Originally Posted By Dabob2 <This doesn't strike me as ambiguous, SingleParkPassholder. When these people are selected for screening, it is done so without warrant and without probable cause.> The question is "is the search unreasonable?" You may feel it is, but certainly the other side of the argument could be "it's perfectly reasonable to try to prevent explosives or other dangerous materials from being smuggled on to an airplane." If it ever went to court it's not clear how it would come out. This is not the slam-dunk constitutional violation you think it is. I often side with the ACLU (and I'm going to guess you often don't), so it's interesting that at least on this one you seem to be with them, and I'm not. <and I refuse to give an inch just because its more convenient for some of you to go through the nuke-nudie-scan or the grope down.> More convenient? For whom is it more convenient to do this than not to do this? It would be more convenient to not do any screening, so the question becomes how much convenience do we give up for security? As I've said, I have no problem with the body privacy thing here - just don't consider it any bigger deal than a doctor looking at a scan of me; both he and the TSA are doing it for their jobs, for a specific valid reason - but the efficacy I'm not sold on yet.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<One can only hope more airlines like this sprout up: <a href="http://www.seaportair.com/" target="_blank">http://www.seaportair.com/</a> >> They fly from Harrison AR, which is an hour drive from my home, to Memphis for $98 round trip! I think I'll show my support for the concept, checkout Graceland and try some Memphis Barbecue!
Originally Posted By MisterTophat Dabob2: 9 out of 10 I'm alongside the ACLU. Yes, I do feel the search is unreasonable. My options are to subject myself to questionable doses of radiation, or have a TSA agent 'meet resistance' between my legs. And all for what? I do not have priors, and do not act suspiciously. I have government issued photo identification, my vehicle registration is to date, my taxes are paid. My desire to board a plane and travel within the country I reside in and am a citizen of, and having a bag of my personal items at my side, does not indicate to any sane being that I am trying to blow people up. My objection to the ordeal isn't that someone is going to see me naked. Its that I'm being treated like a criminal for wanting to visit friends on the opposite coast, see distant family for the holidays, or take a vacation to Disneyworld. On the issue of convenient, I used the term because several posters in this thread indicated that it is a favored process to them because they feel its a faster process. Lastly for this post, I want to reiterate that everything that is going on in these screening processes by TSA is NOT making air travel safer. Not a single terrorist has been caught by a TSA agent during screening. Both the underwear and shoebombers were apprehended -in flight- long after moving through security checkpoints. Even assuming that some magical method will arise to detect all weapons from going aboard a plane, what is to stop a terrorist from using a shoulder fired stinger missile from the ground and knocking a plane from the sky? After all, WE gave rebel Afghanistan forces plenty of stingers to take down Russian aircraft in the 80s. We're playing a game of cat and mouse where the cat is fat, blind, and dumb. I'm tired of people petting that cat for its 'service.' But at least we're getting really good at catching the kid with weed in his boxers. Because that's the -first- thing that terrifies me about flying.
Originally Posted By MisterTophat Roadtrip: Do it. Over and over. If they operated in my area, I'd use them exclusively. The more tickets they sell, the more likely they get to grow.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Around 40,000 people a year die in car crashes. That's what, 13 9/11's? We also allow drunk drivers to keep their licenses, even after four DUIs. One such guy ended up going 83 in a 45 MPH zone and killing this kid: <a href="http://la.streetsblog.org/2010/11/16/driver-convicted-of-manslaughter-sues-parents-of-slain-teen/" target="_blank">http://la.streetsblog.org/2010...in-teen/</a> As far as I'm concerned, airport security isn't really high on my list of priorities. "And when a train gets bombed, what will be your answer then Spokker?" I would give my condolences to the three people killed. "I'd be MUCH more worried that the train would derail." Train safety is similar to that of flying, very safe.
Originally Posted By Labuda I know, but a train derailing is MUCH more likely than a terrorist attack on one.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***the cat is fat, blind, and dumb*** Sure, but that fat, dumb and blind cat sure plays a mean Pinball!
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I know, but a train derailing is MUCH more likely than a terrorist attack on one*** Both pilot error and equipment failure are much more likely to bring down a plane than a terrorist, too. But ask any of these safety cheerleaders what their biggest flying fear is.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder >"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." This doesn't strike me as ambiguous, SingleParkPassholder. When these people are selected for screening, it is done so without warrant and without probable cause."< A blanket application of the Fourth Amendment is exactly the wrong approach and actually what I'm talking about when I say this will all be eventually sussed out in court, like everything else these days. It comes down to the test of a reasonable expectation of privacy. When a person flies, does that person have a reasonable expectation of privacy as it relates to being searched or scanned in order to board a plane? What level of privacy does one have? So far, there hasn't been nearly this type of mania over having luggage checked, which has been done for years and years, or removing shoes and belts. I can't walk into certain courthouses now without removing my belt or having my briefcase opened. Even though I'm going to work there, I don't have a right to be there. But, does one have a right to fly? That answer is no. Therefore, what type of privacy can one expect if they choose to board a plane? Once the media induced hysteria subsides over this, and the inane labeling of "security theater" ebbs (what does that even mean?), and people with webcams qut posting silly videos about boycotting searches on Wednesday (hope they all enjoy the holiday at home in that case), then cooler heads can figure this out.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "My objection to the ordeal isn't that someone is going to see me naked. Its that I'm being treated like a criminal for wanting to visit friends on the opposite coast, see distant family for the holidays, or take a vacation to Disneyworld." You apparently FEEL like you're being treated that way. In actuality, that isn't the purpose. "Lastly for this post, I want to reiterate that everything that is going on in these screening processes by TSA is NOT making air travel safer. Not a single terrorist has been caught by a TSA agent during screening." And this is why I said the concept of deterrence has been missing from this discussion. Deterrence isn't quantifiable. No one can accurately say whether this process has been successful or not. One CAN argue though, that amorphous position that since no planes have slammed into buildings since they enacted these policies, it has been successful. Moreover, we also don't know for a certainty that people HAVEN'T been caught by this, but it just hasn't been publicized. Ya never know.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***But, does one have a right to fly? That answer is no*** I would certainly argue that the right to travel, freely and without undue hinderance, could certainly be argued from a 9th amendment perspective. On an even more basic level, freedom of movement (and one can and should include any public mode of transportation which does of course include planes) is to be secure in your person (in other words, they can't detain you unless they have probable cause and a warrant, strictly speaking) as well as your papers and your effects and most DEFINITELY falls under 4th amendment protections. Now, have these rights been eroded over many decades? Definitely. Mostly because most people just didn't care that much about it. But is it CONSTITUTIONAL, what they are doing? I think not. Of course, that's something for the Supremes to contemplate and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Scalia and his posse decide that nobody has any right to travel at all.
Originally Posted By Mr X "Once the media induced hysteria subsides over this, and the inane labeling of "security theater" ebbs (what does that even mean?)" Read the account earlier in the thread about some ridiculous TSA "drill" in which people were shouted at, some guy was "taken down" for not stopping, and at the end of it all some manager announced "this has been a security drill" or some such crap and the passengers applauded. You don't consider that "theater"? As I asked earlier, do police forces routinely storm into public places and bark orders at innocent bystanders as a part of their training programs?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Simple fix. Let's have flights for those who do not want to be subjected to searches and flights for those who don't mind. I'll see you in line for the latter.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Moreover, we also don't know for a certainty that people HAVEN'T been caught by this, but it just hasn't been publicized*** So when the FBI or CIA foil a plot, that's made public and yet the TSA would keep quiet? I doubt it.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder There is no right to fly. None whatsoever. The right to travel, borne out of the Commerce Clause, doesn't include modes of transportation. None. Walk it, swim it, drive it, ride it, your choice. However, as things are now, your choice comes with caveats and conditions such as we see now. And as long as people refuse to recognize levels of privacy, then they'll yell about expecting an absolute right to privacy when flying and be wrong doing it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <9 out of 10 I'm alongside the ACLU.> Well, that's good. <Yes, I do feel the search is unreasonable.> Fair enough. I don't, and I doubt the courts will, but maybe we'll see. < My options are to subject myself to questionable doses of radiation, or have a TSA agent 'meet resistance' between my legs.> The radiation is (if they're telling the truth, and I admit that's always a "maybe") equivalent to two minutes in the air. So instead of 5 hours of radiation flying you get 5 hours and 2 minutes. And I've been patted down in non-US airports and it was quick, all-business, and nothing untoward about it. <And all for what? I do not have priors, and do not act suspiciously. I have government issued photo identification, my vehicle registration is to date, my taxes are paid. > I believe the same thing could be said for all the 9/11 hijackers, even if it wasn't US-issued ID. For sure the same thing could be said of Timothy McVeigh. And while I'm guessing (and it's just a guess, but here it is) that Al Qaeda's next big attack will NOT involve airplanes, it wouldn't surprise me at all if some home-grown militia nutjob might not try it, if only to thumb his nose at the government and their attempts at security, innocent passengers be damned (a la McVeigh) - especially if it becomes known that in practice we mostly profile "those" people and not "all-American" types.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***The radiation is (if they're telling the truth, and I admit that's always a "maybe") equivalent to two minutes in the air. So instead of 5 hours of radiation flying you get 5 hours and 2 minutes*** My concern is fourfold... 1) Perhaps they're not telling the truth 2) Perhaps they don't have all the facts themselves yet 3) Are all employees who handle these machines fully trained in order to insure there's no malfunction mid-screening? 4) Are these machines maintained properly by experts in a timely manner? The TSA can't really do anything about 1 and 2, but I'd sure like to hear more about the procedures in place for 3 and 4.
Originally Posted By MisterTophat >> The radiation is (if they're telling the truth, and I admit that's always a "maybe") equivalent to two minutes in the air. << The radiation in the air is distributed randomly over my entire body. The radiation from these machines are focused on one organ of my body. The skin. And my skin no likey.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Simple fix. Let's have flights for those who do not want to be subjected to searches and flights for those who don't mind. I'll see you in line for the latter.>> I won't be in line. I'll be getting ON the plane with the former... arriving at the airport 15 minutes before boarding begins. Ah... life is good in the fast lane!
Originally Posted By MisterTophat >> So far, there hasn't been nearly this type of mania over having luggage checked, which has been done for years and years, or removing shoes and belts. I can't walk into certain courthouses now without removing my belt or having my briefcase opened. << There may not have been mania over it then, but the same concerns about my rights now are the same concerns I had then. >>and the inane labeling of "security theater" ebbs (what does that even mean?)<< It means that the entire TSA process is all about show. Think Disney on this one. If I'm riding space mountain, I'm being subjected to space theater. I'm not actually in space, but that's the show. In the terminal after TSA screening, am I really safe? No. But that's the show. The staggering difference is that nobody declining the illusion of space mountain is subjected to harassment and a $10,000 lawsuit.
