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.
I say they should only let business and first class passengers fly armed. No use having a bunch of those discount airfare people packing.
Any time I want to exercise my rights, I write it down in my things to do list.
"Or any worse."
It can always get worse.
"Do you fly much?"
I fly two or three times a month. Is that much?
"So what is your point?"
That she is a nitwit.
The point which seems to have escaped YOU is that El Al doesn't randomly choose pregnant white women but pre-profiles all its customers, first by danger level then by asking relevant questions, not by searching everyone.
THAT is the point. Everyone does not need to be searched. That is time consuming and expensive. Sure, everyone should be SCREENED. That is easily done at checkin or by having everyone go through the same kind of interviewing El Al does. But patting down a granny? For pete's sake, TSA patted down Al Gore. Do you really think that is prioritizing who is a danger to a flight? Come on--you aren't REALLY defending that! You're just pissed that other people don't take this crap the way you're used to, and while I am one of those people who lets it happen, when I get home, I DO write my congressman (Mr. Stearns has heard from me more than he probably cares to on this issue, I'd reckon). I hope that, instead of defending this kind of ridiculous crap, you are doing the same.
No. That's the whole point. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. What you have termed "reasonable" is entirely unacceptable to me. So I don't fly. If I did fly, I would be contributing to the expansion of these "reasonable" measures and I don't wish to do that.
The technology exists today to create a world only imagined by the most cynical authors just a few decades ago. If our republic fails because a majority choose security over freedom, it won't be the first to do so. But our technology will make the failure quite impressive.
"I thought El Al had the tightest security in the world."
Without a doubt, and with personal experience, El Al
DOES HAVE the tightest security in the world.
If you think TSA is intrusive, you haven't seen anything till you've flown El Al. I had a twenty-minute session with two interrogators (and I mean professional interrogators) the first time I flew to Israel. I understood the situation, so it didn't bother me too much. If these guys wanted to know my life's story, I might as well enjoy telling it. But domestic US air travel would become obsolete if we employed the same level of scrutiny as El Al on domestic flights.
I agree completely. I know a 70 year old grandmother who has been asked to remove her shoes every time she flies.
"I fly two or three times a month. Is that much? "
Then you know that those folks taken aside for further screening don't interfere with the flow of the line. Yet your argument has been that there is a better place and time than in this line to challenge such intrusions. You're not making a very good argument for your case... "That she (Chenoweth) is a nitwit."
I would infinitely prefer to be asked a few questions than have my crotch prodded at or my wife felt up. That you think it would cost a lot of money and slow things down tells me you haven't met any of the now-underemployed psych majors who would inevitably be the trained screeners and you haven't been on a flight out of the country recently, or you would know there isn't much likelihood that things could get slower.
But of course, twenty years from now, when the checks aren't random for some, but standard for all, people like you will be talking about how it's okay to run random credit checks and do random colonoscopies on airline passengers, and how we should all be searched before we walk into large buildings. Crazy bastards like me, of course, will still be arguing that those who fit the profile of those who are likely to commit such crimes ought to be the ones who suffer the indignity of a search, instead of just granting government the wide power to randomly invade anyone and everyone's privacy. It is not the end of life as we know it. It is merely one of many steps in a long process of slowly curtailing the fundamental rights to be left alone and freely travel. And no, those aren't Constitutional rights, but then, neither is the right to marry or the right to breed.
"I fly a LOT less than I used to. I fly now only when I have to. If I can drive there in a day, even a long day, I drive. The airlines have lost quite a bit of my business."
If I can drive there in six hours, why bother with airport hassles? You leave when you want, don't have to park, don't have to arrive early, don't have to wait in lines, don't have to listen to endless taped security admonitions, don't have to rent a car, and won't have your luggage lost.
I prefer the BLT method for determining who gets the special treatment.
Each passenger is served a complementary Bacon-Lettuce-and-Tomato (BLT) sandwich (lettuce and tomato optional). Eat it and you pass right through. Refuse and get the complete treatment up to and including an anal cavity search.
Since they don't pat down every single person, the most they can hope for, other than lucky catches, is to discern some kind of pattern in the big picture as to who comes in with, say, nail files.
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.