Yeah that's the extension of your position all right. Maybe Michael Chertoff can recommend something. I think you're scared. You're terrified of terrorism and it's clouding your judgment. You're panicking and throwing our nation and its rule of law away because you feel afraid. Meanwhile, your chance of getting killed on the way to the airport is far greater than that of getting killed by a terrorist on a plane. You act like if a bomb goes off on a plane, God forbid, it's going to be end the world. After 9/11, they actually had stop people from flying (everyone except the bin laden family of course) But as soon as the ban was over, people got right back on planes. Same after Pan 103 over lockerbie. People got on planes that day. Same with the Bus and Train line in London after 7/7. Those trains and buses are running right now. Picking up passengers. I bet someone is sitting in an israeli pizza place that was hit by a bomb in the past and they're having a slice of 'za. Life goes on. Not saying those aren't dreadful crimes. But as survivors we can't let anyone take away our nation from us - not unless we allow it. The solution to terrorism is to not be terrified.
The Statist and the Terrorist want to scare us for their own political ends. The terrorists want us out of their country. The government wants you to cede more power to them. But lucky for us our constitution doesn't flip a switch and panic every time some wackjob inserts a bomb in his booty hole. Or every time a policeman shines a flashlight in our eyes. The constitution is there, unchanging, to guide us as we face all threats foreign and domestic. And that's why it's worth fighting to protect.
I'm sorry if this post sounds like I'm attacking you or I'm being callous about peoples deaths, but I was offended when you said if I got on a plane with you, you want my child "inspected". Are you aware of what that entails? Never mind what you "want" so you can enjoy the illusion of safety. That's not what I want. And that's not what our founding fathers wanted for us either.
While we have never challenged the TSAs basic authority to conduct safety-related searches, our concern was that TSA interpreted its limited authority to safeguard air travel as a license to conduct unlimited law enforcement searches for which TSA agents are not trained and which distracted from the agencys critical mission of ensuring flight safety,said Larry Schwartztol, a staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. By reinforcing the constitutionally mandated limits on the TSAs search authority, the new directives enhance the TSAs safety-related mission.
The article can be found here:
http://www.aclunc.org/issues/technology/blog/tsa_fixes_search_policy_after_aclu_sues.shtml
I also found the following study to be of interest:
Airline passenger security screening: new technologies and implementation issues
http://books.google.com/books?id=I0grAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=passenger+screening+constitution&source=bl&ots=LpNfKG0fFU&sig=nHNRcNR9QxJLmh9vzUMxWMFrdZ0&hl=en&ei=8FXlTOfyJtCWOqiH6N8K&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=passenger%20screening%20constitution&f=false
In general it is a fair analysis from both sides point of view even though written by the, National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Commercial Aviation Security. It's general conclusion is that the courts have consistently upheld screening procedures at airports under several doctrines. There is simply no requirement of probable cause to conduct these searches.
Anyone interested in reviewing these materials are referred to the link.