Coffee,Tea,or Should We Feel Your Pregnant Wifes Breasts Before Throwing You in a Cell attheAirport?

lewrockwell.com ^ | 12/18/2002 | Nicholas Monahan

[dcwusmc]

Give it a rest, friend. Can't you see that some people don't WANT to be aware of the plain facts of the matter? They are 100% OK with whatever FedGov wants to do, no matter the arena. These people, like cajungal and the rest, seem to think that they can, with impunity, trade OUR freedom for THEIR security. And call us whiners if we object. Sad.

[Cheesehead in Texas]

Why was a woman in late stages of pregnancy flying anyway?

In my case, it was for work (every week up until 2 weeks before delivery). I found the most aggravating things about late stage flying was 1)barely being able to fit in the bathroom on the plane, and 2) tray table can't be deployed.

[Trust but Verify]

Enlighten me.

[smoking camels]

I don't know either but I think it is narrowminded to write this kook off as a kook because of his choice to use natural remdies. Sorry if I was too harsh.

[Stone Mountain]

So we called the ACLU, figuring they existed for just such incidents as these. And they do apparently...but only if we were minorities. That’s what they told us.

Would Mr. Monahan care to repeat that, under penalty of perjury? It doesn't pass my smell test.

I agree with you on that. The ACLU have defended Nazis and KKK members. This sounds highly improbable to me...

[Teacher317]

On a humorous note, my mother-in-law told me, "HEY! You shut up about that! That's the only chance to be groped by anybody that I've got left!"

ROFL! Sounds like you married into a fun family!

[RGSpincich]

Everything else is a waste of time and a joke.

I'd rather anticipate their next move than die from it.

[xrp]

I try to eat a lot of beans before flying commercial. That way when I get to the point where I go through the airport Gestapo points, I've built up enough gas and I am ready to cut loose when they take me aside (which is EVERY time since 9/11).

[inquest]

Nothing wrong with that. But you'll be less likely to die if security focuses its efforts on those who by all indications are highly likely to be a terrorist, instead of spreading your efforts thin on everyone in the name of political correctness.

[inquest]

"your efforts" = their efforts

[babygene]

You need to think this thing through... I don't think you have.

If 10% of the general population gets searched and you include the likely terriorists with the general population, then 90% of the likely terriorists do not get searched.

How is that a good thing? How could you support something so ridicilious, unless YOU are a middle eastern male between 18 and 40?

[inquest]

Dude, that's a little out of line.

[RGSpincich]

I believe in racial profiling as well. As in, in addition to all other means of opportunity.

[HairOfTheDog]

But you'll be less likely to die if security focuses its efforts on those who by all indications are highly likely to be a terrorist, instead of spreading your efforts thin on everyone in the name of political correctness.

And to categorically overlook anyone who is not middle-eastern in appearance, as a policy, leaves us open to attack by anyone with a bottle of hair dye. Profiling is valid, but holding to it without exception leaves us more vulnerable to a bigger blind spot than we had before.

[babygene]

"Dude, that's a little out of line."

How is that out of line? I didn't accuse RGSpincich of being anything, only of not thinking it through.

People in that group would logicaly be against such profiling. I can't imigine anyone else would object.

[babygene]

"leaves us open to attack by anyone with a bottle of hair dye."

A kid flying a kite COULD be spreading biotoxins too. But it's probably not where we need to be spending our Homeland Security money.

If you have a finite amount of money to spend, and if the population has a finite amount of patience, it makes sense to go after the most obvious first.

Also, it takes more than a bottle of hair dye to make someone look like a 92 year old grandmother...

[babygene]

"leaves us open to attack by anyone with a bottle of hair dye."

A kid flying a kite COULD be spreading biotoxins too. But it's probably not where we need to be spending our Homeland Security money.

If you have a finite amount of money to spend, and if the population has a finite amount of patience, it makes sense to go after the most obvious first.

Also, it takes more than a bottle of hair dye to make someone look like a 92 year old grandmother...

[babygene]

"I believe in racial profiling as well. As in, in addition to all other means of opportunity."

If I offended you with my earlier post, I didn't mean to.

In my opinion though, to eliminate all other means of opportunity would mean a complete shutdown of this country. The biggest risks do not even involve airlines. We can't afford to do that. We need to get the biggest bang for the buck, so to speak (no pun intended). Buck, in this case refers to the disruption of our country.

[inquest]

I'm certainly not advocating announcing that we will never under any circumstances search X type of person. But realistically, I think we can afford to let up quite a bit on people who clearly do not fit any profiles. Yes, theoretically, anything can happen. Hell, even if there aren't any terrorists on board, there's still a chance the plane can spin out of control and crash into a building. So doesn that mean we shouldn't fly at all?

[general_re]

BTW - I was commenting on the Maryland's requirements to pass the muster before our Court of Appeals.

So I gather, upon rereading your post. I haven't read through the MD cases and statutes regarding such things, but based on your description and the Sitz decision, it seems to me that the MD scheme is a bit more...opaque than what SCOTUS set out in Sitz. Since we're presumably talking about a federal standard, I think we can probably expect something more in line with the Sitz decision than what the MD courts have produced ;)

Even the dissent in Sitz would likely agree that security checkpoints in airports are constitutional - if there was a proper protocol in place that eliminates arbitrary decisions by the screeners.

Presumably, that would be satisfied by subjecting everyone to the same initial level of scrutiny, reserving heightened inquiry for those who meet some well-defined criteria. At a checkpoint, everyone gets stopped, but only the folks whose inspection stickers have lapsed, or smell like booze, or have a pound of dope on the front seat get waved over for an extra chat.

In this case, any screen of a female should be done in private by two female screeners and the subject of the screening should be allowed to have her husband/family member accompany her into the private area. I'm not sure how to handle a female traveling alone.

That seems reasonable, so long as hubby doesn't himself seem to present a threat to safety. If both present grounds for suspicion, it seems reasonable to separate them. As for a woman traveling alone, having two female screeners do the pat down would probably be adequate...