Posted on 10/08/2006 10:00:47 PM PDT by Dick Bachert
They wouldn't know Islam in its radicalized form, but that defeats my joke.
Just for kicks, wouldn't you want to be the one to say to Jefferson, "Hey, we're going to put you into this aluminum tube with a couple giant engines attached and launch you into the air at 500 miles per hour..."
Jefferson: "What's aluminum?"
I'm sure you mean, 'How do you arm "good people" only?'
Many seem quite satisfied with background checks for preventing guns in the hands of not-good people.
What do you think? Would you qualify? How much infringement will you accept?
Upchuck.
Pikers compared to what we are facing today...
And, those guys at least "got it" when it came to dealing with them.
I suppose that is a valid observation.
I have only flown in North America, and infrequently.
We compare and contrast our last flight with the one before it, and the changes are quite evident.
Just 10 flights ago, I sat in the smoking section.
Five flights ago, I carried (as I usually do) a folding knife in a sheath on my belt (2 7/8 inch blade) which did not get measured until I got off the plane for a cup of coffe at Sioux Falls, SD--eight airports after I left home. Never even thought about it, it is a tool.
As for the last flight, well, I couldn't smoke in the airport (much less the plane), couldn't carry so much as a nail clipper, and next time I think I'll just drive if I don't have to be there in a hurry.
Not that the TSA people were rude or overbearing, they were not. They were that 'I'm just doing my job, heard it all before' bored sounding sort of subbureaucrat neutral.
It wasn't 9/11 that has reduced the passenger load, it is the hassle f partially disrobing, unlacing my workboots, and putting them, my belt, etc. back on after having previously divested myself of the normal assortment of tools and whatnot I usually carry. I'm not a fan of being nude in a public place and I already felt halfway there.
Now, your mileage may vary, if you fly frequently, you are used to the inconvenience. You may even feel it is of sufficient benefit to be worthwhile, and for all I know, it may be.
The frog sitting in the pot doesn't notice the temperature rising, those who jump in and out catch on quick.
Is there a better solution? Perhaps, but no one has come up with it, or the tort lawyers are keeping it at bay.
Background checks would be seen as an infringement by some folks. What about non-criminal background checks? Mental health problems, for instance? People who take anti-psychotic drugs or mood altering drugs via prescription?
That's correct. When the Israelis allowed weapons on their commercial aircraft, the HIJACKING'S STOPPED.
You are more likely to be blown out of the sky when the UNINSPECTED cargo in the hold beneath your feet goes "boom."
These are your recommendations?
The road to hell is paved with what-ifs. Write small, miss small.
The plot that was uncovered recently in the UK was said to involve people using off the shelf health care products.
I take the point that the TSA is not the best system that we could have though.
How many hijackings or airline disaters have we had since installing the TSA? What? Zero?
If the airlines' private security companies would have stepped up to the plate and improved their services then government would not have needed to step in.
You have not lost any "rights".
You have no "right" to fly commercial airliners. Those are privately owned carriers and in order to board those aircraft you consent to have your baggage and person searched.
Don't blame the TSA crews, they are not paid to exercise discretion and judgement, they are paid to follow protocols established and/or blessed by Congress (the same people that were elected to represent your interests!). That also reducs or eliminates indivudiual based biases.
I am confortable saying that if the security measures were not political fodder and strictly for security, you'd see profiling and directed searches instead of what we see designed apparently to appeas the CAIR and ACLU.
I see the bitching but I don't see any offers for system improvement but that is typical.
But if you think the TSA is a hassle, fly in Europe or the Mid East.
This happened to my 18 yo daughter as she and my husband traveled to NC on a college visit. Only instead of toothpaste, it was a bottle of Chanel perfume that was in the GALLON sized instead of QUART sized clear plastic baggie. And my daughter and her dad were SURE it was because the ladies wanted that perfume and were going to dive into the dumpster to get it as soon as they had moved on. it is infuriating.
Yes, and the most frequently heard defense at Nuremburg was "I vas yust following orders."
If aircraft safety was such a major concern, why did the feds fight ARMING FLIGHT CREWS tooth and nail and only relented after a huge public outcry?
Could it be that they WANT to cultivate the notion that only the established "authorities" have the right and wherewithall to properly defend poor, helpless little us?
Read a book called "Call 911 and Die" THEN let's talk again.
By invoking the NAZIs you automatically lost the debate.
However, look at the simplest explanation before looking at conspiracies....
Among the simplest of explanations are: A) the former Coast Guard admiral that headed TSA was an idiot and B) The politics of armed pilots got in the way of a real partial solution to aircraft security.
Interesting too, that you changed the subject from personal and baggage searched to arming pilots. The article wasn't about arming pilots.
Great article and I'm not here to get into are-not-are-so who-is-a-libertarian-and-who-is-not debates.
Like most government flunkies the TSA folk fail miserably in the department of enforcing the spirit of the law vs. enforcing the letter of the law. Of course, America's lovable little cadre of lawyers demand that the letter always take precedence but even the most cynical asbestos-case venue shopper should admit that the TSA has made a hash of its intended purpose.
It's rarely discussed here or elsewhere but much of the TSA hokey-pokey dance is a product of class warfare and/or class envy. The blue-collar-turned-sweaty-white-collar TSA folk clearly resent the relative affluence and power of those traveling for business or leisure reasons. The issuing of menial orders, contempt-filled stares and asking tough-guy questions like 'Do you want to miss your flight?' are all part of their little power play.
Those individuals brave or crazy enough to challenge the TSA (as seen here and on travel blogs) and its practices usually relate tales of one tongue-clucking supervisor giving way to another supervisor with the occasional bored cop thrown in. Nothing of substance seems to happen to an otherwise law-abiding person when they buck the system except the 'vigilant' TSA personnel are forced to demonstrate that their only real means of enforcement (read: on-the-spot punishment) is to detain the miscreant for long periods.
"By invoking the NAZIs you automatically lost the debate."
Only with those to whom the experience in Germany does not serve as a warning or to those who use the phrase "Why THAT could never happen here" to rationalize their ignorance and apathy in the never-ending struggle to preserve a 250 year old experiment in human freedom that COULD fail if folks fail to guard their liberty.
"In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in men but bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution." Thomas Jefferson
"The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper."
(Reliably reported recent remark by George W. Bush)
The Trusted Traveler program is a no-brainer - which is why it's taking Uncle Sam, the airports and the airlines so long to implement it. It would, in effect, create a class system (so much the better) and at least begin to isolate those who are actual or potential threats. The PC mindset is so ingrained in the TSA, FAA, and government in general that having citizens actually volunteer and assist in reducing the number of people that must undergo a full screen at the airport is almost unfathomable.
Is such a program foolproof? No but Trusted Traveler doesn't mean All Access At The Airport. If they are truly interested in identifying terrorists and/or threats the obvious way to start is to begin removing those who consent to (and pass) the background check from the general flying population (i.e., the ones standing in line).
I realize this is a very un-libertarian viewpoint and we all know WHICH group(s) would be ultimately left off the Trusted list.
It wasn't Utopia, but I can remember the days when you could see people off as they boarded the plane, greet them at the gate, not show ID over and over, keep your shoes (and your kids' shoes) on, and, in general not be treated as a potential troublemaker/islamomaniac or part of a submissive herd of sheep...
I was at a sports event this weekend where 60,000 people subjected them selves to pat downs by security agents who were screening out weapons and privately purchased refreshments.
Do you not object to that because it was private agents?
Or is it because you can't find the balance in life?
Pat downs of sports fans is ok but for air passengers it is tyranny?
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.