, who can actually find fault with the FAA as well as any other party.
To reinterate, the air carrier is RESPONSIBLE for everything, not the FAA who is simply a combination cop/district attorney, so to speak.
I'm not a FAA employee, but I have been in the airline business for a couple of decades plus, and I slept in a Holiday Inn Express the other night.
Because of Constitutional restrictions on what they can and can not stick their nose into. The Commerce Clause (loosely interpreted as it is) lets them get away with controlling huge aspects of the aviation industry. The Fourth Amendment prohibits them from conducting the searches that they are conducting without warrant or express permission.
"But Cordex, haven't you heard? Buying an airplane ticket means that Fed.gov can do whatever they want."
Wrong. This is no more accurate than saying that getting a driver's license is tacit permission to allow police to search your car without warrant, probable cause or consent. Or buying a bus ticket is consent to allow TSA screeners to dig through your pockets and bags. After all, don't want them searching you, don't travel. Or just walk.
mjydrafter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2003
- Messages
- 71
I understand the "b-word in the airport" thing, but a felony
I won't try and guess what a terrorist will try, but I just don't think they would draw attention to themselves by placing a sarcastic note in thier bag.
The kid did something stupid (that's a new one, huh), but the punishment doesn't really fit here.
I think ruining the family vacation would be enough to make the remander of his time under the family roof, and future holiday visits, unpleasant at best.
I won't try and guess what a terrorist will try, but I just don't think they would draw attention to themselves by placing a sarcastic note in thier bag.
The kid did something stupid (that's a new one, huh), but the punishment doesn't really fit here.
I think ruining the family vacation would be enough to make the remander of his time under the family roof, and future holiday visits, unpleasant at best.
Uh, would you care to quote the part of the Constitution that is violated here? It should be good for a laugh.
The stupid kid did nothing that should have been punished IN ANY WAY by the TSA or any government official at any level. He committed no crime.
How far down have we come when supposed conservatives/libertarians see nothing wrong with a U.S. citizen being criminally charged for writing a sarcastic note?
Cosmoline
Member
Doesn't anybody remember the Lockerby [ spelling ] over Scotland debacle? They took the plane down with a bomb planted in luggage.
Though I don't enjoy being searched, having the bags searched etc, I can understand why it is necessary in order to provide the security we all want while traveling via airlines.
-----
Yes, and they still could. I have no objections to having checked-in luggage sniffed for bombs or scanned for bombs. If they have reasonable suspicion based on a finding, they should be able to quickly obtain a warrant and secure and search the article in question. That's the way it works in the free world.
The best way to stop attackers armed with box knives? SHOOT THEM DEAD! There you go. Just allow CCW on the planes. Are you afraid of freedom?
Though I don't enjoy being searched, having the bags searched etc, I can understand why it is necessary in order to provide the security we all want while traveling via airlines.
-----
Yes, and they still could. I have no objections to having checked-in luggage sniffed for bombs or scanned for bombs. If they have reasonable suspicion based on a finding, they should be able to quickly obtain a warrant and secure and search the article in question. That's the way it works in the free world.
The best way to stop attackers armed with box knives? SHOOT THEM DEAD! There you go. Just allow CCW on the planes. Are you afraid of freedom?
Cosmoline
Member
Otherwise the airlines would have their own investigators out there at crash sites, be responsible for their opwn maintenace schedules, etc [ which they are not ]."
The airlines DO send their own investigators, who work closely with the NTSB. And the airlines are responsible for their own maintenance schedules. They are approved by the FAA, but they originate with the carriers.
None of this gives the feds any implied right to force me to take my shoes off, disrobe, or have their gloved hand up my rear.
The airlines DO send their own investigators, who work closely with the NTSB. And the airlines are responsible for their own maintenance schedules. They are approved by the FAA, but they originate with the carriers.
None of this gives the feds any implied right to force me to take my shoes off, disrobe, or have their gloved hand up my rear.
brownie0486
Member
Didn't know they were doing caivity searches.
Very interesting.
Warrants are never "quick" and certainly not quick enough to make a difference when time may be of the essence.
Actually, if exigent circumstances are present, no warrant is necessary in the free world [ USA ].
Approved by the FAA, sounds like they have the ultimate decision making process then.
Brownie
Very interesting.
Warrants are never "quick" and certainly not quick enough to make a difference when time may be of the essence.
Actually, if exigent circumstances are present, no warrant is necessary in the free world [ USA ].
Approved by the FAA, sounds like they have the ultimate decision making process then.
Brownie
Intune
Member
Cos, I don't mind the x-ray, bomb sniffing procedure for checked bags. It's the "open whatever bag we want to" that I don't like. Find something that looks like a bomb, come get the passenger and ask them to open it. Same with carry-on. Pocket knives and nail clippers is crazy. Toy gun? Tell the person to keep it in their bag or the Air Marshal may shoot them.
Intune
Member
Well, if they're not doing cavity searches then I could have brought my NAA .22 on the trip! First one that says my BlackHawk too is gonna get one in the kisser!!! Do terrs know about NAA? Well sure. So all these scans are doing is depriving citizens of sharp objects that they own.
It's easy to lease a 727. Why go through the security hassle if all you want to do is bring down a large bldg and kill a few thousand people.
First one that says my BlackHawk too is gonna get one in the kisser!!! Do terrs know about NAA? Well sure. So all these scans are doing is depriving citizens of sharp objects that they own. It's easy to lease a 727. Why go through the security hassle if all you want to do is bring down a large bldg and kill a few thousand people.
The problem with THAT approach is that you won't even have any ATTEMPTS anymore, which would deprive Big Brother of another excuse to control the sheeple.
Can't have that, now, can we?
But I see that most have missed the point. It's not about whether or not we should have searches. (That's an important debate, though.)
It's about how much abuse of power we will tolerate. FELONY charges for writing a sarcastic note. Not a threatening note - a SARCASTIC note.
So what's next? Felony charges for expressing a dim view of such activities?
No difference in principle. No different from what ACTUALLY happened to two people in Chicago under the Clinton regime.
dustind
Member
The analogy between garbage and luggage does not work, I expect privacy in my luggage, regardless if it is a carry on or not.
To make things better, privatize the security, that way abuses stop dead in their tracks. The airlines do not want unhappy customers who hold them responsible for their actions. People will buy from the people who treat them the best. The feds regulating the security would be a decent compromise. Put decent doors to lock people out of the flight deck, and arm pilots, no one will event attempt to hijack a plane then.
I wonder when did criticizing the feds become a crime? This libertarian is not happy. Absolutely no one took it as a threat, just an insult. How would some of you feel if the note said.
To whom it may concern,
I am not a terrorist, I do not have a bomb.
Have a nice day.
I bet that kid would have been waved through.
Whether or not something is needed is irrelevant to whether or not it is constitutional.
I also really disagree with the if you do not like it, drive or walk idea. What if that concept was applied to state lines. Or trains, busses, and boats. People do have the right to travel, I am not making that up, and planes are nessisary to get to many places.
To make things better, privatize the security, that way abuses stop dead in their tracks. The airlines do not want unhappy customers who hold them responsible for their actions. People will buy from the people who treat them the best. The feds regulating the security would be a decent compromise. Put decent doors to lock people out of the flight deck, and arm pilots, no one will event attempt to hijack a plane then.
I wonder when did criticizing the feds become a crime? This libertarian is not happy. Absolutely no one took it as a threat, just an insult. How would some of you feel if the note said.
To whom it may concern,
I am not a terrorist, I do not have a bomb.
Have a nice day.
I bet that kid would have been waved through.
Whether or not something is needed is irrelevant to whether or not it is constitutional.
I also really disagree with the if you do not like it, drive or walk idea. What if that concept was applied to state lines. Or trains, busses, and boats. People do have the right to travel, I am not making that up, and planes are nessisary to get to many places.
SCOTUS ruled on that when some folks went through Henry Kissinger's garbage and found some embarrassing information. And promptly published it. Kissinger sued.
SCOTUS ruled that garbage had been abandoned therefore there was no reasonable expectation of privacy. Therefore the 1A rights of the reporters trumped his privacy rights. Hmmm. Seems reasonable to me.
standingbear
Member
the kid wrote the b word.i really dont think it would have mattered how he wrote it.he still had that forbidden b word on that paper.why i wont fly.anything could set these screeners off and have em getting their undergarments in a bunch.duh..kids do act irrationaly and need a bit of corrective action but this is just a bit much.
Oleg Volk
Moderator Emeritus
Mouthing off to TSA was unwise. It is equally unwise to pick on rabid or hungry wild animals capable of mauling a person. That said, IMO TSA was squarely in the wrong. Finding the note, they shouldn't have read it, and if they did, they should have ignored its contents.
Cosmoline
Member
Didn't know they were doing caivity searches.
Very interesting."
Oh, they've been doing those to fight the mere war on drugs! One woman unlucky enough to fly to Haiti a few times got the full treatment several times in a row.
Today it's take off your shoes hand give us your valuables. Tomorrow it will be bend over and have a can of vasoline ready!
Very interesting."
Oh, they've been doing those to fight the mere war on drugs! One woman unlucky enough to fly to Haiti a few times got the full treatment several times in a row.
Today it's take off your shoes hand give us your valuables. Tomorrow it will be bend over and have a can of vasoline ready!
- Status