Anyone flying soon?

[burk48237]

Andrew McCarthy had a great article in National Review this mourning on this issue. For some background, he was a former federal prosecutor and the number two prosecutor in the Blind Sheik and WTC bombing cases in 93, so he has a bit of expertise on terrorism cases and the law.

A few points:

1) By going to the most intrusive option as the only option the TSA has acted unreasonably in the eyes of the law. While the threat of Air travel attack is real, it is no more real then any other number of attack methods. And the TSA must consider all factors, not just the threat of safety. Would the threat of Car Bombs to Wash DC. for instance justify vehicle searches of every car entering the city? Using the TSA's logic, the fourth amendment is basically null and void.

Speaking of reasonableness, the Supreme Court reaffirmed in the 2001 Knights case that it is “the touchstone of the Fourth Amendment.” Determining whether a search is reasonable requires an assessment of “all the circumstances” — not just the potential threat to public safety and the state of modern technology, but the intrusiveness of the proposed search, it's likely effectiveness, and the degree of privacy Americans may reasonably expect from their government under the circumstances.

2) It's ineffective. When everyone becomes a suspect, it stretches LE resources beyond effectiveness. In effect the TSA's everyone as a suspect policy makes no one a suspect. And it prevents the opportunity to really prevent a terrorists action (something the TSA has never done). The common denominator in all terrorists actions is not the means (package openers, C4, liquid explosives, underwear bombs) but the perpetrators. Their methods are constantly changing and by basing our strategy on their methods we are always a step behind.

Most significant, the government is ignoring the most material element: discrimination, based on characteristics known to be associated with the threat. Discrimination has been turned into a dirty word, but we want our law-enforcement, intelligence, and security services to employ it sensibly. If everyone is a suspect, then no one is a suspect — meaning the real threats get no real attention.

3) It is illegal, the Constitution is clear that all searches by LE require probable cause. It is clear that the TSA is trying to deflect from its ineffectiveness in dealing with the real threats by a strategy that is not only ineffective but may make it easier for real terrorists. The real way to fight this is better communication, the end of turf battles among LE, things that the 9/11 commission complained about almost a decade ago. It is inexcusable that the Christmas Day bomber was allowed to board a flight to the US.

Whether it’s the case of the Christmas bomber, the Fort Hood assassin, or the World Trade Center bombers from 17 years ago, our government, again and again, has consciously avoided the common denominators of Islamist ideology and anti-American animus that should have raised caution signs. We have knowingly granted entry into our country, and often into our institutions, to people who have meant us harm. The officials whose job it is to protect us have decided to protect Muslim sensibilities by treating every American as a suspected mass-murderer. To feel better about themselves, to inoculate themselves from bogus charges of racism and Islamophobia, they have decided to mortify everyone.

Many things may be said about this approach, but reasonable is not one of them. I’d start with unconstitutional

Invalid Link Removed

 

[GregC]

Didja ever think about how quick this would have been shot down if Haliburton made the Xray system? Most of the proponents would be screaming one conspiracy theory or another. But, as you stated, when the political party you agree with is in office, everything is "a-ok" in the name of national security.

Didja ever think about how quick this would have been shot down by its current proponents if the Homeland Security director of the previous administration was benefiting from the sale of these mach--oh wait.



When the political party you disagree with is in office, nothing is allowed in the name of national security.

I don't actually believe that, I'm just demonstrating how overwrought your claims are. Apparently, I have a little more respect for those I disagree with on this issue than you do. Maybe you should give it a shot, because your persistent attempts to paint the folks on the other side as politically motivated don't seem to be working too well. This is quite obviously an issue that cuts across party lines.

Registered Independent who voted for the current administration here. Both sides are the other side for me but it is sad to watch the support for things and finger pointing sway from administration to administration and its easy to see when you are not as consumed with love or misguided allegience for a party. Thanks for playing though.

I don't really care who you voted for, and it doesn't mean you're any more objective than others here--that seems obvious from some of the terminology you're using to describe others. What I stated above is true. You keep trying to paint those you disagree with on this issue as driven by partisanship, and it's BS.

I never said that support for certain things doesn't sway from one administration to the next. But this particular issue is not a purely partisan one. To state it yet again, the current administration implemented these procedures, but people associated with both parties have recommended them (like Chertoff on the "other side"). And the ACLU, which many "scream" (to use your overly dramatic term) is a liberal front group, is squarely against the new measures. As for the TB posters you keep trying to impugn, I see folks on each side of this debate who I know from previous threads have divergent political views.

But hey, if you want to keep pushing this political tangent while claiming you're above political squabbling, knock yourself out.

 

[Son of Sanford]

I don't really care who you voted for, and it doesn't mean you're any more objective than others here--that seems obvious from some of the terminology you're using to describe others. What I stated above is true. You keep trying to paint those you disagree with on this issue as driven by partisanship, and it's BS.

It is? I read the whole thread for you. Did you miss this post?

The thing that bugs me the most about the outrage over these "invasive" searches is that the people who are up in arms about it are the same people who will crucify the current administration if another plane gets hijacked. In Ann Coulter's case, they're also the same people who had no problem with warrantless wiretaps and the suspension of habeas corpus. The faux outrage over this issue is just more political posturing.

I never said that support for certain things doesn't sway from one administration to the next. But this particular issue is not a purely partisan one. To state it yet again, the current administration implemented these procedures, but people associated with both parties have recommended them (like Chertoff on the "other side"). And the ACLU, which many "scream" (to use your overly dramatic term) is a liberal front group, is squarely against the new measures. As for the TB posters you keep trying to impugn, I see folks on each side of this debate who I know from previous threads have divergent political views.

But hey, if you want to keep pushing this political tangent while claiming you're above political squabbling, knock yourself out.

I never said it was a purely partisan issue, but every issue is partisan for some and some of those people have posted in this thread. Perhaps you should save your soapbox for them. Better yet, maybe you ought to wonder, to yourself, why you felt the need to single me out while skimming over the post above. As for overly dramatic, you will have trouble finding where I used the term "scream" because I have not in this thread. Maybe you are reading someone else's posts and assuming they are mine? That might explain a bit.

 

[Brad Johnson]

ya, tough to argue with that, isn't it?

Actually no, Jimmy.

The only reason it's "tough to argue with" is because he made it so personal. As such anything I say might be taken personally. I've had that happen on TB before and it can get downright weird... I was once threatened with a lawsuit here for supposedly talking about someone's dead father who the other person brought up and I didn't actually talk about.


I will say this... as the son of a long time special education teacher and as someone who has special needs individuals in my immediate family, having a child is not the only way to understand or experience what he described... but I can easily see him taking any response as a personal attack. So I won't respond to him. Fair enough?

bartman, i feel for you and your little gal. that is so not right that it's heartbreaking. i hope you get a nice tsa agent who knows what's right under the circumstances.

 

[Brad Johnson]

No ****? The same previous administration with a VP routinely linked to Haliburton? That is either an uncanny coincidence, or you misunderstood another post again and jumped to a conclusion in your haste to grandstand, punctuated with what must now be your and my gradeschool daughter's favorite way to end a sentence. I am guessing you get corrected a lot but refuse to acknowledge it. I am guessing it is about to happen again. I made a comment to JimmyM. When you are addressed, you will see your name in the post. Cool?

I said Good Day, Sir!






Seriously though, you're pegging the meter with your shotgun approach. You say this:

Didja ever think about how quick this would have been shot down if Haliburton made the Xray system? Most of the proponents would be screaming one conspiracy theory or another. But, as you stated, when the political party you agree with is in office, everything is "a-ok" in the name of national security.

So this is your way of not saying it's partisan? Fail.

That seems to be saying what it's saying. Complaining that people who aren't flailing around about this being partisan to the CURRENT ADMINISTRATION. Yet Jimmy was complaining about Chertoff, who is from the PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION. BTW I say DUH because it really gets to the point in the fewest letters.




You are priceless. And as an American I have unfettered access to this thread, I don't need to wait for you to address me nor give me permission to respond. Have fun groping with that. Happy trails.

 

[Brad Johnson]

I don't really care who you voted for, and it doesn't mean you're any more objective than others here--that seems obvious from some of the terminology you're using to describe others. What I stated above is true. You keep trying to paint those you disagree with on this issue as driven by partisanship, and it's BS.

I never said that support for certain things doesn't sway from one administration to the next. But this particular issue is not a purely partisan one. To state it yet again, the current administration implemented these procedures, but people associated with both parties have recommended them (like Chertoff on the "other side"). And the ACLU, which many "scream" (to use your overly dramatic term) is a liberal front group, is squarely against the new measures. As for the TB posters you keep trying to impugn, I see folks on each side of this debate who I know from previous threads have divergent political views.

But hey, if you want to keep pushing this political tangent while claiming you're above political squabbling, knock yourself out.

 

[Son of Sanford]

BTW I say DUH because it really gets to the point in the fewest letters.

I would have guessed it was more indicative of your maturity in a discussion and coincides with your ability to grasp multiple facets at once. It gets a point across, but not the one you think it does. You may respond.

 

[sloasdaylight]

Andrew McCarthy had a great article in National Review this mourning on this issue. For some background, he was a former federal prosecutor and the number two prosecutor in the Blind Sheik and WTC bombing cases in 93, so he has a bit of expertise on terrorism cases and the law.

A few points:

1) By going to the most intrusive option as the only option the TSA has acted unreasonably in the eyes of the law. While the threat of Air travel attack is real, it is no more real then any other number of attack methods. And the TSA must consider all factors, not just the threat of safety. Would the threat of Car Bombs to Wash DC. for instance justify vehicle searches of every car entering the city? Using the TSA's logic, the fourth amendment is basically null and void.



2) It's ineffective. When everyone becomes a suspect, it stretches LE resources beyond effectiveness. In effect the TSA's everyone as a suspect policy makes no one a suspect. And it prevents the opportunity to really prevent a terrorists action (something the TSA has never done). The common denominator in all terrorists actions is not the means (package openers, C4, liquid explosives, underwear bombs) but the perpetrators. Their methods are constantly changing and by basing our strategy on their methods we are always a step behind.



3) It is illegal, the Constitution is clear that all searches by LE require probable cause. It is clear that the TSA is trying to deflect from its ineffectiveness in dealing with the real threats by a strategy that is not only ineffective but may make it easier for real terrorists. The real way to fight this is better communication, the end of turf battles among LE, things that the 9/11 commission complained about almost a decade ago. It is inexcusable that the Christmas Day bomber was allowed to board a flight to the US.



Invalid Link Removed

The other two I think you're right on, but as I said earlier in this thread, there was a case that went before the Supreme Court in the 70s that stated that searches when entering a "secured area" were not a breach of the 4th Amendment. Whether you agree with that or not, the precedent has been set already for these types of searches, so without a flip from the court, it's likely there will not be much of a case.

 

[Rocker949]

I was reading my local newspaper today and noticed an article that said they'd started using full body scanners on a trial basis at several courthouses now. I had wondered if this might happen, but really had no idea that it already was happening.


Invalid Link Removed

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

It seems like you have to go through scanners and metal detectors in more and more places. Go to a baseball or hockey game, go through a metal detector, get patted down and a look in your bag. Go to the county courthouse, same thing. You can't even go to the Grammys or a Top Gear shoot without having to go through a metal detector, spill out your pockets, etc. Where does it all end?

I fly about 4–8 round trips a year. I have no criminal record. They shouldn't be scrutinizing me, they should be putting the criminals and terrorists through higher scrutiny.

 

[GregC]

It is? I read the whole thread for you. Did you miss this post?

It was early in the thread, IIRC. As for reading--well, read on.

I never said it was a purely partisan issue, but every issue is partisan for some and some of those people have posted in this thread.

So now it's down from "a lot" to "some". Excellent.
http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10024781&postcount=159

Perhaps you should save your soapbox for them. Better yet, maybe you ought to wonder, to yourself, why you felt the need to single me out while skimming over the post above.

His post was a lot earlier in the thread. More importantly, it was easy to overlook because his other posts were about other facets of the topic. On the other hand, your primary (arguably sole) focus has been on the political motivations of others.

Soapbox, you say?

Registered Independent who voted for the current administration here. Both sides are the other side for me but it is sad to watch the support for things and finger pointing sway from administration to administration and its easy to see when you are not as consumed with love or misguided allegience for a party. Thanks for playing though.

And finally...

As for overly dramatic, you will have trouble finding where I used the term "scream" because I have not in this thread. Maybe you are reading someone else's posts and assuming they are mine? That might explain a bit.

I'm quoting it now for the third time, with helpful bolding. Maybe you should reconsider your sarcasm about reading things.

Didja ever think about how quick this would have been shot down if Haliburton made the Xray system? Most of the proponents would be screaming one conspiracy theory or another. But, as you stated, when the political party you agree with is in office, everything is "a-ok" in the name of national security.

 

[GregC]

I'm off for the long weekend, heading to Midway Airport to see what manner of indignities will surely be visited on my person. Happy Thanksgiving to all!

 

[Brad Johnson]

It was early in the thread, IIRC. As for reading--well, read on.
So now it's down from "a lot" to "some". Excellent.
http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10024781&postcount=159
His post was a lot earlier in the thread. More importantly, it was easy to overlook because his other posts were about other facets of the topic. On the other hand, your primary (arguably sole) focus has been on the political motivations of others.

Soapbox, you say?

And finally...
I'm quoting it now for the third time, with helpful bolding. Maybe you should reconsider your sarcasm about reading things.

His sarcasm is clearly the best part, all things considered.

 

[Brad Johnson]

I would have guessed it was more indicative of your maturity in a discussion and coincides with your ability to grasp multiple facets at once. It gets a point across, but not the one you think it does. You may respond.

You seem to guess about a lot of things. Particularly about what you have and haven't said. Strange.


Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[burk48237]

The other two I think you're right on, but as I said earlier in this thread, there was a case that went before the Supreme Court in the 70s that stated that searches when entering a "secured area" were not a breach of the 4th Amendment. Whether you agree with that or not, the precedent has been set already for these types of searches, so without a flip from the court, it's likely there will not be much of a case.

I think there are a few issues with that though. One, how intrusive is the search? Metal detectors, are one level of intrusiveness and arguably justifiable when entering a secure area. But full body scanners and pat downs are far more intrusive and I would suspect require a much higher level of justification. If you read the McCarthy piece he explains how the Federal Prosecutors dealt specifically with a threat to a secure area, a federal courthouse. And the solution was not more intrusiveness for the general public. Instead they choose to concentrate on likely suspects. This is what good Law Enforcement does.

On one hand some have claimed to justify this policy here (and in the government) that we are "at war". I agree, on the other hand the government is moving to guarantee Constitutional rights to terrorists suspects while it appears to be denying them to the general population. On the face of it this policy is not only unconstitutional, it is irrational.

Right now it appears to me that when dealing with terrorism the TSA argument voids the entire fourth amendment. If I abide with the TSA argument I don't see how an American citizen preserves any right to privacy. Airplane hijackings are far less likely then drunk driving or drug dealing. If I have the right to search you because of a far less imminent danger of a possible Airplane hijacking without any cause, I certainly have the right to pull over your car without any reason is an area of high drug dealing or drunkenness.

This is McCarthies primary point. The TSA argument rest on one factor "the potential threat to public safety as it relates to current technology". But the Courts (in the Kraft decision) have defined "reasonableness" as considering all of the factors, such as intrusiveness, likely effectiveness (Something the TSA has a pathetic track record on), and the degree of privacy an American can expect from their government.

So while a search of some level is reasonable in "secure areas" the TSA's new methods do not pass the test. They are far to intrusive, not by any means effective, and far beyond a reasonable expectation of privacy under the fourth amendment. I am confident they would not pass muster when considered by SCOTUS.

 

[burk48237]

It seems like you have to go through scanners and metal detectors in more and more places. Go to a baseball or hockey game, go through a metal detector, get patted down and a look in your bag. Go to the county courthouse, same thing. You can't even go to the Grammys or a Top Gear shoot without having to go through a metal detector, spill out your pockets, etc. Where does it all end?

I fly about 4–8 round trips a year. I have no criminal record. They shouldn't be scrutinizing me, they should be putting the criminals and terrorists through higher scrutiny.

I agree, and they aren't even effective. I have a CCW and twice in the last six months I have entered areas forgetting I was carrying where it was illegal (in one case borderline). In both situations the metal detectors (one case a hand wand) did not detect a commander sized all metal .45 pistol in a holster inside my waist band. I am sure that a criminal wanting to smuggle a weapon in would have had no issues.

 

[Stu L.]

So what now? Many (myself included) feel this is unconstitutional. Where do we go from here? I really do not see these machines removed and put in the dumpster. What can we (general public) do to protect ourselves with regards to our rights? I am not looking forward to my upcoming trip.

 

[Marlat]

So I got the Eurostar from London to Brussels last weekend. Went through a metal detector with no issues and no obtrusive pat down. Didn't have to wait in a massive line to pass through passport control or get grilled by immigration police. Sat down and enjoyed a nice meal with a metal knife and fork while drinking out of a bottle of water which I carried onboard with me. All round, quite an pleasant trip. Man it sucks living in a nanny state like Europe!

 

[MakiSupaStar]

So what now? Many (myself included) feel this is unconstitutional. Where do we go from here? I really do not see these machines removed and put in the dumpster. What can we (general public) do to protect ourselves with regards to our rights? I am not looking forward to my upcoming trip.

I'd like one of those machines in my bedroom. Just saying.

 

[burk48237]

So what now? Many (myself included) feel this is unconstitutional. Where do we go from here? I really do not see these machines removed and put in the dumpster. What can we (general public) do to protect ourselves with regards to our rights? I am not looking forward to my upcoming trip.

Here is what I'm going to do when I fly to NAMM in Jan,

1) Be sure that your in compliance with all other regulations, there is no reason to give TSA probable cause for a more intrusive search. So leave your nail clippers and bottles of Scotch in checked luggage.

2) Opt out of the full body scanner if one is in place. Inform the TSA agent that the scanner is intrusive and the fourth amendment guarantees you a right to privacy and avoidance of unreasonable searches.

3) If they choose to pat you down because you opted out. I would do this. 1) Do not resist, but do the following before the search. 3) remain calm and even in your response to them 3) Ask the agent if he has a warrant 4) Ask the agent for his or her name and badge number and write it down. 5) Inform them that you consider any physical search to be unconstitutional and that they are performing a nonconsensual search. 6) Inform them that any contact in sexual areas will be considered sexual assault and you will pursue recourse under the full extent of the law. 7) If you have a friend there with a cell phone or camera, have them record the episode. 8) When you arrive home immediately contact a Lawyer or perhaps a legal activist group and proceed with a law suit.

I suspect that by the time I fly (mid Jan) this will already have been litigated at some level.