Slashdot Mirror
Rand Paul Has a Quick Fix For TSA: Pull the Plug
suraj.sun quotes from Politico:
"Rand Paul has a reform plan for the Transportation Security Administration: Scrap the whole thing. A personal message from Paul (R-Ky.) came atop emails this week from the Campaign for Liberty Vice President Matt Hawes, asking for readers to sign a petition in support of Paul's 'End the TSA' bill. A Paul spokeswoman said that legislation is being finalized next week. 'Every inch of our person has become fair game for government thugs posing as "security" as we travel around the country. Senator Rand Paul has a plan to do away with the TSA for good, but he needs our help,' reads the petition, which also asks signers to 'chip in a contribution to help C4L mobilize liberty activists across America to turn the heat up on Congress and end the TSA's abuse of our rights.' 'The American people shouldn't be subjected to harassment, groping, and other public humiliation simply to board an airplane. As you may have heard, I have some personal experience with this, and I've vowed to lead the charge to fight back,' Paul wrote at the top of a C4L fundraising pitch, according to blogs that received the email. 'Campaign for Liberty is leading the fight to pressure Congress to act now and restore our liberty. It's time to END the TSA and get the government's hands back to only stealing our wallets instead of groping toddlers and grandmothers.'"
my favorite.
Sign me up. This security theater has got to stop.
...gets it right twice a day.
Does anyone know how to commit someone to an institution that would provide him with the level of care he so obviously needs?
I would love to.
But if anyone besides a small following was listening to Ron Paul, US might have repealed PATRIOT act and even bombed fewer countries with drones.
Can we get a non-extremist pol who thinks TSA is a bad idea and has the power to do something about it?
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Finally, a Republican I can get behind. Well, for one thing at least.
Since all the submitter could be bothered to do was pump up Politico page views, here's the link to the > petition> .
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I presume his bill will have a rider that ends the rest of the federal government also.
It's a sad day indeed when common sense is considered "extreme".
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The government only has the powers given to it by the People of this land. If I can not touch your breast or crotch, neither can the government.
BTW there's already a law that allows airports to remove TSA from their buildings. So far I've only heard of one airport that considered evicting them. (And the government responded by saying that airport would be removed as a travel destination, if it followed through.)
Government is not eloquence or reason: It is force and intimidation. See the medical marijuana users who, even though they followed California law, were arrested anyway by U.S. police violating the 9th and 10th amendments.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
... that air travel is a privilege, not a right. Furthermore, you are utilizing a private industry when you travel by air. If you don't like the TSA, you can travel a different way. The TSA has no jurisdiction over you in a private car, and for that matter they don't have jurisdiction over you when you are using a private airport.
You are welcomed to opt not to travel by air.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Like a lot journalists and other malcontents
Groping i can tolerate, but i have to draw the line at fisting.
I'm usually not one to complain about article selection, even political ones, but his one is just silly. Ron Paul's solution for -everything- is to just pull the plug.
Unfortunately, the political mainstream in America does not give two hoots about civil rights, except when it comes to protecting the rights of corporations and wealthy Americans. We have gotten the point where the bill of rights is "extremist."
Palm trees and 8
So, is he suggesting we go back to the way it was? Private companies that had different policies throughout the country? Or is Xe or some security contractor going to re-hire all of these gate screeners and then charge the government or airlines twice as much?
The TSA isn't the problem with the governments finances. And they have done a great job in the past 11 years.
He should be for pushing the cost onto airline tickets or setting up the TSA like the USPS.
Bear in mind that the Campaign for Liberty is about a lot more than opposing the TSA, some of which some people may not find all that palatable (e.g. free market fundamentalism, scrapping the Federal Reserve, dismantling most of the federal government, withdrawing from most international organizations).
What will ron paul think of next.
Too bad we don't have any real conservatives in the GOP anymore. Real conservatives keep the liberals honest.
Under the bush administration Homeland security was created, Literally the largest and most expensive Government bureaucracy ever created. Literally the biggest of the big government created by people that scream they're all about small government in the same breath.
If the stupid people of the US would vote for Ron!! Instead voting for Romney!
From TFA: "...Paul is working on “multiple” TSA bills, including one to privatize the service..."
Which does not quite sound like pulling the plug, but switching outlets. This is more in line with my understanding of his general ideology.
The Pauls have a quick fix for everything, and it's usually some form of "pull the plug".
Ron Paul 2012: because quick fixes haven't screwed up the world enough already.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Well... for politicians. The problem they have is that if another terrorist attack gets through they don't want to be held accountable for it. So the TSA was created and the security was made as annoying as possible without actually making it so annoying that the TSA is scrapped. It's a balancing act.
Anyway, if there is another attack they can point at the TSA and say " do you want it to be any more annoying then that?!" And if they've made it annoying enough everyone will agree it is almost unbearably annoying.
So they'll say "well, you chose not to make it any more annoying so that's on the American people and not your entirely blameless elected official."
And thus they can't be held accountable for anything that could go wrong.
If you scrap the TSA and there is another attack, they'll get blamed for it. That's not acceptable.
If they put in a better system that isn't annoying but is much more effective and there is an attack they could still get blamed even if they gave us a really good system. Why? Because unless it's really annoying someone somewhere will blame the system.
So here we are... and in a lot of ways it's all our faults.
I'm personally going through the pat down process every single time I travel. If more people were like me, the TSA would have disbanded about ten seconds after it stopped because logistically they can't pat everyone down.
Many people have messaged me in the past on this very site to tell me that they shouldn't have to go through that process and so they go through the scanner instead. That's fine. You're making it easy for them and it is because of people like you that the TSA gets away with it.
If you don't like the TSA then get a pat down or stfu.
Ron Paul can't do anything about it. The man has no power. He has one isolated seat in congress. Who votes with him in a block? No one. He's all by himself out there. So whatever you think of his politics, he's not really an effective response to anything. He won't be president and he's isn't even a relevant force in the house.
If you care about the TSA's abuse of the common traveler... never walk through the scanner. Always take the pat down alternative. If enough of us do it. We win.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Although ending the TSA is an admirable goal, please do not send money to this group.
This group also has goals / ideas which are not as logical as the removal of the TSA.
Push your own congress critter to move forward on this, and work on legal petitions, not these fake online ones.
There's a saying that everybody has a plan that is simple, easy, and wrong.
Nearly everybody thinks that at least some kind of security measures are necessary for airplanes. Israel's security system is highly regarded, for example, and many people think we should switch to that. Maybe we should, but it's still going to be "The Agency that handles Security for Transportation" implementing it. You can shuffle the deck chairs and rearrange the acronyms, but it's still going to fall to the government to handle security on a national-scale operation like airplanes.
"End the TSA" has a nice populist ring, and Paul gets to glom onto it, knowing that there's absolutely zero danger of actually passing it. You don't get to just end the TSA; you replace it with something else. Pretending it's what you want is either political showmanship, counting on everybody else to find political cover for when they ignore your bill (which is never getting out of committee), or it's complete and utter ignorance of how government works.
For most politicians, I'd say it's the former. In Rand Paul's case, it could be either.
"Think of the children" being used to restore liberties? What is going on here?
The legislators probably "don't care" about risk to human life, but airplanes are very expensive, thus security checks are here to stay.
Can we get a non-extremist pol who thinks TSA is a bad idea and has the power to do something about it?
No. Next question.
Seriously, the TSA is going to have to do something horrendous to get reformed. (I mean like killing babies horrendous, not their usual baseline horrendous) Otherwise any politician who tries to change it will be accused of coddling terrorists. Sad but that's the political reality we live in.
They searched my back once they saw it on the radar. Poor dude manning the XRays when my bag went through couldn't figure it out, and the chick who searched my bag was like "Ohhhhh!" once she realized what it was. She still had to wipe it down with something (for what, I don't know) and after they reran my bag, they seemed rather embarrassed about the whole thing.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
I signed the petition (once I FOUND it, thanks Slashdot for not actually linking to the thing). I was then immediately hit with a "GIVE MONEYS PL0X" page. It really didn't feel right.
If I do give moneys, I'll also be supporting the campaign to repeal Obamacare (the petition for which I am intentionally not linking to), so no thanks.
How am I supposed to know which one of the two buckets I fall into when I start agreeing with Republicans?
This two party system is so confusing sometimes.
Every inch of our person has become fair games for government thugs
"thugs" might be a little far, but there is at this point pretty much no point they are not allowed to inspect. Remember these guys are not even real law enforcement.
I would even argue that at this point "thugs" is not that far off the mark; I was made to wait at a security checkpoint as punishment for forgetting a water bottle held in plain sight on the outside of a laptop bag. Instead of them just saying "I have to throw this out" which I've had happen before and am OK with, they held my bag until they found some other winner in the "forgot I had water" sweepstakes, then we had to wait until an officer came over to snarkily ask us if we understood that we were not allowed to carry water through security, where merrily forgetting was not good enough an answer. Basically to him we were three year olds.
It's true that not ALL of them are thugs, I've met a lot of nice TSA people as well. But the structure in which they operate is one build to enable and protect true thuggery and that is why his statement is not as far off the mark as you would think.
It's much less vitriolic than it is accurate.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
High speed rail will get you to your destination faster than by air, curb to curb, up to about 400 miles. (Even bicycles are occasionally faster than flying.) And to date, no terrorist has ever steered a train into a building, so unless you're going through the tunnel under the English Channel, there will always be less groping to board a train than an airliner.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
C4L? light version? no wonder Rand Paul wants the TSA out of his pants... .
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Other methods of transport don't require a two hour line and an anal probe to use. Hijacking: yeah a problem but eventually they'll run out of fuel and have to land. Suicidal idiots: like an idiot couldn't switch to a restaurant or train instead.
Metal/exploisive detectors and no carry-ons might be a solution: you can scan cargo much more thoroughly and since people aren't carrying stuff all they can carry for weapons is what they can hoop. I say terrorists need all the hooping the can get in preparation for Gitmo.
The Paul family has made the American public ponder deeper about certain topics than they normally would. I have to give them some kudos.
Ron's comment about foreign policy versus the golden rule during the GOP debates was a key moment in political history. It put the Neocons' philosophy up to the public X-ray machine.
I applaud them for making America think; something that is hard to do.
Table-ized A.I.
...is still an insult.
It's partisan hate-mongers like you that will forever doom any real reform in this country. Thanks.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Like.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
The real solution is to have 2 planes. 1 plane that allows anyone on board the way it use to be. The 2nd plane to have people that went though security. After a few months we would know what the really people want.
If there's one thing I've learned from programming, it's that quick fixes are always the best. Why bother trying to understand the details of a problem when you can just band-aid over it?
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Then do we just allow anyone and everyone on planes without any control? Because that's what happens here, since Rand Paul has no replacement in mind. That's what happens when your entire philosophy in life is "Let's break it and don't ask me what comes after!"
I've probably gone through security checkpoints a couple hundred times since 9/11. I get patted down maybe 5% of the time.
Do I throw a hissy fit when it does happen? No. It lasts all of about 10 seconds and I move on.
Do I care if I go through a scanner? No. My junk looks like most men's junk, and although it is supposedly blurred, I have to imagine that if one is looking at 500 sets of junk on a daily basis, you get desensitized to it quite quickly.
If anybody has a better system to keep bombs, guns, and knives off our airplanes, then write a slashdot artice about it. As for the "annoying" part, waiting for my luggage (if by chance I have to check it) is far more annoying than security. 90% of the times, I sail through security in 5-10 minutes, at worst.
What a bunch of paranoid pu__ies on this website -- always afraid of the "man." The "man" is just any everyguy or everywoman like the rest of us. 99% of the time, they just want to do their job and go home to their spouse, kids and/or video games. The paranoid identify one example of abuse and think the whole world is out to get them.
This occurred to me the other day, and I'm astonished it hasn't occurred to more people. To terrorists, a choke point is an opportunity because there are a lot of potential victims in a small space. Planes are natural targets because the passengers don't have any place to escape to and the vehicle is relatively fragile and easy to destroy. (This is to some extent true for any mass transit.)
But a choke point that contains many more potential victims and is easier to get to than a plane is the TSA security checkpoint during a busy day. It occurs to me that in trying to eliminate one opportunity (the plane) we are creating an even bigger opportunity (the checkpoint).
And so, I get this nagging feeling that besides creating entertainment (security theater) and not especially increasing security on the plane, the TSA, by creating a massive target of opportunity at the checkpoint, is very specifically making airports less safe. And if you're killed in a terrorist attack, there's little difference in whether it happens in a plane or at the airport.
Just parenthetically, the recent case of TSA agents successfully bribed into letting drug dealers through is a conclusive example of why the process doesn't work. When your only guard is a poorly trained former grocery store worker, leverage will always exist to successfully get a package on a plane. (Whether it's money or blackmail or hostages.) We're lucky that so far the payload has been merely drugs.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I'd rather grope a toddler in a sad but well meaning attempt at keeping the public safe than listen to that raving asshole Rand Paul.
What are you going to do when the fucking ragheads stuff an IED into their baby's diaper?
You'll be the ones shitting yourselves, because you left us vulnerable to the raghead diaper bomb.
It may not even be a raghead... it could be a neonazi like the one that killed his girfriend and kid... you know.. that guy that was active in Republican politics.
Rand Paul is the George W Bush of the Paul family.
And you've got a deal!
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Let me shed some light on this guy. Regardless of what you think of his politics on a national level, he is a terrible senator for KY. He goes on these crazy crusades without spending any time on....oh....I don't know....his electorate? We have been having some financial problems in the state lately, but instead of addressing those and helping his fellow Kentuckians, he is out campaigning for his daddy. Anyway, if you guys love him so much (talking to you, Texas and California), you can have him. We don't need another Tea Bagger who supports Sarah Palin's "ideals".
Also, for you tin foil hatters, he was a member of the same college secret society as George W. Bush and Kenneth Star. Apparently they were all good buddies back in Texas. He's a Texan all the way through, and carpet-bagged here to be a U.S. Senator.
Remove the TSA? Um, thanks Mr. Paul, but what about our state debt???
Whereas: Private security should handle airport checkpoints; and Once again, this whole private business over government thing gets thrown in.
My kingdom for a donkey!
It should definitely be abolished. Any benefit they might provide to society (certainly debatable) is far outweighed by the cost and invasion of our civil liberties.
The TSA employs about 58,000 employees.
The number one thing by far that voters in the US care about is jobs.
This will never happen.
People don't realize how ineffective they are. Since the "new and improved" TSA with the draconian measures came into being they haven't found a single would be terrorist. Not one. Every plot that was foiled was by law enforcement before they boarded a plane. The TSA has proven to be a pack of clowns by targeting models, actors and Congressmen, you know the high risk groups for terrorist, wink, wink, nudge, nudge. If they want to grope children become a Catholic priest. It's become a new playground for perverts and pedophiles who get their jollies off harassing the public and get paid for it. Just try saying no to one and find out how quick you become an actual terrorist instead of just a suspected one. I haven't flown in years because of the outrageous and constantly changing baggage fees and TSA. There's a point where it simply isn't worth it and we passed that years ago as far as I'm concerned.
a truly free market -- since discrimination has happened before in the past.
A free market, to be efficient, requires actors making rational decisions. Unfortunately, there are few people out there that make rational decisions all of the time. Hence, you'll get discrimination regardless of the economic incentives. Also, in situations where there is a cultural policy of discrimination, not "bucking the trend" (i.e., maintaining the discrimination) may be economically in the best interest of a particular individual since to do otherwise might have everybody else shun their business.
Paul (both flavors) base their proposed policies on a perfect world that doesn't exist. We are a heavily regulated society because the opportunity to do mischief is too great for many people, and all it takes is one person to make a bad choice to ruin it for everbody (e.g., put melamine in milk). In many respects, China has much less regulations than the US. Almost anything is OK so long as you don't get caught -- as a result, doing busness in China is very difficult because people will screw you at every turn.
Rand Paul's solution to everything is to just get rid of it...
When can we get rid of HIM to fix OUR problem?
If you consider TSA invasive and/or wasteful, please write a thoughtful complaint to your Senator and Representative, and perhaps also the White House.
Handwritten letters show more concern than emails. You can also phone them.
If they get a thousand letters/messages which are obviously independent and written with thought, they may interpret it as a million of their constituents who feel that way.
If one doesn't write Congress from time to time, one has little right to complain.
Like birth control, Democracy is maybe 80 or 90% effective but only when actually used.
That depends on how their insurance think about the importance of passenger screening.
Ok, certainly there are at least 100 people reading this who can create 2 apps - one for $9 and the other for $50 that go directly to the campaign to stop the TSA.
Money talks folks - except for the groups who produce these apps. This would allow millions of people to easily donate while they are pissed about the TSA - at an airport.
Perhaps these guys can help? http://www.whatgives.com/2012/04/27/whatgives-donation-app-discontinued/ There are links to other donation-apps on that page.
If a fairly hardcore libertarian had a free hand with the federal government they would for sure get rid of a lot of it, but part of the duty of what remained would be to keep the lower level governments from getting in to things they weren't supposed to. A libertarian doesn't say "We should have a minimal federal government and it shouldn't intrude in to citizen's lives, but the states? They can go nuts, they can be full on totalitarian if they like."
"It should be up to the states," is often politician speak for "I support it but I don't want to come out in direct support for ti because I'll get hammered."
Am I the only one who thinks this is a stupid idea?
Next up: Department of Justice. "Cities have their own police departments, don't they?"
Any literate teenager should know that the "war on terror" has nothing to do with preventing terror. Just like the "war on drugs" has nothing to do with drugs. I love these people who say that these security measures are "ineffective", as if they're put in place with lofty ideals, but just aren't executed well or whatever. That's a load of garbage. They're actually quite effective and are doing exactly what they're designed to do! Who said the government is inefficient? Yeah, it's inefficient for anything YOU desire, but it's actually quite efficient at keeping a hold on power. The "wars" keep the American empire "secure" and keep internal fear at a high and dissent at a low.
So, first, you're assuming privatizing screeners will somehow mean no government mandates on what must be checked and what's acceptable. Doubtful. I'd bet the 3oz liquid rule stays, for example, and you're still taking your laptop out of the bag.
Second, this is a liability issue, and liability is inherently a herd mentality.
Consider if you do less screening than "everyone else," and the next 9/11 hijackers use your airline. Congratulations, you're negligent. And liable. And bankrupt.
Now consider you do as much screening as everyone else, and the next 9/11 hijackers use your airline. Much hand wringing and heartfelt sorrow that those clever terrorists were able to defeat the best security in the industry! What a shame that perfect security is impossible!
Related: while I do hate the current state of Security Theater, the government at least has some incentive to make screening better and safer. Private companies won't (see the "herd mentality" issue). Let's say someone invents a combination XRay scanner/explosive residue detector that could dramatically improve the effectiveness of screening. Or a complex graphic processing algorithm that would draw screener attention to 99% of possible threats. Where's the incentive to use them in private industry? At least the government has a mandate OTHER THAN "what makes us money." Why would an airline improve? To claim "we have the best security in the industry!" Yeah, you're back to security theater again...
I find the entire thing the very definition of thuggery....
You have an organized group that demands you let them go through all of your personal belongings AND submit to having you privates felt up before you're able to make use of an airline ticket you already purchased (and which would otherwise entitle you to a seat on that plane!). If they happen to deem *anything* you say, do, or carry on your person or in your belongings a "threat", they can pull you out of the line you've patiently waited in, force you to waste the money you spent on your plane ticket, subject you to MORE searching, and even have you arrested by law enforcement -- not to mention putting you on a secret list that prevents you from ever flying in the future, or at the very least, marks you as a suspect worthy or more intense searching in the future.
I fail to see how the fact you "met a lot of nice TSA people" has any bearing on things either. (By a lot of accounts I read, people claimed the bank robber Jesse James was a pretty nice guy too -- even known to give random kids some spare change to buy candy or an ice cream with.)
In fact, I used to consider myself good friends with a woman I initially met in one of those "Meetup" groups the meetup.com website allows organizing. We got along great until over time, I realized our political views were radically different. Next thing I know, she happily accepted a job with the TSA as a screener, and moved on from there to a better paying job with Homeland Security. I tried not to let political differences alone interfere with our friendship, but when she made those job decisions - it kind of crossed the line for me. I try to stay on "speaking terms" with her today, but I have some real issues with anyone who would be ok, even happy, to do this type of work.
Defending individuals working as screeners is, in my estimation, no different than defending con artists working in call centers for a "top level" organization masterminding the scams. The fact you "really need a job" and "really need the money" doesn't matter. That's never been a legitimate excuse for violating the rights of others.
Sounds like a good idea stop patting down infants and grandmas.
Do it like in Israel if you look like the people who did 9/11 or blowed up buses world wide you get the pat down and if need the finger up the ass.
All other people just walk by.
Too bad for the Muslims but everything passes and in 50\100 when the terror problem is done with other groups will get the groping.
Wow man you are so even more full of shit then usual: ...This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Art. 6
"That is why in my state it is legal to sell natural unpasteurized milk..... the Congress can not arrest these farmers unless they carry the milk across the line. AND why Congress has no authority to arrest marijuana users inside the state of California (or New Hampshire or Vermont or.....)"
Were are you living: The government (supremes) have already ruled that the fed can stop an individual from growing grain, on their own land with for their own use, through the interstate commerce clause. Then is federal laws didn't apply I suppose the CA dispensary busts didn't happen & federal pot laws trump don't trump state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
seriously pull your head out of your own ass please!!
"(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
This.
Yes, I think Rand has a valid point here... but realistically, it's "water under the bridge" already, so his opinion on legislation already enacted decades ago is relatively insignificant in the here and now.
Regardless, what this amounted to was government placing a higher level of importance on forcing racial equality than on the rights of a private business owner to conduct his/her business in the manner he/she wished. I'd say both of those goals are good/important ones, but not ones where you want either one trumping the other when they "butt heads".
IMO, the Civil Rights Act accomplished some good, but not by going about it in the best of ways. By that, I mean racial equality is something that has to develop over time, as individuals become enlightened enough about the world around them to realize that the "next guy" isn't really all that different of a person after all. Government opted to trample on some individual rights and freedoms, for the sake of forcing more public interaction between blacks and whites. It's impossible to pass laws that make racism or bigotry vanish ... but they eventually helped reduce some of it by demanding unwilling people allow all races to do business with them or make use of any facilities they designated as anything other than "private".
As others said already, we would have gotten there anyway with a free market (or anything relatively close to one). The passing of time, plus basic legislation that doesn't EXCLUDE any particular race from the same freedoms everyone else is guaranteed, was enough.
Than solution to bad airport security is good airport security, not no airport security.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
... is that he is trying too hard to follow in his father's footsteps by associating himself with these non-mainstream, far-right extremist anti-government organizations. In his early career, it seemed he might actually have ended up to be a more rational version of dear old dad, but I see that didn't quite pan out.
The reason the current TSA agents do not need to do that is that they are technically federal law enforcement, which are exempt from state and local laws in pursuant to their work. As a private company, they would be subject to state and local laws, and if the local DA decides to prosecute them for sexual assault, he/she can do so. In fact, several DAs have already tried to do just that, but were dismissed...
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
The TSA is security theater, and Rand Paul's proposal is liberty theater.
Sure the TSA sucks but this won't get rid of the FBI's national security letters, the PATRIOT Act, the indefinite detention provisions of the recent NDAA, torture, robo-bombing of other nations at will, extraordinary rendition, NSA snooping every email, NSA snooping in everything else, the looming legal lockdown on the internet, the elimination of the public domain culture in favor of permanent copyright, FBI infiltration and disruption of dissident organizations, or any of the other dozens of despicable BS our government has done recently.
In fact Rand Paul would just privatize the TSA, because government tyranny sucks, but corporate tyranny is the Amuuurican way!
-- QED
Its a government department. It would be easier to eliminate Al Qaeda that to get rid of the TSA.
May the Maths Be with you!
If airlines have security incidents, their insurance rates will increase. Eventually they will arrive at a balance between insurance costs, security costs, and revenues.
Conceivably you could have an airline that advertised low security requirements, providing the benefits of reduced groping and security wait times but slightly increased risks. They would then bet on higher market share offsetting the increased insurance costs.
They can check out any time they want, though.
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)
Disband the entire DHS.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Yes. If you're stupid enough to refuse to do business with someone, your competitors will get the business you refused.
A truly free market would stop that kind of discrimination faster than all the civil rights legislation ever proposed.
Bullshit. The Free Market is the true tyranny of the majority. Left to its own devices, the free market will do whatever an income-weighted majority of its customers wants, and fuck-all for the remainder. Nobody is equal in the eyes of business; you vote with your dollars and you have as many votes as you do dollars.
If you're a restaurant, store, hotel, whatever in the '50s, and 75% of the local population are rich, racist whites, and the remaining 25% of the population are poor blacks, guess who's going to get stopped at the door? Can't have them tying up tables/salespeople/rooms/etc when there are whites that might otherwise occupy them.
Sure, some enterprising black person would probably start up a restaurant to address the unserved market, but that is hardly a fair arrangement. Separate is never equal.
The alternative to TSA is not more reasonable security procedures, the alternative to TSA is privatization and even less consistency and reason. If you remember why the TSA was created, its because the private security at every airport had different standards in training, policy, and actual implementations of security procedures. The rent-a-guards at some airports were basically not much more than the ones doing night watch at your office. TSA was supposed to bring consistent training and professionalism by vetted and reasonably well-paid and sworn government personnel
If you're for abolishing the TSA, then you are for privatization and even LESS public control over the security inspectors at the airports, LESS professionalism, and LESS training and vetting of guards/inspectors. Be careful what you wish for.
I'd be interested in who is receiving campagin contributions from private security guard companies like Wackenhut (who were displaced by TSA).
not the airlines, so when you fly out out of JFK Gropeco Inc will be screening you no matter which airline you choose. Feel free to complain to airport management, I'm sure they'll be very responsive.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Seriously.
...being against the airlines best interests. I'm in, shut TSA down.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
This would be less likely to happen in state such as Texas or Arizona where there are very liberal (ie right wing in this case) conceal carry laws. If one in twenty people are carrying a gun, your AK-47 rampage is ending very quickly.
Have you ever seen an assault rifle in action? They are built to put a lot of people in the ground, and fast. They have been refined to do this well for the past 60 years. If I had a 9mm Tupperware gun, and some guy opened up with an assault rifle, I would not be trying to take him out. I would be grabbing cover and running.
The fact that Tx and Az have liberal gun laws isn't a solution to the problem, it feeds it by making it easier for dangerous people to get guns.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/end-tsa/DT1ys3ND
more cowbell
>If anybody has a better system to keep bombs, guns, and knives off our airplanes, then write a slashdot artice about it.
Anything would be better. Look at the list of terror plots stopped by the TSA and decide for yourself if it's worthwhile.
Also check out the comments by Israeli aviation security expert Rafi Sela and by the makers of the scanners about their effectiveness.
Concretely: close the gaps that allow access to airplanes by non-passengers.
In response to the inevitable rhetorical question: yes, I WOULD rather be blown up by a terrorist than be treated like a convict. Even if there were a tradeoff between freedom and security (and what are we trying to protect, again?), there's only one answer for an American.
I've taken Amtrak for every trip since the system went insane.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Doctors are not being drafted in countries with universal health care.
Doctors make contracts with insurance companies to sell services at a willing buyer/willing seller price. Patients make contracts with insurance companies such that their bills get paid by other premium payers, until it's the turn of the other premium payers to get sick.
You don't understand Insurance.. They will look at the actual numbers, death by terrorism less likely then lightning strike and not have a problem in underwriting the airlines.
Security is a government problem.
Bullshit.
Every individual's security is their own responsibility. Nowhere in any founding government document is the government given the charge of physically securing individuals or any other private institution of this country. The only security the government is responsible for is national security...as in security of the nation as a whole from foreign invasion and the like.
A few terrorist attacks and threats (with some of those threats even made up by the government) over the course of decades does NOT constitute a foreign invasion. The government can kindly FUCK OFF with their individual security mandate, and people like you who support it can do the same.
Don't overestimate the hostility of passengers. When the shit hits the fan most people still respond like frightened little girls. It's just the way people are in this country. If it weren't true then the TSA wouldn't have survived, and their methods sure as hell wouldn't be approved by upwards of 80% of the general population.
Just remember that the next time you're on an airplane. 80% of the people around you are perfectly fine with being groped, fondled, and stripped of all privacy and civil rights for NO FUCKING REASON AT ALL.
Do you really think passengers will be hostile to the real bad guys when they are complete pussies in the face of TSA rent-a-cops?
Before I submit my personal details... I can't seem to find a privacy policy at campaignforliberty. Can anyone point me to one?
Exactly!
Unlike the rent-a-cops the TSA can be a real election issue where the public can have some impact on how the TSA performs its security theater. The TSA needs to change.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I'm sure there's plenty of psychochristian black shirted Nazi Paulbots you could give the job to.
I would go farther and arrest DHS Napolitano and TSA Pistel on charges of Terriorism and crimes against humanity.
In general, neither should have been born, neither should have lived and neither deserves to live further.
We need to forcefully restore sanity to the US Federal Government. Some bodies will by nessessity fall.
Yes, because the Federal Government cannot make people stop being racist, the biggest example being Black people's embrace of Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton, or the various hate-crime beatings of Whites and other non-Blacks in Black areas.
The Federal Government could not stop people from drinking either.
Now we get all sorts of permanent privileges, based upon dubious claims of ethnicity, permanent punishment (for your non-connected White guy), to make up for stuff done 50 years ago or more.
There is a limit to what government can do. Trying to be everywhere and do everything always results in failure. Better to allow unlawful discrimination lawsuits. Its fine by me (and good social policy) for owners to discriminate against Black people -- when they dress like thugs, act like thugs, and act threatening. That passes the cost of thuggery right back onto thugs instead of me (higher prices for security, etc. because Black thugs and gangsta wanna-bes cannot be refused service).
This is an area for private lawsuits. Discrimination based on race alone, actionable, a suit likely to win. Discrimination based on things beside that, yes fine, no suit. Common sense: nerdy White guys are not a threat, Ahntwahn from the Ghetto likely is. Passing that cost directly back to Ahntwahn is a good thing.
You've got your races confused. Also, newsflash, its not 1928. Louis Farrakhan is the one decrying miscegenation, calling for Black people to only have kids with Black people. Meanwhile in reality, the Kardashians are reality superstars based on marrying/dating Black athletes and rappers.
The people most likely to hate, and express that violently, are Black. Social taboos among Whites makes anti-Black sentiments impossible to be expressed, or even thought. Heck, adopting a Black African baby is what ultra-White celebrities like Madonna and Charlize Theron do, to popular acclaim.
David Duke lives in a trailer. Louis Farrakhan in a mansion.
Rand Paul is my hero.
And what exactly would help in such a scenario? Remote-activated poison capsules implanted in the cockpit crew? Remote-detonation bombs installed in every plane? I don't see either going over well.
At some point you just have to accept that risk can't be eliminated, only mitigated. Once you accept that then you have to start weighing the costs and benefits. By that measure passengers willing to sacrifice their lives to regain control or force down the plane have been the only method actually proven to be effective in preventing a hijacking, and they cost nothing. Reinforced doors were relatively cheap and probably reduce the risks further, as well as reducing the need for heroics.
After that the worst that can be done is destroy the plane, in which case I'd suggest that far more airline passengers have died due to accidents than terrorist attacks, and the billions being spent on security would be better spent on improved maintenance and repair.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I would rather take the miniscule risk of free-falling 10 km in a fireball than have men of dubious character inventory my family jewels. America seems to sacrificed freedom not for safety, but for the illusion of safety. No thanks.
Sacrifice convenience, dignity, and freedom for security or not.
rm -rf ms/*
Remeber that the value we assign to gold, and other precious metals, is just as make-believe as the value we assign to paper money and to pieces of clay.
The value of gold fluctuates up and down with the desire and demand for it, even when the supply is rather steady. One of the big reasons for ending the gold standard was due to the fact that the majority of new gold being mined in the world was, at the time, supplied by the Soviet Union and South Africa. This meant that nations who were not alligned with America's interests could exert control over the value of a gold-backed dollar by hoarding or dumping gold on the market. The inability to exert control over the fluctuating price of gold would have ceded control of the value of our currency to foreign powers (kind of like borrowing massively from foreign powers to finance our spending does now).
Whenever you hear the term 'gold standard', substitute the term 'gold variable'. It is a more accurate way of comprehending the real situation. Think about how wildly the price of gold has inflated in the last decade.
There's nothing 'standard' about the price of gold.
Rand Paul is the best thing that has happened for this country since Ron Paul
So he leads a political charge against the intentionially demonizable body searches. (why do you think those were added?) But what about all the kickback dollars to random "security equipment" like the backscatter scanners. Will that continue, increase, decrease, or be shut down and indicted as it should be?
-josh
This bureaucracy is built on being self sustaining. Pretty soon they will move from airports to toll booths to whatever else the fear mongers think will sustain their existance.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Since the TSA's inception, terrorists have been thwarted by passengers (eg. the "underwear bomber" of Christmas '09)
um...aren't you forgetting which security organization hassled and irritated the passengers, making them angry and violent enough to violate the bomber's civil rights? The system works.
I can cherry pick too... Like the deacon in Colorado that did stop a gunman with a legally carried gun. An armed populace does not guarantee that a passer-by will be able to stop a crime, but an unarmed populace guarantees that they will not.
You know how clerks in convience stores that get robbed are getting shot even though they are trying to comply (but never get the chance). Sometimes in the back of the head, execution style even after they comply.
Well, in one attempted Las Vegas robbery, a clerk didn't let that happen.
He shot the robber dead.
Saved his own life quite likely, removed a scumbag from society and saved us thousands of dollars!
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
And Boba Fett != Jango Fett
With the first link, the chain is forged.
It's a sad day indeed when common sense is considered "extreme".
99% of the crap that comes out of Rand Paul's mouth is indeed "extreme" and is most certainly not "common sense" (which is frequently wrong anyway). This is a rare exception.
Even a broken clock is right twice per day.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
The real solution is to have 2 planes. 1 plane that allows anyone on board the way it use to be. The 2nd plane to have people that went though security. After a few months we would know what the really people want.
Holy Green Jesus just how many years has this idiotic false dilemma, worded nearly exactly every time, been on idiotic non-thinker comments on article pages from Fox News, NY Daily News, NY Post, MSNBC, Chicago Trib, LA Times, HuffPo, Drudge, every outlet from every part of the so-called political spectrum.
Is there some Official Ministry of Stupid that hands this out as a talking points memo? And how did one of its subscribers get onto /.?
no, the TSA is fine. defund homeland security, and then TSA could crate actually effective security measures.
Few days late checking the moronicity on this thread. Bless your heart, do you even know what the TSA is? And what Cabinet Level department it is housed within? And which was created (initially as an Executive Branch Department until getting Cabinet-level Status), at essentially the same time?
We didn't have a TSA or a Department of Homeland Security until both were created in the weeks post-9/11- there was no TSA without the Heimatsicherheitministerium (as the /. or Flyertalk poster whom I forget but crib this from says, "DHS sounds better in the original German")
Yeah, somebody is gonna cite a difference of days or weeks in the enabling laws. It still was all of one, post-9/11, overreaction. In essence created together in one action.
"Private-run airport security is fine. defund homeland security, and then the TSA could crate(sic) actually effective security measures."
FTFY
I'm sorry, but your petition is invalid. A Mr. Anonymous Coward signed it over 1000 times.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Congrats everyoneyou hate government so much you're willing to screw yourself. Libertardian idiots.
Let's just fire Ron Paul and all the rest of the Tea Party idiots. We'd save a lot of money, and maybe Congress could get something done for a change.
yea, we should either:
1) have no security at airports. Leave protecting passengers to the passengers. look how well that Libertarian approach worked for flight 93.
2) go back to private corporations providing security with minimum-wage, un-screened, untrained personnel, without standardized methods or routines.
Personally, I've found the perasonnel to be generally friendly and professional, and a HUGE step up from the bozos we had until 9-11. What, you never had a bad day at work, dealing with lines of a**holes who think the sun shines out their sphincters, while your job is to invade their personal privacy for the sake of the general public's safety?
Can you say 'thankless job'?
So call Unka Ron, and ask him which he prefers, #1 or #2.
Yea, I thought so.
The TSA serves several purposes unrelated to real security, but to me, more than anything else, it is a jobs program. And a unionized public employee jobs program at that. Good luck on shutting it down or reforming it when they can use their union dues to buy off most of the politicians that would pass legislation against them. Every time they screw up, it just gets spun as justification that they need a bigger budget and more unrestricted powers to ensure that it won't happen again. Bigger budget means more unionized staff paying dues into the machine which means more funds to bribe politicians. It is a positive feedback loop, and a textbook example of why public employees must not be allowed to unionize, ever. Private employees at a company that can fail if they overreach themselves is a different matter, they can unionize all they want - the market will decide.