Slashdot Mirror
Traveler Detained for Anti-TSA Message
scifience writes "A traveler frustrated with recent changes to airport security procedures found himself detained in Milwaukee after writing a message critical of the TSA's leader on a plastic bag presented for screening. The message, which read "Kip Hawley is an Idiot," resulted in a confrontation with law enforcement, the traveler being told that his right to freedom of speech applied only "out there (pointing past the id checkers) not while in here [the checkpoint]." The story, which is detailed in a rapidly-growing thread on a discussion forum catering to frequent flyers, has attracted the interest of the ACLU, an AP reporter, and many others. The incident raises a number of interesting questions and concerns regarding just where our rights end."
But increasingly, your rights end where dissent begins.
"The incident raises a number of interesting questions and concerns regarding just where our rights end."
Don't you mean "... when our rights ended"?
"The incident raises a number of interesting questions and concerns regarding just where our rights end."
Well, they end right there at the point where people happily exchange freedom for that so called "security".
-------
Born stupid? Try again.
Don't you yanks have a constitiution for this sort of thing?
> regarding just where our rights end.
Your rights ended on the morning of September 11th 2001 - apparantly the morning of a successful coup of the US government by Al-Queda.
In Civilization IV's Civilopedia there is a Benjamin Franklin quotation on article about Liberalism.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both"
In this context the society is not the State but the airport. Do people feel more secure on security control when a person before them is pointed out because of critisim about the system or are they going to be looking around for the lion in the bushes.
I wonder if there was a similar erosion of rights and freedoms during the second world war? And if so, was that erosion reversed during the period after WWII?
Makes sense. I left the states in '98 and my rights are still (mostly) intact.
If you don't think too clearly, then it's best you don't think to much.
Evidently philosophical acumen apprently isn't high on the list of qualifications for being a TSA screener.
That said, I fly a great deal, and TSA personnel seem to be fairly representative of the rest of the human race; some are automatically grouchy and unpleasant, some are tempermentally helpful and friendly, and the majority are like most people, they give you back what you bring them. When you're snide or difficult, the grouchy ones return with interest; when you are pleasant and courteous, the friendly ones return that with interest.
Speaking of philosophy, in Plato's ideal state there were three classes of people, rulers, who required the virtue of wisdom (sophia); soldiers, who required the virtue of courage (andreia); and the rest of the people who required the virtue of sophrosune, which is translated often as moderation, but is perhaps better thought of as temperance. The Greeks thought of this as a kind of self-control over pleasure seaking, but it applies to the negative emotions like anger and suspicion as well. In a modern democratic republic, people (even soliders -- possibly especially them) are called on to excerise the virtues of all three Platonic classes of people, although in different measure.
TSA is above all a civilian agency, although security is its function. And the civilian virtue of temperance is critical to the efficient execution of its duties. Consider the grouchy, aggressive and irritable inspector, on one hand, and the overly friendly one on the other. These are both bad, not because the travelling population is comprised mostly of decent people (it is) on one hand, nor because the travelling population contains dangerous bad people (it does). The reason these characteristics are bad in a screener is that they are both forms of distraction from the actual job.
TSA was cobbled together pretty much overnight, so its a mixed bag. But consider the benefits of moderation. If you're too suspicious, you jump to conclusions and you dwell on irrelevant details. If I were a terrorist, I'd want to be a couple of people behind the guy with the Kip Hawley bag, so I could pass through while everyone was dealing with the First Amendment brouhahah. Likewise, you want the inspectors to be pleasant, but not too friendly. Pleasant behavior is a social lubricant; it makes things run faster. That means more people inspected in a given number of time, or the same number scrutinized in more detail. But you don't want pleasantness to rise to outright friendliness. Chatting and making small talk would get in the way of business.
Of course, you need a wide selection of people if you want to consistently pick the ones from the middle of the deck. For better or worse, security is just one of those things we think anybody is able to do; we don't see it as a job with high professional or personal qualifications. By paying accordingly, we don't a work force which is consistently fitted to do the job with excellence. We end up with a workforce that is representative of the population, and have to accept the natural variations in performance that involves. Perhaps that's good enough. Freedom isn't going to fall apart because of some hot-headed TSA employee taking it upon himself to impose loyalty on the citizenry. Society isn't going to unravel if the occasional airplane is hijacked. We don't like to think of it this way, but we really treat these things as part of the cost of doing the business of society. If we didn't, we'd do what was necessary to have a more consistenly professional TSA.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The problem with our current "war" is it has no defined condition for winning. We won WWII when Germany and Japan were defeated, but our current military escapades have no potential end in sight.
How will we know when the War On Terror is over? George W. Bush said, on 9/20/2001, that it "will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated". How the hell are we going to determine that? Who can possibly predict how long that'll take?
Similar problems present themselves in Iraq. "Major combat operations" officially ended over three years ago, when that banner was unfurled on the aircraft carrier. But we're still there. We've been hearing phrases like "as the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down" and "the next six months will be critical" for years now, with no end in sight.
We have no definition of victory. You can't compare this current erosion of rights, done in the name of perpetual war, with any erosion of rights that might've occurred during the well-defined WWII, because no one has any idea when we'll even know that it's time to expect our rights back.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
A lot of the members in my gliding club are airline pilots and i hear a lot of stories from them.
The pilots have to pass through security just like the rest of us, and from what I hear they are getting increasingly fed up with the security screening staff. The general opinion is, that these are the same personality types that under different circumstances would become executioners.
Some of the pilots fought back though. One guy I heard of, attempted to pass through the detector gate, carefully making sure to step over an imaginary 1 foot high obstruction.
The screening crew apparently didn't have a sense of humor and made the pilot walk through the gate again, warning him to do it "normal" this time around.
At first the pilot prcoeeded normally through the gate, but stopped in the middle of the gate, spinning around in a Michael Jackson-esqe manouvre and exited the gate walking backwards. The screening crew went ballistic and forced him through a third time before he was let through.
Another pilot presented his ID card to the security screening crew, was let through and pocketed his card again, hurrying towards his assigned aircraft. He was running late.
Airpot security guidelines clearly states that ID cards should be carried visible at all times and a female security offcial noticed that the pilot did not carry a visible ID-card, took offence and ran after him. The pilot made it all the way to the cockpit and was sitting down and preparing for the flight, when the security offical came bursting into the cockpit, throwing a hissy fit and telling the pilot off for not wearing the ID card visible. The pilots in the cockpit were running late and were getting increasingly annoyed by the security official, when they noticed that the official was not carrying an ID card herself.
"So who are you?", they asked her, demanding to see her ID card. Fumbling around her pockets, she realised that she had left her own ID card behind, when running after the pilot.
The pilots resolutely locked the cockpit security doors and radioed the airport advising them that an unknown person that could not identify herself was locked in the cockpit with them.
The security official was then escorted off the plane by two armed police officers.
Remember the guy who was denied access to the plane until he removes his T-shirt bearing "We will not be silenced" in both Arabic and English?http://in.today.reuters.com/news/NewsArtic le.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-08-30T071006Z_ 01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-265380-1.xml
Res publica non dominetur
May the Maths Be with you!
A traveler frustrated with recent changes to airport security procedures found himself detained in Milwaukee after writing a message critical of the TSA's leader on a plastic bag presented for screening. The message, which read "Kip Hawley is an Idiot," resulted in a confrontation with law enforcement
He's lucky he didn't get arrested for revealing a state secret.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Let's say you're a frequent flyer, for reasons of business. If your local TSA supervisor gropes you or someone you know at a bar or on the street, what are you going to do? What if they get in a property dispute with you? What if their child is tormenting your child at school? What if they don't like the clubs or places you want to frequent? What if you want to campaign for a political party they don't really like?
What will you do? Exercise your rights? Do something that might displease the officials? Perturb or them in some small way? You will on your fuck! You will drop everything and anything the moment you smell that this petty prick might make flying more difficult for you. Only fools and people with the right kind of friends will do otherwise.
As the TSA officials and persons like them grow in number and influence, expect such situations to arise. You think it won't happen? The people who set up the TSA, the people in the TSA, they all believe that such a state of affairs would be right and proper. They have a world view, and it does not involve tolerance for yours. If they can find a way to make life miserable for people who don't follow them, they will.
May the Maths Be with you!
I might be paranoid but this seems all a big charade. After hijacking the planes for 9/11, we witnessed repeated attempts at blowing planes up, first the guy with explosive under the shoe, then the other guys who wanted to come onboard with liquid explosives. The problem is that Al qaeda should have hundreds of surface to air missile launchers left from Afghanistan campaign when they fought for USA aganst Soviet Russia (in soviet russia terrorists fight for YOU!). Those are made to hit military planes, a civilian plane during takeoff is a joke for them, I guess.
Al quaeda seems not willing to embarass the US by using the arms they got from them, in the meantime western citizens are being trained to be questioned, searched, put in custody for merely losing patience. Here the 500-1500 stingers given to Bin Laden... all lost? If so, can't they buy anything second hand in Kosovo? Strange.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
I think the term you are looking for is "Salami Tactics". I believe that Sir Humphrey Appleby had something to say on the subject. Into the Wayback Machine, Sherman!
So where is the real danger? When your first amendment rights disappear? ("He shouldn't have said that. It's unpatriotic.") Third? ("Support our troops! And have breakfast waiting for them in the morning, please.") Fourth? ("If he wasn't a terrorist, he would have nothing to hide.") Sixth, Seventh and Eighth? ("They're enemy combatants, not people.") Or should you wait until they're all gone to start worrying?
Hey, as long as you have the twenty-first then things are all A-OK, right?
I think few Americans right now realize that congress is working, yesterday and today, on passing (not just writing or introducing, but passing, it's already through the house and now up for vote in the senate) a bill that will end habeas corupus and legalize torture:
+ habeas&hl=en&hs=GCv&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox&rl s=Swiftfox:en-US:unofficial&sa=X&oi=news&ct=titleo nID=40&ItemID=11071r yID=20060924-060744-4556rc le/2006/09/26/AR2006092601475.html
http://news.google.com/news?q=torture+bill+senate
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?Secti
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?Sto
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
Habeas corpus is one of the oldest tenets of western civilization, predating the U.S. Constitution and even the Magna Carta, and it says, simply, that if someone is to be held in custody by the state, there must be a demonstrable reason for their imprisonment. It is the basis of "probable cause," "warrants" of arrest, and your right to a trail to establish your guilt or innocence.
This bill not only legalizes torture acts against enemy combatants by the U.S. government, it also gives the president and the secretary of defense the authority to unilaterally decide who is an enemy combatant, without review, oversight, process, or documentation of any kind, and to act on that decision, without trial, documentation, or any means of appeal. The standard for being an enemy combatant is essentially that you don't "support" America in some way or another, not according to some objective standard of evidence, but again according to the personal impression of either the president or the secretary of defense. This includes American citizens.
Once they decide you are an enemy combatant, you can be picked up, with no warrant or probable cause, no evidence, and no process other than "the feds said you don't support America." They no longer need evidence. Under this statute no right to trail or judicial review will exist (because you are now like those at Gitmo, rather than a citizen), and you can be tortured at will.
This is what the senate is working on YESTERDAY AND TODAY. It's likely already too late to affect the outcome, but if you haven't yet it might be a good day to call your senator and say that you OPPOSE the bill that legalizes arbitrary indefinite detention at the whim of the president and the legalization of torture.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Hey for a safer America you should be willing to do anything, right?
If you have nothing to hide, they wouldn't pick you up, would they?
The terrorists have won by allowing a regime that wants to do things the same as the countries we accuse of "not being free & democratic". The fear of this irrational thing called terrorism is pathetic. More people die from lung cancer every year in the US. More people have died (or will soon) fighting a stupid war with no real goal, direction or possible positive outcome.
This country is slowly moving down the road of fascism or some other "new" form of dictatorship. When a government keeps it's society in check by fear and hatred, only bad things come of it. How long until we get our Hitler? Stalin? Moussolini?
We are not impervious to failure. The almighty dollar seems to be the only concern in the U$A. Pathetic when a country can spend billions on war and nothing to help the poor and sick.
Jesus wouldn't have voted for Bush that is for certain. War is not the solution to the current problems in the world. Our external policies over the last 50 years or so has assisted in creating this monster. When will people wake up and realize we (the country and our representatives) are not infallible? Hopefully not before it's too late.
"The incident raises a number of interesting questions and concerns regarding just where our rights end."
There is no interesting question about where our rights end. Our rights themselves continue to be what they were. The interesting question is where our rights begin to be oppressed.
If you fail to grasp this important distinction, you are granting others power over your inalienable rights.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd