Posted on 12/06/2004 2:52:00 PM PST by Angry Republican
Helen Chenoweth-Hage had a simple request. The former Idaho Congressman had been pulled aside at the Boise Airport for secondary screening to include a physical pat-down. Chenoweth-Hage had sailed through the metal detector without problem, but TSA officials wanted to scrutinize her some more.
The former Congressman simply asked to see the regulations that permitted TSA officials to pat her down. They refused. And she refused to allow them to pat her down. So they booted her off her flight.
Incidents like this have happened so many times that it is beyond absurd. The regulations of TSA, which should stand for "Thousands Standing Around," are cloaked in secrecy. In this case, a 66-year old former Member of Congress is told to submit to further scrutiny for reasons of political correctness and to inflate inspection numbers.
According to aviation industry sources, the TSA intentionally targets individuals for further scrutiny not because they pose a threat, but because their profiles fit those the least likely to complain. Groups getting extra scrutiny include government employees and the military. Other national security threats reportedly requiring further scrutiny in the past include former Vice President Al Gore and longtime Congressman John Dingell.
The two-part problem is this. First, inspecting people who clearly do not pose a threat distracts attention from those who could pose a threat. Second, the notion that TSA can subject the public to regulations that are not made public is ludicrous. It's like citing a motorist for speeding with the speed limit signs all covered.
The Transportation Security Administration has not provided real and responsible security to our nation's airlines and airports. Playing hide and seek with the regulations and subjecting innocents to absurd inspections in the name of political correctness is simply a waste of time and money.
And that's the Point.
I'm Mark Hyman.
Amen
That sounds conservative, but I guess it must not be compassionate.
It depends.
LOL! Depends on what?
What about theaters? Trains, subways, huge malls? Big buildings etc, etc. What about those Max?
They hold a hell of a lot more people than a little 727.
Why not start doing those folks too Max?
Why just stop at airplanes? Don't we care about all those folks?
People's bags are searched here in NYC when entering some buildings. Most office buildings have also instituted strict access control routines, including RFID passes, etc. Subways also have beefed up security, particularly since they found two Iranian nationals video taping the F line in Queens.
As for movie theaters etc., they are not the same as planes, since aircraft can be used as weapons to kill thousands.
Or any worse.
"No one kicked her off her flight...she was not allowed to board her flight."
yea okay
I guess my question is, do *you* think anyone entering a large building, skyscraper, tunnels, subways, malls etc, where literally 10,000 people work, should be groped, searched, scanned, x-rayed, sniffed, and searched.?"
It depends.
Done.
"I can drive, take a bus, or take a train."
Good for you. Enjoy your trip.
"I have no problem with people questioning "authority" but as I wrote, there is a time and a place for everything and in the line at the airport is not the time to demand to see the regulation allowing pat downs, since that information was in all the papers and on TV for months now."
Do you fly much? When you're taken aside for a "pat down", you do not interfer with those in line...you are taken aside, so there is no delay for your precious line that you seem so overly concerned about.
So what is your point?
Why are we searching, sniffing, x-raying, groping, and scanning people at airports, but we are not doing this at theaters, subways, giant malls, trains, etc etc?
Are you suggesting we are doing this?
How can that be? I just walked into a huge mall, it must of had to have 25,000 people in it, and I walked right in. No one even blinked at me!
Whats up with this?
Why are we only concerned with airplanes? Don't these thousands of other people count?
And the point which has escaped you is that she was caught because of the suspicions of a well-trained screener, not because some drone was doing a suspicionless random search.
The bottomline truth of the matter is this:
No, they don't particularly count in the cost-benefit analysis.
"but hopefully not BLOWN UP"
Good. I am glad that we can agree on somehing.
Because this is (used to be?) a conservative forum. But I withdraw the banning suggestion.
Although I don't how you can enjoy being here, you can surely find a fascist forum if you look around a little.
It very well may happen if the TSA fails to stop a plane from being taken. I figure Barbara Boxer supports armed pilots because she realizes that anti-gunners will be through in this nation if another cockpit is ever taken by force without a shot being fired.
The "faint at heart" that you mentioned above will then abandon air travel. The only ones left will be those of us willing to defend ourselves and who expect the airlines to defend us rather than just disarm us.
Are cargo plane pilots armed yet? Or have they not yet closed that little loophole? Most of the people killed on 9/11 were on the ground not on the plane.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.