Slashdot Mirror
State Legislatures Attempt To Limit TSA Searches
OverTheGeicoE writes "Here's a familiar story: a breast cancer survivor's mastectomy scars showed up on a TSA scan, which forced a horrifying pat-down ('feel-up' in her words) of the affected area. The woman decided that she would not subject herself to that again, and was barred from a later flight from Seattle to Juneau for that reason. But now the story takes an interesting turn: the woman is Alaska State Rep. Sharon Cissna, and once she finally made it back to Alaska she started sponsoring legislation to restrict TSA searches. Her many bills, if passed, would criminalize both pat-downs and 'naked scanning,' as well as require better health warnings for X-ray scanners and even studies of airport screenings' physical and psychological effects. Other states, including Utah and Texas, are considering similar legislation. For example, Texas State Rep. David Simpson is preparing to reintroduce his Traveler Dignity Act again in 2013 if he is re-elected. The last time that bill was being considered the Federal government threatened to turn all of Texas into a 'no-fly zone'."
Wait....
The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution states that, when there is a conflict, Federal law always trumps State law. So these measures are a nice gesture but ultimately useless. Too bad, I agree with them in principle, just not in execution.
It's about time the pendulum starts swinging away from the abusive, oppressive practices that the terrorists have set in place over our society.
America is supposed to be the land of the free, home of the brave. Not the land of the willing to consent to invasive and abusive practices because of drummed up fear.
What do people hate this year? Ah, the TSA. Let's promise to do something about that if we're reelected.
Once reelected, we can safely ignore it for 2/4/6 years, depending on elected body...
...if only there were a way for reality to affect our politicians in other ways.... shoddy health insurance, loan scandals, eroding wages for skilled work, being on the wrong end of globalization.... etc. Now we can see true motivation.
Oh for effen crying out loud! When it is THEM then well we have a PROBLEM! But if they are not affected and we complain to the wahzoo we are complainers! No I want the TSA to keep going because I want THEM to start understanding how WE are dealt with by a government!
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
I understand why the woman was upset, but state legislatures (generally the Republican controlled ones) still do not get it. You cannot preempt federal law by state legislation. TSA actions are governed at the federal level. States have no authority to tell them what they can and cannot do. Consider what could, in theory, happen if states could preempt federal law. Let's pretend that Mythonia (made up) is an American state and they legislate that only white male citizens over the age of 18 can vote. Then there is nothing the non-white citizens of Mythonia can do about it except try to change the law as the other 49 states and the federal government shrug their shoulders and say "Wish we could help".
In this era of the Affordable Care Act, Home Land Security, and the notion Commerce Clause means the EPA, Dpt of Education, DOE, and FCC can do whatever they want any time any place its the states need to make a stand.
If State Legislatures don't WAKE THE F***K UP and push back they will be irrelevant. Its time to remind dear old Uncle Sam the cooperative federalism only means you cooperate when you support what the federal government is doing. Citizen show some spine and back your legislators and governors if the stand against Washington, don't dessert them when Washington pushes back but cutting access to funds, blocking air travel etc; these things are important but the very character of our nation is at stake!
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I'd love to see the states start calling the Federal Bluff. If the states revolt in unison against over reaching Federal Intrusions, the Feds will have no choice but to back off.
The problem is we have a bunch of pussified representatives.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Before federal deregulation, Southwest flew entirely within Texas so that it could set its own fares and schedules. I think PSA did the same thing by flying only within California. I could certainly see this happening again if the states and the feds go to war over the TSA. If you fly across state lines or fly international, you've got to go through the TSA first, but if you stay within your own state, you don't.
As a regular international traveler I can say:
The entire airport system is only as good as its weakest link. Because not every passenger is scanned with these devices the security level of the flight is only as high as the worst scanned person. Given that these scanners are only at some airports and only domestic ones, the entirety of our airspace is compromised. I find no increased security. However if everyone were was scanned, then T-Hz scanned (combination scanning) then it could be argued that the double screening method added some security.
Every time I fly across the ocean I have to use one of those Thz scanners, but coming back I'm not put through one. This only makes a small material difference - that is the amount of fuel on the plane. This effectively nullifies any benefit the scanners have.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Why does it take a representative to be affected before they represent the people?
Aren't they supposed to be listening to us complaining and take action? Instead it seems like they only act on what is affecting them.
Contrasted with
It's too late to try to bring rationality into this discussion. The industry that has sprung up to service the security theatre is not going to back down, and enough lawmakers have been scared into the "zomg, the terrorists" knee jerk reactions that you can't change anything.
If you're against an intrusive TSA, you're in favor of terrorism. Heavens forbid you refuse to get into the machine because the rent a cop tells you it's safe -- based on the extensive medical training they're required to receive, why wouldn't you take them at their word? It was only built by the lowest bidder, what could possibly go wrong?
Meanwhile, it seems like 1984 and Big Brother just keep happening around us. And the loss of those pesky constitutional rights just keeps going.
I wonder if there are accurate stats which show how much visits to the US are down? Of course, if you keep all of the foreigners out, you've accomplished half the battle I guess. Of course, if other countries started fingerprinting US citizens and gathering biometric information, the US would be up in arms at how unfair it is.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
You added Mythonia, but there's still only 50 states? Is this after California fell in the ocean, after Texas seceded or after Florida was sold to Cuba?
It'd be a great way to promote tourism. "Come to Alaska! Scenic vistas, wildlife and no mandatory groping!"
That's great! The last time I visited Texas, the flies were terrible!
Have gnu, will travel.
Why does it take a representative to be affected before they represent the people? Aren't they supposed to be listening to us complaining and take action? Instead it seems like they only act on what is affecting them.
Pretty much the same reason you get the crosswalk light installed only after some kid or old lady gets killed. People, including legislators, do what's easiest for them. When it's easier to do nothing, do nothing. When doing nothing gets to be more trouble than doing something, only then you do something.
I am not a crackpot.
It's natural for people to best understand the ramifications of law, policy, and procedure when it directly affects themselves. Perhaps a differently worded question is: wouldn't *we* be better off if our representatives more broadly represented us -- in terms of wealth, health, age, religion, ethnicity, educational background, etc.? That means more minorities and women, but it also means more factory workers [union and nonunion], more with a direct experience of poverty, more with a background in STEM, etc. Sure there are a few national politicians here and there who meet those kinds of broad demographics, but nowhere near the levels that America as a whole contains.
In short, elect fewer old white rich male lawyers and you may find a better cross section of legislative ideas and initiatives.
Let's make all of congress, the senate, and of course, the President and cronies, have to go thru a TSA scanner and pat down every time they want to enter the senate, or the white house, or congress. Let's do this for a month, then lets have a revote on this stuff.
My guess is we'd get rid of all the scanners and pat downs.
After all, the people who make the laws are the one rarely affected by the laws they are making, unless it's something to benefit them.
Be seeing you...
Call me a cynic, but why did this woman not actively support regaining our rights and dignity BEFORE she became a victim of the TSA? It seems a little self serving for her to suddenly pick up that flag only after her own personal traumatic experience. As a fellow human, I can sympathize with what she's gone through, but as a politician it looks less than righteous.
In the example you gave Mythonia would then have laws on its book that conflict with Federal law and hence would be invalid. In the case of what the Senator is proposing, there are no specific Federal laws they would be going against. Congress passed bills creating the DHS and TSA, but no law has been specifically passed defining their authority nor defining how they're to execute their charter. So while you're quite right that you cannot pre-empt federal law by state legislation if this theoretically got all the way to SCOTUS the TSA would likely be required to point to exactly what Federal law they were claiming had supremacy.
So all it takes is a politician to get fondled and it's an outrage worthy of legislation, but for us pedestrians and punters tough beans.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Because Texas has two very important hubs, DFW and IAH. Plus a very large number of southwest flights pass through Texas. When DFW/IAH gets shutdown the ripples will be national, good luck finding a flight anywhere. The texas leg should totally call their bluff, lets see what happens when united can't fly through IAH, and American can't fly through DFW. Plus chopping the middle out of southwest won't be pretty either.
Loosing the 2,3 and 4th largest airlines in the US will be a bigger problem for TSA, than any terrorist attack.
just a matter of time until we either return to a civilized system
You mean like in the 1950's when no one was searched or x-rayed at all? After all, no one would be stupid to blow up the plane they are on, right? I don't know why people have this obsession with "not dying" - we are all going to die sooner or later, be it disease or a car crash or a plane crash or yes, even the remote chance of a terrorist plot. But terrorism only works because people allow themselves the live in fear. And while it can be argued that screening helps reduce the chance of terrorism on an airplane - it does not eliminate it as has been proven with the shoe/underwear bombers both of whom failed NO THANKS to the security screeners who let them on the planes.
Honestly I would prever less intrusion into my private life and my private parts, and take my chances. Better to live one day as a lion than 1,000 years as a sheep.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
... this probably won't make much legal hay in the end, it may be an extremely effective form of protest.
Good on them.
Check your premises.
States can make it really uncomfortable for the Fed to actually enforce their policy.
Look at what's happened in Arizona; whether or not you agree with the policies, they are putting the federal government on the defensive about its own policies.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
The terrorists have already won.
Sharon Cissna is a Democrat.
When it happens to someone from 'ruling caste', then it becomes a big deal.
That won't work... they'll just continue to not show up.
Actually, all the Republicans "blamed" Obama for with the last underwear bomber was Janet Napolitano saying "the system worked" when the only reason the guy was stopped was because of the actions of other passengers on the plane, not because of anything done by the TSA.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
No, North and South Dakota finally settled their differences and re-united.
The TSA was created to comfort passengers after 9/11 by providing a highly visible change to the airport security measures through inconveniencing all passengers as much as possible.
In reality, even without the TSA, the nature of in flight security changed forever on 9/11. Now everyone understands that the risk of hijacked planes is far greater than just the lives of those held hostage on the plane. By showing the larger threat hijacked planes pose as weapons, the hijackers on 9/11 effectively ended hijacking as a means to terrorize the greater population since most will accept that hijacked planes must be shot down before the plane can be used to pose a larger threat. Passengers and crews now know that their only hope for survival in a hijack attempt is to take down the hijackers themselves and regain control of the plane.
Security is still required to keep weapons and bombs off of flights, but even the security before 9/11 was sufficient to deter the hijackers from bringing guns or other large weapons. As prisoners have shown, sharp weapons can be made from virtually anything solid, but these weapons would be less effective in a hijack today since the passengers and crew would be willing to be cut to overpower hijackers.
The only minimal additional security provided since 9/11 is in limiting compounds that could be used to make explosives with the intent of destroying a plane rather than hijacking. This is battle of diminishing returns, where ever growing intrusions into personal privacy and intrusions provide ever smaller degrees of increased security and protection.
I have no problem with scanned luggage and carryons, but requiring everyone to remove shoes and clothes is purely an attempt to make each passenger feel and intimately experience the security.
These are psychological steps that accomplish virtually nothing to improve our security, but only raise the perception of safety.
The Montana state supreme court recently voided the Citizens United ruling that allowed the creation of Super PACs. I hope the great state of Montana strikes another blow for freedom by declaring the TSA and Homeland Security persona non grata in the state. Arrest and detain every one of them for pedophilia, indecent exposure, sexual assault, and their even worse crimes against our First Amendment rights.
Don't care for that in the Union? OK, fine. Montana has enough hydroelectric, coal, natural gas, and oil (Bakken Formation) power to power a small continent, and enough missile fields to do just fine on its own. Worse would be to continue to submit to the Greek Tragedy that has become the United States.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
How about simple enforcing the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution??
The thing you and all the other "Federal Law trumps State Law" posters are missing is that the TSA rules about scanning, being touched, etc are not Federal Laws.
They are rules imposed by a Federal Agency and are not laws which have been passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. The fact that Congressmembers have been talking about passing laws to limit the TSA clearly shows that what the TSA imposes on travelers are not Federal Law.
YES, you can.
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
More to the point, if the Federal government has no authority to do the law in question or is in violation of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, then the Supremacy Clause's effect is null and void.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Oil and lots of refinery capacity. Texas's one advantage when dealing with the federal government.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Why does this have to be an issue for individual states? It is OUR (presuming the reader is a US citizen) federal government. Why aren't people calling out the individuals who granted the authority to the TSA and made the decisions there to ignore our rights and our dignity? It is not like it is a bunch of computers in Washington DC who are doing this; it is people that either you or friends of yours voted for. Let the people who support this be put on record as supporting it and then put pressure on the people who appointed them.
Individuals in government often made bad decisions, even when trying to do the right thing (like keep us safe). Sure, the terrorists have won when government takes away our rights to keep us safe. But the government won't realize that those rights were important enough to the people not to take away if the people just accept it.
The passengers who fought back against the terrorists are what is keeping us safe, not a scanner with a voyeur leering at it.
Or maybe Rhode Island and Connecticut combined into a single state. It's ridiculous that a state that small still exists.
Another one is Delaware: it should combine with Maryland. We have too many states in this country, which differ too greatly in size and population.
Some other states that should combine:
Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine
North and South Dakota
Wyoming and Montana
Some other states need to break apart to make their sizes more manageable and equivalent to other states:
California
Texas
New York (NYC should break away from the rest of the state)
Florida (the non-panhandle parts of it should combine with Alabama and Georgia)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Right, when the Lawmakers get inconvenienced or treated like the rest of us, they change the laws (or have the power/connections to get the process started) Now, let's make them give up their nice cozy pension plans and medical care plans, all taxpayer subsidized, which in many cases includes their Family members, for life. Make them use the same pool of resources the common man has, deductibles, co-pays, waiting periods. Let them see $$$ coming out their pockets, not just for the same cost of the monthly premiums we have to pay, but have them dive into their pockets when they get the prescriptions, like we do. I want to see their reaction after paying their premiums, and they now find out the have to meet their deductibles, otherwise it's *dig into your pockets again* to pay those. Both the pension plans and the medical plans are taxpayer paid, why can't we all get a sweet deal like that, it's our money?!?!? You say the Government can't run a good health care program, have a look at the Military. Not saying the men and women who serve our Country don't deserve it, I'm saying we do too, since we pay for it, ON TOP OF OUR OWN COVERAGES..... Yeah, make 'em eat their own dogfood!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What the state representative is reacting to is not law, but policy. The use of "nude-o-scopes" and invasive pat-downs are not codified in federal law, so restricting their use is fair game. The supremacy clause arguably applies only to laws, not regulations or policies enacted outside of the law.
The TSA screeners aren't law enforcement officers. They cannot themselves arrest you or prevent you from passing through security without the aid of a local or state police officer. If the state and locality decide not to respond to an individual breaching security -- well, the breach happens. A state could simply make a rule preventing police officers from arresting people that refuse certain types of screening and permitting them to, essentially, bypass security.
States also don't have to their waive public safety laws (such as those pertaining to radiation exposure and operator requirements for such devices), nor sexual battery laws (TSA screeners are not law enforcement officers, and even if they were, the touching of breasts/genitals would only be permitted by court order or with reasonable cause). Technically speaking, my state would be well within its rights to enforce it's current laws on operation of X-ray emitting equipment if it is shown that the operator is not a licensed radiologist, if the use of the device is not for a medical purpose, and if the devices are not inspected and tested on the required schedule. That'd be a $25 fine per person screened, and perhaps a couple of weeks in prison for the operator.
thank you. There was a mandate to create a bureaucracy, and that bureaucracy then made up rules that we all have to follow, based on a mandate. none of this is an actual federal law, except for the existence of the TSA. If the proposed law only defines what the TSA is allowed to do, then it still complies with the federal law, and simply restricts actions that the TSA can perform against people in the state at the time. Someone needs to put reins on this thing, and they abviously cant be trusted to restrain themselves.
I'll bet that the Senators and Reps don't have to go through them...
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
there is also a part of the swearing in process of federal legislators where they declare " fuck that shit"
You say this as though gold drops as manna from heaven upon Washington, D.C., and that they then mete that out to those who please them. That is not the case.
The gold comes from the states. States are the foundation of the union, as is indicated in the name of the country, "The United States of America." If states resist the corrupt, unanswerable blather of Washington, D.C., then what financial basis does then the District of Columbia have to oppress the states?
The time is long since past when the corrupt central government enjoyed moral suasion. In modern terms, they have jumped the shark. The time is quite near when the American people, left and right, will pile into their pickups with dogs and axe handles and converge on D.C. to permanently redecorate the place.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
I'm glad a legislator from Alaska is picking up this flag. The usual argument if you don't want to submit to TSA procedures is to "simply not fly." In Alaska (and Hawaii even more so), we just don't have that choice as a reasonable option.
If we in the 49th and 50th states want to travel ever again, we have to submit to TSA rule. In the 48 contiguous states, it's at least slightly reasonable to go by train or car. It takes 3 hours to fly to Seattle from Anchorage... or 5 days to drive.
...is an exemption from senators and representatives from needing to be exposed to the TSA. It's already acceptable for them to be exempt from other laws us little people face on a day to day basis, so I can see it happening. No way that will be extended to the unwashed masses.
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
(Smash amp, burn guitar, take home the groupies)
Wow, I see someone sure must enjoy his taxpayer-funded groping.
TN Sen Rand Paul (yes, Ron's son) was returning to DC for the start of the Senate session in January when he was 'detained' at Nashville's checkpoint for refusing a pat-down after a supposed "anomaly" in the scanner. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71818.html
The TSA agents apparently backpedaled and finally allowed him to go back through the scanner after someone probably mentioned that pesky Constitutional clause about detaining members of Congress enroute to/from the current session.
The consensus guess is that they were trying to hassle him after his / his father's slamming the TSA, but they apparently got their collective noses rubbed in it for their trouble.
The FBI and DEA *do* very much care about state laws.
Federal Law Enforcement Agencies (FBI & DEA) are small with about 14k and 5k agents respectively. Without help from local law enforcement, they can do nothing but make the occasional token raids for show. They are small agencies with tiny budgets, staffed by non-exceptional government employees. These agencies are hard to under-estimate. The DEA could get 100x more agents and they still would have no hope of stopping the 45 Million american pot smokers.
--AC
Oh, yeah, the radiation issue.
Equivalent to 3 MINUTES OF FLIGHT. So if it scares you don't fly, or live in Denver or anywhere above sea level!
That's what they tell people. Given it's not the same kind of radiation that number is meaningless.
There is a simple solution. At each airport, the state should provide a traveler's advocate with superceding authority (yes, above TSA) to allow travelers through security, ignore the "no fly" list for people with common names, allow grannies and cancer patients to avoid groping and disrobing, etc. Any traveler could say "Get the traveler's advocate" and have them there within ten minutes. The advocate applies immediate, common sense judgement of "risk" to minimizing harm to the individual traveler against protecting the general flying population. This would actually help the TSA agents by allowing common sense to prevail over politics and policy.
Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
I don't know which flights require TSA screening, but from the FAA's point of view, accepting any money for a plane ride makes the pilot a commercial pilot, which is a whole different licensing category. To get a commercial pilot's license for carrying paying passengers, a private pilot would have to go through additional training, testing, medical examination, drug screening, etc.
In one case, a pilot killed a passenger when he snagged some power lines and plunged his plane into a river. While that was an unfortunate accident, the FAA decided to throw the book at him in part because the pilot had accepted a token payment of $8 from the passenger.
That's like saying a state trooper can't stop an FBI agent on "official business" if that agent is swerving and determined to be drunk. The supremacy clause doesn't necessarily bar states from enacting laws that don't directly contradict. A law stating that you can't can sexually assault someone with a definition of what constitutes an assault, doesn't bar the federal government from doing it's job.
The real question will come in not in Supremacy by in jurisdiction. Are airports federal property and\or federal jurisdiction? That's the real question. Maybe that question has already been answered, IANAL.
I8-D
TSA serves an important function, i.e. keeping terrorists off our airplanes!
Actually since I bought my new rucksack there have been no terrorists board a plane in the U.S.
Therefore my rucksack is keeping terrorists off airplanes
Preventing them from doing their jobs is a recipe for disaster.
I'm usually pro-civil liberties, and I think DHS banning the UK teens for their tweets was stupid, but TSA does an important job, and they are worried about your safety, not getting their jollies by feeling up people. Do you think the same of your doctor?
My doctor feels me for my safety.
You are alleging that TSA feel me up for the safety of others, not mine. Unless you're suggesting they're looking for a bomb that's been strapped to me without my knowledge?
Oh, yeah, the radiation issue.
Equivalent to 3 MINUTES OF FLIGHT. So if it scares you don't fly, or live in Denver or anywhere above sea level!
If the scanners are calibrated, if the dose is even, if the scanners are operated by trained radiographers.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
You can wish that all of the Sharon Cissna's across the country have to endure TSA if you want, but quite frankly, I'll gladly accept her help in reigning in TSA (or more accurately, "I'll gladly do whatever I can to help her reign in TSA.").
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
I fly 3 or 4 times a year and this past weekend on my way home from vacation I had to go through a backscatter x-ray machine. It's the 1st time I've had to go through anything other than a standard metal detector. Had I refused, the sign said I would be subjected to an "intensive pat down"...
It just makes you feel like a criminal, the experience really pissed me off.
I was speaking with my boss about an hour ago about airport security. My point to him was that 9/11 won't be repeated as long as the pilots leave the cockpit doors locked. What's the worst that could happen, a "terrorist" got a knife or gun on the plane and kills a few people before being subdued? Yes, that would be a terrible event but we're not talking about mass casulties.
I mentioned budget cuts and smaller government as well, saying the TSA would be the first on my chopping block if I were in charge. I'd go back to standard metal detectors and possibly employ a few bomb sniffing dogs at each hub.
All that TSA money would be better spent on something like education.
We'll see no more jumbo jet missles into buildings. If a terrorist wants to kill lots of people at once, they'd blow themselves up in a public location such as a restaurant or a Walmart.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Once you arrive at the airport, however, that is interstate travel. A very different beast, and one that is not a protected power of the federal government.
Not to mention that you are assuming that the travel is interstate. My home state of Alaska is big enough that quite a lot of flying is done within the state itself, and in many cases, that's the ONLY reasonable way to get from point A to point B. For example, I live in Anchorage. My job is managing a network 500 miles west in the village of Bethel. There are no roads between Anchorage and Bethel, so the only way to get from here to there is by airplane or by boat...and in winter, you can't even get there by boat. Also, what about the possibility of flying from a particular state into a foreign country without landing in -- or even overflying -- a second state? Does that meet the legal definition of "interstate?"
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
TSA serves an important function, i.e. it pretends to keep terrorists off our airplanes, while treating almost everyone like one!
There, fixed that for you.
It's good to know that at least SOME legislators somewhere believe there is an issue with (what I call) a government capitulating to the desires of the terrorists to ruin our society.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
You seem to have missed the TSA's top 10 list for 2011 that they just released.
Glaringly absent, for the 10th year in a row, is one single terrorist.
The things they DID catch would have been stopped with pre-911 screening (aka the TSA extensions to that process are useless).
The TSA does not do an important job. We know this because no terrorists have been caught, and no terrorists have moved on to easier (non-TSA) targets, like... water reservoirs, subways, trains, the power grid, oil storage facilities...
Meanwhile, consider having a TSA day in your local elementary schools. Have a uniformed TSA agent provide an "enhanced pat down" to every child in the school for the purpose of demonstration, so they know what to expect when they reach a real checkpoint.
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
Yes! Extremes are good!
No, no they aren't. What we have now is just as stupid as no screenings at all.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Regulations promulgated by agencies under the authority delegated to them by Congress have the force of law, including preemptive effects.
I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
...if you take the AlCan (Hint: tourists really shouldn't be attempting that)
Why? I've driven the AlCan three times, and there's no comparison between the last trip (2004ish) and the first (1989). It's not a great road in places, but most of it really isn't bad at all -- and there is some absolutely stunning scenery along the way. It is kind of a long drive admittedly, and you'll probably burn most of your vacation time just driving the AlCan, so your visit to Alaska will probably be quite a bit shorter than it would be if you flew, however.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
1. Attractive woman doing the pat-down to the males 2. give a gift card for the woman 3. dont touch the children 4 ??? 5 PROFIT
\n.\n
Did anyone else notice how it took a congress critter getting offended to really start getting anything done about this? As for myself and my family we haven't flown at all since 9-11 and we aren't going to until the security theater is shut down. Hell we're *from* NY and we're not scared of "terrorists" or whatever other kind of bogeyman the fed makes up next week...
C|N>K
Why does every Republican except Dick Cheney hate gays? Simple - Cheney's daughter is gay, so it's personal to him.
Most people have a very hard time with empathy, and politicians seem to be some of the worst.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
They are free to continue searching all they want, and the states are free to toss them in the clink on assault charges. Alternatively, the states can ban all state and local police from in any way helping the TSA and make sure their citizens know it very well.
That means if the TSA agent tries to feel your kid up, you kick his crotch and the cops just laugh.
does this mean that no law will ever be unconstitutional again, or even challenged as such? If the law that was passed and signed created an agency legally and constitutionally, then everything this agency does follows the constitution, and by this logic, cannot be challenged ( or can but has no chance ) .
Do you think the same of your doctor?
Some people do, and in some cases it is warranted, just like with TSA.
Oh, and we actually have a legally protected right to refuse treatment of any sort for whatever reason or for no reason at all, and it is considered unethical by the medical profession itself to withhold other treatments in retaliation.
Substitute Jiu-Jitsu or Karate for Judo (not sure Judo does much work on Joint locks/breaks, versus throws, which may be less useful in truly tight quarters), and I'd agree with you.
Heck, they can even chem-snif/x-ran my bags if they really want to, and make me walk through a magnetometer and drink from any liquid I'm bringing on board (if they really feel a need), but the ridiculous level of pseudo security we have reached is mind-boggling.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Mod this UP!!! We don't even need any new laws. What the TSA is doing is sexual abuse. Just start to arrest the TSA agents. I doubt the feds can claim their law authorizing an agency somehow pre-empts sexual abuse laws!!!! BTW, you can not give your consent for children, so need for anyone to raise consent as a defense.
Yes! Extremes are good!
I don't quite understand. If you're saying that "extremes" (subjective) are wrong, then that would be the argument to moderation fallacy. There is no reason that I see to assume that an "extreme" is inherently wrong. If you weren't saying that, then I don't know what your point was.
Also, yes, I think all screening is bad because it violates people's privacy. People can take their paranoia of terrorism elsewhere. Increased cockpit security and more aware citizens is more than good enough for me.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
They used to do just that, it took the 19th amendment to fix that. The TSA falls under that nebulous and overly used interstate commerce clause, yet the TSA believes they have the right to do this on in state flights and basically threatened other funding if Texas did not capitulate. The states can amend the federal constitution by themselves with not input from the federal government via Constitutional Convention they need a 3/4th majority to get it done. This method has never been used but is spelled out. As things stand were this seems like the only non radical way to get real reform of the federal monstrosity we currently live with.
No sir I dont like it.
The Supremacy clause is currently in vogue with Constitutional scholars and Federalists. These same people tend to neglect the 10th Amendment since it was created as a check on Federal power.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the States by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people.
Increased cockpit security and more aware citizens is more than good enough for me.
100% agree. It took 9/11 to make pilots lock the damned cockpit door. This means 9/11 is never happening again - unless it's done by legitimate airline employees. Let's hope airlines screen their personnel with a bit of common sense. Of course any number of things short of 9/11 can happen. But another thing 9/11 did is educate passengers. Before, people would sit around because you had a fair chance, after a few hours/days, of going home safe and sound. Now people have realized that it's up to them to stop this sort of thing, and no one will think twice of punching someone in the face if they are acting suspiciously.
Therefore it can be argued that the TSA, DHS, and "official government response" to 9/11 has been hype, over-reacting and needlessly engaging in shenanigans grounding aircraft, blowing up suitcases full of underwear, and closing airport terminals "out of an abundance of caution" whereas all terror attemtps so far have been thwarted by - the passengers. So why do we need even MORE government again?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Except this is NOT a moderation fallacy, because the compromise in the middle ground is actually correct. This is not a binary choice, and in fact both extremes have a rather large count of downsides. Maybe I'm not looking at it right / don't have the whole picture - but that's not true in the healthy middle ground here.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Except this is NOT a moderation fallacy, because the compromise in the middle ground is actually correct.
"Yes! Extremes are good!"
That sounded like you were being sarcastic (which I believe you were). To me that implied that all extremes are not good.
Furthermore, whether or not the "extremes" are correct is a matter of preference. You're seemingly trying to bring in objectivity when there doesn't seem to be any to begin with. You see, I prefer protecting privacy over being paranoid about terrorist attacks or forcibly scanning people (or whatever your "middle ground" is). That's simply my preference.
As I said, "People can take their paranoia of terrorism elsewhere. Increased cockpit security and more aware citizens is more than good enough for me."
In other words, I don't agree with your "middle ground." I'd rather suffer a terrorist attack than invade people's privacy.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Texas becoming a no-fly zone would cripple the US because of the large number of flights that pass through massive hubs at Dallas-Forth Worth International Airport, George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston and other major hub airports.
No, i was being lazy. I didn't want to be bothered spelling it out, but it looks like I have to. Look through the below, please add some extra points if you wish. From what I've quickly drawn up, both moderate solutions look best to me, and I lean towards #2. In all cases the two extremes are the worst, which means the 'best' answer must be a moderation (meaning, as I said, this is not a moderation fallacy).
Just because I didn't spell it out for you doesn't mean the supporting ideas don't exist.
Extreme 1: no security
Pros: hassle approaching nil, best speed
Cons: security approaching nil
Extreme 2: maximal security
Pros: sense of security, actual security is furthest away from nil
Cons: maximum hassle, worst speed
Moderation 1: lean to no security
Pros: still fast, minimal hassle
Cons: poor security (but still not as bad as Extreme 1)
Moderation 2: lean to maximal security
Pros: Security is next-to-furthest away from nil (closes to extreme 2). Speed/hassle can be minimized
Cons: Possible false sense of security. Speed/hassle can be significantly impacted.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
In all cases the two extremes are the worst
But that's subjective.
Extreme 1: no security
Pros: hassle approaching nil, best speed
Cons: security approaching nil
If by "no security," you mean, "no security that violates people's privacy," then yes. Cockpit doors would still be secured, citizens would still be aware of any dangers, and there could even be a few guards on the plane itself (none of which would violate anyone's privacy).
This is, in my opinion, the best solution. I'm more interested in privacy than I am worried about terrorist attacks.
So, yeah, you didn't really need to spell out what you meant because I already had an idea. I would rather risk a terrorist attack than violate anyone's privacy.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
What you just described is right there in the middle. I meant literally "no security" and "maximum security" and said a compromise would be best, and you go come back saying essentially the same thing - but you managed to say I was wrong at the same time.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
In your original comment, you said: "What we have now is just as stupid as no screenings at all."
But I don't want any screenings (such as those TSA screenings).
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Fine. Again you argue for what I'm arguing for - moderation.
Just shut the hell up and accept that we are both saying the same damn thing.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
I just meant that the only reason I replied to you is because you said it would be stupid to have no screenings at all.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!