Slashdot Mirror
Mother Found Guilty After Protesting TSA Pat-down of Daughter
Penurious Penguin writes "In 2011, en route to Baltimore, Tennessee mother Andrea Abbott was arrested after squabbling with the TSA over their pat-down and "naked" body-scan process. Initially Abbott had protested a pat-down of her 14 year-old daughter, though eventually backed off. When her own turn came, she refused both a pat-down and body-scan. This week, despite having no criminal record, Abbott was found guilty of disorderly conduct and sentenced to one year of probation. A surveillance video of the affair shows what appears an agitated Abbott surrounded by various TSA agents, but seemingly contradicts the premise by which she was convicted. In the case against Abbott it was claimed that her behavior impeded the flow security-lines and lawful activity. Beyond Abbott's confession of issuing some verbal abuse, the video does not appear to display a significant blockage of traffic nor anything noticeably criminal."
Scum like that should be executed!
She didn't want to be fondled by total strangers in public. There's your crime right there!
the video does not appear to display a significant blockage of traffic nor anything noticeably criminal.
She was defying the TSA.
If they let her get away with it then pretty soon other people would be defying them, too. All protesters must be stamped on, hard.
No sig today...
... Land of the Freedom to abuse
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Speed up a video, and everybody appears "agitated"!
Let this be a test case for the tweedledee and tweedledum, who wants the job at the White House so badly --- do they support a public fondl... [ahem] a pat down of a 14 year old American girl, in an American air port?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
She wanted to deny the TSA staff their legal right to watch naked 14 yo girls!
Questioning the system will get you in trouble every time. It helps make sure that the cost of complaining or asserting your rights or asking for consideration or doing anything but keeping your head down and doing whatever you're told is too high compared to the (relatively) momentary discomfort and inconvenience. And it's pretty effective too. I know my rights- in encounters with the police, or when going through security at the airport - but when if a cop stopped me for no reason walking to the store (as frequently happens to my sister) and demanded to see my ID or search my bag....I can't say I wouldn't do exactly as she does and just go with it. I certainly do with the TSA's nonsense. The possibility of getting dragged off for some bullshit reason is a good threat. Even if it doesn't stick, it still sucked. You still endangered your job/vacation/whatever.
...one of them would jump right up to fund fighting her case all the way to the Supreme Court. What the hell, lunch money.
But they won't of course, because you can't be a decent person and be a billionaire.
This space available.
Wanna know how I know you're a troll?
When was the last time you heard of an airplane hijack after we pumped up security?
Yupp, the bear patrol is working like a charm.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Insightful?
Slashdot's moderation is pathetic these days.
What I don't get is by what rationale or principle video evidence can be ignored by a jury.
Yes, I do suppose this logic is "interesting."
I would personally prefer this "humiliation" to losing one of my family members because one woman would rather be free from the pat-downs/security scanning etc.
So you're saying you'd rather have everyone who wants to get on a plane have their privacy violated because you're afraid of the minuscule chance that a terrorist might attack? I guess privacy isn't important at all as long as you can have your security theater.
But how about we install surveillance cameras in everyone's homes? It's for your own safety and could stop a few crimes, so it's all worth it. Rights mean nothing at all.
When was the last time you heard of an airplane hijack after we pumped up security?
When was the last time you heard of an airplane hijack since I received my anti-terrorist rock?
And more than likely, it's not because of the TSA's security theater, but because of secured cockpit doors and the willingness of citizens to fight back.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
The rest of out out-of-control government is for your own good.
And don't you forget it.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams
(Captcha - unneeded)
And how many hijacks have there been since they locked the cockpit door? this is just another BS excuse to treat people anyway they like... just like the Lie told to everyone about electronics and transmitting signals on air planes... that one is completely due to the airlines not wanting to spend the money to certify that individual planes are not bothered by the frequencies that consumers use...
I have seen the statistics... and other than 2 or 3 incidents... they have not caught anyone on any plane... and frankly they use the fear that everyone feels for the unknown to increase the spending on their jobs and this keep themselves employed.
Except that there are two technologies that make pat down irrelevant. The first is the good old "metal wand" and the other is the newer "electronic nose". Two devices that can be implemented into hand held devices (probably even combined). I have not flown through Britain for a while but there there they never touch you. Metal detector went bleep, then they tell you to step over and wand you; oh it was the belt buckle. Have a nice flight Sir. As far as I remember they are also deploying back scatter and terraherz scanners, but I still doubt they pat you down if that fails / you refuse the scanner. Why is the US in the stone age when it comes to security?!
hmm
I guess I'd have to fire myself (self employed).
I could probably keep my business going for a month or more if held in jail.
Hey, I have an idea: why not just force everyone to fly naked!
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
It was probably just his/her dangling blubberous jowl that bumped the mouse by accident and hit Insightful. AC was probably just reaching for more potato chips and sodapop while salivating over a crumb on the keyboard.
I would personally prefer this "humiliation" to losing one of my family members because one woman would rather be free from the pat-downs/security scanning etc.
What about the kid who died in the wheel well of the jet airplane? If he could get in there then anyone could. Hell, just this week I saw a story about a guy who was stranded and hopped the fence into an airport, hoping to be confronted immediately by security (and thus saved). He walked around all the airplanes out on the tarmac, and right up to where the passenger terminals are. So, what good is getting groped or scanned other than to acclimate you to personal intrusions? None. It's the illusion of security. The scanners don't even work. Remember that story about the guy with a pocket on his sleeve? He put a metal cigarette pack in the pocket and since it was off his body, and appeared black as the background, they didn't see it at all on the scanner and he hopped on the plane with it.
Whatever happened to, "Give me Liberty or Give me Death?" Or that bit Ben Franklin said about trading your freedom for security and having neither? You've lost your way somewhere. You've become an irrational fear slut. You're thousands of times MORE likely to be killed in a car wreck and you don't run around spouting BS about how a TSA agent needs to ride with every car load to ensure safety. FUCK YOU. It's fools like you that are letting them turn the US into an oppressive regime, just like the ones we so hated in the 80's.
But WTF : In the case against Abbott it was claimed that her behavior impeded the flow security-lines and lawful activity.
Is that a crime? Seriously?!
Privacy is terrorism.
Let's step bavk and analyze what we're trying to achieve with these security measures by the TSA... We're truing to prevent the terrorists from killing more people, right?
Here's a simple idea for reaching that goal. Let's execute everyone. That way the terrorists won't have anyone to kill. Problem solved.
>Whatever happened to, "Give me Liberty or Give me Death?"
The same thing that happened to Thoreau's words on civil disobedience. Forgotten.
--
BMO
Actually, despite the massively unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is because the US chose to fight jihadis on foreign soil. Both Iraq and (especially) Afghanistan are fights out of the way of the general US populace and suck up jihadis from all over the World into a meat grinder where NATO has the complete upper hand. Despite the "if you kill on you'll just anger more" bullshit the fighting overseas has actually worked and killed many of the enemies of civilization.
As long as you keep killing jihadis overseas and have moderate security checks you'll be reasonably safe (nothing is perfectly safe). There is no need to accept the humiliation of the TSA security theatre. It is not the TSA that has kept you safe, it is the killing of the violent extremists overseas that has - they are drawn like moths to a flame - this was a very smart move of the US to do this (even if most people don't grok it and the wars remain deeply unpopular due to superficial 'reasons'). The West is at war at the moment not against terror, but against the revival of a Caliphate that will not accept the progress of the Enlightenment. That is what is at stake (and has nothing to do with meekly accepting the fascism of the TSA).
How could they be sure that she was not a Muslim
"Why is the US in the stone age when it comes to security?!" ...
Because first you can make billions selling a crappy stone, more billions for a less crappy stone, additional billions for stone+,
Stone works -> Cool, buy stone 2.0, it's even better! -> $$$
Stone doesn't work -> Gee, that's a strange error, never seen it before, btw it's already fixed in stone 2.0! -> $$$
Except that there are two technologies that make pat down irrelevant. The first is the good old "metal wand" and the other is the newer "electronic nose". Two devices that can be implemented into hand held devices (probably even combined). I have not flown through Britain for a while but there there they never touch you. Metal detector went bleep, then they tell you to step over and wand you; oh it was the belt buckle. Have a nice flight Sir. As far as I remember they are also deploying back scatter and terraherz scanners, but I still doubt they pat you down if that fails / you refuse the scanner. Why is the US in the stone age when it comes to security?!
It's the only way they can recruit TSA agents?
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Actually, despite the massively unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is because the US chose to fight jihadis on foreign soil.
Or it could be due to multiple factors. But even considering that, I'd have trouble believing some wouldn't slip by if they really wanted to. I think the secured cockpit doors and citizens who actually fight back are probably the biggest factors.
The wars are just a waste of money.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
...where absolute conformity and submission to the machinery of bureaucracy and state surveillance is a precondition for being able to function for any and every citizen. The police state is strengthening its grip upon us. Upon you. Upon me.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Who says they have to "slip by"?
This is the thing I really don't get. Who created the belief that terrorists have to get past airport security to do anything and why do people believe it?
If I was a terrorist leader I'd blow up a few bags of ball bearings in the lines of people waiting to nudie-scanned. The country would implode overnight...
The only reason this isn't happening is that there are no terrorists.
(nb. If they want to "slip by" they can just put the C4 up their asses or whatever... Drug smugglers do it all the time, why not terrorists?)
No sig today...
Fondling 14 years old, that'd kiddie porn right there.
Why is the US in the stone age when it comes to security?!
Hint: "Security" isn't the reason the TSA does what it does...
No sig today...
>Obviously we who dont carry weapons or explosives around with us know that we are clean and free,
>free
You don't know the meaning of the word.
Make sure you make those boots shine with your tongue!
--
BMO
Only if they install stripper poles for the flight attendants. I wouldn't want to be objected to that much unscripted nudity. Fat ugly hairy bodies everywhere.
Learn to love Alaska
Who says they have to "slip by"?
I didn't mean slip by the TSA. I meant that I highly doubt that all of them would magically be trapped in the countries we have troops in.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Despite the "if you kill on you'll just anger more" bullshit the fighting overseas has actually worked and killed many of the enemies of civilization.
Years ago, they noticed the death toll of "terrorists" was above the sum of all "terrorists" on the planet. Either the war manufactured terrorists faster than we were killing them, or we were just killing innocent civilians and calling them terrorists to justify out mass murder. Either way, we are as bad as they say we are.
Learn to love Alaska
The EU outlawed x-ray scanners due to health and privacy concerns. The ones in the UK are on trail and will be scrapped when the trail is over due to the EU ruling.
There are a few millimeter wave scanners in the UK for the select few who get singled out. Refuse and you have to leave the airport, there is no opt out.
OK... the point still stands though. The belief that they have to get past airport security is asinine.
No sig today...
Let me guess...
Because you want to brighten up my day, make sure that I fly straight and improve my life?
I would rather that they hand out loaded guns to everyone on the plane. Even though there is a larger chance of the plane ending up in space, if everyone on the plane is armed with a 45 cal pistol, no terrorist would even think of trying anything.
Require people to carry a pistol on flights is the answer.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Welcome to the machine.
"I have not flown through Britain for a while but there there they never touch you."
Sorry mate, it's changed.
The walk-through metal detector issues a random alert on people that have been selected for a pat down. At Heathrow T5 there is one lane with a body scanner, and the rest have pat downs.
When I flew recently there was a massive backlog because the random alert was selecting 4 out of 5 men for a pat down, with only 1 in 5 for the women - though I may be biased in my reporting because I was *pissed* that the women weren't getting screened, and that the men had to wait for so long (one male attendant per checkpoint) and on top of all that, I had to endure the damn patdown myself.
It's absolutely fucked and I hate it...but why doesn't everyone else?
Bruce Schneier will point out that there have been several attempts since, all of them stopped effectively - and all stopped by security that was already there BEFORE 9/11.
In fact the TSA has made no difference to security and the attempts since then would not have been caught by them.
Only two changes since 9/11 has actually IMPACTED on security.
1) Passengers changed their mindset from "do as we're told" to "fight back" - because the terrorists were no longer going to let you live if you obeyed.
2) They reinforced the cockpit doors (one could argue THAT should have been done in the FIRST place).
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I'm not so sure, I'd want that either. After 9/11, I noticed an increase of ugly male flight attendants. The hot female flight attendants, seem to be a thing of the past.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
[quote]Years ago, they noticed the death toll of "terrorists" was above the sum of all "terrorists" on the planet.[/quote]
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Or at least a basic citation.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
But how about we install surveillance cameras in everyone's homes? It's for your own safety and could stop a few crimes, so it's all worth it. Rights mean nothing at all.
Installing a security camera in your own home - your own paid for property - is an entirely different case than airport security where everyone has access, including would-be terrorists.
Im not a big fan of big-brother survellance either, but I kind of hoped that was implied, and people would focus on the discussion itself, rather than mix it with other areas that doesnt even relate.
Hmm, "willingness of citizens to fight back".
I think you're on to something...
Jet Skier Breaches JFK Airport Perimeter, Wanders to Terminal 3 Undetected
Questions now are raised as to why the Port Authority's $100 million Perimeter Intrusion Detection System (PIDS), loaded up with closed-circuit cameras and motion sensors, failed completely, and how a man can walk such a distance unnoticed. This is not JFK Airport's first perimeter breach, however. In early 2009, a trio of boaters ran ashore at the airport, wandered across a runway and showed up at the Port Authority Police rescue station themselves. They had become lost in their inflatable fishing raft during a storm.
Former NYPD veteran and former MTA deputy security director told ABC News âoeI think he should be given dinner and a bottle of champagne for showing us our faults,â but after a 3-mile swim, breaching an airport perimeter and a 2-mile walk in heavy, wet clothes, perhaps he should be given a trophy and a Navy SEAL Trident as well.
is that the woman doesn't understand they're doing this for her and other peoples safety.
What is SAD is that YOU believe this is being done for your safety. Are you so afraid of the bogey man that you don't go to the mall, the movie theatre, to work, to school? Do you just stay locked up in your safe room in your house?
No, you don't. You go about your life on a regular basis. With no fear, and no sense of the bogey man. UNTIL you get to the airport. What is so special and different about the airport? What makes you so afraid? Was it the planes that were hijacked 10 years ago? Is that what is scaring you? Yet you go to the movie theatre, despite recent movie theatre shootings. You go to work, despite the chance that a plane can be flown into your work.
The TSA only exists to assuage your illogical fear. And yet they don't manage to stop guns, bombs, or other dangerous things onto the plane. But thats ok, despite the fact you are no more safe without the TSA. Its ok because you FEEL safe. Safety be damned, freedom and privacy be damned. As long as you FEEL safe.
Except that there are two technologies that make pat down irrelevant!
There is one that makes pat down irrelevant. It is called abstinence. As in abolish the TSA and get rid of the farce the security is.
we were just killing innocent civilians and calling them terrorists to justify out mass murder
Relevent to this: The US military defines "militant" as any male person in any country of the Middle East except Israel between the ages 13-50. Consider that the next time you hear a news report that says that "4 militants and 6 civilians" were killed: That could well be a random extended family meeting up for Eid, not a terrorist cell.
I am officially gone from
I would personally prefer this "humiliation" to losing one of my family members because one woman would rather be free from the pat-downs/security scanning etc.
Then the terrorists have won. This is exactly what they've set out to achieve.
(By the way, I nearly lost a family member on 9/11)
TSA = Totally Stupid Agency
Outrageous and disgusting... Are we as American citizens supposed to sit idly by while the politicians and corporations ride rough shot over our liberties and freedoms?!? Why the f#!k is this woman given a year probation when the TSA officials in the video are obviously the ones in the wrong here.. I don't fly anymore... Ya know why? Because of this TSA big brother bullshit. I refuse to be treated like a criminal in my own country where my hard earned tax dollars have apparently paid the way for these sycophants to bastardize our rights not only as citizens but as human beings. Am I concerned that terrorists have the ability to invade my homeland by way of an airliner? Sure... But, the thing is...... There already were terrorists before 9/11 and there have since been terrorists in and out of this nation and elsewhere. Am I willing to let the government fist f#!k my freedoms and my liberties due to those fears? NO! Terrorists are going to do what they are going to do, and these TSA pat downs/body scans while they may be some what of a deterrent to a criminal element of any nature, so is the end of my legally owned and well oiled rifle... I'll ask again... Are WE willing to sacrifice our liberties to be treated like criminals and in fact prosecuted like criminals over such ridiculous and trivial activities as refusing a TSA pat down in an airport especially when the only thing this woman is guilty of is defending her and her daughter's right to dignity, privacy, and decency? So, the TSA is already in place.. Instead of charging this woman they could have refused her service on the premise that she did not cooperate with the body scan or pat down, thrown her out of the airport and been done with it. She had no weapons, no drugs, no large amounts of money.. She had her underage daughter with her of whom she refused to allow full grown strangers to view her nude daughter and herself... Sounds to me like a mother that knows that something isn't right.. In an era where sick freaks kill, kidnap, rape, and torture children what seems to be almost daily anymore this woman stood up for her and her daughters rights and was punished for it. I could understand if she got violent, had a weapon, drugs, etc. etc, but she didn't... F#!k the laws that make this trash possible, f#!k the judge who passed the sentence, f#!k the TSA for bullying people into nude scans and searches, and surely f#!k the politicians that allowed this to ever happen in the first place. I love my country (USA), I love my people, but you and I should not stand for such blatant disregard of our liberties and human right to decency being so flagrantly violated. GODDMANIT, I AM NOT AN ANIMAL AND I WILL NOT BE TREATED AS SUCH!!!
So a person wearing a bomb is going to be afraid of a gun? If they are willing to blow themselves up, then threatening to shoot them after the fact is not going to dissuade them.
I do security, so I get defense in depth and agree a layered approach is the correct one. Ineffective controls however have no place.
They still irritate people who are not threats leading everyone to not take security seriously, at any point and causing them to thwart other controls rendering them less effective.
You are correct in that no plane has been hijacked after the new security measures were enforce, but its also true that terrorist organizations have succeeded in getting explosives on planes, they just did not work or were prevented from use by passengers.
The passenger screening controls don't match the threat model. Most organizations who can construct a bomb small enough and powerful enough to bring down and airliner can also design it to evade the controls. Even the new scanners still won't detect the underwear bomb for example. The patdown would be unlikely to find it either.
The effective control that has prevented additional attacks is the reenforced cockpit doors; which are locked throughout the flight and pilots who are trained never to open them no matter what. You can't from the passenger cabbing gain control of an airliner today.
So the best you can hope to do with small arms is cause chaos in the cabbin which you might just as well do literally anywhere else. Or you could try a Lockerbie type attack where you attempt to bring down a plane which will already be over you target at the proper time. With the security in place today the latter is still quite possible; but again the reason it has not happened is because the terrorists that have tried it were ineffective, not because the TSA was effective.
TSA is infighting on rights, enabling and engaging in theft, costing billions, and adding no real value.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
US is in the stone age in pretty much every area. Home of the rednecks, land of the lawyers.
Except that in Britain you aren't allowed to opt-out of or refuse the Nude-o-Scan!
Why doesn't the UK allow passengers an 'opt out'?
Yes, they do enforce this:
Doctor barred from flying after refusing body scan on health grounds
Air passengers who refuse a full body scan to be barred from their flights
Try to find an airport that doesn't have the Nude-o-Scan, last I checked LCY (London City Airport) was safe. Best to check before travelling though. Here is a list of airports with NoS that is kept updated by the members of the Flyer Talk forum: Complete List of Airports with Whole Body Imaging/Advanced Imaging Technology Scanner
Posted anonymously so I don't get hassled every time I fly from now on. Sad, but necessary.
That's definitely the moment I start taking the train.
... frog
-> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wjcu9s7CqM0
-1, Yuck
Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
Where do they get these pro-TSA shills from anyway? That's the same kind of logic that goes "George Bush kept us from having another 9/11", conveniently ignoring the fact that we hadn't had a FIRST 9/11 until he got into office. (Or how they don't talk about the fact that we haven't had another one while Obama has been in office, which doesn't make him an anti-terrorist hero either. Finishing the job the previous administration couldn't sure helps a bit though.)
Does it matter who was president at the time? Personally I think it does, but that's because the true motivations of the 9/11 attacks are not understood by the US population because they are not promoted by the right-wing noise machine. The purpose, according to bin Laden himself, was to provoke an over-reaction that would bankrupt the US and draw it into unwinnable wars. In order to do that, you needed a person in charge who you could count on to grossly overreact to a situation. Therefore, the question just has to be asked: if we had someone in charge who wouldn't be so easily provoked, would that attack have gone forward? I don't know, but I do have my personal thoughts on the matter.
There was one other thing you needed to pull that off, and again you just don't hear it from the fearful crowd: you needed passengers who would instinctivly comply and do what the nice hijackers said. That was trained into them by law enforcement, by government, and even to some extent by the airlines, absolutely none of which accepted even the tiniest bit of responsibility for this bit of abject stupidity. Assuming you believe the official events of the flight over Pennsylvania, look at what happened there when the passengers found out what was really going on. THAT is what keeps hijackings from happening, not your precious security theater and certainly not arresting people whose major crime is to point out the incompetent idiots we have mismanaging our airline security these days.
But, it's OK, because they pump up the fear and you just keep believing them. Land of the free and home of the brave indeed...
Installing a security camera in your own home - your own paid for property - is an entirely different case than airport security where everyone has access, including would-be terrorists.
People don't own their bodies or their possessions, then? Because you have arbitrary decided that privacy at airports isn't important, it's not? Then let me do the same for your home.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
The government should set up an agency whose sole function is to prosecute people who object to the setting up of this agency.
"What a stupid idea!" I hear you say? You're another dangerous malcontent who must be investigated!
I am anarch of all I survey.
they were all hot, 35 years ago when they got hired. Somehow 60 year olds with 3 kids and 6 grandkids just lose the hot factor along they way.
"Holding up a queue" gets you a punishment legally equivalent to prison? What the fucking fuck?
Really! Nothing turns me on more than the thought of hot, sweaty skin contact with some slob picking their oozing scabs in those tiny little seats. A better idea would be to anesthetize them and load them into cargo on a FedEx flight.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Did Obama order DHS to comply with the court order requiring the TSA to publish various statistics that'd make the nuddy scanners look bad? No
Anyways, you should always refuse the nuddy scanner and accept the pat down instead, if only for the radiation hazard.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
I wish Obama would be in some office where he could wield some executive power so he could show us how Democrats value freedom more...
(If I lived in the USA, I would probably vote for Obama as smaller of two evils... but it's not as if the security theater would be a partisan issue.)
Hey, I have an idea: why not just force everyone to fly naked!
Wanting to fly while naked is also just as illegal as wanting to fly while not naked.
Both will gain you disorderly conduct charges.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/naked-man-protests-tsa-at-portland-airport_n_1433830.html
I get pissed at the inverse of this also ... the news will say something ridiculous like " in a train crash today, 76 people died, including 9 women and children". There is a value attached differently to different people.
Mother should have taught her daughter to yell: "Paedophile!!!" :)
And then brought it up in court.
It's the land of the sheep, home of the slave... what more did you expect?
So you're saying you'd rather have everyone who wants to get on a plane have their privacy violated because you're afraid of the minuscule chance that a terrorist might attack?
I happen, unlike the original poster to disagree with the TSA. That being said I wouldn't say minuscule chance. We've had a few dozen terrorists incidents in the United States since 9/11. Hijacking of US planes has been a favorite target of terrorists for decades. We have an active well funded group which has repeatedly attempted to organize airplane attacks. There have multiple airline attacks globally since 9/11. And if you include Americans abroad we've been subject to several thousand attacks in the last dozen years.
And enhanced security throughout Europe that came as a result of 9/11, Madrid... has resulted in many terrorists being stopped there and a clear large statistical drop off in acts of terrorism.
I do not think it is reasonable to minimize the issue here as if the original poster were worried about being attacked by elves flying dragons.
It seems like if you have 4 TSA agents talking to you at one time, that is about 3 more than normal so that would have to slow down the lines in general. So if there is actually a regulation for that it seems like a legitimate charge, retarded but legitimate.
This is one of the reasons I DONT FLY anymore, I've taken several long distance trips in recent years, each one I rented a car and drove. I didn't have to worry about running up against some wannabe SS officer, I didn't have to worry about what in my luggage (I actually brought a rather large rifle on one of my trips because I had just bought it and wanted to get some shooting time in with it at my destination), and don't have to get felt up by some rent a cop. I find it disturbing that we've sunken so low here in the US, fifteen years ago if you would have said that in order to fly commercially you would have endure a pat down, or a virtual strip search they would have looked at you like you had just talked about being abducted by aliens.
Whatever happened to, "Give me Liberty or Give me Death?"
He got liberty. The TSA isn't being imposed by a king. It came into existence after popular demand for increased security. The agency was voted into existence by an elected congress and the detailed rules created by an elected executive. There have been multiple hearings with public comment on procedures. The elected congress has considered the proper balance and weighed in in favor of the enhanced security. The population has consistently favored the TSA when polled.
What you are talking about is anarchy not democracy. And that was not what Ben Franklin was pushing for.
When you want to visit the US as a foreigner, you have to either get a visa or sign a visa waiver - ever read what you are asked to subscribe there? What you "waive" away is basically all your rights. It's an outrage on its own. TSA is just icing on the cake.
I've had a completely different experience in Britain (and yes, they do touch you, and almost everyone else), much worse than what I had in USA. I live in neither of them. As for the pat-down -- it is much cheaper, more reliable and can detect non-metal/odorless objects. It is irritating but I do not see what the big deal is. As for the protests to scans/checks, I personally think that the security check line in an airport is the worst place to try to exercise your rights to protest. It gives an impression that you have something to hide. It also encourages other visitors to non-cooperative behavior. Arresting people in such situations is the correct response in my opinion. If you want to complain: complain afterwards, not during.
Yea but its your choice to take your bodies or possessions into public places. Do whatever you want in your home, but take the tinfoil hat libertarian fuckwad act outside of the airport.
Then the terrorists have won. This is exactly what they've set out to achieve.
No they didn't. The terrorists could care less whether the United States had a pat down policy on airplanes or not. You are not the center of the world. What they set out to achieve was:
a) An end of US support for the House of Saud
b) An end to US sanction against Iraq
c) An end for US support for Israel
with (a) beng the most important.
Where Marx was right: healthy market capitalism eventually becomes state capitalism.
Where Marx was wrong: he thought this was a good thing.
The problem was questioning authority. I'm a bit of an expert on this. I find when I start questioning authority, mainly in a loud, commanding voice, 1 of 2 things happens. Either they cave in because they are sheep. Or they get really butthurt and need to make an example of me. Authority does not like being questioned, mainly when they are doing fucked up shit that needs to be questioned.
Did she get out of line? Probably. Emotions get flaring, it's easy to get a bit overboard. But watching the video, it seems to me there was a point, when she could of just walked away, and instead she came back to argue, bitch, or whatever. It's possible she got edged on by something being said, it's possible she didn't. But there was a point there when she could of just left, like they were letting her do, and she didn't. I'm guessing that is why she didn't win her court case, because of that action there.
Be seeing you...
You have the right to be forcefully searched, gropped, sexuaslly abused and treated as a terrorist by the TSA.
catching terrorist..... They should apply the NDAA to her and put her in a FEMA camp to never be heard from again... damn terrorist.....
Yea but its your choice to take your bodies or possessions into public places.
Ah, so the government can arbitrary decide to take away your privacy at specific locations in the name of security theater. Sounds like a flawless plan!
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
That being said I wouldn't say minuscule chance.
Really? Given the number of successful flights, I certainly would. It just isn't likely to happen, but even if it was, I'd still be opposed to the TSA.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
... are just looking for an opportunity to cause drama and get their 15 minutes of fame. People like her would also be first in line to sue if a terrorist took down the plane her daughter was on claiming that TSA security wasn't intrusive enough.
The linked article is a summary to a poorly written article supporting the TSA's position.
Did a judge hand down the conviction? If not, this is why things like this should be handled by a Jury or her peers.
The U.S. is the only country in the world that allows a jury of peers. Peer is the critical
word here; it was meant to be a deliberate selection, not random, of individuals of similar standing in the
community of the defendant. So, if she's a single parent, the jury is make up of those type of people, preferably
from her community, at her trial. This is the correct and civil way to solve these issues.
A Jury trial is not a "right" in the U.S.A.; it's required by law. We have to make sure that law is enforced to its fullest...
Actually, despite the massively unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is because the US chose to fight jihadis on foreign soil. Both Iraq and (especially) Afghanistan are fights out of the way of the general US populace and suck up jihadis from all over the World into a meat grinder where NATO has the complete upper hand. Despite the "if you kill on you'll just anger more" bullshit the fighting overseas has actually worked and killed many of the enemies of civilization.
W? Is that you?
Seriously, you must be pretty damn naive if you believe the 100's of thousands killed in the ME misadventures were headed on a plane to Amerika to blow shit up. And no, the demographics in the ME have not shifted significantly in the past couple of decades - there's always been moderates and fundamentalists. In fact, they have less influence now then they had post-WW2 when the Muslim Brotherhood were actively fighting against British colonialism. What's changed is the number of people in the Middle East that are seriously pissed off at the US for fucking over their lives and waging war and supporting oppression in their country.
PS - OBL didn't get a bunch of folks to fly planes into buildings because of the Caliphate or an non-acceptance of Enlightenment. He did it because the US supports a fucking horrible regime in Saudi Arabia and a pariah state in Israel. And he said so, and many agreed with him on those points while despising his method. So the evidence clearly shows that it is, in fact, the killing that is pissing people off and causing a reaction. Thus you're an idiot.
Maybe you should also check out the other places TSA checkpoints have been set up and people have been patted down. This isn't about air travel anymore. It's about building a national police force.
On CNBC the other day, the head of some US travel association or whatever it's called was whining about how tourism to the US is in heavy decline. VISAs were mentioned, but nothing about how travelers are treated here.
Karma baby.
Yeah, I once called out a well-meaning liberal peacenik type for focusing so much on how many women and children were killed from the war in Iraq. I simply asked "Why aren't we also counting how many men were killed?" and got a strange look.
I am officially gone from
I don't know how to respond to this - the irony, the lack of logic, the smugness, the derpiness is overwhelming.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
Then the terrorists have won. This is exactly what they've set out to achieve.
I must disagree. They haven't won. However, we've lost regardless.
It is what it is.
to China, the land of the free. So far, my US brothers and sisters, thanks God im not living in your country although I was dreaming of it whole my life before. This is just scary.
If I was a terrorist leader I'd blow up a few bags of ball bearings in the lines of people waiting to nudie-scanned. The country would implode overnight...
No problem, we just need an Airport Screening Line Pre-screening Line!
I'm afraid some crazies have gotten a hold of Slashdot. These whack comments are really 'Informative' and 'Insightful? " Come up with a better system to protect air travel you pseudo Libertarian loons, THEN you can protect the Western transportation system. Crazy broad from Tennessee and you all should just stay off airplanes and enjoy your stills and NASCAR.
She's lucky, really she is. The zealotry lies and incompetence of the Dept of Homeland Security, has resulted in quite a few deaths of US citizens:
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/25/valeria_munique_tachiquin_us_agent_kills
"In the wake of a dramatic increase in deaths at the hands of U.S Border Patrol agents, the Department of Homeland Security has agreed to launch a long-awaited investigation into the agency’s use of force. Since 2010, border agents have killed at least 18 people, including Valeria "Munique" Tachiquin, slain by a Border Patrol agent on September 28 in broad daylight several miles north of California’s border with Mexico. Tachiquin was a U.S. citizen and mother of five children. "
" And all of the witnesses tell us that the agent, who was in plainclothes, shot and killed Munique when he was standing on the pavement—not on top of the vehicle, not on the hood, but on the pavement—and shot her multiple times."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings
We might just be disagreeing on minuscule vs. low. I can understand being opposed to the increased security measures, I am. That being said, I also agree with Andrea Abbott being guilty of disorderly conduct.
What they claim consciously and unconsciously are two different things. They want to interfere with our freedom and make use scared.
If you have given into fear and given up on your freedoms, they have won.
Goddamn bastards.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Good for you, neither did I. Even though he has about as much chance of winning this election, please consider taking the time to come to the aid of our (f)ailing democracy, and vote for Gary Johnson. The more people who vote for him this time around, the more likely the Demopublicans will have a harder time next election pretending (as they did in this one,) that no other parties or candidates exist.
It's not about sending a message to Obamney, or his party owners, they already know they're wrong. It's about sending a message to your fellow Americans who are nauseated at the thought of having to vote either for Obama, or for Romney, that it is NOT, I REPEAT, N O T a waste of time or effort to get together and vote for someone who IS on the ballot, but who isn't the nominee of the DemocRats or the Rapublicans.
Incidentally, I think Johnson wants to limit the TSA to checking out "high risk individuals only" and wants to legalize marijuana, and regulate it like alcohol and tobacco, either of these alone is enough reason to vote Gary Johnson, in 2012, but you get, as a free bonus, that he's not in the pocket of, or under the control of the D/R NC. Note, I'm not talking "medical" marijuana, I mean 'go down to the drug store, and pick me up a dime bag!'
Johnson believes in personal freedom and responsibility, and accountability.
Obama and Romney believe in keeping you scared shitless so you'll knuckle under and do what they tell you. Consider that as you get ready to cast your ballots.
This would be why I drove 17 hours to Florida with my family instead of flying twice in the last two year. It has actually been a fun and enjoying trip both times.
When was the last time you heard of an airplane hijack after we pumped up security? Uncomfortable, yes. Bothersome - heck yeah. But we live.
When was the last time you heard of an airplane hijack after people realized they could be crashed into buildings?
Before September 11, no one had crashed a commercial airplane into a building as a terrorist attack. But, airplanes had been hijacked. Civilians were told not to interfere with a hijacking. If your plane were hijacked, you could expect to be flown to Cuba, sit around for a week or so, and then end up back in the US. That dynamic changed on September 11. AS SOON AS people realized that terrorists were flying planes into buildings, they started fighting back. That is why that plane crashed in Pennsylvania. Because the terrorists had hijacked the plane, but the passengers found out (from cell phones) what was probably going to happen and tried to take the airplane back. There is almost NO chance of a commercial flight being hijacked by terrorists now. Even if we didn't humiliate people with the TSA. Because the other 100 people on the plane would sacrifice their lives to stop them. No one would believe the hijacker WASN'T going to crash the plane into a building, so there would be no point in anyone NOT being a hero (you know you are going to die if you don't fight back, so you might as well fight back and try to live).
I fly quite often (at least a couple times per month). I would be perfectly fine with increasing my chance of dying on a plane by 0.00001% if that meant getting rid of the TSA. I would also be fine with the increased risk to my family because I believe their freedom and happiness are more important than their security.
You sir, are a coward. And it is people like you who allowed the Hitlers and Stalins commit their atrocities.
TSA screeners aren't law enforcement.
Any other fallacious bullshit you'd like to spout while you're here?
You are not the center of the universe. Millions of muslims all over the world, do not care whether you have freedom and are scared or not. They use their military for the same reasons you use yours to effect political changes that you desire.
Who says they have to "slip by"?
This is the thing I really don't get. Who created the belief that terrorists have to get past airport security to do anything and why do people believe it?
Or they simply fly TOWARDS your country from any of the many, many countries that don't participate in airport security.
... all I can think is "Welcome to City 17."
He is saying the TSA is useless. If I can inside the mechanics of the plane undetected, then why are we so concerned about whether someone is bringing a screwdriver into the cabin?
I always thought the TSA was NOT law enforcement. Sure, they have a badge and a uniform, but so do private security firms.
"The hallmark of humanity is the ability to move beyond sensory inputs" - Mary Helen Immordino-Yang
At least in the UK it would have been the other way round with the TSA officer incited on child molestation charges. Sigh, you americans watch as your country spirals down the toilet.
Good for you, neither did I. Even though he has about as much chance of winning this election, please consider taking the time to come to the aid of our (f)ailing democracy, and vote for Gary Johnson.
The guy who spends a million on 'admin costs', but $900 on advertising? You've got to be fucking kidding.
Human Rights Siege Heil!
City? County/State? Federal? (Is there much difference under Agenda 21?) Ah, I know, it must have been Happy Fun Court. You know, "Warning: Do not taunt Happy Fun Court!"
Is she going to appeal? She might ought to. Will she ever fly again? Why would she, as it stands?
I'm out of mod points, but please mod parent up. The individual had a choice to fly or not to fly. If she was held and NOT allowed to leave, then there would be a case for her. However, she chose to stay of her own accord and broke the law in the process.
Whether "the law" and the notion of TSA security theater is right/wrong is another discussion altogether. Nothing to see here, please move along.
That's the 1837 Upper Canada revolution, you understand!
We revolted against an oligarchic government of the rich and connected, known as the "family compact", and eventually gained "responsible government", in which the rulers were required to obey the law and could be thrown out for malfeasance. Heck, we could even defeat them in an election!
The similarities to the parent poster's state of arbitrary, unaccountable rule are striking, so much so that one of the regular discussion groups sponsored by our city councillor is known as "1837".
--dave (who was at 1837 last week) c-b
davecb@spamcop.net
As far as I remember they are also deploying back scatter and terraherz scanners, but I still doubt they pat you down if that fails / you refuse the scanner. Why is the US in the stone age when it comes to security?!
In the UK, if you refuse the scanner, you are not allowed to fly. Option for pat-down instead of scanner does not exist. The only way to avoid scanners is not to fly from Heathrow, Gatwick or Manchester.
On 9/12/2001, I purchased an anti-terrorist rock. It wards off terrorists hijacking planes in the country that it's located in. And sure enough, there have been no more hijackings inside the US. You're all welcome.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
So, I can get my TSA badge and go hang out at the local high school and feel up all the 14-year old girls?
I think I saw an ad to become a TSA agent on a pizza box!
It trivializes a gross invasion of privacy.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
Mental note: Read all comments to a post before making a post... someone might have already made the same reference I'm making. ("anti-terrorist rock")
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
"I would personally prefer this "humiliation" to losing one of my family members"
That's your personal decision. Why should we all be forced to live with it? Airlines should be responsible for their own security. If you want to use an airline that requires all passengers to be strip-searched with full body-cavity examinations to ensure 100% safety, you should be able to make that choice. I'll take my chances with an airline that scans the bags, questions the passengers and maybe uses metal detectors.
"Uncomfortable, yes. Bothersome - heck yeah. But we live."
Obviously if the choice is "get groped or DIE" I'd probably take the groping. That's not the choice however. We're talking about enduring humiliation in the name of risk mitigation, and the effectiveness of these techniques is highly questionable. We haven't had a hijacking, but these so-called "security measures" have been circumvented on multiple occasions.
As of now, I am boycotting U.S. air travel.
I'll agree that the war in Afghanistan was a valid fight against terrorists (and groups that harbor them). I'd argue that Iraq was a distraction at best, though. I will also agree that the TSA isn't keeping people safe. What has prevented further hijackings are two simple things. 1) The cockpit doors are now locked. No more "terrorist bursts into the cockpit to take over." 2) Pre-911 a hijacking meant "behave and you just get flown off-course and are returned home safely." Post-911 a hijacking means "We're all gonna die unless we fight back (and even then we might die)." If you find yourself in a hijacking now, you suddenly have nothing to lose and you WILL fight back. The "hijacking equation" went from a hundred or so passive individuals vs a few terrorists to a hundred or so combatants vs a few terrorists. Yes, the TSA still has a role, but no more than they had prior to 9-11. If they keep out guns/explosives/etc, then they've done their job. (I mean actual bombs, not this 2oz of liquid garbage.) We could roll the TSA back to pre-911 security levels and still be just as safe as today.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
this is what "We the PEOPLE" have ALLOWED to get this far!!!
The stupid and scared people(sheep) of this country(Animal Farm) who have sacrificed freedom for "security" and allowed the continual erosion of our rights.
It is reversible but it takes a movement to do it.
It's disgusting and I agree with the people here who are pissed off but it's the continued apathy of these same people who don't vote and don't run against the current congress who are just as much a part of the problem as the TSA dick heads.
The hero (heroin) is Andrea Abbott who fought the good fight. There should be more support for her and her legal battle than talking heads. There should be more people fighting the 1% who are the PIGs of the "Manor Farm".
Her crime was not just against TSA but humanity itself, she clearly demonstrated that she did not have the means of proper legal representation in this case the video sowing to all interested parties that her being surrounded and accosted by agents at the same time other passengers seemed to be flowing by clearly negated the charges so the only conclusion left is that she was:
A) Not political connected to have this case dismissed (Should carry a 5 year minimum sentence)
B) Not able to hire the proper legal defense to dismiss the charges showing an obvious abuse of power by the TSA (I think life is appropriate in this case)
The only reason this isn't happening is that there are no terrorists.
This. There was essentially no security flying from Mexico to the USA between 9/11 and somewhere around. 2009. Minimal perfunctory checking, no "take your shoes off" or "let me see you naked" crap. And guess what? not a single terrorist attack took place.
Americans complained about this around 2007 so the Mexican authorities created a special "security theater" line for Americans only, which seemed to make the 'tards happy.
Eventually the 'merkins clued into this, and forced a real pat down for everyone. There was no gain in security, but it makes them feel good, so we all have to go through it, even though it's useless security theater as already admitted to by the former head of the TSA.
It was all a distraction so they could lift her child's iPod Touch and steal her iPad out of her carry-on. "Look! She's resisting arrest! Quick...grab her purse and wallet." "Ma'am you're going to have to discard that juicebox and toothpaste. You know how many terrorists have tried to hijack our planes with explosive toothpaste tubes these days and threaten our flight crews with those sharp little bendy straws?!"
The President of the Unites States, the Attorney General, the head of Homeland Security and the head of the TSA and their family’s should be have to go thru the pat down (by a random TSA agent) and body scanners every week, and it should be broadcast on TV and posted to the internet.
They have guns don't they? Every federal agency maintains a security force with full law enforcement privileges. For example Social Security has OIG.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Can we please get rid of this obnoxious and worse, ineffective legacy of George W Bush?
I live in the UK, and have flown out every 4-6 months or so in the last 4 years. I've not been touched once, and only ever been metal detected. I don't even remove my shoes. Sometimes I go through the detector twice, if I forget to remove my belt/keys.
Last week my hand luggage was selected for "extra screening" -- they emptied it into a tray and swabbed it, then checked if the machine went "ping". I saw someone getting patted down (patted, not rubbed like in the US) and was surprised.
As other replies have said, the EU backscatter trial at Manchester is about to end (the end of the month, I think) and the machine removed.
u r a fascist cock sukk
naked picture of a 14 year old girl = tsa child porn!
The Federal Air Marshals within the TSA are classified as law enforcement. Screeners assist law enforcement as part of their mission statement.
We need two airlines. On one, you fly naked, shackled and with a black sack over your head.
On the other, bring whatever weapons you want, your security is your problem.
2) She didn't comply with the patdown. At which point she should have left the line.
There is a $10,000 fine for failure to complete the security checkpoint, once you have started.
You don't get to leave the line.
bonus captcha: barrier
There was NOTHING WRONG with the manner and actions that the TSA took with this lady and her kid. Nothing. Don't want a pat down. Get the fuck off the plane. Don't fly. There are rules when you fly. They haven't just been introduced yesterday. If you don't like it, take the fucking train.
The pat down on the girl was perfectly professional. Nothing more or less. The mom is a cunt plain and simple.
Oh yeah she was convicted by a jury of her peers. If it had been a convinction by judge you would have heard people crying this was fixed. Now, even with a jury trial you here people bashing that as well. Go fucking live in Egypt or Syria or Bahrain for awhile and let me know if you have a problem with a goddam pat down.
The TSA itself includes the Federal Air Marshals so definitely the TSA is. The screeners I'd say are law enforcement assistance. They are tasked on collecting information for law enforcement.
"if you kill on you'll just anger more" bullshit the fighting overseas has actually worked ..."
Are the lives of U.S. military personnel worth less than the lives of U.S. civilians? Are their deaths "acceptable" because they knowingly accepted additional risk to their persons when they volunteered for military service?
If you consider the lives of all U.S. citizens to be equally valuable and your foreign and domestic policy goals are to protect the lives of these citizens, the wars have been a total disaster. Far more Americans have been killed and wounded in stupid foreign wars than have been killed by Muslim terrorists attacking targets in the USA. Not to mention the waste of trillions of dollars.
The BS is that the evil jihadis are intent on attacking the U.S. due to an irrational hatred of our society. That hatred may exist, but the USA's long history of military interventionism has created the motive to engage in actual warfare against U.S. targets. The idea that people from Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia would travel thousands of miles and give up their lives to kill U.S. citizens simply because they hate our lifestyle and religions is ludicrous.
If you ask the question "Why do people from Muslim countries engage in violence against the USA?", is the true answer going to come from U.S. government officials ("they hate our freedom") or directly from the attackers? Why would these attackers lie about their motives? OBL said that his motives were:
-U.S. military occupation of the Muslim holy land.
-Sanctions against Iraq which resulted in untold suffering and death amongst the civilian populace.
-U.S. military support for Israel.
He didn't read The Constitution, get angry because "There's too much freedom in America" and then decide to attack.
To hell with the wars AND the police state.
Ever hear of the Bill of Rights? Ever read the Constitution? Ever read the definition of free?
Your response sickens me.
Standing in a line to be x-rayed, felt , or detained with no probable cause , because US security proved that even with one way tickets bought with cash by people on an FBI terrorist list, that were learning to fly ..... on and on.... now looking at my shoes, copping a feel on my child, and exerting authority over me as I attempt to visit a friend.
Did the Jury get instructions that let them know they had a choice of nullification as well as innocent or guilty? NFW...
There have been multiple attempts since then, including people who have been able to smuggle explosives on board (shoe bomber, underwear bomber, etc.). In every single case *the other passengers* were able to stop the attack.
Look, hijacking only works when you have the cooperation of the other passengers. Even with a weapon, a few guys can't fight 100 others. So traditionally they would tell the other passengers to stay calm and we'll land somewhere else. That's what the 9/11 hijackers did, although on at least one plane they killed some people, also.
9/11 changed all of that, starting over Shanksville. One of the hijackers was left outside the cockpit to watch the other passengers. They ended up torturing him, possibly to death. He was beaten with a fire extinguisher and had boiling water poured on him. The other hijackers ditched the plane when the good guys had broken through the cockpit door. They had likely seen what happened to their buddy outside the door and decided they would rather just die a quick easy death.
Hijacking is finished. It won't happen again because passengers will never again cooperate. This has nothing to do with the TSA.
Do you have ESP?
As for #4, I cannot find anywhere in the press evidence that she had an actual jury trial. In misdemeanor cases they are not customary; it's usually a trial by judge only.
No, they don't have guns. They're untrained, unskilled mall rentacops who have to be watched, else they'll steal things from their "customers".
Seriously. They've been told to refer to the people whose rights they violate as "customers" in an attempt to frame the situation in a way that distracts from the flagrant violations of the Bill of Rights they perform thousands of times per day.
Question everything
She is guilty of disobeying authority and nothing else.
The TSA exists solely to condition the American people to a police state. This is it in action.
We have known since its inception it is but security theater, not security. So it must exist for some other purpose. Here we see that purpose revealed. Obey authority no matter that it is a flagrant violation of the 4th amendment, and you will be made a criminal if you refuse (unless you are rich, famous or powerful).
Question everything
"Jurors deliberated four hours before convicting Andrea Abbott"
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/23/tenn-mom-guilty-disorderly-conduct-berated-tsa-officers-for-daughter-airport/
Hear, hear!
Question everything
Likewise, I went a few times on holiday in the 90's. But since Bush & the TSA, I don't visit, I don't accept contracts there, I don't invest there, I don't even fly over the country lest something I said upset some petty official that keeps some secret black list.
* Yeh Obama hasn't fixed it, I still blame Bush and the GOP Congress and wonder why you elected those morons again in 2010.
My outrage regarding TSA continues to grow, yet all I will do is sit on the internet and bitch because We The People have become so well fed and complacent we don't want to risk what we have for the sake of a little freedom.
Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.
--Niccolo Machiavelli
Require people to carry a pistol on flights is the answer.
I agree. Plus there's the bonus I can pop a cap in the next motherfucker who reclines his seat into my long-suffering knees!
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
The fact that they aren't law enforcement doesn't invalidate the analysis of what happened. Any other fallacious bullshit you'd like to spout?
The poster is right. This woman could have said "no" and walked away. She chose instead of cause a scene and has now been called out on it. Protest all you want out in public, not while in front of me in line while I'm trying to make my flight.
Always following the law is not always the solution to unjust laws. If that old lady didn't refused to move from that seat in the bus, unjust law would still be law today.
Kill yourself, you right-wing retard.
She argued loudly and refused a body scan for herself and her daughter.
What she did was not peaceful protesting of the policy it was arguing the policy shouldn't apply to her.
I usually don't consider loud arguing and body scan refusal to be violent.
I'm not entirely sure what you consider to be peaceful protesting but I would like to think that there is a difference between peaceful protesting and obedience.
Considering how annoying flying is, I'd rather go to sleep and wake up at my destination as well.
Count me in!
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...
TSA aren't cops.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Having lived many decades I am disheartened by the Soviet-like tactics that have become standard in the US. At least we still have freedom of speech to bitch about things, if little else.
asinine.
Please tell me that was an intentional pun.
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...
she wasn't protesting she was refusing. they told she had to submit to a search and she still refused. if you don't resist what you feel to be an infringement of your rights at the time it is happening, when the hell should you?
We should start a page to remember all those poor people run shod by the TSA and the system. They are all made example of to keep the rest of the sheep in line.
You could argue the terrorists already have a great vector from out southern border: help the smugglers bringing cocaine and such from South America. Arguably that causes more long-term damage than anything you'd do with a plane.
If they wanted to get in hell they can get in the same way that shit does. No need to fuck around with the airports.
Because women and children are always innocent and can never possibly be a threat (or used, eg bombs or mines) like men can be [/sarcasm]
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...
Obama is standing on the shoulders of giants. Funny that you say "expansion" and not creation. See, he is expanding what is already there. I'm not saying it's right, but that's fact. Our entire legal system is built on this principle.
REAL abuse of executive power is invading a soverign nation and overthrowing its government with no just cause, and in the process fabricating evidence to try and gain support for your actions. To this DAY there has never been a reasonable explanation for our invasion and occupation of Iraq. While Obama hasn't fixed the mess he inherited in our country, and may have made some things worse, what we do know is that the intent of his efforts were to try and improve things, and more importantly his policies have not directly led to the deaths of thousands of Americans and others around the world. That is where I see a massive difference between this and the former president.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
usually don't consider loud arguing and body scan refusal to be violent.
She wasn't charged with being violent.
I'm not entirely sure what you consider to be peaceful protesting but I would like to think that there is a difference between peaceful protesting and obedience.
A peaceful protest would start with attempting to get a parade permit to protest at an airport, as a protest at an airport is going to require coordination with security for everyone's safety.
The moment I watched the towers fall, I knew this is where it would end up. Whether anyone was "behind it" or not, the results are the same. The government and the Corporations that control it saw a PERFECT OPPORTUNITY to build the world them and their 1%'ers had envisioned.
The TSA is just part of a "broad based initiative" to turn the U.S. into a quasi-fascist Corporate state.
We are getting closer to that everyday.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Philosophically is there a difference between fondling the genitals of a 14yr old girl because its your job versus fondling the genitals of a 14yr old girl because you derive sexual pleasure from it? Now lets suppose its both your job, and it arouses you? Seems to me the end result is the same.
The comic "Dirty Pair" nailed the description of the TSA and other chunks of Homeland Security a few years early with the World Welfare Works Association, a name that would fit the TSA like a glove. The TSA is now mostly pointless busywork that keeps people employed and is a force of destruction while pretendign to be a force for good. Getting rid of it would stop a LOT of money going into a lot of pockets and add a huge number of people with no recent use of useful skills to the ranks of the unemployed.
http://dirtypair.wikia.com/wiki/World_Welfare_Works_Association
Did you ever stop to ask yourself why a stick of dynamite is that particular shape/thickness...?
No sig today...
Don't be silly. Don't need to drug the passengers. Just shackle and blindfold them. Hell, we've done it to thousands of innocent brown people whose names we'll never know, and who will never see the sun again. Let's just do it to everyone.
I thought I remembered a case from a fwe years ago where a guy was arrested because he tried to leave after refusing the various forms of inspection. The whole security line and inspection area was deemed some kind of one way, such that once you entered you were not allowed to leave without undergoing a search. Has that changed in the last few years?
Either way I thought the video demonstrated that she did not in fact impede the flow of passengers through the check point.
And apparently they all have a sex change surgery at one point. Or how else should the transition from hot female to ugly male flight attendants be explained?
I would personally prefer this "humiliation" to losing one of my family members because one woman would rather be free from the pat-downs/security scanning etc.
Except that's not really the choice you are making. It is not either or. This humiliation did not exist for most of my life, and yet I have not lost a family member to terrorism. It has been pointed out before that we cannot take for granted that the TSA's security measures are actually effective. 4 ounces of liquid? Give me a break. What if your choice were merely between enduring humiliation and not enduring it, with little change in your risk of death? Would you make the same choice?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
I'm sorry you might be temporarily inconvenienced by someone protesting a government organization that is quite possibly both unjust and unconstitutional. The horror!
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Let me guess...
Because you want to brighten up my day, make sure that I fly straight and improve my life?
No, that's the TSA's job! ;-)
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
A peaceful protest would start with attempting to get a parade permit to protest at an airport, as a protest at an airport is going to require coordination with security for everyone's safety.
"Please, dear government, let me protest against your violation of our rights! Please, I beg of you! Help keep everyone safe from us evil protestors!"
Only paranoid safety nuts agree with protest permits.
Yea but its your choice to take your bodies or possessions into public places. Do whatever you want in your home, but take the tinfoil hat libertarian fuckwad act outside of the airport.
Hey, imbecile: READ THIS AND FUCKING UNDERSTAND IT:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Seriously did you actually read that page or just google it and link? I count 15 hijackings after reading through the list that could actually have been stopped by TSA. To put that in perspective an average of 50 flights leave from the airport nearby every single day.
The scanners don't even work. Remember that story about the guy with a pocket on his sleeve? He put a metal cigarette pack in the pocket and since it was off his body, and appeared black as the background, they didn't see it at all on the scanner and he hopped on the plane with it.
Sorry, this is total BS. A metal box will show extremely high contrast on both xray backscatter or "terahertz" scanners used by the TSA.
Neither. I remember quite a few hijackings and wanted a quick piece of evidence about how many there were. I understand air travel is common. I also believe that for some reason terrorists seem to be attracted to airplanes more than subways or busses or ground trains or other sites like shopping malls. It is not the government but the terrorists that picked this particular venue.
The part that I find most disturbing about all of this is simply mindset. TSA acts as if everyone's mindset is still stuck in pre-9/11 days. The days of the terrorist taking over the plane and a bunch of sheep stuck in plane doing anything they want.
I don't know about you, but if I was on a plane and a terrorist took over said plane, I wouldn't hesitate to risk my life and everyone else's knowing full well what happened back then. I would _not_ hesitate. Regardless of my size, or hostility towards the terrorists views, I would NOT tolerate it. I have a feeling a lot of people will feel the same way. if there are 2 terrorists armed with underwear bombs and plastic forks/knifes, they won't last one second against the dew guzzling 2-seat needed xboxers sitting on them till we land. I will be one of them, asking for more code red.
That, plus like op stated, the reinforcement of the cockpit doors makes everything the TSA is doing completely useless. I can't believe my eyes that this continues. I haven't flown since 9/11. not for fear of terrorists, but for fear of me and my irate nature getting put in jail via the TSA which I know will happen.
I keep on waiting for someone to find that bit of magic left over from storybrook to break this awful curse we're under. Break the spell already!
People were calling him a traitor at the time, which is really my entire point.
Meanwhile selling guns to Hezbolla via Iran in 1984 was spun as the actions of a true patriot.
...that's what you wanted, that's what you got. Stop complaining and bend over, damit!
The fact there is not a single argument in favor of TSA, or even re-working TSA policy, promoted to +5 pretty much tells me that (a) it is majority abhorrent (like racism), or (b) no one is really thinking about the issue and just having a knee-jerk reaction.
Even if the hypothetical pro-TSA opinion was irrational but still a reason (e.g. racist logic) I would expect at least ONE +5 for making an attempt, but since there are none, I find it proof that slashdot is not a particularly useful forum for meaningful discussion.
And for my strawman: this may sound like equivalency bias/fallacy in stating all positions are equal. I'm not saying that: I'm saying there isn't even an ATTEMPT to understand the benefits of TSA, and every argument against sounds like an awful Rage Against the Machine song (which is a redundant statement).
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Nobody's in the streets protesting. Nobody but me is boycotting airlines. My letters to my Senator didn't even get a robo-acknowledgement.
Have we changed that much since the 60s?
If the people who are watching the scanner monitors are located in a private viewing room, the people on the security line should have a monitor so they can see the person watching the screening process. This way both parties watch each other and deters things like groups of gawkers crowding a monitor to watch the hot chick get scanned or attempting to snap pictures with a cell phone. Of course the camera would be positioned so that the passengers can't see the X-ray screens, a side view of the TSA agent would be more than enough. It might help the passengers feel a bit more secure but there is still the issue of strangers peering through your clothes.
It reminds me of one of the latest South Park episodes poking fun at the TSA, who installed cameras in everyones bathrooms. The person watching the screens was jerking off the whole time.
> I would personally prefer this "humiliation" to losing one of my family members because one woman would rather be free from the pat-downs/security scanning etc.
There are many countries with values compatible with yours.
I, however, am an American, and I would rather be blown up by a terrorist than see my country turn into a place where the whole population is treated like jail inmates.
I mean that. The ideas behind America are more important than my life.
Ridiculous spelling makes English speaking people seem uneducated. Rolling over for repressive unconstitutional policy makes them seem like sheep.
Governments never work if you don't have check's and balances between those in government and the people of the country otherwise history repeats itself and you will not have representatives but rulers. Tsa pat downs, no privacy, scanners twice the power of x-rays, ndaa, patriot act, etc... these methods are in par with the old Soviet and Romanian communist systems.
This is what happens when you have sociopath's running this country or any country for that matter. Look at the hundreds of thousands of laws the u.s has on the books just to regulate every aspect of our lives. Disorderly conduct? There were cases where cops were beating some individuals up and because they tried to protect themselves they were charged with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct, how nice, Vladamir Putin probably gets a hard on just reading about shit like this in our country. If the government is not for the people or by the people then it should not exist, the end. Every person has the right to life and pursuit of happiness on this land and if an authority person tries to beat you or shame you, you have the right to protect yourself.
Since TSA is not going anywhere the best thing people can do is not to fly anymore, boycott the airlines. For business, internet is cheap and there should be no problems in communicating from NY to CA through the net, same with communicating with family members through out the U.S. Use the train or bus to travel through out this country, or just drive.
Here's a simple breakdown. Number 1- the mother must know she does not have the RIGHT to fly, and therefore is subject to any whims the TSA has. She is consenting to the act by merely flying, if she doesn't want to be searched, no one is going to force her to be, all she has to do is leave. Flying is not a right. This is not a message in defense of TSA, it is merely fact. This is why she got convicted. Due to her behavior, it clearly made TSA nervous. And when people get nervous, they have to, for security and safety reasons, devout more personnel and time to that person. Because of this, they had less resources to search and secure all the rest of the passengers, any of whom who could be wanting to do harm. This mother, likely knowing what was going to happen once she got there, and though she has a right to be upset, caused the TSA to be distracted from their duties. She chose to act in such a way that the process was less secure for other people. Even if she only delayed 1 other person 1 second, she committed the crime she was found guilty of. And she would have. If you watch the video you can see how many agents they had dealing with her, and how calmly they were trying to do it to avoid such a situation. BTW, she only got a slap on the wrist, which is deserved and far less than what she could have gotten.
I went with Jill Stein this year because I wanted to make my vote speak to the DNC -- that I could be their voter if they didn't act like neocons and I figured Jill Stein would be the clearest representation of that. Many people confuse Republicans and Libertarians so I wanted to avoid confusion with my vote.
Sadly, except for one other green running for a state rep position, I basically had to write in my cat Boris for everything else (if you're in WA, you could also write in "Boris the Cat"). I decided to vote a straight neither GOP nor DNC ticket this year, cause they're both fucking disasters and nobody wearing either label, no matter what their intentions or personal qualities, can resist or overcome the corruption embodied by both parties. I just wish third parties would focus less on president and more on state and local contests. My cat is going to hate being US Senator, US Representative, Governor, Secretary of State, etc. etc. He's way too lazy to do all those jobs.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
And that is why in a free society, there must be consequences for police who cart a citizen off to jail (or just 'downtown') for inadequate reasons. Police procedure has become an instrument of punishment which can be handed out at any time.
But they themselves are not officers of the law. If an air marshal would care to step in, that will be a different matter.
The original claim was that the TSA wasn't law enforcement. Law enforcement isn't a legal term. On the other hand the Federal Air Marshals are:
a) Part of the TSA
b) Are classified as law enforcement on legal documents.
Now in terms of the screeners I'd call them civilian assistants to law enforcement, like meter maids.
I'll remember that the next time you consider me making a flight on-time to say good-bye to my dying mother an inconvenience that is not worthy of preempting someone's tantrum, sorry, I meant "protest", at the airport.
Yeah, sure, people should have the right to protest things, but that doesn't mean that the reasons people have for traveling are insignificant or that even if they are just vacations, that people spend a lot of time and effort into making their plans. There needs to be an understanding that we are in this together here.
> I'd argue that Iraq was a distraction at best, though.
Good points. While your above statement on Iraq is a common view (and hence, often repeated) I believe it is wrong. Even without the WMD fiasco I believe it was entirely morally justified in removing Saddam Hussein's clearly *evil* regime. The great Christopher Hitchens thinks so too, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ke2OLLlPho (plus please check out some of the other Youtube videos where he talks about Iraq since he visited there a number of times - eg. his horrible account of the mass graves and getting covered in "people dust" that stuck to his sunscreen).
Getting rid of Saddam stopped him waging war on his neighbours (although the attack on Iran was encouraged by the US; but also consider Iraq's attack on Kuwait and determination to get it back when the opportunity presented itself again) and the genocides committed against his own Shia population and the Kurds (where he did use nerve gas WMDs). So I think it is pretty hard to argue against the war in Iraq, especially as it now puts the civilized world on a good footing to confront the messianic WMD ambitions of Iran (and Iran is a real threat to Western liberal civilization if you have been following its political statements at all).
I think it's the TSA that is the source of anyone's inconvenience.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
... Or, you're guilty of whatever it was that you were doing that we now say, in retrospect, was a crime, even though it wasn't at the time when you did it.
This is the best restaurant I ever eat in
> Are their deaths "acceptable" because they knowingly accepted additional risk to their persons when they volunteered for military service?
What planet are you on? the danger is part of the contract that a volunteer serviceman accepts in exchange for good employment, pensions, all sorts of benefits, educational programmes, medical care, training etc etc. I'm an ex-serviceman (from my own country) and fully knew what I was signing on for - all my comrades did to. That doesn't mean we had a deathwish, it is just a factor of the job. However, your statement is wolly-headed bullshit. It is not a matter of whose lives are worth more. It is a matter that military personnel over the World understand that it is their job to shield the rest of the populace from harm's way - and that can take a degree of sacrifice on several ways (from hardship to physical risk).
> Far more Americans have been killed and wounded in stupid foreign wars than have been killed by Muslim terrorists attacking targets in the USA.
Surely you have sufficient imagination to understand what would have happened if the US had not responded to the attacks on it, and had not gone for the root of the problem (as in troublesome or potentially troublesome countries). Would you prefer the US had waited and fought every battle on its soil while the jihadis trained uninterrupted in their madrassas in Afghanistan and Pakistan (and while Saddam threatened neighbours and committed genocide againsts his Shia and Kurdish countrymen)? Are you so anti-Western in outlook that you can't see the good that has come from those engagements. One of the best things from those wars is that the people of the Middle East could see Al Qaeda for you they really are. Al Qaeda went from heroes resisting the US into the crazed zealots in the perception of Middle Easterners. Being associated with Al Qaeda is no longer spoken with pride and reverence and is now an insult. That is one of the best long-term benefits of those wars. It is so important to win the long-term mind game and those wars helped it far more than they hindered it (even if the political left refuse to see reason on this).
>The idea that people from Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia would travel thousands of miles and give up their lives to kill U.S. citizens simply because they hate our lifestyle and religions is ludicrous.
Ok, here you show total ignorance of the Wahhabi and Salafist doctrines. You statement is verifiably false. They do hate Western liberal civilization for its own sake. Why was Malala Yousafzai shot? her attacker said because they wanted to stop Western ideals (as in women's rights and the education of girls). It is part of their doctrine. The overall doctrine is to restore the Caliphate and subjugate the entire world to Islamic Rule (Islam means "submission", after all). Now while I have zero problem with Muslims I do take umbrage at their doctrines. All Muslims believe that sooner or later Islam will take over the world, some believe in helping this process along by any means possible. The restoration of the Caliphate is completely incompatible with Western civilization as we know it (womens rights, free speech, homosexuals rights, womens education, etc). The jihadis believe they are "doing God's work" and it is completely justified to travel across the globe and perform homicide bombings. If you don't understand this then you haven't been paying attention to what they have been saying (especially when we get peeks behind closed doors).
> He didn't read The Constitution, get angry because "There's too much freedom in America" and then decide to attack.
Any non-Islamic person or country is a target. In fact, any Muslim who is not "islamic enough" also is a legitimate target for attack (hence the Shia vs Sunni battles raging all over the place at the moment). America (and the West) will always be seen as a legitimate target for attack until it becomes an Islamic state. So yeah, they do see "too much freedom in America". Again, if you are unaware of th
Pick up that can.
That is the other side effect, suddenly everyone on the plane will be courteous and nice.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I think that's the right move. My friends are mostly on the right, so there's a lot of voting for Libertarians going on, not because they're desirable but because it seems the most clear protest vote. For one election there were tea party candidates that were distict form GOP candidates (you could tell, because they were running against incumbants in the primaries), which while that movement was co-opted afterwards shows that it's not impossible to get the parties to budge - they can be forced to form new coalitions.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Actually, the claim was that the TSA screeners aren't law enforcement.
they were all hot, 35 years ago when they got hired. Somehow 60 year olds with 3 kids and 6 grandkids just lose the hot factor along they way.
Blame it on them having to work long hours and thus not having time to catch their pilates class at the gym.
"Beyond Abbott's confession of issuing some verbal abuse, the video does not appear to display a significant blockage of traffic nor anything noticeably criminal."
Clearly she was redirecting the attention of a couple of critical TSA authorities so a terrorist could get through the line. It was a plan, I tell ya. A plan!
They only gave her one year of probation so they could cyber-tail her and watch for accomplices.
Nyark nyark.
"TSA screeners aren't law enforcement."
True. They just have all the power of same, but none of the accountability.
Whether armed with anti-terrorist rocks or not, passengers just aren't going to sit in their seats and hope the terrorists let them go when the plane lands like in the 70's and 80's. Nowadays if a passenger is just a little unruly, fellow passengers will tackle and pin him down for the rest of the flight. It's going to take a lot more than box cutters and nail files to take over a plane in the post-911 era. This whole new passenger mindset has more to do with preventing hijackings than TSA regulations and security screenings. Airport security was already effective at keeping bombs off planes ever since the Pan-Am bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1989.
I don't disagree with your position, but your first argument doesn't address the rights of citizens living and working in "ground targets".
Where do we gather with the protests signs?
Or we just wait our turn?
I didn't comment on the analysis. You probably didn't notice that as you almost broke a leg in your rush to prove me wrong.
If you or the OP want to suck the TSA's collective dick, don't let me stop you. But I will point out when idiots try to elevate their screeners to anything more than security guards.
I was charged with disorderly conduct after finishing my first margarita of the evening. Tl;DR: I was arrested for finishing my first 3oz margarita and had to spend the night in jail with a $350 fine. I went to the bar at a casino and ordered a margarita. Since it was Cinco de Mayo it was only a dollar, and also only about 3 ounces of liquid since it was a 6 ounce cup overflowing with ice. They have a strict 1 drink/30 minute alcohol policy so I waited 30 minutes and requested another drink. The bartender refused to serve me because I was "acting drunk". I admit that I was laughing with my friends, but if laughing is a sign of being drunk then kids are alcoholics. I thought she was joking so I requested another margarita. After the second time of being denied I said okay...but it was too late. There were 2 security guards behind me asking me to leave the premsies. Completely bamboozled, I said "sure, whatever", to which a security guard informed me that I was being a "smart-ass". Not wanting to make a scene I grab my drink and finish the ice water that had melted on the bottom. Security did not like this. They punched my arm, grabbed my wrist (I recently had double wrist surgery) and cuffed me. 9 hours and $350 later I was freed in the middle of a corn field. These charges are beyond ridiculous
You forget it is also the home of the brave. Where 'brave' means so scared of the extremely remote chance you might be the victim of terrorism that they gladly give up their freedoms.
Land of the oppressed, home of the cowards.
Fun fact:
"Brave" comes from roots meaning something more like "bravado", i.e. "bragging, boasting, showing off, posturing". Even in English usage since the 15th century, the core meanings for much of that time had to do with being "showy", and where courageousness was intended, the word meant "showing courage", rather than "being courageous" or "having courage" -- so one could be 'brave' by pretending to be a bad-ass, yet still ultimately acting like a chicken-shit.
Sadly, that seems rather apt when applied to the behavior on display in the US of late...
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
If their goal was to blow up a bunch of random people, there are much easier targets with a lot more people.
" The agency was voted into existence by an elected congress and the detailed rules created by an elected executive. "
You left out "in violation of the Constitution". The constitution expressly forbids the function of the agency, ah hell DHS, that "was voted in existence by an elected congress and the detailed rules created by an elected executive". The public knows this, maybe the government should be reminded violently, since peaceful methods haven't worked.
Police procedure has become an instrument of punishment which can be handed out at any time.
That is the dividing line between the nation of laws and the police state. The USA always had small-town Sheriffs who abused their power against "undesirable" visitors. But today a SWAT team can throw you on the ground, shock you with a Taser, put a barrel of the gun to your head, and after they are done you will be glad that they haven't carted you away. Plenty of SWAT raids are done on wrong information, just because the police couldn't be bothered to knock on the door and ask - or even to check the street address. And, FSM forbid, if you mistake the police for burglars and try to defend yourself... your life as a law-abiding citizen effectively ends then. For some, their entire life ended at that point. If that's not a police state then what is?
No, but the possibility that they might die without being able to achieve their goal may.
In any case, if bombers are the concern we should just roll everything back to pre-9/11 security right now. A bomber would have to be exceptionally stupid to target a plane; there are so many places that he or she could easily kill a lot more people without having to deal with *any* security screening, and those other places would actually have more psychological impact. We walk around assuming we're safe from being blown up by terrorists at the mall, at football games, at work, etc. Terrorists would get maximum value from a bomb by proving us wrong there.
But the fact is that even bombs are hard enough to carry off in the US that it's not really worth the effort. 9/11 was about using the airplanes as near-WMD scale bombs, and supposedly that's what all the airport security crap is about preventing. Except that now that passengers know that hijackers should be resisted, that tactic will never work again -- which is a good thing because the security screening the TSA does has no prayer of stopping a similar attack. Oh, and the barred cockpit doors help, too.
Ideologically, I like Lumpy's solution of arming all the passengers (or at least certifying those who are willing to go through training and get a background check -- but honestly that's just because I don't want to hassle with checking my gun, and I know I can pass whatever checks they want to perform). But it's not really necessary. Pre-9/11 airport security was perfectly adequate; we should just go back to that. Minus the ID check, which never has been a security measure.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
What concerns me more is his desire to privatize the prison industry. You think jails are overcrowded now, what would happen if all the prisons were for-profit entities?
I'm not sure there is a violation of the constitution. But lets assume there was. The appropriate way to deal with that would be to draft up a clear explanation of why it was in violation and notify the TSA during one of their hearings. If they were disinterested then file in a federal court. Throwing a temper tantrum in an airport is not the right way.
As for violent methods. Peaceful methods haven't been meaningfully tried. Moreover, if you don't have enough power to get a law overturned you do not have enough power to violently overthrow the government. I'd suggest joining the ACLU not throwing bombs.
Has anyone else noticed that, as universally reviled as the TSA is, it is not remotely a campaign issue? Has any Conressional/Senate/Presidential candidate spoken about it?
.
The current United States Code, Title 10 (Armed forces), section 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes), paragraph (a) states: "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. -- from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)#Twentieth_century_and_current
.
Thus every male over the age of 18 and under 45 in the USA is a member of the militia of the USA, along with all female citizens who are members of the National Guard. This destroys the ambiguity, or adds to it, doesn't it? We just don't hear it that often, but every male USA-ian of the proper draft-able age is a member of the militia, and thus by suffix extension, also a militant.
If I was a terrorist leader, I'd do nothing. Why increase your risk of dying to make the enemy miserable when you can get the enemy's government to do it for you?
The role of "unreasonable" (and therefore "reasonable" as well) within the context of the 4th amendment seems to me to be crystal clear: it is defined by the restrictions laid out next.
A reasonable search is one that has the predicates: probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, clear description of who, and what, is to be searched, and a warrant.
An unreasonable search is any search that does not meet those requirements. And, as the amendment says, you are to be free from those.
Ask yourself this: Does it make sense to say that the government is limited to searching only with these predicates... "unless it feels it's reasonable", where reasonable is left to an unknown, that is to say ultimately vague, definition?
Or would they more likely lay out those limits to, you know, actually limit the government?
Look at the other amendments. They're all explicit limits on the government. Why in the world would they take the time to write an amendment that only appears to be a limit, but isn't, based upon anyone's particular definition of reasonable at the moment?
Why not just say: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against searches and seizures, shall not be violated unless the government says it is reasonable to do so"?
Looks pretty strange that way, doesn't it? It certainly wouldn't be construed as a limit -- instead, that's how you would lay out a power. But it means exactly the same thing as your reading: If they think it's reasonable, they can just do it.
Why, if "reasonable" is the actual criteria in play, would they need a warrant at all? Why mention all those things, if they are completely optional, based upon someone simply saying "well, it was reasonable"?
Now let's flip it around: if a search can be performed without the laid-out predicates if someone (who is left undefined by the 4th) simply thinks it's reasonable, then the only time you'd need a warrant is when someone thinks that a search is unreasonable in the first place. Now: Is a known factor of probable cause a marker for an unreasonable search? Is the oath of some person something that makes a search unreasonable? Ultimately, if reasonable searches are free of encumbrance, when are the predicates intended to come into play?
It appears to me that any claim that unreasonable — and reasonable — are not defined by those predicates in the context of the 4th amendment requires an extremely strained, and ultimately unsupportable reading.
Well, do you see any such specifics in the 4th amendment? For that matter, can you cite anything in the constitution that says that the government is not held to the document's restrictions, or authorized powers enumerated therein, if it decides it wants something different or "other" at any particular point in time?
And let me ask you this: If the government can just make up what it wants any time, and the constitution isn't really a limiting factor, just sort of a starting point for any claim they want to make, why provide for amendment at all? If the government can add powers without amendment, and they can violate restrictions without amendment, what the heck is the purpose of amendment at all? And, why does it have such a high set of bars to implementation, if the idea wasn't that (a), the government is limited as described, no excuses, and (b) they can change that, but they have to work for it, that is, article five.
Again, the idea that the government can just do what it wants if it thinks it "has an interest" is contrary to the entire idea of the constitution. Were that the operative mode, the constitution is entirely superfluous. I submit to you that its very existence and wording cries out to say that it was not intended to be superfluous, but an absolute set of limits on government, both in authorized power, and restrictions on power.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
...said that they just want us to get used to this. The airport is where they're trying it out, but we'll see it in other places soon. And the whole thing is bullshit. How many hijackers have they caught with this?
Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
"It is not the government but the terrorists that picked this particular venue."
Hah! Funny you should say that. I'm afraid that the modern era of political hijacking was ushered in by none other than our own favorite blowback band, the CIA. They manufactured numerous hijackings of flights out of Cuba as a political attack on Castro's government. Cuba followed suit, until they actually came to an agreement to stop. But, the rest of the world had noticed and we've had them ever since.
That's funny! Makes sense it would be karma.
It gives an impression that you have something to hide.
I'd say that's only true for those possessing suboptimal intellect.
It also encourages other visitors to non-cooperative behavior.
That's a good thing, in my opinion.
If you want to complain: complain afterwards, not during.
After the injustice has happened, and where no one else can see you.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I'm not sure there is a violation of the constitution.
Then you're anti-freedom and anti-privacy. Anyone with a brain can see this violates the spirit of the constitution.
It is so important to win the long-term mind game and those wars helped it far more than they hindered it (even if the political left refuse to see reason on this).
They don't "refuse to see reason"; there is no reason. It's not as if all the terrorists magically got locked up in countries in the middle east. If they wanted to, and if they had a viable plan in mind, we'd have had another terrorist attack (war or no war). Anyone who supports pointless wars is just an idiot. And if those same people say they want to decrease the national debt, they're just hypocrites of the highest caliber.
We all need to defend liberty and freedom of Western society.
Indeed we do, but molesting people at airports and starting pointless wars that cost us trillions of dollars isn't helping. We aren't the fucking world police.
I agree completely. About the only 9-11 security measure that was taken that makes a difference is the locked/reinforced cockpit door. If the hijacker can't get to the cockpit, they can't take over the aircraft. Apart from that (and passenger vigilance/activism), we could roll back to pre-911 security measures with no real loss in security.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Are you so afraid of the bogey man that you don't go to the mall, the movie theatre, to work, to school? /. ;-)
This is
They might well be just like that..
"Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes