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.
Funny and tempting, but Jews do not eat pork, either.
"I would infinitely prefer to be asked a few questions than have my crotch prodded at or my wife felt up."
See Post 214
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.
All arabic (middle eastern) males. Not an aging white woman in the lot. This does not spell reactive, even. It is a 'feel' good farce.
"where we are "free" to obey the law?"
In what country are people "free" to disobey the law?"
When the law is wrong, or wrongly applied, or too complicated.
Which country?
And yet, of those who actually did hijack the airplane using a gun or knife and who had taken over a US airliner, none were caught by US security beforehand.
This is because the security is all for show. Always has been. Still is. Take the case of the Syrian 'musicians' on Northwest 327. While these might be legitimate 'musicians' all but one were traveling on expired visas and the 'band' had published songs glorifying suicide bombings.
In spite of this, they were on a domestic flight inside the US. (Sound familiar?)
Security may well have deterred terrorists from attempting to hijack a plane, since the hijackers may have felt that the chance of getting away with getting weapons on a plane is lower if there are random searches.
Pure speculation. The record proves otherwise. The 9/11 hijackers certainly weren't deterred by security. Neither was Richard Reid.
I do not claim that the TSA is perfect. They are annoying and lots of the stuff they do is dumb, but I think it is dumb in a bureaucratic way, like all government agencies, but it is not evil and the folks who work there are not goons.
No, the TSA screeners are goons. (Faulty security for air screeners)
El Al security is much better, but to use those methods on all passengers at all airports in the US would be much more time consuming and much more expensive than the present system. It is all a matter of trade offs. We can argue forever as to what the proper balance between time, expense, and intrusiveness on the hand and safety on the other. I sure those kinds of debates go on all the time with in the homeland security department.
If it is a matter of trade-offs, then why did you write the following:
"Everyone potentially poses a danger. The terrorists are sneaky."
Either we're going to make flying secure or we aren't. But to say that the sham security in place is going to catch a terrorist is ludicrious. (Airport Screeners Do Poorly, Panel Told)
Very simply, we follow the mandates of our constitution's covenants.
1-Amendment IV precludes and prohibits our federal "government" from searching citizens without probable cause, an oath or affirmation to judge, describing the reason, place to be searched and the items seized.
2-Amendment II precludes and prohibits our federal "government" from denying the right to "bear arms" on public property, such as a publically funded airport facility, and as no jurisdiction at all denying the right to "bear arms" on private property, an airline's aircraft.
3-Amendment V precludes and prohibits our federal government from mandating and regulating the airlines to purchase x-ray equipment, metal detectors, etc., without justly compensating the airlines for their property that has been taken for public use.
Free people, private property ownership and the market place have a proper solution for securing airline's aircraft from hijackers.
One airline can elect to attract customer's by offering to x-ray baggage, prohibit guns, and require all customer's to pass through a metal detector at the airlines expense.
That is constitutional because it is a private property owner exerting their private property rights.
Another airline may wish to attract customer's by inviting their customer's to participate in the securing of the aircraft and other passenger's lives by bringing their arms on board.
The reasoning being, a hijacker, potentially facing 10, 40, 80, or more armed passengers, has no chance of successfully hijacking the aircraft under these circumstances.
With those types of choices, free people then can decide which airline they wish to do business with.
We never have to give up are rights for security reasons. Quite the contrary, we should be exerting them, especially the right to keep and bear arms. (Side note: In my state of Missouri, our constitution protects this right,
Missouri Constitution, Bill of Rights, Article 1, Section 23.
>> >”That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms for the defense of >his home, person, or property, or when lawfully summoned in the aid of the >civil power, shall not be questioned;
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." Benjamin Franklin - 1759
Excellent points.
Anything else is just the federal government once again expanding it's power and sphere of influence.
"Only cranks believe that searches before getting on an airplane marks the line of demarcation between free and unfree people. "
Add me to the "crank" list. Meantime, I'm convinced that only crackheads could possibly believe that patting down grandma as well as former congresspersons might actually prevent terrorists from boarding.
"Add me to the "crank" list."
Done.
"There are none so blind as those who refuse to see."
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.