I've had my encounters with the TSA on a number of occasions. I would be considered a TSA Troll if such a definition existed. I follow their Twitter and have had some back and forth constitutional arguments with them about their ignorance, stupidity, and illegal actions. I'm convinced that since I use my real name and practically DARE them to discriminate against me for my outspokenness that I'm on their pat-down list.
Not long ago, the TSA rightfully recognized that their willful disregard for American civil liberties has given them a black eye that probably won't go away any time soon and started a blog to spin their excuses.
By now, you've probably all seen the latest video of a woman in Phoenix distraught after being molested by the TSA for no reason. If not, here it is:
The video gained quite a bit of play and publicity. As per their standard operating procedures, the TSA rolled out spin its typically innocent response yesterday:
After reviewing this passenger’s time at the checkpoint, we found that our security officers acted properly and neither the CCTV footage nor this YouTube video support any of the allegations levied.
So, the TSA is lying that it DIDN'T fondle an innocent American's breast in the name of “national security” with their typical pat-down. If this is true, no one should have a problem with me going around and just randomly feeling my hands over women's breasts in the name of “national security.” After all, anyone walking down the street could have an explosive breast implant hidden under that C cup!
Well, I went to the blog as I usually do to express my displeasure and left this comment:
While your most-likely-oppressive policy is “under review” TSA agents will continue exceeding your authority and making up crimes for which you will threaten illegal detention of innocent citizens.
I know I left that comment because I copied it and put it as a comment under my link of this post on Facebook as well! Interestingly, the comment never posted. When I left the comment, it would have been the first one. There are now 53+ comments under this post. I even left a comment directly calling out “Concerned Observer” as a TSA plant that was never published.
The TSA is afraid of me because they can't argue with the constitutional argument. Reality and truth make them look bad. They have no problems posting comments by people that are just flying off the handle (which is good), but since most of my comments quote the constitution and various high court decisions that oppose their policies, I guess they've decided it's no longer in their best interests to approve my comments.
Understand that I never use profanity. I don't call them names. I don't use strawman arguments in my responses. I used thoughtful, constitutional, and logical arguments and I don't post anonymously! I've even commented on their blog railing against people who DO post anonymously because they are afraid the TSA will target them. I hate to break it to these people, but the TSA can see EVERYONE'S IP address that comments on their blog! No one is anonymous.
They spew false facts like the low number of complaints they receive about these pat-downs, ignoring the fact that most people either don't have the time to complain or don't think it will do any good to complain! They mention that only 3% of travelers are targeted for the enhanced search techniques while ignoring that they're admitting to violating the 4th amendment rights of that same 3%!! “Hey, we only illegally searched 3% of travelers without a warrant or probably cause, so leave us alone! You don't want another 9/11 do you?!”
And how many terrorists have these searches caught? Zero. The ones you hear about made it successfully through the searches and then failed either at the gate or on the plane. Or they were turned in by concerned passengers! The TSA is just another bloated, inefficient welfare program to employ a certain segment of the population that enjoys fondling Americans genitals and breasts!
Larry, I understand you are a bleating heart liberal. I get it. But you are wrong on so many levels I don’t know where to start.
The government cannot protect you from harm. Do you not understand that? You think they can, after you admit the TSA agent touched your “junk” simply because you have bought into the false meme that government can safe you from harm.
As to having to blow into a breathalizer when starting your car, what would prevent a drunk from getting someone else to blow into it for them? Nothing. And then the drunk is on their merry way.
Seat belts? Another government intrusion into my life. Yeah, they provide some safety, but recent reports on the fact that we are driving lighter weight vehicles will contribute to a higher motor vehicle accident death rate. I drive an F-250 diesel. Who do you think is going to come out better if I am hit by a drunk driver in a light weight car? As to seat belts: my dad is dead because of a seat belt. He was hit head on by a drunk driver and the engine was shoved in my dad’s lap. The police report stated that had he not been wearing a seat belt he would have been thrown from the car and chances are he would not have been killed. So please…………don’t give me that crap about how safe we are due to seat belts.
And last time I was in L.A., (8 years ago) the sky looked like spoiled pea soup. As to the food you buy, hello? Spinage?
Now, again, I ask you; where is it Constitutional for a TSA agent to search you in a manner that even police officers cannot do without you being arrested? Or do you just accept that the government has the right to unreasonable searches without a warrant?
Let me tell you what degrades your security: the Democrats open-border policies. Why are you not demanding the government protect you from criminal illegals, or drunk drivers, or home invaders who are in possession of an illegally obtained weapon? And again, why are you so willing to give up your 4th Amendment rights for a false sense of safety, because to be honest with you, the terrorists are a hellofa lot smarter than the TSA. That is why the TSA is always one step behind.
Now, answer my questions.
@retire05:
Seat belts: http://main.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=45962
Los Angeles air:
In car breathalyzers: In principle, they could be defeated by a drunk getting a friend to do it, but so what? Realistically, how easy would it be to do that? Are you going to do that for a “friend?” Take on liability for yourself by enabling him to drive while impaired? In Sweden, all public transportation vehicles (including taxicabs) have such breathalyzer ignition locks. They work very well. There’s no such thing as 100% effective risk reduction, but it’s about taking reasonable measures to reduce risk. I know that you agree with this. What we are arguing about here is what is reasonable and what is not reasonable.
The most effective way to curb illegal immigration has always been to place stiff sanctions against employers — say $1,000 per day per “illegal” employed. Try selling that to the construction industry or the food processsing industry or the farming industry or the restaurant industry or to upscale suburban homeowners, etc.
All pat downs are intrusive. There is not a material difference between the garden variety pat downs of days or yore and the pat downs being done by the TSA today, in the rare instances in which they are still being done (scanners rapidly replacing them). I consider it much less intrusive to be lightly brushed with the back of a finger than to have my thigh grabbed by the palm of a hand. The goal of the pat down isn’t to palpate your genitals; it’s simply to detect if you are wearing a diaper and it is done with that degree of care. It is certainly NOT a violation of the 4th Amendment!
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
what if TEXAS buy some, like a couple of AIRPLANE, AND PUT A MARSHALL IN THE PLANE
AND A COUPLE OF VETERAN TO SEARCH PROPERLY WITHOUT EXTREME THE PASSENGERS THAT DON’T HAVE A CARD TESTIFYING THEY ARE NOT A PROBLEM HAVING PAST A CHECK BACKGROUND FROM THE TEXAS STATE EMPLOYED AGENCY AT THEIR PREVIOUS TIME, AS IT EVEN PUT IT A REQUIREMENT TO POSESS IN TEXAS GIVEN A TIME LIMIT TO CITIZEN TO BE ABLE TO GET IT EVEN FOR A FEE THAT TEXAS WOULD CHARGE FOR THE EXPANSES THAT WOULD BE FAIR; THAT WOULD RENDER TEXAS COMPLETELY IN CHARGE OF THEIR OWN STATES LAWS AND MOVEMENTS OF THEIR CITIZENS WHICH WOULD LOVE IT’S INCENTIVE FROM THEIR OWN STATE TO NEGATE THE CONSTANT ADVANCE OF CIVIL RIGHTS ABUSE FROM GOVERNMENT AGENCY UNION EMPLOYEE AND LEADERS WHICH ARE ON THE PAYROLL OF GOVERNMENT
Larry, what you are saying is you are willing to reduce risk based on the thought that government can do that for you.
You live in California. If it had been up to people like you a 150 years ago, California would still be frontier. You see, wagons could be unsafe. And so the government would have had to have certain rules and regulations requiring your ability to drive a wagon. And there is that whole thing of making sure that everyone who traveled in a wagon wore a seat belt in case the wagon tipped over, and they often did on uneven terrain. The government woul have been required to make sure that all water supplies were fit to drink. And that all food packed by the pioneers met federal safety regulations in order to be taken on the trip.
You obviously think that people would accept personal responsibility and not breath for a drunk. Really? You mean that this nation is so full of people who accept responsibility for what they do? Or that someone who did that would even think about the liability attached? Have you taken a look at the unwed mother rate, or the welfare rate, the criminal convictions? Obviously, personal responsibility is not real high on their priority list.
Yes, all patdowns are intrusive. But the difference between the days of yore and today is that in the past, you could not be patted down unless you were arrested on suspicion of a crime.
People like you disgust me. You have lost the very pioneer spirit that build this nation. You are so afraid for your own personal safety you are willing to give up your freedom, fought for so hard by others. You think government can eliminate risk in your life. It can’t. So what happens when terrorists devise another method for killing Americans? How far are you willing to let our freedoms erode for your narrow minded sense of security?
“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
Benjamin Franklin
You, Larry, deserve neither.
@retire05:
While people like you don’t disgust me (much too strong a word), I can say that you do perplex me. You wildly exaggerate. Let me make a wild guess: you’ve never actually been subjected to one of the airport pat downs which we’ve been arguing about. As I’ve pointed out, I have. 6 times. And your wildly exaggerated descriptions of “fondling,” “groping,” and being “humiliated” by “poorly trained” TSA employees simply don’t apply. These are not accurate descriptions; therefore your complaints and protestations are not relevant.
It’s not true that pat downs were not previously applied in the absence of probable cause. I’ve been going through metal detectors since the 1970s, in all manner of places. Whenever the machine goes off (or isn’t working), I’ve gotten a pat down, and I’ve lived to tell the tale, without the horrific emotional scars of being “humiliated.”
Let’s look at the statistics:
In the 1970s, there were 8 hijacking of US commercial airliners. Since the enhanced security measures were put into place after 9/11, there have been ZERO hijackings. By Fisher’s exact test, there is less than one chance in a million that we’d have 8 hijackings in one ten year period and 0 hijackings in another ten year period by chance alone; therefore the null hypothesis that enhanced governmental screening measures haven’t made a difference is rejected. i.e. government did protect its citizens and its air transport industry.
Your quotation of Benjamin Franklin is an odious comparison. You trivialize the meaning of a truly great saying by a truly great American, in the same way that you trivialize the meaning of the sacred word “freedom.” The freeedoms about which Franklin spoke were the sorts of freedoms that men would give their lives to defend: freedom of speech, press, assembly, representative government, religion. No one would give up his life for the right to be stupid (i.e. to not wear a seat belt or motorcycle helmet) or to avoid something truly trivial, such as airport screening.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
I apologize for butting into your conversation with retire05, Larry, but I believe you are mistaken. It is not he that is trivializing “freedom”, or the other oft-used word of “liberty”.
Using the dictionary defined term, any constraint upon our person is an abridgement of freedom. Benjamin Franklin’s actual words were, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
So, liberty is the state of enjoying freedom. Freedom is defined, as above, with the absence of constraint. A TSA patdown is an abridgement of freedom, no matter how one tries to spin it. You are trying to generalize the word to exclude detailed expressions of freedom. We are not trivializing the word at all. In fact, we who espouse more freedom, and thus liberty, from governmental intrusion, revere the idea of it more so than those who espouse the belief that such mild intrusions upon our persons and lives do not impact the overall freedom, and liberty, that we Americans enjoy. We place the idea upon a higher pedestal than others, hence, we engage in the opposite of ‘trivialization’ of the word, and by extension, of Benjamin Franklin’s words in that quote. Just my two cents.
@john:
A couple of years ago, I was driving up to Bakersfield. There was a wildfire up the road. There was a chance that it might reach the highway (the I-5), through the Grapevine (windy mountain pass just south of the Central Valley). The cops made me wait for two hours, before giving the all clear. The fire never made it close to the road. I’d have been willing to take the risk, rather than sitting there in the hot sun for two hours with no access to a men’s room and nothing to eat or drink. This was an abridgment of my freedom.
Not being able to carry in a cooler of beer on a public beach is an abridgment of my freedom.
In California, I can, however, walk out into the surf and swim out as far as I want, any time I want, and the lifeguards will allow me to literally take my life into my own hands, if that’s what I wish to do. Back when Jeb Bush was the Governor of Florida, his state lifeguards wouldn’t let me go out much beyond the surf line, to my great annoyance (it’s much better swimming out well beyond the surf line than swimming at the edge of the surf line, where the water is turbulent). I had a similar experience in Wrightsville Beach, NC (lifeguards intruding on my “freedom”).
I could go on and on and on, and so could you. When the red state lifeguards abridged my freedoms, it didn’t even enhance the safety of anyone else (unlike the airport screeners, which do enhance the safety of the vast majority of air travelers, who are appreciative of their efforts — and success — in doing so). What’s more important: your “freedom” or my family’s safety?
There are freedoms truly worth defending with one’s life, honor, and fortune, and there are freedoms of comparatively trivial importance, which we all surrender in the name of being law abiding citizens in a nation of laws, under representative government.
The ACLU comes the closest of any organization I know, with regard to fighting for pure freedom in the true (and often abstract) sense of the word. But many of the freedoms for which they fight are abhorrent to you and to retire05.
One man’s freedom is another man’s curse, and vice versa, at the level of daily life.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
openid.aol.com/runnswim,
this isuue has values, on those who wish to preserve the FREEDOM FOR AMERICA as a whole,
AND AS THE FOUNDERS WROTE THE RULES , WHERE YOU CANNOT DENY THOSE VALUES that are foundamental to AMERICA, THOSE WHO OBJECT TO ANY ADVANCE OF BREAKING THOSE RULES THEY WILL NOT ACCEPT IT AND ARE THE KEEPERS OF AMERICA AS IT WAS AND WILL BE WHEN ONE COME TO TAKE OVER to stop THIS ABUSE ON PEOPLE’S LIFE NOT HAVING ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAN TO SUBMIT TO THOSE RULES IMPOSED ON THEM, under the name of security
THOSE ARE THE TRUE AMERICANS THAT WILL ALWAYS STAND TO PROTECT THE POORS AND OPRESS
OF THIS NATION, YOU JUST HAVE TO READ HOW THEY WILL STAND IN GUARD FOR THEIR BELOVED AMERICA
Larry, yes, people like you, who seem to admire the ACLU that was started by a Communist, disgust me. Because your captulation to a government flies in the face of everything that was fought for by those Americans who simply valued freedom over the security provided them by the British government. They were not willing to submit to a distant government, that acted in its own best interest and not in the interest of its subjects.
Now, perhaps I am more libertarian than conservative since I feel if you want to wade out to dangerous waters and kill yourself, go for it. Just don’t expect someone to pull your ass out of the water when you use poor judgement. And if you want to drive into an area that is burning all around you, do it. Just don’t expect the medics to come rescue you.
You seem to think that is appropriate for the federal government to violate a person’s liberties in the name of the “common” good. It’s not. No where in the Constutition will you find those two words “common good”.
I am also going to call b/s on your “pat-down” after setting off the metal detector. Back then, if you set off the metal detector, you were “wanded”, not patted down a la arrest style. But then, I would expect no less from you because I find liberals are not very honest. Not one mention from you that Israel, who runs the safest airlines in the world, do not subject passengers to sexual molestation procedures to make it safe. You also ignore (with your diaper comment) that the same goal could be acheived with the use of dogs, which are non-intrusive, but which the government is not willing to spend the money on. You see, it is so much cheaper to hire undertrained people to grope your crotch.
I have asked you before to provide Constitutional basis for the patdowns. You continue to refuse to do that. You see, there is none. And “freedom” is not just some word that you can twist the meaning of to suit your own policial agenda.
You obviously are a proponent of the nanny state, thinking that government’s responsibility is to control your life so you remain safe from harm. I asked you what other freedoms you are willing to give up for a false sense of security. Again, no answer from you. You would have fit in well in 1930’s Germany.
I say, to pretend that if you don’t want to be touch your private part it your foundamental priviledge
to refuse the touching, and nobody should refuse you from flying because of it as long as you are not a profile suspect or and a foreigner or prison escapy on the list,
and to say to one ,don’t fly , or by your own plane is quite out of reason,
today ,flying is not the same as years ago, because it has become a must do to reach certain faraway places,
so you or the GOVERNMENT HAVE NO RIGHT TO NEGATE YOUR RIGHT OF FLYING FOR ANY REASON
AND ANY EXCUSE ALSO,
IF PEOPLE ACCEPT TO BE TOUCH IT IS THEIR FREE CHOICE ,BUT TO IMPOSE IT IS WRONG
@retire05:
Number one, I’ve been both wanded and patted down — many times. I’m sure that most people reading this who have done a lot of flying and have had reason to do a lot of business in government office buildings, courthouses, etc. can say the same thing. I was even patted down in a hospital (Swedish Hospital in Denver CO) last August. Number two, your suggestion to have dogs sniffing the crotches of airline travelers in all the lines in all the nation’s airports is ludicrous on its face. Number three, the overwhelming majority of Americans support TSA policies. http://www.gallup.com/poll/125018/air-travelers-body-scans-stride.aspx This is consistent with my own observations of the past year, with respect to an aggregate total of (I’m sure) thousands of airline passengers being screened, with not a single observed incident of a screened passenger in any way protesting the screening process, arguing with a TSA agent, etc. So you are not only “disgusted” with me, you are disgusted with 78% of your fellow citizens, who appreciate the fact that the TSA has put an end to the hijackings which used to plague air travel.
With respect to the ACLU, your comment proves my point. You aren’t in favor of defending all liberties and freedoms. You are only interested in defending liberties and freedoms with which you agree. You are perfectly happy, it would appear, to let freedoms and liberties be abridged when you don’t feel that these freedoms and liberties are meaningful or important to you, or if you disagree with these freedoms and liberties.
By the way, the ACLU has argued forcefully against government intrusion into the lives of Americans in the name of national security, e.g.
With respect to the Constitutional basis for allowing such things as body searches by metal detectors, xray scanners, and pat downs,
Everyone who buys an airline ticket knows that he/she is subject to screening. No one is forced to undergo screening. It is in no way an involuntary, warrant less search. The screening procedure is explained, in advance, on signs and, in the case of the pat downs, personally, and all questions are answered – in advance. The traveler to be screened is free to go, at any time, without going through a metal detector, x-ray scanner, or pat down. There is no advance expectation of privacy and there is the freedom to decline to be scanned at any time. It is perfectly Constitutional. I’m sure it will be so found, if such a case ever makes it to SCOTUS.
What an outrageous statement. The government doesn’t exist to protect me from each and every possible harm, but the government was founded to “provide for the common defense and to promote the general welfare” of its people. It’s right there, at the beginning of the Constitution. But you are only interested in those parts of the Constitution which are consistent with your libertarianism.
As I keep saying, you are hysterically exaggerating the loss to individual liberty and freedom necessitated by airline screening. Your use of the word “grope” illustrates this, along with the use of the word “humiliating”” to erroneously describe what actually occurs during one of these searches (which are, in any event, very rare occurrences, as the low radiation scanners are being brought onto line). As I also said, “liberty” and “freedom” are sacred words, and you trivialize their very meaning with your wild exaggerations.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, perhaps you did not understand the survey you referenced. While it did say that most people have no objection to the full body exray, in your attempt to spin, you forgot [deliberately] to mention that the survey also said that 70% of those survey objected to the patdown, which is, after all, what we are discussion. And when I buy an airline ticket, my contract is with the airlines, not the federal government. But I don’t fly anymore. I refuse to be felt up by some undertrained goon who thinks their uniform and their badge make them superior to me. So yes, the federal government, under your beloved Obama, has taken away my right to fly (a guaranteed right of freedom of movement) because I refuse to be subjected to Nazi tactics.
As to your use of ACLU vs. NSA as to how the ACLU are such defenders of freedom, their case was thrown out of court. Basically, the ACLU wanted the NSA to prove that they (the ACLU) had never been wire tapped. The ACLU had no evidence that they had ever been wiretapped, they just want proof they were not. Included in their suit was representation of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a group that has represented Gitmo detainees and was, at the time, suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda.
Now, I also would recommend you look up the word “promote” since the “promote the general welfare” is the two words you progressives use when you are trying to impose your socialist state on the rest of us. There is a tremendous difference between “promote” and “provide” and the word “provide” is not used in relation to the general welfare.
You are a liberal and you are a supporter of the nanny state. Fine. But I am not. I have security and it works a lot faster than my telephone dial and is just as available. Unlike you who live in Loonafornia (your state ceased to be a free state a long time ago) we Texans have a different idea what liberty and freedom mean. And if you don’t mind a TSO fondling your balls in order to allow you entry to a plane, then perhaps you are just another Anthony Weiner and get your jollies by being sexually molested, or watching your wife being molested.
Oh, and about that whole “common defense” thing: how’s that going as more and more Americans are murdered by illegal aliens, which your state has millions of?
You are the one who trivalizes our right to be secure in our person. You and your left wing, ACLU supporting friends. Gee, maybe you can find some Boy Scout troop to harrass. The ACLU excels in that, along with trying to end all expression of faith and religion, that is, except for Islam.
And yes, you and your Frankfort School of Marxism friends, get nothing but disgust from me. I would suggest you read the history of this nation and learn why men fought even though they had no warm coats or even shoes. The fought to curtail the oppression your ilk brings upon us.
Oh, and when you reply to me, include in your reply the arrest rate of the TSA. Since this administration likes to brag on how great they are, surely that information is available. If millions of people are going to get groped, at least let’s see the results of the groping.
retire 05
because you are a keeper of the FOUNDERS ‘S CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHT,
YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO FIGHT FOR IT, because the AMERICANS FORGET THE ONES WHO SPILL THEIR BLOOD FOR HAVING THEM TRYING TO DEBATE YOU AND YOUR GROUP,
THEY HAVE FORGOTTEN TO BE AMERICAN THE REAL ONE PROUD AND WALKING TALL,
NOT BOWING TO ANYONE WHO IS TRYING TO SUBMIT THEM TO SUCH HUMILIATION ,
THEY AGREE BECAUSE THEY LOST THE WILL TO SAY NO NEVER IN MY COUNTRY.
@openid.aol.com/users/110:
The point I was making, Larry, is that no freedoms or liberties that matter to people are “trivial”. And the ACLU does more than “fight” for freedoms and liberties. They also fight for “rights” that happen to infringe upon others’ freedoms and liberties.
BTW, you won’t find me defending anything like what you’ve pointed out happened in FL.
ilovebeeswarzone,
it seems some people have forgotten the reason we have a country called the United States of America. They are willing to forfeit their liberties in the name of safety. Had George Washington’s troops shared that mindset, we would be British.
I am a supporter of the Constitution, as it was written. I don’t accept this “living document” crap that people subscribe to so that they can twist the Constitution to suit their agenda.
retire05, yes SR, YOU EARN THE RIGHT TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION,
and you earn the respect for your STANDING FOR AMERICA,
@retire05 and @john:
I’d like to propose that we simply discuss these issues objectively and without personal invective (thanks, John, for so doing). Sarcasm is OK. Attacks on personal integrity are not OK. And your (retire05’s) comments regarding Anthony Weiner, me, and my wife were reprehensible. Would you sit still and quietly accept personal trash talk like this? Would your mother be proud of you for talking like this?
Now, to consider the issues raised by @retire in #69:
The Gallup poll I cited did, indeed, indicate that 78% of the respondents felt that full, revealing body scans were not unreasonable, given the circumstances. With respect to the question of pat downs, they didn’t ask what percent of respondents felt pat downs were unreasonable, they asked respondents whether they themselves would be more uncomfortable with a body scan or with a pat down. 70% said they’d prefer a body scan to a pat down. Because I, myself, am a medical professional with a radiation phobia (probably unwarranted in this case, given the tiny dose of radiation administered — why I still opt for the pat down versus the body scan is a topic for another time), I’m one of the few who opt for the pat down over the scan.
It is evident that you (citizen05) have never undergone an actual “enhanced” pat down, the way that the TSA carries it out. I also doubt that you’ve personally talked to someone who’s atually gone through it. In the abstract, I would entirely agree that it would be unacceptable to be “groped,” “fondled,” and/or “humiliated.” As I stated, however, I’ve undergone the procedure 6 times, and I can assure you that I was never in the slightest “groped,” “fondled,” or “humiliated.” While driving home from work (after reading #69) I asked my wife if she ever felt in any way uncomfortable in her 4 TSA “enhanced” pat downs (without prompting her why I was asking). She said no. I said, are you sure. She reaffirmed “no.” The only complaint she had was that they made us wait a long time, on one occasion, before “our” screeners appeared on the scene (they had to be repeatedly paged). You see, the only people allowed to do these “enhanced” pat downs are specially trained TSA agents (i.e. the charge that the TSA agents who do this are “poorly-trained” is entirely spurious).
I’d like to see a poll of people who’ve actually undergone the “enhanced” pat downs.
In any event, the only people who have to undergo the enhanced pat downs are people who set off metal detectors or people (like me) who voluntarily choose the pat downs over the body scanners. People with implanted metallic devices need only take medical documentation with them; so that no one need undergo the pat downs, provided that she/he does some common sense advance planning.
Getting back to the ACLU, the point wasn’t whether the ACLU won the case in question or not. And it’s irrelevant that Gitmo prisoners signed onto the case. The ACLU wasn’t representing the latter in filing the case. It was representing those Americans (including a great many libertarians) who felt that the Patriot Act was going too far. Additionally, the ACLU has challenged the new, more intrusive TSA screening methods, by the way:
I think that a general debate about the ACLU and what it’s done which has been “good” and what has been “bad” would be of interest for another time. The ACLU has, at times, enraged liberals as much as it’s enraged conservatives and it’s actively worked hand in glove with conservative-libertarians (e.g. Dick Armey – former GOP House Majority Leader, from Texas, by the way and Bob Barr).
Let’s proceed to the Constitution.
Retire05 says:
Actually, this is incorrect:
Here are a couple of references (one from a Libertarian blog, by the way):
http://www.reasontofreedom.com/general_welfare_clause.html
http://www.reasontofreedom.com/general_welfare_clause.html
Now, the Libertarian blog (link above) makes a very interesting point:
Now, this was from 1828, i.e. decades after the Constitution was written. I think it’s likely that definition #2 was added precisely because of the language in the Constitution, not vice versa (i.e. it’s likely that definition #1 was the accepted definition at the time the Constitution was actually written). As the Libertarian blog author correctly notes, we’ll never know for sure; so we have to rely on Supreme Court decisions — these are (quite interestingly) discussed in the first of the above links.
In any event, your (citizen05) assertion that
is demonstrably incorrect.
As I previously asserted, the TSA screening procedures are reasonable, effective, supported by the vast majority of the traveling public, and entirely Constitutional (as I’m certain they will be found by the Supreme Court, if/when a case ever makes it there).
P.S. I find it interesting that Obama is personally blamed for actions of the TSA, yet is felt to have no role whatsoever on this blog in the actions of the intelligence services and military.
P.P.S.S. With regard to US vs Israeli airline screening, the inconvenient truth is that the US record, post-9/11, is every bit as good as Israel’s, e.g.
http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000490.html
This is notwithstanding that the challenges and logistics facing US air transportation are vastly greater than those facing Israeli air transportation. Israel requires a relative handful of highly trained screeners, in a single airport. Compare and contrast that with the TSA’s burden in the US air transport system.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Well, now, Larry, I would assume that since your wife confirmed your opinion then it is settled. After all, who am I to dispute the opinion of your wife, someone who I am sure holds like-minded opinions to yours. Did you also check with your neighbor? Or perhaps a first grader in your neighborhood? How sad that you have to resort to school yard tactics to add credence to your position. Unfortunately, I can’t ask my mother how she would feel since she is deceased. But don’t let that stop you from dragging her into this. And please, don’t come back and say I dragged your wife into this, since you were the first one to mention her. I am quite capable of debating my own opinion without the aid of sympathetic troops.
Now, I really wish you would stop trying to spin what I said. I never said that the ACLU had signed Gitmo detainees onto their case. I said, if you want to be honest, that they represented the Center for Constitutional Rights, who represented Gitmo detainees and were suspected of having connections to Al Qaeda. Also, in ACLU vs. NSA, the complaint did NOT represent ALL Americans, it only addressed the issue of wiretapping the ACLU-Detroit and other plaintiffs listed. So please, do not spin the case to represent ALL Americans, for it did not. It was plaintiff specific.
Now, if you want to quote the opinion of a Constitutional scholar, and not some obscure blogger, who you say is a libertarian, I am willing to take that into consideration. But your argument, providing quotes from someone I have never heard of on a website I have never heard of, is a reach too far.
Article 1, Section 8 is called the “spending” clause. And while you might subscribe to the theory that Congress has the right to tax, and spend, for any program that meets the “general welfare” litmus test, the Supreme Court has ruled in South Dakota vs. Dole the spending power must be in persuit of the “general welfare,” a requirement that the Court left to Congress’s judgement to satisfy because ‘the concept of welfare or the opposite is shaped by Congress.” Simply put, it is up to Congress, and not the TSA, nor Janet Napolitano, to determine what constitutes general welfare. I can find no legislation that Congress has passed that permits arrest style patdowns as a condition of travel. In fact, the Congress could, should it so desire, according to your reasoning, defund the salary of TSA agents to conduct patdowns since it is the purview of the Congress, not a Cabinet member, to determine what best serves the general welfare. In fact, the argument has prevailed that Congress, not an agency, has the right to determine “general welfare” standards. How far we have come from the original intent of the Constitution.
Basically, what you are saying, by supporting the illegal actions of the TSA, is that you are helpless to protect yourself from harm, consequently, you are dependent on an agency of the federal government to do it for you. You cannot show that the tactics and policies of the TSA has thwarted even one would-be terrorists, and you can damn well bet that if it had, Janet (our borders are safer than ever) Napolitano would be shouting it from the top of the Capital dome. Yet, in case after case (Richard Reed, et al) it has been passengers, not the TSA, that thwarted a would be terrorist.
You also argue that since a majority supports enhanced searches, that the majority rules. Tell me, do you also accept that premise when it comes to a display of Judeo-Christian beliefs on public buildings? If I pay taxes, and those taxes support those public buildings, and the majority of people want the Ten Commandments on a court house wall, should the majority not also rule in that instance?
Now, here is the problem I have with you, personally. People use monikers because there is safety in anonymity on the internet, yet you use your real name, opening you up to harm (think Anthony Weiner) as everyone knows exactly who you are, where you work so consequently, it would be an easy task to find out where you live. You are not uneducated (as shown by your resume) so I can only assume you are not very wise, and in fact, have no problem personally putting yourself in harm’s way. Yet, you wish to hamper the civil rights of everyone else, based on your own personal safety. Sorry, you cannot have it both ways.
retire…Larry has asked you to quit bringing his personal family, in the manner you did, into this argument….so cease with it. There is no reason to bring that kind of crap up in any argument on this blog.
retireo5, hi SR, WE ALSO know that the TSA are unionizes so their is a conflict of interest, proving the role the UNION PLAY AS TO WANT TO KEEP THE TSA continiue to be profitable for them which are profitable for OBAMA, WHICH IS PROFITABLE FOR THE UNIONS, THAT IS A TREESOME WELL KNIT TRIANGLE
TRICK ON THE CIVILIENS WHO DON’T HAVE ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVE IF THEY ARE IN a HURRY TO GET WHERE THEIR LIVELYHOOD ARE, wait I left out the transport by air COMPANYS WHO STIPULATE THAT THE CITIZENS MUST ALLOW THOSE TSA TO WORK ON THEM OR NO FLYING,
iS IN THERE PRIVATE PLANE THAT COULD get in the busyness to become the ALTERNATIVE FOR PEOPLE WHO REFUSE OR WOULD WELCOME THIS ALTERNATIVE TO FLY HAPPY AND RELAX WITHOUT THE TSA IN THEIR POCKET OR ELSEWHERE?
AFTER ALL THERE SUPPOSE TO BE AN ALTERNATIVE ON EVERYTHING WE DO , ON EVERY CHOICE WE TAKE IN LIFE AND ON EVERY PROBLEM WE SOLVE
Curt, I was NOT the one to bring Larry’s wife into the discussion. He was. (see post #51, where he references how his wife had been searched “4 times”) He then reaffirmed her position in the debate by remarking how he had involved her in the debate by questioning her about this very issue. Had he not brought her into the debate, I would not have mentioned her. It is not my style to drag family into a debate (if you have read my previous posts, you would know that). Larry was also the one who discussed having his “junk” touched by a TSA agent. So perhaps you should re-read the posts. Also, you seem to have no problem with Larry bringing my mother (now deceased) into the debate when I have NEVER mentioned her, not once. So why the double standard?
Larry seems to have no problem with security by putting himself in harm’s way by using his actual name on this blog. All security experts will tell you that is a foolish thing to do, to allow unknown people to have access to your personal information, and I have warned him against the use of his actual name, which no one here does. Perhaps you should chastize him for that, if you are so concerned about him.
Fortunately for Larry I am not some crazed leftwinger who would want to harm someone because they simply have an opinion that differs from mine. You see, unlike Larry who seems to think there are limits on the 4th Amendment, I think there are no limits on the 1st Amendment.
I understand that he brought them up first, so it’s fair to include them in the discussion, that is why I edited my comment to include “in that manner”. This kind of stuff
I will not allow.
I understand you feel a certain way about this subject but there is a point when it gets crude and then to bring his wife up in that manner, I just won’t let happen.
This has nothing to do with a specific reader, it has to do with the blog itself. FA will never become Ace of Spades HQ lite, I won’t allow it. I enjoy that blog but I strive for some decorum here.
CURT, GOOD THAT YOU’RE with us, to temper our words,
if we get carried away, that is fair enough,
thank you
Curt, if you want to maintain “decorum” then I suggest you tell Larry not to arbitarily bring my deceased mother into the conversation. Yet, you did not do that, did you?
@retire05: He brought up your mother in response to the comment you made that I already brought up. How that would be considered out of bounds I have no idea. Either way, this ends the discussion. You can either abide my rules or begone. Up to you. If you want to discuss this further email me offline.
retire05, you know that,
the weinershneyzel are very hard to digest without the mustard!!!
specialy when you’re swimming across the surf.
I have been following this fascinating discussion in the comments thread the last couple of days. Unfortunately, as often happens, as it’s tilted heavily in one direction, the imbalance has brought out the worst from the guy on the losing end. Let me say I think Larry’s postings have been nothing short of brilliant, and he’s offered up his arguments with class and restraint. It’s unfortunate that his opponent couldn’t keep up and had to resort to personal attacks, a clear sign of desperation. I guess that’s par for the course on discussion boards. But what’s followed is truly disturbing:
What a cowardly and pathetic thing to write in an anonymous posting.
I, unlike Larry, am not too classy to make the following observations: Retire, you’ve shown yourself to be Larry’s inferior in intellect and character. I’m sure deep down, you know that, thus the wild display of anger. Unable to win the battle of ideas, and apparently constitutionally incapable of losing with dignity, you react like a typical bully, mindlessly descending to verbal attacks on his family and intimidation through threats. At the end of the day, you’ve come off like an unhinged goon with anger management issues. For your sake, I really hope you can salvage some small shred of dignity and apologize to Larry.
@retire05: I apologize to you for asking the rhetorical question “would your mother be proud of you?” I meant this in an entirely generic sense and it’s the sort of language I use about my own (also deceased) mother, e.g., as in, “would Mom really be proud of me for this?,” or, “mom really would be proud of me, if she could have lived to see this day.”
In any event, I’m sorry. I should have made my point in a different way.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
oh, poop. I truly didn’t read Tom’s #83 before writing/posting my #84. I don’t want to come off as pandering. I didn’t mean to do that. Apology was sincere. It hurt when I lost my Mom.
TOM, nobody is asking for you’re opinion,
so what else do you want to talk about?
ilovebeeswarzone, ignore Tom, as he seems to be in agreement with Larry’s opinion that their rights to have some false sense of security trumps my right to be free from intrusive government. And of course, Tom finds Larry (whom he agrees with) brilliant while he insults my intellect because he does not agree with me.
But Tom is correct in one thing; he is not too classy.
RETIRE05, YES, I WONDER HOW COME THEY PUSH THIS ON CITIZENS,
DON’T THEY CAN FIGURE OUT THE MOST IMPORTANT FACT,?
that is the CITIZENS ARE NOT CARBON COPY OF EACH OTHER LIKE THEM.
OF COURSE SOME FOLLOW OBEDIANTLY BELEIVING THEIR RHETORICS,
but what about the other who are free to not agree with that, SO ,
THEY SHOULD HAVE HAD ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE FOR AMERICANS OF THE OTHER SIDE,
THAT IS HOW THEY DIVIDING THIS COUNTRY, SINCE THEY TOOK POWER,
THAT MEAN THEY ARE IGNORING THE NEEDS OF THE SO CALLED OTHER
@retire05:
Did I hurt your feelings Retire? Typical of of bully to instantly feel like a victim when receiving 1/10 of what he delivers. To clarify one thing, as to why I insulted your intellect, it’s not because I disagree with you. I disagree with a lot of people around here, but I don’t think less of their intellects or characters. The problem here is that while Larry is trying to have a “Larry’s ideas” vs. “Retire’s ideas” debate, you keep trying to steer it back to Larry vs. Retire. You seem incapable of having a purely intellectual debate. No matter how much latitude Larry offers you to get back on topic, you keep making it personal. Clearly, you have a screaming inferiority complex which has bred a a giant ole chip on your shoulder. That’s a shame, but it’s not Larry’s problem, so perhaps you should stop trying to make it so.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
That is true and I appreciate the reminder. I also apologize to Larry for butting in.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Larry, I’m not sure why you are even discussing the “general welfare” clause in regards to the TSA patdowns. The clause itself was never meant to confer powers to the Congress. It is a simple heading leading to the specific powers granted to Congress, and their ability to lay duties and taxes upon the states and the people, to accomplish those specific powers outlined in Article I, Section 8.
James Madison argues in Federalist Paper no. 41;
Unfortunately, the reservations of those Madison is arguing against have borne out to be true. The “general welfare” clause has been abused and expanded to include nearly everything Congress wishes to be able to do, including welfare, Social Security, Medicare, the Highway system in the U.S., Obamacare, and many other things.
More;
Article I, Section 8 displays such a general phraseology of the powers, with a further qualification of it by delineation of the particulars of those powers. Simply put, the phrase that includes the clause “general welfare” does not include any powers granted to Congress. The listed specifics following it do. Yet, for over a century, this clause has been used as a defense for all manner of legislation for which Congress has no power to accomplish. It has only been by the lax attitude of the citizens, and the aggressive pursuance of progressive idealists that have resulted in such overreaching by the Federal Government.
In relation to your discussion with retire05, and the mention of the “general welfare” clause, no linkage to powers of congress should be made. It is in direct conflict with the stated and intended purpose of the author of the Constitution, as argued by him within the Federalist Papers, that the clause not be used to assign any power to Congress.
TOM, same for my friend ,
by the way, you just not qualified to make a profile of any CONSERVATIVES HERE,
BECAUSE YOU HAVEN’T LEARNED NOTHING FROM YOUR PAST VISITS .
@john, re “general welfare” clause. Nicely summarized, but it can be argued otherwise. I think it’s an interesting topic, of obvious importance to the whole Right vs Left debate. I’d like to discuss it further, but will have to do so later. – Larry W/HB
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Just pointing it out, Larry. I’m not sure, however, exactly how it can be argued otherwise when the primary author of the Constitution himself has argued, within papers meant as an argument for the Constitution, that the “general welfare” clause is not meant to confer powers on Congress, and as such, cannot be used to argue for legislation that Congress passes. We are talking about the source here, not the opinions of those uninvolved, and indeed, not even within the same time frame, as when the Constitution was written.
@John: You are referring to James Madison. Yes, he was the “primary author” of the Constitution, in the same way that Jefferson was the “primary author” of the Declaration of Independence. It’s never really practical to have a document drafted by committee. You assign a single author to make the draft and then the committee gets together and haggles over it. There is no doubt that James Madison, a single “founding father,” would agree with your views. However, it is well known that his views were not accepted by other, equally important founding fathers, i.e. Federalists, such as Hamilton, Adams, and even Washington himself. Madison did not have the power to impose his views on anyone, although I’m sure that, like Jefferson, he did his best to defend his views. In the end, the final language of the Constitution is sometimes ambiguous (as in this case) precisely because that’s what it took to get agreement.
As I said, it’s an interesting topic and I look forward to discussing it with you.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Tom; no, you did not hurt my feelings. As a matter of fact, you simply confirmed what I have known about liberals for a long time, that when THEY feel threatened, the insult their opponents intellect. It is a tactic as old as Woodrow Wilson were he still alive.
Curt, obviously Larry feels he overstepped the boundaries by bringing up my mother. He apologized, and I accept his apology. As to my comments about his wife, who he brought up, the very system of inhanced patdowns that Americans, with no criminal records, are being subjected to has been determined to meet with the definition of “sexual molestation” not only by my state but by a number of states that are now looking into it. If Larry was insensed by my use of the term “balls” instead of “junk”, I apologize to his sensibilities.
Here is the bottom line: I understand the inherent risk of air travel, just as I understand the inherent risk when I get on the highway in my vehicle. Air travel, while prior to 9-11, was actually safer than road travel. But as a nation, we have overreacted to what happened on 9-11 by allowing the government to restrict our freedom of movement. I find the TSA policies just as abhorant as I would if I were required to get police permission before I could drive my vehicle.
Knowing the risk of taking to the road, I still make a personal choice to do so. And I don’t expect the federal government to protect me in everything I do. I accept the risk that comes with everyday actions. The same should apply to air travel. If I understand the enhanced risk, then it becomes a personal choice as to whether I want to take that risk, or not. But if I am willing to assume the risk, I should not have to be subjected to an unlawful search in order to do so.
Larry lives in California. Let me tell you about how safe the TSA agents at LAX keep us:
I was willing to go through the scanner. No problem as I needed to get home. I had on a pair of Cole-Haan penny loafers that had pennies stuck in them. I did not set off the metal detector, but a TSA agent pulled me aside and asked about my shoes. I took them off to be examined or run through the scanner. Instead, the highly trained TSA agent wanted to tear my shoes apart. My spouse had just gone through the scanner, still wearing a pair of New Balance atheletic shoes (i.e. common name, tennis shoes). No problem. I had a dispute with the TSA agent about tearing up my shoes since they did not set off any bells or whistles. It took a supervisor to tell the agent that my shoes were no threat. The whole affair almost caused me to miss my flight. Yet……….. two men, dress in traditional Arab garb (to quote Juan Williams) were allowed to pass through the line without even so much as a body scan per orders of a TSA superintendant.
Another incident happened at the Jackson, Mississippi airport: I carry my father’s lighter (a Zippo) that he had with him during WWII. It has his name on it and holds a lot of value to me. It was in my pocket, and the scanner was set off by it. I gave the lighter to the TSA agent and went back through the scanner. No alarm. The TSA agent told me he would have to “destroy” the lighter and proceded to take it apart. I objected, called my spouse who had dropped me off at the airport to return to take possession of the lighter. By that time, the highly trained TSA agent had broken my lighter, requiring me to get it fixed.
So please……….don’t tell me how well trained these people are.
Again, not Larry, not Tom, no one on the left, can tell me how effective the patdowns have been. I see no headlines talking about how successful the polices have been in rooting out those who would try to bring down a plane. And believe me, if the TSA had thwarted would be terrorists, Janet (our borders are safer than ever) Napolitano would be bragging about it.
Again, if I disparaged anyone’s overly sensitive natures, I apologize.
Larry, the wording of the Constitution is not “ambiguous.” Quite the contrary, it was written so that the “common” man could understand it. And Madison, as its author, was more in a position to determine its meaning that those who have followed him 100 years later.
The modern day philosophy that Congress has unlimited power to tax, in order to provide for the “general welfare” is based on a New Deal case, United States vs. Butler which came down on the side of Monroe, and not Madison, who wrote the Constitution.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Just one correction. Madison was a Federalist, as was Hamilton and others, hence the writings for the Federalist Papers in defense of the Constitution as was written. The Anti-Federalist Papers, a hodge-pdge collection of writings and speeches by those opposed to ratification of the Constitution, presented arguments against the language included within the Constitution more so than the construction of the government itself. The “general welfare” clause is one, along with the “necessary and proper” clause, that they seem to have gotten right. While I agree that some language included within the Constitution seems ambiguous, there is no better way to understand the language than the source of it, and second to that, the defenders of the document at the time. One may wish it to mean what they want, but unless it can be reconciled with what is discussed within the Federalist Papers, and the meanings inferred therein, then they would be wrong, and they have been wrong, even when they have successfully passed legislation granting powers that were never meant to be held by the Federal Government.
You should ask yourself why progressives are some of the staunchest defenders of certain passages, to the point of being strict Constitutionalists, and then vary that with such wide latitudes on other content within the Constitution. In my opinion, they merely are projecting what they want the Constitution to say, and mean, instead of the actual, hence their variances of strict to liberal viewings of sections, clauses, and phrases within the Constitution. In short, they are inconsistent with their viewings of it. What this leads to is rule by the whim of men, instead of the rule by law, which our nation was founded upon. And each successive grouping of progressivist leaning congress, with differing views, expands further the accepted powers of the federal government, well beyond what the original intent was.
@John: I do want to take this up, but I can’t properly do it until tonight.
– Larry
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
I understand, however, I have to work tonite. Just one of the joys, or drawbacks, depending on how one looks at it, of working within the power generation field.
@John: That’s OK. We can do this just like postal chess. – LW/HB
So Larry, am I now to assume that you no longer wish to debate me? I accepted your apology, and offered mine.
Perhaps you are more sensitive than warranted.
@retire05: Life is too short for personal feuds. I don’t spend my time here because I want to fight with people; I spend my time because I want to discuss my points of view on matters which interest me, particularly with people who have opposing points of view, but who can carry on a civil discussion in an atmosphere of mutual respect. As I wrote, however, I’m fine with sarcasm and other forms of criticism directed at arguments, points of view, and citations. But I don’t like talking to people who get into personal name calling.
We apologized to each other. Or, rather, I apologized for my words and your apologized for my “sensibilities.” But that’s OK. Let’s move on. – Larry W/HB
Larry, I have to admit that I am a bit baffled why someone like you, a physician, would have as much time to spend here as you do. I have a couple of friends who are also physicians (although not general practioners) and I doubt they have the time to post on blogs as you seem to do.
That said (above was just musings on my part), respect is something that is earned. It is also something that is not important in a forum such as this. Your lack of respect for me has no bearing on my life in any fashion. I am not one of those who seek approval from everyone I encounter.
But……..perhaps I felt that you could be reasoned with. Risk is not something you can totally negate from your life. You, of all people, should understand that. But to give the government the authority over our private lives is to negate the very ideal of freedom that was paid for with such great blood and treasure.
I am glad that you have decided to eliminate your name, and town, from your posts. It was a dangerous practice, not one that simply showed you are proud of who you are. And a little surprising coming from one who seems so concerned about their own personal safety that they are willing to abdicate their 4th Amendment rights.
I sure hope that everyone doesn’t get too conforteble in a AIRPLANE, AS TO FORGET that if somone get up suddenly, and yelle ALL AT THE BAR, THE PEOPLE CAN JUMP AT THE BARTENDER, AND
THROW HIM OUT OF THE PLANE.
@retire05: I’ve been debating on the Internet since the pre-web browser days of CompuServe, circa 1992, continuing on into UseNet (now Google Groups), beginning in 1995, and then more into political blogs since 2005. Between Google Groups and Google, I can still locate close to 20,000 of my posts, virtually all signed with my own name and city, despite thousands of comments having disappeared when the “owners” of the blogs discontinued them and retired the web sites (e.g. as the Orange County Register did, several years back). Virtually all of my posts are signed with my own name and city. I only neglect to do this when I’m in a hurry and/or when it’s simply a short reply. I’ve engaged in all sorts of vigorous debates, with all sorts of passionate people. When I debate with Europeans, I’m the conservative. Same thing with certain issues, e.g. same gender marriage. Not once have I ever been threatened in any way, other than a grand total of two crank phone calls in nearly 20 years. No one ever slashed my tires or showed up at my door with a chain saw.
I believe in the First Amendment. I believe that it isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit, if we have to hide in our spider holes, behind pseudonyms, emerging only to scrawl graffiti, before crawling back down into our holes. It’s just a personal opinion, like all of my other personal opinions.
P.S. Regarding the time I devote to this stuff: I’m self-employed and spend most of my days at a microscope, scoring drug effects on human cancer cells in hundreds of slides. It is very challenging work, and I constantly take 5 minute or so breaks to refresh and recharge. I do tend to get overly engaged and have this stuff take over entirely too much of my day, to my wife’s entirely justifiable consternation. Here’s a photo of me at work. My keyboard is just off to the lower left.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Well, good for you Larry, you support your First Amendment rights and refuse to live in fear of harm that could befall you from modern technology and a nutcase’s ability to cause you that harm. Good on you. But wait,
you are willing to give up your 4th Amendment rights to be secure in your person and have someone physically search you, sans an arrest warrent, to pander to your fear of being blown up in a plane by a terrorist.
In some circles, that could be labeled “hypocracy”.
@retire05: What it all comes down to is whether the TSA screens are reasonable or unreasonable.
I’d like to give an analogy. You know the story of George Bernard Shaw allegedly asking a woman if she’ll sleep with him for 50,000 pounds (or whatever). Woman says “yes.” Then Shaw asks: “would you sleep with me for 5 pounds?” Woman says, what on earth do you take me for? Shaw replies, we’ve already established who you are; now we are simply haggling over the price.
You haven’t professed any moral indignation over the TSA screening your luggage, including opening it up and taking everything out of it to inspect what’s inside. You are OK with metal detectors, I presume. You aren’t even voicing an objection to the body scanners. So, in principle, you’ve already surrendered what you profess to be your inalienable 4th Amendment rights.
What’s bugging you are the pat downs. You have an inaccurate concept of what actually goes on, as I have tried to explain. It does not involve “groping,” “fondling,” or “humiliating” (all words you’ve used to describe your concept of what goes on). I personally wouldn’t put up with being groped, fondled, or humiliated. I do put up with a discreet and totally professional and completely unobtrusive pat down, the way it is actually done by highly trained and professional TSA agents.
I’ve been touched and violated — in a far worse fashion– riding crowded rental car shuttles, to and from the terminal. Don’t even get me started on the New York and Tokyo subways.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
My, my, a quote from George Bernard Shaw, a Fabian socialist and someone who believed in eugenics and thought that people should only be allowed to live based on their contribution to society. Ummm, I ususally don’t quote people that I have no respect for. But hey, that’s just the way I roll.
I told you; I no longer fly. I have chosen to stand my ground, unlike you, on the 4th Amendment. It is not anyone’s business what is in my luggage, my purse. I understand risk so that is not the reason I ceased to fly. You are unwilling to take risk on a plane but are willing to take risk on the internet. Again, in some circles that would be labeled “hypocracy.”
What you obviously have not seen through the lens of your microscope:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmADZpqhKhQ
@retire05: The Shaw quote was entirely non-political. And I take a much bigger risk in flying, even with all the safeguards, than I do standing tall under my own name on the Internet. I’m enlightened to learn that the term hypocracy (sic X 2) can be applied to risks which one voluntarily chooses to take. By the same token, I’m a hypocrite because I continue to swim with the Pacific Ocean sharks but no longer risk riding my bicycle on Pacific Coast Highway.
Learn something new every day, it would seem.
– Larry W/HB