Slashdot Mirror


DOJ Could Ban Texas Flights Over Anti-Patdown Law

hellkyng writes "The Department of Justice may ban flights from Texas because of the Anti-Patdown law making its way through the legal system. Says Rep. David Simpson, 'Someone must make a stand against the atrocities of our government agents.' Should be interesting to see if Texas can pave the way for grope-free flying fun."

76 of 377 comments (clear)

  1. Update on this story by Sonny+Yatsen · · Score: 5, Informative

    As of earlier today, the law's main sponsor, Dan Patrick, R-Houston, said the law is dead after support for the law collapsed.

    http://www.click2houston.com/news/28032459/detail.html

    --
    My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
    1. Re:Update on this story by guruevi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What do you mean collapsed? I think 99% of Americans would support this. Oh, you mean support by the few people that make decisions and can easily be bought.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re:Update on this story by Omega+Hacker · · Score: 2

      And here I was thinking that Texans had a spine. Silly me.

      --
      GStreamer - The only way to stream!
    3. Re:Update on this story by Noughmad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The people won't read it either. The contents of a law have very little correlation to people's support for it.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    4. Re:Update on this story by MooseTick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you are mistaken. Most people believe the pat downs make them safer. I bet half would not approve if eliminating them. It doesn't matter if it is true or not, just the perception.

    5. Re:Update on this story by Wovel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Too bad our lawmakers are so spineless. That is a battle the FAA would lose. The TSA has done nothing to make us more secure. Every attempted airline incident has been stopped by passengers and/or air marshals. I am sure they would say you just don't here about all the good stuff they do. I say BS.

    6. Re:Update on this story by Maltheus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, apparently "everything is bigger in Texas" does not include balls.

    7. Re:Update on this story by Lifyre · · Score: 2

      What a shame. I was really looking forward to seeing how this would have played out. Texas would be a great place for this kind of challenge too. They're big enough and important enough that not only would this cause HUGE issues across the country but people might care. If a place like Vermont did it not many people would notice.

      --
      I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
    8. Re:Update on this story by dynamo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not even the perception, sir, unless you happen to work at the TSA and are paid to pretend that you think what you do for a living makes any positive difference whatsoever.

    9. Re:Update on this story by GlassHeart · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think 99% of Americans would support this.

      I don't think you can get 99% of Americans to agree that the earth isn't flat.

    10. Re:Update on this story by Gunnut1124 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We tried, what did you do?

      I was actually contacted to give testimony to the state legislature about this by the ALCU (never got to). After a number of written complaints, action was taken and a bill set in motion... Too bad that the weak spineless reps didn't have the guts to follow through. The DOJ needs an overhaul after this mess.

      --
      America is all about speed. Hot, nasty, badass speed. -Eleanor Roosevelt, 1936
    11. Re:Update on this story by interkin3tic · · Score: 2
      It's just as well, judging from a quote in TFA:

      "All that HB 1937 does is require that the TSA abide by the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution," Simpson continued. "We aren't even prohibiting the pat-downs, per se. We're just saying you can't go straight to third base. You have to have a reason-you have to have probable cause-before groping someone's sexual organs."

      If I want to go right to oral sex without obtaining probable cause, I should be able to dammit!

      Stepping up exactly one level of seriousness: I hope Rep. Simpson wasn't exactly clear on what "third base" actually entailed. If there are going to be new TSA regulations actually involve "third base" and they don't hire new gate agents...

    12. Re:Update on this story by Dracos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thereby making the TSA, by definition, terrorists.

    13. Re:Update on this story by Dracos · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Before the Civil War, people referred to the US as a collective, "the United States are...". Afterward, there was a shift to the singular, "the United States is...".

    14. Re:Update on this story by wurp · · Score: 3

      No, you appear to assume the default is that we should allow invasive procedures based on unsupported assertions.

      We don't have to show that their unsupported assertions are false. They have to show that there is supporting evidence, and then, based on that evidence, we could pass an amendment to the constitution saying that it's OK to violate the 4th amendment rights. Until then, it's not just a gross violation of my rights, it's a gross violation based on hot air.

    15. Re:Update on this story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I know. I literally have not flown anywhere since 9/11. I consider it a matter of principle to keep up with my little boycott. Whenever it is mentioned in my family, they say "oh, you don't like to fly". I say "no, I would love to fly, I just refuse to do all the stupid shit I have to do before I get on a plane". And their response is always to cock their heads like dogs learning a new word.

      It's been 10 years of this, and they still find it easier to think I'm a giant pussy who doesn't want to fly, rather than accept the idea that maybe all those security checks are completely pointless. If you've *had* to fly since 9/11, you've pretty must just accepted this and gone on with your life. But to someone who still tries to do the right thing even if no one will ever notice or care, it sucks.

    16. Re:Update on this story by Grond · · Score: 2

      What do you mean collapsed? I think 99% of Americans would support this. Oh, you mean support by the few people that make decisions and can easily be bought.

      The proposed law was blatantly unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. Support collapsed because the legislators realized that it was stupid even as a protest. It had nothing to do with being bought.

    17. Re:Update on this story by Coolhand2120 · · Score: 3

      I'm pretty sure the GP was talking about the gate security, not the air marshals, which existed under the FAA long before the TSA was ever even thought of. The TSA guys at the gate don't carry guns, they call the local police if there is a problem and, on average, have the intellect of fly larvae, no insult intended towards fly larvae. So something tells me the casting director for the gate TSA guys didn't hire the plainclothes marshals on the planes.

      And nobody has any problem with the air marshals, they don't grope you as you pass by them. Furthermore, air marshals can prevent many types of terrorist threats, and this is true a priori, on the other hand, the TSA's gate screens have only managed to catch a few staff members they accidentally hired that had a criminal history for molesting children. That's right, we hired people who like to molest children to ... molest children! ! It's the fucking pedophile cream dream! And don't think for a second there wasn't a line a mile long of yet-to-be-identified pedophiles lining up for the "Molest the children" job. No, no terrorist plots uncovered. Nobody wishing harm to the people on the aircraft stopped. Oh, they were there! They just let those guys go by. And as they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. They have a 100% failure rate, they piss everyone off, El Al thinks they are a fucking joke and they make 1984 look a lot more like it could really happen. Can someone explain why are we blowing our money on this bullshit!?

    18. Re:Update on this story by cpu6502 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Congress shall "make regular" the commerce AMONG the States. It says nothing about blocking commerce or forbidding citizens from crossing state lines (and the courts have ruled that multiple times over the last three centuries).

      The Constitution also says nothing about providing health or welfare. The author of the constitution, James Madison, has already stated that is an absurd interpretation. "If that were true, the power of the central authority would be unlimited, and the enumeration of the powers pointless. There is a whole host of proofs to demonstrate that is not what I or the Craftmen intended.

      "There is nothing more natural than to start with a general phrase, and then list a Specific list of particulars. Congress is thereby limited to only those powers enumerated and nothing more (amend. 10)."

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    19. Re:Update on this story by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dear Lover of 1984-Style Government (aka, a liberal):

      You mean except for the fact that most of the pro-government rulings on commerce clause cases have had majority conservative justices? Yeah, let's ignore that completely.

    20. Re:Update on this story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Simpson continued.... "We're just saying you can't go straight to third base."

      If I want to go right to oral sex without obtaining probable cause, I should be able to dammit!

      You kids are all whores. Back when I was eligible to play sex baseball (late 90s), third base was junk-groping. In those days, you didn't go down on somebody unless you were willing to go all the way anyway. Sometime between then and now, the kids decided oral wasn't really sex (way to go, Bill!), and third base got redefined. Simpson just never got the memo.

    21. Re:Update on this story by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Informative

      Interstate commerce clause trumps the 9th and 10th. At least that is what the courts will say, and they may be correct. That said, I support states telling the feds to fuck off, as that is the only thing that gets them to reconsider stupid regulations that do NOT make flying safer.

      Should the Interstate Commerce Clause trump the 1st or 2nd? No. Why? Because the authors of the Constitution wrote it, but some were hesitant to sign it for various reasons. Those concerns were answered by the Bill or Rights, or 1st ten Amendments of the Constitution. You could consider Amendments to be updates or corrections to what was written before it. Therefor, amendments to the Constitution should trump the Constitution as it was written previously. For an example, alcohol is still illegal according to the Constitution, but a later amendment allowed it again. The same could be said as any amendment taking precedence over the Commerce Clause.

      However, the 10th Amendment states that the US gov't may only do what is spelled out in the Constitution. Regulating interstate commerce is spelled out via the commerce clause. The problem is that the courts have allowed the INTERSTATE commerce clause to apply in commerce that never leaves a state. In other words, the courts have said the federal government has unlimited power under the commerce clause.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    22. Re:Update on this story by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2

      A true story, for those scratching their heads. My wife and I are smokers (bad, bad, yes, I know) and we happily tossed our throw-away cigarette lighters into the appropriate bin when boarding a flight a couple of years ago.

      What we completely forgot is that in our carry on, left over from a previous camping trip, was a stash of about 4 lighters,10 boxes of "strike anywhere" matches and a camping knife. The thing was, it wasn't the screeners that noticed them, rather they were discovered by ourselves as soon we got to our hotel room and started going through our luggage. The funny thing is that we didn't know about the no-liquids-over-2-ounces rule, which was relatively new when we flew. The screeners completely missed these banned items because they were far too interested in the oversized bottles of Pantene in our luggage, whiich they promptly seized, of course.

      My wife, who worked airport security prior to the TSA takeover, and was thoroughly disgusted by the whole affair, said that the knife, for sure, would never have made it past the gate before the TSA took over.

    23. Re:Update on this story by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      The little I've heard from TSA agents (the ones doing the pat downs) makes it sound like they think it's stupid too. It's the old, "I hate it, but I'm just doing my job." line.

      Accurate or not, it gives me the impression that these measures are just more, "See! I'm doing something!" crap from the more politically minded higher-ups.

      Unfortunately, it appears the security theatre works.

      Here in Canada, a bunch of security personnel got laid off, and they're rallying exactly around the issue. "Without all of us, security standards will lapse during busy periods!"

      It's the political football. You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't. Cutting staff? Security will go down because they can't do these things anymore. Make it illegal to do these things? Security will go down because it's the only way to ensure security.

      Screw that. Security prior to 9/11 was just as adequate for the most part.

    24. Re:Update on this story by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They hate pat downs. But they like that the other guy gets them.

      It's like drugs. Most adult Americans have tried drugs without any ill effects. And most think that what they did should be a felony. And most think what they did shouldn't have been a felony when they did it if they were caught.

      People have inconsistent ideas. They hate pat downs. They want to be able to go through without them. They think them useless and ineffective. And when brought to a vote, they'll hate on their fellow Americans enough to vote from spite (wanting the other guy to get patted down) rather than voting with reason and forethought.

    25. Re:Update on this story by jd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      People believe in 20 contradictory things before breakfast. It's entirely plausible that 50% of Americans would simultaneously want others patted down for security reasons provided they themselves had legal protection against it, without even realizing that a contradiction even exists.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    26. Re:Update on this story by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Informative

      >>>I understand though. You hate society, you hate the idea of people working together, you hate the general idea behind the formation of the United States.

      Wow. I'm surprised you didn't call me a "slut" like that Democrat Radio DJ did yesterday. Oh well. (shrug).

      Jefferson and Madison - do you consider them "haters" too? You probably will after you read this: âoeResolved, That the several States composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government. But that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes â" delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.

      "That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.â

      Damn those Founding Fathers and their "hating society, hating people working together, and hating the general idea behind the formation of the United States." Those guys were nutjobs! (end sarcasm). No what I hate is having my penis felt up by strangers, or being irradiated by those scanners. You mentioned "other laws". Well: Isn't there a law forbidding sexual groping? Isn't that assault? Many State Prosecutors say that it is, and are arresting TSA officers for the act.

      Cheers to them.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    27. Re:Update on this story by __aasehi2499 · · Score: 2

      ...when it would be impossible for a society to exist without laws...

      John Adams - "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

    28. Re:Update on this story by wurp · · Score: 2

      I'm sure you're a troll, but I'll bite.

      I very specifically backed up my assertions with facts, yet you don't even mention the 4th amendment. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

      What grounds are there for the search? Is getting on a plane a valid basis to suspect illegal behavior? If they don't have probable cause, a government search is illegal, period. If you think this search is OK, in what circumstances does the 4th amendment protect anything? I guarantee the founding fathers didn't intend it to be meaningless.

      If you have valid refutation of any signficant point here, I'm glad to debate. If you only have a tired, unfounded repetition of the supposed security benefits (with no evidence of a statistically signficant number of attacks *actually prevented* by the screening), I have no interest in responding.

      Beyond that, though, it doesn't matter legally whether the checks are needed for our security (which I don't believe). Now, IF the checks gave material gains in our security, that would be a good starting point for a debate about amending the constitution. Until an amendment passes, however, it's still illegal to search everyone who wants to board a plane.

      If your argument is about lives saved, you have to address the reasons why it's OK to spend many $$$s and subject ourselves to indignities to save lives in air travel, but not OK to limit speeds to 55 mph, have more restrictive driving license rules, integrate breathalysers into the ignition system for cars, etc. to save many more lives for fewer $$$s and less loss of liberty in auto travel.

      Additionally, I see no reason why flights shouldn't opt in to the travel procedures. If you want to pay an extra $20 to get invasive body scans done before you get on a plane for the supposed peace of mind of knowing everyone else on that plane had them, have at. I don't, and I'll choose the flight that doesn't do it.

    29. Re:Update on this story by element-o.p. · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Simply because you disagree with someone's opinion of how government should work does not make them a sociopath, but nice try at painting your ideological opponent with emotional rhetoric so as to not have to make a logical, rational counter-argument.

      So many people who claim to have such great knowledge about the constitution seem to miss that last line in Section 8:

      "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

      How exactly does this prove your point? The Constitution enumerates the powers the Federal government holds, and prescribes limits upon that power. Therefore, Section 8 authorizes the government to pass laws that allow it to carry out those powers the Constitution grants to it. However, if the Federal government attempts to usurp powers that the Constitution did NOT grant to it, then nothing in that statement gives it authority to do so. If it did, then the Constitution would essentially be handing absolute, unlimited power to the Federal government. That is clearly not the case.

      And, of course, you specifically seem to have missed the preamble:

      "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

      Again, your point? The Framers of the Constitution understood that there was a necessary role that the Federal government had to play in turning a loose alliance of independent states into a single nation. However, they also understood that a centralized government with unchecked power would grow to be a monster, and therefore they sought to strike a balance between a centralized government that was powerful enough to meet the needs of the nation ("establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare") while still providing balances to that power so that it didn't become a tyranny ("...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"). It's a balancing act.

      I understand though. You hate society, you hate the idea of people working together, you hate the general idea behind the formation of the United States...but then, you don't like society do you, even though you've gain immense privileges by living in one.

      No, you don't understand...not even remotely. Nothing GPP said even hinted that (s)he wanted to see society destroyed or laws abolished. In fact, if you will think objectively for just a moment, you will find that yourposition is much more likely to lead to chaos and anarchy than GPP's. You argue that the Federal government should be able to pass whatever laws it wants, regardless of what the Constitution allows, simply because it IS the Federal government. In other words, you want everyone in the country to obey the law, except for the Federal government itself. They, you think, are above the law. "Do as I say, not as I do"? No. Any leader -- whether individual or corporal -- must model respect for the law by themselves respecting the law, if they seriously expect anyone else to do likewise. Therefore, if the Federal government wants the people of the United States to uphold the law, they must uphold the law themselves, and thus the Federal government must be bound by the Constitution.

      You have this ludicrous opinion that the Constitution is the ONLY law of the land, when it would be impossible for a society to exist without laws...

      Those two points are not polar opposites; they are orthogonal. Like it or not, the Constitution IS the law of th

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    30. Re:Update on this story by slimjim8094 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First,

      Many State Prosecutors say that it is, and are arresting TSA officers for the act.

      [citation needed]. I'm sure I would've heard of this, and if I somehow missed it I'd love to read it.

      Second, you - like most people complaining about states' rights - forget that most decisions *are* left to the states. I agree with you that more *should* be left to the states. But the fact of the matter is that it is much, much easier to travel across the country than it once was. At the time of the Constitution's drafting, it was not feasible to traverse the country on a whim, fishing for a state that allowed whatever it is you wanted to do. For example, in my home state the age to buy tobacco is 19, but drive for an hour and you can buy them at 18. This wasn't exactly feasible at the time of the Constitution. Similarly, out-of-state sales tax was a non-issue until you could order online and have it shipped in 2 days. I know some people argue about sales tax, but the fact remains it's a good example of where increased mobility is subverting the original intent of state-based laws.

      Finally, I don't really care what the Founders thought, aside from academically. One of the most important parts of the Constitution - and unquestionably the intention of the Founders - was that the Constitution was a living document, meant to be interpreted and changed as the nation grew. The Founders knew that the country in a few hundred years would be entirely different than the one they were in, and made this explicit. Their intentions are important for all Americans to understand as a matter of our history, but ultimately irrelevant. They're not gods, nor did they want to be. From my understanding of those men, they would have been mortified to hear that more than 200 years later, we were all running around going "but the founders!" Actually, that sounds like a religion - we've elevated them on a pedestal (as they've earned), but because of it some people aren't evaluating their words rationally and just accepting them as gospel.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    31. Re:Update on this story by cheater512 · · Score: 2

      I dont see how security has changed since 9/11. Its exactly the same.
      How exactly could a grope have stopped 9/11?

      Has any new measure been added to stop 9/11 from happening again?
      Only thing I can think of is reinforced cockpit doors. Inconvenience to passengers? 0.

    32. Re:Update on this story by halivar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's why many shed the "liberal" label for "progressive." The liberal/libertarian cares about rights. The progressive cares about the children. Sometimes liberal really means "conservative" (where the "conservative" position on a subject implies more personal freedoms). The labels, they really mean nothing now.

    33. Re:Update on this story by element-o.p. · · Score: 2

      I appreciate it, honestly. To answer your question, I wrote my senators and representatives, who either told me to "run along; they know what's best for me" or crafted a masterpiece of taking no stand on the issue while trying to look deeply interested in what I was concerned about (warning: shameless plug to one of my blogs -- if you're offended by such things, don't click the links)...except for Representative Don Young, who didn't bother to reply at all. Next, I pissed off a couple of friends by using Facebook to get the word out about what was happening at the airports. <shrug> Unfortunately, not a lot of people in D.C. really give a rip what a network administrator in Alaska thinks about TSA.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    34. Re:Update on this story by artor3 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think you're confusing "liberal" with "politician". The Republicans have been quite big on telling us how to live. You can't have abortions, you can't marry someone of the same sex, you can't join collectively bargain with your employer, you can't sue companies that have a contract with you, you can't vote if you're an out-of-state student or poor city dweller.

      Oh, and all those times we as a nation have come together to create a safety for those in need, through Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security and Food Stamps and Unemployment Benefits? Fuck those people! More tax cuts to the super-rich! Doesn't matter that the majority of the country disagrees with them. They'll hold our national credit rating hostage, and burn the country to the ground if they don't get what they want.

    35. Re:Update on this story by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Informative

      I can only judge "liberal" by what I see, and what I see in France, Australia, England, and the US is liberal politicians (Sarkozy, Conroy, Obama, Schumer) working to censor the internet, tell us how to live, and how much energy we are allowed to consume

      But by that definition, Karl Rove, Bush Jr., McCain, and such are also liberals. When your definition of "liberal" includes most politicians of both parties (and apparently all judges from the "conservative" party), then it seems to be a worthless definition.

      I don't want to associate with that label.

      Yes, that's obvious. You have some emotional reaction to the label that trumps all logic and reason, and thus you employ no logic or reason in any post related to that label. We see that. Though, I'm actually surprised. I didn't think you'd actually recognize that in yourself.

    36. Re:Update on this story by md65536 · · Score: 2

      I think you're getting your definitions from a pre- Bush-era dictionary. Us can't be terrorists, only Them can.

    37. Re:Update on this story by Kittenman · · Score: 2

      I make it easier on myself. I just don't fly to or through the States. Great country, some lovely people, insane security.

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    38. Re:Update on this story by Cidolfas · · Score: 2

      Hopefully we get more rulings like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez that restrict the scope of commerce clause justifications. To me, the commerce clause expansion isn't all bad - it's original invocations were in the support of the Sherman Anti-Trust act to break up the corporate run-arounds. Rather than have a multi-state iron processing cartel they create single-state subsidiaries that would only buy or sell to each other, reinstating a vertical monopoly over the steel market. Without using the commerce clause to apply a federal law to what was now a single-state problem, Anti-Trust practices in the early 1900's would have failed. That's not a good thing in my book.

      --
      I am become /dev/null, destroyer of data.
    39. Re:Update on this story by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Polls show that people hate being patted down, not that they hate other people being patted down.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    40. Re:Update on this story by ATMAvatar · · Score: 2

      Has any new measure been added to stop 9/11 from happening again? Only thing I can think of is reinforced cockpit doors.

      That's it right there. We could have stopped at locked and reinforced cockpit doors and still be able to happily guarantee that 9/11 could never happen again.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    41. Re:Update on this story by slimjim8094 · · Score: 2

      Flamebait? Come on mods, if you disagree, have the common decency to say so. Flamebait actually means something, and while you may have problems with the content of my post, it is impossible to construe it as "flamebait"

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    42. Re:Update on this story by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Do the same thing the Israelis do, and have not only a solid door to the flight deck that won't be opened during a flight but have an armed military escort by the door with full license to kill if needed? I have plenty of family that have been in the military and have NO doubt what so ever that a USMC MP with low grained hollow points (so he will penetrate the bad guy not the cabin) would have no problem ensuring the safety of any flight, and without the need to feel up little kids.

      The problem with this "security theater" crap is just like the MIC once you get the ball rolling it is damned hard to bring it back from insanity because so much money ends up funneled through it. Just like we keep cash sucking money pits like the Osprey and F-35, even though a combination of new F-18s and Blackhawks along with newer advanced UCAVs would be able to do the job for MUCH cheaper, but it would cause Senator Hogsnout to lose some pork so good luck killing it, so too does the ever widening TSA cause more and more money to be blown that Congressman Pigsknuckle won't want to see leave his district, not with the plant closings and all.

      In the end all the high tech bullshit can't do the job as well as a USMC with a solid door, but it is harder to bleed money out of a program simply paying Marines and buying doors. These high tech bling blings and ever more TSA agents needed to feel up little kids means more money for the districts of Hogsnout and Pigsknuckle, and if we don't shut this crap down soon I have a feeling like the truckloads of money we blow yearly to the MIC contractors we will never see the end of the ever widening mess, simply because too many congress critters will use the programs "to bring jobs and money to the area!" aka pork barrel politics.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    43. Re:Update on this story by thej1nx · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh my, I wonder how those damned terrorists would ever manage to bypass these. Let us see what I can think up(and I am not even a terrorist, who actually think up this stuff full-time probably). Let us see.

      1. Needles dipped in quick-acting toxins/poisons say Saritoxin. You have to take down just one guy to scare up others. Probably the said US marshal, as you pretend to walk past him. Just incapacitating him and declaring that you have a poison needle, will be enough.

      Oh and you threaten a Air-hostess to get her to trick the pilot(s) into opening the cockpit door. They are allowed into the cockpits.

      3. Smuggle in Anthrax powder or some such bio-hazardous material to the airport. If you are on a suicide mission like the 911 chaps, you can spread it around the airport *and* inside the flight. Everyone dead.

      4. You can purchase beer bottles from duty free shops at the Air port itself(and take it with you as cabin luggage). Break one to get an instant knife with sharp edge.

      http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2010/08/07/broken-bottle-used-as-weapon/

      5. Just hide plastic explosives with a timer in your check-in luggage. If it is disguised well enough to pass the x-ray, it can be timed to blow up when the flight is passing over a populated area.

      6. Just overpower the air marshal with help of your friends, to get the weapons you need from him.

      7. Plan long term and get one of your guys an american citizenship like that David Coleman Headley guy and get him to become a commercial pilot. TSA can rape him..sorry pat him all they want. Pilots can crash the plane whenever they want.

      I thought up these in flat 3-5 minutes. the folks who actually hate you and are terrorists will no doubt come up with hundreds of more plans. They need just one of them working.

      Basically folks like you, the TSA and the entire USA government are idiots. The only way you beat terrorists is by ensuring that they don't hate you in the first place, or at least that they don't find much takers for their recruitment drives. One way to do that is by minding your own business. If you invading countries in the name of oil, you are just increasing the number of people who hate you. And when they hate you enough, they will always find some way to hurt you back in revenge.

    44. Re:Update on this story by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2

      1. Needles dipped in quick-acting toxins/poisons say Saritoxin. You have to take down just one guy to scare up others. Probably the said US marshal, as you pretend to walk past him. Just incapacitating him and declaring that you have a poison needle, will be enough.

      Won't work. The public no longer see hijacking as "Take us to Cuba and everyone goes free" anymore. That needle will prick one person, become useless, and everyone else in the plane will make sure the guy attempting the hijacking is removed using spades and plastic sacks.

      Oh and you threaten a Air-hostess to get her to trick the pilot(s) into opening the cockpit door. They are allowed into the cockpits.

      Cockpit doors are locked from the inside, and I would hope that there would be a challenge / response for opening the door. "Hi, you're coffee is ready" is cool, "Two sugars in your coffee?" is OMG TEH HYJAKKURS!

      Smuggle in Anthrax powder or some such bio-hazardous material to the airport. If you are on a suicide mission like the 911 chaps, you can spread it around the airport *and* inside the flight. Everyone dead.

      Anthrax is easily cured with antibiotics, and nowhere near as dangerous as most people are scared into believing by the media. Sarin gas is worse as it's a neurotoxin, but wide space of the airport lounges means it will either dilute quickly, or people will be able to evacuate.

      4. You can purchase beer bottles from duty free shops at the Air port itself(and take it with you as cabin luggage). Break one to get an instant knife with sharp edge.

      See answer to point 2.

      ust hide plastic explosives with a timer in your check-in luggage. If it is disguised well enough to pass the x-ray, it can be timed to blow up when the flight is passing over a populated area.

      Let's hope they don't target airport lounges, then. They don't seem to have cottoned on to that one yet.

      6. Just overpower the air marshal with help of your friends, to get the weapons you need from him.

      "Friends"? I take it you have more than one of these attackers on the plane, then? Again, a gun has so many rounds, and "sheeple" no longer see hijacking as something they can live through. Two or three are shot, and a press of people pull the hijackers into pieces small enough to hide in the overhead lockers.

      Plan long term and get one of your guys an american citizenship like that David Coleman Headley guy and get him to become a commercial pilot. TSA can rape him..sorry pat him all they want. Pilots can crash the plane whenever they want.

      Yup. Same with bus drivers, train drivers, nuclear facility workers, CIA agents blah blah blah. I guess you watched Salt last weekend?

      Yes, they are idiots, but only because they spent so much fixing a problem which no longer exists; Flying passenger aircraft into buildings.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  2. I never thought I'd be saying this, but... by Translation+Error · · Score: 2

    Yay, Texas.

    --
    When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
  3. Great news citizens! by denzacar · · Score: 5, Funny

    Also, the chocolate ration will be raised to twenty grammes a week.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Great news citizens! by Surt · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think you're misremembering, and it doesn't matter anyway as we've been further able to increase the ration to 15 grammes.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  4. Counter to federal laws? by schwit1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The Department of Justice has sent a letter to Texas legislative leaders warning that the rule would run counter to federal laws."

    What ever happened to the 4th amendment? Isn't that federal law?

    1. Re:Counter to federal laws? by Scutter · · Score: 2

      What ever happened to the 4th amendment?

      The what, now? Sorry, doesn't ring a bell.

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    2. Re:Counter to federal laws? by i.r.id10t · · Score: 3, Informative

      No actually you aren't. Too lazy to google it now, but it was here on /. and many other places about a guy who refused and tried to leave and was threatened with a $10k fine

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    3. Re:Counter to federal laws? by wurp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So I give up my constitutional rights if I pass a sign saying that the passing beyond it voids my rights?

    4. Re:Counter to federal laws? by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Trumped by the commerce clause and general welfare clause

      Hey, that's convenient. Any time you cross state lines, you're engaging in interstate commerce. That means the 4th amendment doesn't apply!

      Hold on! Even if you're not crossing state lines, you might have drugs in the trunk! That means we can search your car due to the general welfare clause.

      You could also argue it is not an unreasonable search

      That would be a laugh!

      If the commerce clause and general welfare clause work the way you think they do, than none of the protections in the constitution are any protection at all. We might as well scrap the entire bill of rights. Oh wait, we already have.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  5. This doesn't sound like Texas politics... by bradorsomething · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Something's going on in the background here... it's unlikely these legislators are taking such a myopic view. Say the TSA tries to ban flights to Texas... really? Would anyone stand for this? Even a Californian would stand up for Texas if that were to happen. Even an Oregonian... hell, maybe even someone from Delaware.

    This bill sounds like something John Wayne would support, which means it should be gravy to pass through the Texas house.

    1. Re:This doesn't sound like Texas politics... by hedwards · · Score: 2

      I'm not so sure. This violates the rights of Texans to travel freely about the country as well as being an unwarranted grab on states' rights. Additionally, the Federal Government only has limited rights in terms of impeding interstate travel.

      So, this could also be a very Texan thing to do.

  6. Re:"interesting to see if Texas can pave the way" by Surt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That would be interesting as the primary defense against hijacking is a locked door, not a pat down.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  7. No on patdowns, but still support the rape-scans? by ocdude · · Score: 2
    I mean, there is this (emphasis mine):

    "Instead of threatening to shut down flights in Texas, why doesn't the TSA just show us their statutory authority to grope or ogle our private parts?" asked Simpson.

    But aside from that, and perhaps it's my unfamiliarity with the proposal, I don't see any indication that this is trying to end the practice of treating everyone like a criminal.

  8. Tough Texans, not. by wcrowe · · Score: 2, Funny

    Texas caved almost immediately. The next time some Texan starts bragging about what badasses they are down there, I'm going to bring this up. The TSA wrote one threatening letter and they peed their collective pants and groveled.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  9. Groping by verbatim · · Score: 4, Funny

    But if the TSA doesn't grope my junk, who will?

    Forever Alone...

    --
    Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
  10. Maybe Indiana has the balls to do it first by ka9dgx · · Score: 2

    I've already suggest to my local representative that she introduce similar legislation in Indiana..... here's what I wrote:
        I ask that you consider introducing legislation similar to that of the recently pulled HB 1937 of the State of Texas.

        Here's the link to their web site about the bill: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=HB1937

        It would criminalize the types of searches the TSA has been doing, which are in violation of the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution.

        In introducing this, you would show that you stand for the rights of your fellow Hoosiers. We don't have as much air traffic to worry about, so their is less fallout. You would also show some distance between yourself and the DC beltway crowd, which will probably come in handy soon, as they keep debasing the dollar, leaving the States out to dry.

        Thanks for your time and attention.

    1. Re:Maybe Indiana has the balls to do it first by qubezz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would think committing sexual assault would be already against the law in every US state. If you discover after you go through security that you are going to have your genitals and breasts groped, you are threatened with arrest and financial penalty if you do not submit or if you attempt to escape the false imprisonment. The TSA saying it is a voluntary search would be an easily broken defence. There's a few top hands at the TSA that could have arrest warrants set on them for conspiracy to commit sex crimes.

      Just following orders has not been proven an infallible defence.

      How about Texas boots the TSA out of their state, loads up planes using their own security procedures that follows the US constitution (namely the 4th [rights against unreasonable search and seizure], 5th [no person shall be deprived of property and liberty], 2nd [the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed], common law[right to travel], and especially the 10th [powers not delegated to the US by the constitution are reserved to the states]). Then they can see if the US government is willing to shoot down planes full of US citizens or let them crash after they run out of fuel instead of granting a landing. Be ready to hire your own air traffic controllers too. Security theatre is unnecessary, a terrorist would have to buy every ticket on the flight to have a chance of committing another 9/11 attack, because passengers would beat a hijacker to death with their bare hands.

  11. Not Economically Feasible by Goboxer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Despite their huffing and puffing it is not economically feasible or wise to shut down Texas air traffic. Houston is a major hub for several shipping companies and there are other large companies based in Texas. If they were to prevent air travel that would undermine the economic recovery they Feds have been chasing. Maybe not a lot, but a simple act like that would have rippling impacts and cost this country millions if not billions of dollars.

    Texas should play their game and call their bluff.

    1. Re:Not Economically Feasible by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      That was my thought exactly. How long do you think a federal ban on air travel too and from Texas would last? Especially with an election coming up.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:Not Economically Feasible by r_jensen11 · · Score: 2

      Houston is a major hub for several shipping companies and there are other large companies based in Texas. If they were to prevent air travel that would undermine the economic recovery they Feds have been chasing.

      My understanding is that the ban would only be applicable to retail flights. Private flights (commercial, recreational) should be completely independent of whatever the FAA does to US Airways, Delta, and whoever else is left

  12. OK - tell us how the gropes increase safety by Alain+Williams · · Score: 2
    From the story:

    The Department of Justice has sent a letter to Texas legislative leaders warning that the rule would run counter to federal laws, and could cause the Transportation Security Administration to "cancel any flight or series of flights for which it could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew."

    So can the DoJ demonstrate how the gropedown ensures the safety of passengers and crew ? Try starting with how many ''terrorists'' have been caught. If they cannot then what Texas is doing won't affect safety. I can see that it will affect the job security of TSA employees, but that seems about it -- the money would be better spent elsewhere, eg: on healthcare which would have a better positive affect on passengers and crew.

  13. Re:Can we also have an anti-radiation law? by Script+Cat · · Score: 2

    There are TAX dollars that are being wasted on those boondoggles. Back in the 1980's Ronald Reagan did a big fake star wars initiative and scared the Soviets into bankruptcy. I find it amazing how well this same strategy is working on us, scared into bankruptcy by some losers in the desert with peashooters and no girl friends.

  14. Flying is a pain in the ass, so I won't do it. by Tetsujin · · Score: 2

    I know. I literally have not flown anywhere since 9/11. I consider it a matter of principle to keep up with my little boycott. Whenever it is mentioned in my family, they say "oh, you don't like to fly". I say "no, I would love to fly, I just refuse to do all the stupid shit I have to do before I get on a plane". And their response is always to cock their heads like dogs learning a new word.

    It's been 10 years of this, and they still find it easier to think I'm a giant pussy who doesn't want to fly, rather than accept the idea that maybe all those security checks are completely pointless. If you've *had* to fly since 9/11, you've pretty must just accepted this and gone on with your life. But to someone who still tries to do the right thing even if no one will ever notice or care, it sucks.

    Yeah, pretty much.

    Honestly, the ordinary hassles associated with flying are enough to make me hate it anyway. The security stuff just makes it worse. For these reasons I prefer to take the train whenever possible. For some destinations, though, it simply isn't an option.

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
    1. Re:Flying is a pain in the ass, so I won't do it. by Sabriel · · Score: 2

      Just because there's no little "sucks to be you" flag besides your particular entry in the TSA/DHS database, or even 99.9% of everyone else, doesn't mean it's all sunshine and rainbows. Even if we assume a tiny false positive rate, that can still be a problem if the scale is large enough, and millions of individuals use commercial air transport.

  15. There's already an Anti-Patdown Law by ikarous · · Score: 5, Informative

    It reads: 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.

    1. Re:There's already an Anti-Patdown Law by ikarous · · Score: 2

      I am implying no such thing. To reiterate:

      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.

      The protection provided by the fourth amendment does not depend on whether I'm trying to board a plane or whether I'm sitting in my living room in my pajamas whacking off to yaoi. It does not matter if I'm engaging in an optional activity or if I'm in line at the DMV renewing my license; the federal government may not unreasonably search me without probable cause, and since TSA personnel are agents of the federal government, I hold that their actions are a violation of the fourth amendment.

      But let's ignore the amendment for the moment and take your logic a step further. Let's say that, for the sake of everyone's greater security, the Department of Homeland Security has decided to place a patdown station at the end of every cul-de-sac so that all suburbanites can be searched on their way to work. It seems like a gross violation of their privacy, but that's okay, right? After all, they have the right NOT to leave their houses.

      Sure, this example may seem silly, but so is the argument that since flying is an optional activity, the fourth amendment somehow magically does not apply. It's a slippery slope. When in doubt, always for more personal rights; never, ever, ever opt for fewer. A narrow interpretation of our personal liberties as specified in the Bill of Rights leads to a slow, imperceptible erosion in our freedoms over time. After this erosion continues over the course of many years, those freedoms can disappear forever.

  16. Re:"interesting to see if Texas can pave the way" by arbarbonif · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The primary defense against hijacking is a plane filled with people that aren't willing to be hijacked. 9/11 already did that.

  17. At Long Last by Concern · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Have we no sense of decency?

    It was all fun and games when it was graft and bribery on a multibillion spend to put millimeter wave scanners in a few security lines. It was obviously stupid because the devices can be fooled by concealing things in body cavities. In a sane world, the criminal justice system would put the Bush-era TSA people who planned this scheme on the stand, where they'd say "well, we thought it was a good idea at the time;" any high-school educated jury wouldn't believe a word of it, and would hand out prison sentences for the various criminals involved in the federal security bureaucracy and device vendors. Security apparatus steals tax money, news at 11, complete with body scans of preteen girls.

    But in these crazy times, in for a penny, in for a pound. Instead of just letting people opt-out of being scanned (no reason not to, since the devices are only reaching a few percent of travelers anyway, and even an illiterate petty criminal can explain why they're worthless for stopping terrorism), they're trying to push the issue with the also ineffective but highly titillating federally-funded full body massage.

    Perhaps it's an experiment designed to determine just how debased the American people have become - how ignorant of their own rights and heritage. In which case, well played.

    With all the ways I don't seem to see eye to eye with the Tea Party and the Texas government these days, it's a genuine pleasure to find some common ground, and say, I take my hat off to them.

    --
    Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
    1. Re:At Long Last by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2

      But in these crazy times, in for a penny, in for a pound. Instead of just letting people opt-out of being scanned (no reason not to, since the devices are only reaching a few percent of travelers anyway, and even an illiterate petty criminal can explain why they're worthless for stopping terrorism), they're trying to push the issue with the also ineffective but highly titillating federally-funded full body massage.

      Wait a second. You might be on to something. I might be more willing to deal with the security check if it involved a security inspection performed by a legitimate masseuse. I mean... sure... the expense. But it's not like anyone's really paying attention to that. And a nice massage might help one relax and deal better with all the delays. And we'd be "secure". Or at least as "secure" as we are now.

  18. Don't Bother. It doesn't matter. by Seumas · · Score: 2

    Look, I'm a die-hard libertarian and I've always been a "you'll have to kill me before you take my liberties" kind of guy.

    However, the writing is on the wall. We've lost a ton of our civil liberties and privacy in the last decade after 9/11. We try to recover from it, somewhat futilely. But what happens the next time there is an attack? All it's going to take is one more attack - which I think is inevitable, given the rapidity at which we seem dead set on making enemies around the world. It may not happen this year. Or next. But some day, it'll happen again. And when it does, everything we embrace and everything the country stands for goes out the window. One more attack and the entire population will be shitting itself and we'll be *demanding* that the government give every man, woman and child a fucking anal probe at the airline security gates. We'll *demand* that the government read every email and keep track of every purchase and every library checkout. We will bend backwards to remit our every liberty and freedom.

    All it will take . . . is one more.

  19. Thank God, I don't have to fly anywhere. by lexsird · · Score: 2

    I think I would fucking snap if I had to fly these days. I flown a lot when I was young, in the service. Planes got hijacked now and then, nobody got excited about it. Not like this. The painfully simple solutions are always ignored. Put a door on the cockpit and don't open the fucking thing, and let the pilots/copilot carry a gun. But no, we lose all common sense and throw our civil liberties our founding fathers died for out the window like a bunch of pussies.

    Frankly, I couldn't do this shit. They are NOT going to fucking pat me down like I am a criminal. They can fuck themselves, for I will refer to the 4th Amendment, and I will tell them I am a Vet, and a law abiding citizen. If they can't tell me from their "terrorists" then too fucking bad. I am sure the cocksuckers will bum rush me, throttle me to the ground and drag me off for interrogation. I may or may not ever be released. I am sure they will piss me off enough while man handling me to call them all Traitors and tell them they had better not EVER let me go if they have any sense of self preservation.

    We haven't had this kind of intrusive rat bastard government on our asses since the British were here a couple of hundred years ago. Frankly we had more balls back then, but I will admit we've become a bunch of cleverly manipulated and brainwashed sheeple. I can't expect any REAL PATRIOTS to stand up out of this collective bunch of pussies. Fuck! Why couldn't they have done this 20 years ago, when I was more spry?

    Texas needs to lead this nation in balls, and come back with even harsher legislation in regards to this Treasonous horseshit. Texans need to drag those pussies that caved in out of office. This TSA shit is nothing more than authoritarianism shoving it's cock down your throat, proving it can do so to your psychological make up. For nutless idiot lemmings, it might make them feel safe knowing someone is manhandling them for their own good, but not me. Fuck off!

    Please Texas, don't pussy out on this one. We can do another Alamo if have to, people will come to support you. Like real heroes did in the days of the Alamo, they came from around the land to come fight in Texas. Draw a line in the dirt, see who stands on which side. Succeed if you have to, or not. Just don't pussy out and embarrass your forefathers.

    --
    Take the Red Pill.
  20. Maybe John Camping is right by assertation · · Score: 2

    Maybe the doomsday preacher John Camping was right about the end of the world coming and he was just wrong with the date.

    Texas is doing something that sounds progressive.

    If that isn't a sign of the apocalypse I don't know what is.