Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Coffee,Tea,or Should We Feel Your Pregnant Wifes Breasts Before Throwing You in a Cell attheAirport?
lewrockwell.com ^ | 12/18/2002 | Nicholas Monahan

Posted on 12/21/2002 11:33:05 AM PST by Libertarian Billy Graham

 

Coffee, Tea, or Should We Feel Your Pregnant Wife’s Breasts Before Throwing You in a Cell at the Airport and Then Lying About Why We Put You There?

by Nicholas Monahan

This morning I’ll be escorting my wife to the hospital, where the doctors will perform a caesarean section to remove our first child. She didn’t want to do it this way – neither of us did – but sometimes the Fates decide otherwise. The Fates or, in our case, government employees.

On the morning of October 26th Mary and I entered Portland International Airport, en route to the Las Vegas wedding of one of my best friends. Although we live in Los Angeles, we’d been in Oregon working on a film, and up to that point had had nothing but praise to shower on the city of Portland, a refreshing change of pace from our own suffocating metropolis.

At the security checkpoint I was led aside for the "inspection" that’s all the rage at airports these days. My shoes were removed. I was told to take off my sweater, then to fold over the waistband of my pants. My baseball hat, hastily jammed on my head at 5 AM, was removed and assiduously examined ("Anything could be in here, sir," I was told, after I asked what I could hide in a baseball hat. Yeah. Anything.) Soon I was standing on one foot, my arms stretched out, the other leg sticking out in front of me àla a DUI test. I began to get pissed off, as most normal people would. My anger increased when I realized that the newly knighted federal employees weren’t just examining me, but my 7½ months pregnant wife as well. I’d originally thought that I’d simply been randomly selected for the more excessive than normal search. You know, Number 50 or whatever. Apparently not though – it was both of us. These are your new threats, America: pregnant accountants and their sleepy husbands flying to weddings.

After some more grumbling on my part they eventually finished with me and I went to retrieve our luggage from the x-ray machine. Upon returning I found my wife sitting in a chair, crying. Mary rarely cries, and certainly not in public. When I asked her what was the matter, she tried to quell her tears and sobbed, "I’m sorry...it’s...they touched my breasts...and..." That’s all I heard. I marched up to the woman who’d been examining her and shouted, "What did you do to her?" Later I found out that in addition to touching her swollen breasts – to protect the American citizenry – the employee had asked that she lift up her shirt. Not behind a screen, not off to the side – no, right there, directly in front of the hundred or so passengers standing in line. And for you women who’ve been pregnant and worn maternity pants, you know how ridiculous those things look. "I felt like a clown," my wife told me later. "On display for all these people, with the cotton panel on my pants and my stomach sticking out. When I sat down I just lost my composure and began to cry. That’s when you walked up."

Of course when I say she "told me later," it’s because she wasn’t able to tell me at the time, because as soon as I demanded to know what the federal employee had done to make her cry, I was swarmed by Portland police officers. Instantly. Three of them, cinching my arms, locking me in handcuffs, and telling me I was under arrest. Now my wife really began to cry. As they led me away and she ran alongside, I implored her to calm down, to think of the baby, promising her that everything would turn out all right. She faded into the distance and I was shoved into an elevator, a cop holding each arm. After making me face the corner, the head honcho told that I was under arrest and that I wouldn’t be flying that day – that I was in fact a "menace."

It took me a while to regain my composure. I felt like I was one of those guys in The Gulag Archipelago who, because the proceedings all seem so unreal, doesn’t fully realize that he is in fact being arrested in a public place in front of crowds of people for...for what? I didn’t know what the crime was. Didn’t matter. Once upstairs, the officers made me remove my shoes and my hat and tossed me into a cell. Yes, your airports have prison cells, just like your amusement parks, train stations, universities, and national forests. Let freedom reign.

After a short time I received a visit from the arresting officer. "Mr. Monahan," he started, "Are you on drugs?"

Was this even real? "No, I’m not on drugs."

"Should you be?"

"What do you mean?"

"Should you be on any type of medication?"

"No."

"Then why’d you react that way back there?"

You see the thinking? You see what passes for reasoning among your domestic shock troops these days? Only "whackos" get angry over seeing the woman they’ve been with for ten years in tears because someone has touched her breasts. That kind of reaction – love, protection – it’s mind-boggling! "Mr. Monahan, are you on drugs?" His snide words rang inside my head. This is my wife, finally pregnant with our first child after months of failed attempts, after the depressing shock of the miscarriage last year, my wife who’d been walking on a cloud over having the opportunity to be a mother...and my anger is simply unfathomable to the guy standing in front of me, the guy who earns a living thanks to my taxes, the guy whose family I feed through my labor. What I did wasn’t normal. No, I reacted like a drug addict would’ve. I was so disgusted I felt like vomiting. But that was just the beginning.

An hour later, after I’d been gallantly assured by the officer that I wouldn’t be attending my friend’s wedding that day, I heard Mary’s voice outside my cell. The officer was speaking loudly, letting her know that he was planning on doing me a favor... which everyone knows is never a real favor. He wasn’t going to come over and help me work on my car or move some furniture. No, his "favor" was this: He’d decided not to charge me with a felony.

Think about that for a second. Rapes, car-jackings, murders, arsons – those are felonies. So is yelling in an airport now, apparently. I hadn’t realized, though I should have. Luckily, I was getting a favor, though. I was merely going to be slapped with a misdemeanor.

"Here’s your court date," he said as I was released from my cell. In addition, I was banned from Portland International for 90 days, and just in case I was thinking of coming over and hanging out around its perimeter, the officer gave me a map with the boundaries highlighted, sternly warning me against trespassing. Then he and a second officer escorted us off the grounds. Mary and I hurriedly drove two and a half hours in the rain to Seattle, where we eventually caught a flight to Vegas. But the officer was true to his word – we missed my friend’s wedding. The fact that he’d been in my own wedding party, the fact that a once in a lifetime event was stolen from us – well, who cares, right?

Upon our return to Portland (I’d had to fly into Seattle and drive back down), we immediately began contacting attorneys. We aren’t litigious people – we wanted no money. I’m not even sure what we fully wanted. An apology? A reprimand? I don’t know. It doesn’t matter though, because we couldn’t afford a lawyer, it turned out. $4,000 was the average figure bandied about as a retaining fee. Sorry, but I’ve got a new baby on the way. 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.

In the meantime, I’d appealed my suspension from PDX. A week or so later I got a response from the Director of Aviation. After telling me how, in the aftermath of 9/11, most passengers not only accept additional airport screening but welcome it, he cut to the chase:

"After a review of the police report and my discussions with police staff, as well as a review of the TSA’s report on this incident, I concur with the officer’s decision to take you into custody and to issue a citation to you for disorderly conduct. That being said, because I also understand that you were upset and acted on your emotions, I am willing to lift the Airport Exclusion Order...."

Attached to this letter was the report the officer had filled out. I’d like to say I couldn’t believe it, but in a way, I could. It’s seemingly becoming the norm in America – lies and deliberate distortions on the part of those in power, no matter how much or how little power they actually wield.

The gist of his report was this: From the get go I wasn’t following the screener’s directions. I was "squinting my eyes" and talking to my wife in a "low, forced voice" while "excitedly swinging my arms." Twice I began to walk away from the screener, inhaling and exhaling forcefully. When I’d completed the physical exam, I walked to the luggage screening area, where a second screener took a pair of scissors from my suitcase. At this point I yelled, "What the %*&$% is going on? This is &*#&$%!" The officer, who’d already been called over by one of the screeners, became afraid for the TSA staff and the many travelers. He required the assistance of a second officer as he "struggled" to get me into handcuffs, then for "cover" called over a third as well. It was only at this point that my wife began to cry hysterically.

There was nothing poetic in my reaction to the arrest report. I didn’t crumple it in my fist and swear that justice would be served, promising to sacrifice my resources and time to see that it would. I simply stared. Clearly the officer didn’t have the guts to write down what had really happened. It might not look too good to see that stuff about the pregnant woman in tears because she’d been humiliated. Instead this was the official scenario being presented for the permanent record. It doesn’t even matter that it’s the most implausible sounding situation you can think of. "Hey, what the...godammit, they’re taking our scissors, honey!" Why didn’t he write in anything about a monkey wearing a fez?

True, the TSA staff had expropriated a pair of scissors from our toiletries kit – the story wasn’t entirely made up. Except that I’d been locked in airport jail at the time. I didn’t know anything about any scissors until Mary told me on our drive up to Seattle. They’d questioned her about them while I was in the bowels of the airport sitting in my cell.

So I wrote back, indignation and disgust flooding my brain.

"[W]hile I’m not sure, I’d guess that the entire incident is captured on video. Memory is imperfect on everyone’s part, but the footage won’t lie. I realize it might be procedurally difficult for you to view this, but if you could, I’d appreciate it. There’s no willful disregard of screening directions. No explosion over the discovery of a pair of scissors in a suitcase. No struggle to put handcuffs on. There’s a tired man, early in the morning, unhappily going through a rigorous procedure and then reacting to the tears of his pregnant wife."

Eventually we heard back from a different person, the guy in charge of the TSA airport screeners. One of his employees had made the damning statement about me exploding over her scissor discovery, and the officer had deftly incorporated that statement into his report. We asked the guy if he could find out why she’d said this – couldn’t she possibly be mistaken? "Oh, can’t do that, my hands are tied. It’s kind of like leading a witness – I could get in trouble, heh heh." Then what about the videotape? Why not watch that? That would exonerate me. "Oh, we destroy all video after three days."

Sure you do.

A few days later we heard from him again. He just wanted to inform us that he’d received corroboration of the officer’s report from the officer’s superior, a name we didn’t recognize. "But...he wasn’t even there," my wife said.

"Yeah, well, uh, he’s corroborated it though."

That’s how it works.

"Oh, and we did look at the videotape. Inconclusive."

But I thought it was destroyed?

On and on it went. Due to the tenacity of my wife in making phone calls and speaking with relevant persons, the "crime" was eventually lowered to a mere citation. Only she could have done that. I would’ve simply accepted what was being thrown at me, trumped up charges and all, simply because I’m wholly inadequate at performing the kowtow. There’s no way I could have contacted all the people Mary did and somehow pretend to be contrite. Besides, I speak in a low, forced voice, which doesn’t elicit sympathy. Just police suspicion.

Weeks later at the courthouse I listened to a young DA awkwardly read the charges against me – "Mr. Monahan...umm...shouted obscenities at the airport staff...umm... umm...oh, they took some scissors from his suitcase and he became...umm...abusive at this point." If I was reading about it in Kafka I might have found something vaguely amusing in all of it. But I wasn’t. I was there. Living it.

I entered a plea of nolo contendere, explaining to the judge that if I’d been a resident of Oregon, I would have definitely pled "Not Guilty." However, when that happens, your case automatically goes to a jury trial, and since I lived a thousand miles away, and was slated to return home in seven days, with a newborn due in a matter of weeks...you get the picture. "No Contest" it was. Judgment: $250 fine.

Did I feel happy? Only $250, right? No, I wasn’t happy. I don’t care if it’s twelve cents, that’s money pulled right out of my baby’s mouth and fed to a disgusting legal system that will use it to propagate more incidents like this. But at the very least it was over, right? Wrong.

When we returned to Los Angeles there was an envelope waiting for me from the court. Inside wasn’t a receipt for the money we’d paid. No, it was a letter telling me that what I actually owed was $309 – state assessed court costs, you know. Wouldn’t you think your taxes pay for that – the state putting you on trial? No, taxes are used to hire more cops like the officer, because with our rising criminal population – people like me – hey, your average citizen demands more and more "security."

Finally I reach the piece de resistance. The week before we’d gone to the airport my wife had had her regular pre-natal checkup. The child had settled into the proper head down position for birth, continuing the remarkable pregnancy she’d been having. We returned to Portland on Sunday. On Mary’s Monday appointment she was suddenly told, "Looks like your baby’s gone breech." When she later spoke with her midwives in Los Angeles, they wanted to know if she’d experienced any type of trauma recently, as this often makes a child flip. "As a matter of fact..." she began, recounting the story, explaining how the child inside of her was going absolutely crazy when she was crying as the police were leading me away through the crowd.

My wife had been planning a natural childbirth. She’d read dozens of books, meticulously researched everything, and had finally decided that this was the way for her. No drugs, no numbing of sensations – just that ultimate combination of brute pain and sheer joy that belongs exclusively to mothers. But my wife is also a first-time mother, so she has what is called an "untested" pelvis. Essentially this means that a breech birth is too dangerous to attempt, for both mother and child. Therefore, she’s now relegated to a c-section – hospital stay, epidural, catheter, fetal monitoring, stitches – everything she didn’t want. Her natural birth has become a surgery.

We’ve tried everything to turn that baby. Acupuncture, chiropractic techniques, underwater handstands, elephant walking, moxibustion, bending backwards over pillows, herbs, external manipulation – all to no avail. When I walked into the living room the other night and saw her plaintively cooing with a flashlight turned onto her stomach, yet another suggested technique, my heart almost broke. It’s breaking now as I write these words.

I can never prove that my child went breech because of what happened to us at the airport. But I’ll always believe it. Wrongly or rightly, I’ll forever think of how this man, the personification of this system, has affected the lives of my family and me. When my wife is sliced open, I’ll be thinking of him. When they remove her uterus from her abdomen and lay it on her stomach, I’ll be thinking of him. When I visit her and my child in the hospital instead of having them with me here in our home, I’ll be thinking of him. When I assist her to the bathroom while the incision heals internally, I’ll be thinking of him.

There are plenty of stories like this these days. I don’t know how many I’ve read where the writer describes some breach of civil liberties by employees of the state, then wraps it all up with a dire warning about what we as a nation are becoming, and how if we don’t put an end to it now, then we’re in for heaps of trouble. Well you know what? Nothing’s going to stop the inevitable. There’s no policy change that’s going to save us. There’s no election that’s going to put a halt to the onslaught of tyranny. It’s here already – this country has changed for the worse and will continue to change for the worse. There is now a division between the citizenry and the state. When that state is used as a tool against me, there is no longer any reason why I should owe any allegiance to that state.

And that’s the first thing that child of ours is going to learn.

December 21, 2002

Nick Monahan works in the film industry. He writes out of Los Angeles where he lives with his wife and as of December 18th, his beautiful new son.

Copyright © 2002 LewRockwell.com

     

 

Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: policestate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,081-1,1001,101-1,1201,121-1,1401,141-1,147 next last
Comment #1,121 Removed by Moderator

To: Libertarian Billy Graham
Portland, OR. The city that specifically refused to assist the FBI and other Fed authorities with searching for AlQueda sleeper cells!
America, steer clear of Portland. The PDX TSA and PDX PD are citizens of the city of Portland and apparently have bought into their city councils PC crap. They won't hunt terrorists, but they'll thoroughly persecute an innocent married couple.
1,122 posted on 12/25/2002 10:09:24 PM PST by XHogPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libertarian Billy Graham
Jimmy Christ at The Space Theatre. (theater review) T.H. McCulloh

05/30/2002 Back Stage West

   It sounds like a neat outrageous idea: a play about Jesus Christ's "less cool younger brother." The reality is a mistake even one of the older brother's miracles couldn't correct. In a television-oriented mush of bad old jokes played like outtakes from Leave It to Beaver, playwright Nicholas Monahan takes a totally sophomoric view of the Holy Family that from beginning to end is infantile and dull. Why this company chose to do it boggles the imagination.

The younger characters--Jesus, Jimmy, and Jimmy's clunky friend Kevin (Wally Cleaver had one, too)--call one another "dude." Jesus is the local phat cat, a soccer hero who is adored for his parlor tricks like curing lepers and turning water into wine. The only thing he hasn't done is cure Jimmy's clubfoot, leaving the kid paranoid and suffering from an inferiority complex, which is what he deserves. Joseph and Mary fight like the Honeymooners about everything, especially Jesus' father, and finally insist that Jesus set up a double date to get 16-year-old Jimmy into the swing of things.

There are no commercials to relieve the tedium, no other channel to switch to, and under Panos Koronis' diddling direction this all seems to go on forever. He allows his actors to wander willy-nilly while other actors are speaking, and his sense of timing dulls what laughs the script might get, such as Jimmy's one funny joke about the Greek boy who didn't want to go into the world and leave his brother's behind (rim shot, please). Koronis' lack of form also doesn't help Monahan's eventual switch from juvenile humor to a sort of maudlin seriousness near the end.

The performances are generally on a par with the script. Ron Petronicoios' Jimmy is at least legible with an edge of humor, as is Benjamin Dodge's ditzy Kevin, but Mark Hart's Jesus is played sort of like Tom Cruise on Quaaludes, much too "dude" for his own good. Sunny Hawks, whose credits read, "She's one crazy broad," plays Mary that way, and Pete Punito's dull Joseph is much too serious to come anywhere near the rest of the dumbness. Lindley Gibbs and Noelle Barbari are truly sitcom as the sisters Jesus sets up, and Tommy Culavito as their snotty Uncle Tobbit just looks at the audience and mugs.

"Jimmy Christ, "presented by and at the Space Theatre, 665 N. Heliotrope, Hollywood. Fri.-Sun. 8 p.m. May 24-June 23. $15. (323) 414-5400.
1,123 posted on 12/25/2002 10:14:28 PM PST by yazd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yazd
First they molested the wives of 3rd-rate playwrites and then threw them into cells and had layers of cops lie about it, but I didn't say anything because I wasn't a 3rd-rate playwrite...

Nice to see you have your priorities in order.

1,124 posted on 12/25/2002 11:27:48 PM PST by Libertarian Billy Graham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1123 | View Replies]

To: Libertarian Billy Graham
Just wanted this to be shared again.
1,125 posted on 12/25/2002 11:44:32 PM PST by oceanperch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libertarian Billy Graham
How does Amtrak Compare for say west Coast trips. I want a Caddy Truck for my rental can Amtrak help with that.
1,126 posted on 12/25/2002 11:47:58 PM PST by oceanperch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libertarian Billy Graham
I support you posting this 100%

Even though I am a still ovulating past child bearing woman our Breasts become full and I sure would not want some or anyone squeezing them it hurts.


1,127 posted on 12/26/2002 12:11:51 AM PST by oceanperch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libertarian Billy Graham
First they molested the wives of 3rd-rate playwrites and then threw them into cells and had layers of cops lie about it, but I didn't say anything because I wasn't a 3rd-rate playwrite... Nice to see you have your priorities in order.

Nice to see you are so willing to believe this rant without question.

I'm less inclined than you to swallow this story without question, just because it may neatly fit some folks' preconceived view of the gummint.

Until some real evidence emerges, I'm with Snopes on this one, i.e.:

Claim:   Man is outraged because airport security personnel touch his pregnant wife's breasts.

Status:   Undetermined.

Example:   [Collected on the Internet, 2002]

Origins:   I was once good friends with a woman whose husband (whom we'll call John) was, to put it charitably, a decidedly "act first, think later" type. One afternoon I received a frantic phone call from this woman because John was in jail, and she couldn't raise the money to bail him out. Why had he been arrested? Well, it had to do with a routine traffic stop -- this couple had been carrying Oregon license plates on their cars for years even though they lived in California (because it was cheaper to register automobiles in Oregon), and a patrolman had pulled John over for a routine traffic stop to investigate why he was driving around in a car with an expired, out-of-state registration. John, irritated that a policemen would have the effrontery to accuse him of engaging in something illegal, took a swing at the cop and was hauled off to the hoosegow for assaulting a police officer. Of course, to hear the couple relate the incident later, John hadn't done anything wrong -- that he had done something illegal and had tried to punch out a cop was irrelevant; John's actions were a perfectly reasonable employment of self-defense, and if only that mean, terrible policeman hadn't provoked him, none of this would have happened. I suspected there was lot more to this story than I ever heard from John and his wife.

What to make of the airport outrage story related above? Reading between the lines of the one-sided account, we find something that sounds to us like a man and his wife being pulled out of line for a routine random search (it is reasonable for security personnel to verify that a woman who appears pregnant really is pregnant, as a faked appearance of pregnancy is a time-worn smuggler's and shoplifter's technique). Then, after hearing but a single statement with no context from his upset wife ("They touched my breasts . . ."), the husband immediately goes charging off to angrily confront security personnel, shouting and raging at them, even though he as yet has no idea what actually happened (which itself is reason to question the accuracy of this account). Acting hostile with airport security, yelling at them, and ignoring instructions to calm down are actions guaranteed to get one taken into custody, no matter what the circumstances, as a matter of standard procedure. And we're supposed to be shocked and outraged that this man got arrested? We suspect there's a lot more to this story than we're hearing, especially the part about bearing responsibility for one's own actions.

Last updated:   23 December 2002

1,128 posted on 12/26/2002 12:48:50 PM PST by yazd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1124 | View Replies]

To: yazd
playwright Nicholas Monahan takes a totally sophomoric view of the Holy Family that from beginning to end is infantile and dull.

Looks like this "airport" piece of, uh-hum, "writing" found a more receptive audience. Of course, those who believe him don't have the $15. to spend on any upcoming play. Hey, forget the play and sue! Lousy playwrights gotta eat, too.

1,129 posted on 12/27/2002 6:43:48 AM PST by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1123 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Good morning - my reply queue has piled up in my brief holiday absence, I see ;)

I asked you if it matters to you, so therefore it's relevant for me. You keep throwing in this - I'd have to call it a phobia at this point - about "imposing" solutions on the American people, when I haven't suggested any such thing. What I'm trying to get from you is what you think our goals should be. Once we've determined that, then we can worry about how to get there.

It's not a "phobia" about imposing solutions, it's a matter of understanding what the real problem is. We're essentially presented with two possibilities here. One, there's some secret (or not-so-secret) cabal of power-brokers in Washington that are conspiring to gradually strip us of our rights and freedoms, against our wills. And this is not an uncommon position, especially around here - you can see the strains of that in the posts suggesting that "they" are "conditioning" us to become used to random searches, and so forth. Or, alternately, as I suggest, our rights and freedoms are gradually being stripped because that's what people want. They may not think that's what they want, but when it comes to security versus freedom, they will invariably choose security, or the appearance of it, over freedom.

Now, in both cases, the end result is the same, even though they are two entirely different problems, with two entirely different solutions. The solution to the first problem...well, you get your guns out and you go root 'em out. But the second problem is much more subtle and much more difficult to solve. And that's what we're faced with - there's no grand conspiracy, IMO, to take away your rights. Your neighbors are simply thinking with their bellies instead of their heads, and the solution to that problem can only be to educate them. Nothing else can stop what you and I might see as continuing violations of the Constitution.

Would you say it's doing so now when it says that exercise of what would otherwise be a generally unrestricted freedom shall be conditional upon "consensual" searches?

Saying "what would otherwise be a generally unrestricted freedom" is sort of like saying "if it wasn't for disease and old age, I'd otherwise generally live forever" - while it is trivially true, it has never been that way, and it never really will be that way. As I've been repeatedly trying to show, no freedoms are ever absolute. No freedoms have ever been absolute. And no freedoms can be absolute, in a society of more than one person. Libertarians (of which you are not one, of course) take an expansive, broad view of freedoms, but the "no force or fraud" principle still serves to draw a line, ruling some actions in pursuit of freedoms out-of-bounds, and not permissible by society. Others take a more constrained view of the proper exercise of ones liberties. But everyone recognizes that a line must be drawn, causing some activities to be impermissible. And once we all realize that, then the debate becomes about where we should draw that line, not whether we should draw that line.

So, the question is really "is this interpretation of the 4'th Amendment appropriate? Is it practical? Is it moral?" And I say, rights are meaningless to dead people. The right to life of the 3,000 people in the World Trade Center outweighs the right of the passengers to be free from any search. In this case, I am prepared to draw a limited exception to the 4'th Amendment, in the name of life. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact," as Justice Jackson famously said, and there is little point in adhering to a slavish interpretation that causes the deaths of countless thousands - it is, after all, intended for the use of the living, not the dead.

Obviously, this will not be a popular position with the "let justice be done, though the heavens fall" set. But here we have yet another case of one right conflicting with another, and I say that life is that most precious right of all. Without it, all other rights and freedoms are meaningless.

Then I guess I won't get customers to fly on Air Inquest with that approach. Such are the ways of the free market.

Something makes me think the free market will prevent Air Inquest from even getting that far - I predict Air Inquest will have a great deal of trouble obtaining insurance. In which case, Air Inquest will end up instituting searches anyway, and then what's the practical difference between Air Inquest and airlines now? ;)

1,130 posted on 12/27/2002 7:37:01 AM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1110 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Good mornin', afternoon, evening, whatever. Merry belated Christmas.

We're essentially presented with two possibilities here. One, there's some secret (or not-so-secret) cabal of power-brokers in Washington that are conspiring to gradually strip us of our rights and freedoms, against our wills. And this is not an uncommon position, especially around here - you can see the strains of that in the posts suggesting that "they" are "conditioning" us to become used to random searches, and so forth. Or, alternately, as I suggest, our rights and freedoms are gradually being stripped because that's what people want. They may not think that's what they want, but when it comes to security versus freedom, they will invariably choose security, or the appearance of it, over freedom.

Actually, there is a third possibility, and that is that those in power do things to increase their power, not because they've "conspired" to do so, but because birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim, and politicians gotta control everything they can get their grubby hands on - and because the people are insufficiently opposed to it to want to go through the effort of putting a stop to it. And even if the first possibility you mentioned is correct, I'm not sure I'd agree that going in with guns blaring is the most advisable option, as I think you can see. But all that's neither here nor there at this particular juncture, because right now I'm interested in your views of how it should be. We'll deal later with the question of how to get there, if you're still so inclined.

But everyone recognizes that a line must be drawn, causing some activities to be impermissible. And once we all realize that, then the debate becomes about where we should draw that line, not whether we should draw that line.

I'd rather hear your thoughts on where to draw the line on government's actions. Hopefully I don't have to ask you whether the line needs to be drawn.

So, the question is really "is this interpretation of the 4'th Amendment appropriate? Is it practical? Is it moral?"

Silly me, I thought the question was "Is this interpretation correct?"

The right to life of the 3,000 people in the World Trade Center outweighs the right of the passengers to be free from any search. In this case, I am prepared to draw a limited exception to the 4'th Amendment, in the name of life.

So now you're making it clear that it's not a question of "interpretation" at all, but a question of whether to violate the Constitution. After all, if you speak of a "limited exception", then you're acknowledging that there's something to be excepted from. Seems you've answered the question I had for you earlier. And is it a justified violation? You asked me, "What's the practical difference between Air Inquest and airlines now? ;)" I'd like to turn that question upon you: What is the practical difference between a free-market system and a centrally commanded system of airline security, in terms of the safety it would provide? You've implied that insurance companies and other annoyances would constrain airlines to do things much the same way they're doing now. So is the difference enough to warrant a cafeteria approach to the Constitution?

1,131 posted on 12/27/2002 7:14:17 PM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1130 | View Replies]

To: Glenn
Glenn, I guess I need to repeat because you've never read any of my previous posts at FR. I trust government like I trust the weather. But you seem to think that because our guv isn't the swiftest that we should just let a bunch of murderous weirdos destroy western civilization. You have YET to say how you would defend American toddlers from the freaks who want to put them under the thumb of these murderous nazi-muslims who want to take over the world.That's my complaint with you. What would YOU DO? You love to criticize, but you don't ever offer up any remotely constructive solution to the problem (unless you really DO want american toddlers to be taken over by satanically murderous 'muslims'.) Come on.
1,132 posted on 12/28/2002 12:02:39 PM PST by leilani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies]

To: leilani
That's my complaint with you.

I don't give a damn about your complaints. You repeatedly referred to me as someone who enjoyed "taking it up the ass" (something I guarantee you would never say to my face). You're a real tough-guy-Internet-warrior.

You have YET to say how you would defend American toddlers from the freaks who want to put them under the thumb of these murderous nazi-muslims who want to take over the world.

When you can engage in normal discourse instead of throwing around rhetoric, get back to me. I've no time for keyboard-commandos. Capice?

1,133 posted on 12/28/2002 12:56:45 PM PST by Glenn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1132 | View Replies]

To: inquest
So, the question is really "is this interpretation of the 4'th Amendment appropriate? Is it practical? Is it moral?"

Silly me, I thought the question was "Is this interpretation correct?"

"Correctness" is itself a matter of interpretation. And it's a matter of degree, to boot. If we could all look at some action and instantly and unanimously agree upon whether it was consistent with the law, or look at some law and instantly and unanimously agree upon whether it was consistent with the Constitution, we wouldn't need courts in the first place. This isn't mathematics, you know, where we can logically prove that one particular answer is correct, and thereby exclude all other answers ;)

So now you're making it clear that it's not a question of "interpretation" at all, but a question of whether to violate the Constitution. After all, if you speak of a "limited exception", then you're acknowledging that there's something to be excepted from. Seems you've answered the question I had for you earlier.

I say that this is an exception under the 4'th Amendment, exactly as the 4'th Amendment says there are exceptions - it only protects you from "unreasonable" searches, not all searches. Given the conflicting rights in play, I do not find this to be "unreasonable".

"Let justice be done, though the heavens fall". Speaking more generally, what do you plan to do when my exercise of my rights interferes with your exercise of your rights? How will you arbitrate when rights conflict?

But, of course, you've already done that here, haven't you? You've decided that your 4'th Amendment right to be free from some search is more important than someone else's right to live, that your inconvenience is more important than theirs. Why is that? Why does your Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches outweigh someone else's fundamental right to live?

What is the practical difference between a free-market system and a centrally commanded system of airline security, in terms of the safety it would provide?

So your argument for change is "why not?" Do we seek change for change's sake now?

So is the difference enough to warrant a cafeteria approach to the Constitution?

Sometimes rights conflict. When they do, we must balance competing interests as best we can. If recognizing that your rights aren't absolute, and that some rights are more fundamental than others, is what passes for a "cafeteria approach" these days, so be it.

1,134 posted on 12/29/2002 6:50:12 AM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1131 | View Replies]

To: general_re
If we could all look at some action and instantly and unanimously agree upon whether it was consistent with the law, or look at some law and instantly and unanimously agree upon whether it was consistent with the Constitution, we wouldn't need courts in the first place. This isn't mathematics, you know, where we can logically prove that one particular answer is correct, and thereby exclude all other answers

I didn't say we could determine the answer instantly, but we can most certainly determine it logically. The courts have certainly made things more difficult by inventing new meanings for various provisions in the Constitution, thereby reinforcing the notion that only they know how to divine its "true meaning", but the Constitution was written with the intention that ordinary people would be able to know what it says. Granted, "ordinary people" were considerably more literate back then, but it's still possible today for people who have an interest in the subject to understand it themselves.

I say that this is an exception under the 4'th Amendment, exactly as the 4'th Amendment says there are exceptions - it only protects you from "unreasonable" searches, not all searches.

The word "reasonable" can have absolutely no meaning in any legal sense, if there's no context to go along with it. Otherwise, we could just replace the entire Bill of Rights with "Just don't do anything unreasonable, OK?" In order for it to mean anything, it has to mean "reasonably tailored towards the attainment of a particular goal." The second half of the 4th amendment gives us an unmistakable clue as to what that goal is: investigation of a particular crime, where there's proper grounds for suspicion. You can argue all day whether a particular action is "reasonable" in some abstract sense, but if it's not reasonable within the context provided by the 4th amendment, then it's not reasonable within the meaning of the 4th amendment.

So your argument for change is "why not?" Do we seek change for change's sake now?

My argument for change is that the current policy looks very much like it conflicts with the Constitution, and that it sets (or rather perpetuates) a dangerous precedent. What exactly is your argument for "interpreting" the Constitution to allow the government to continue engaging in an activity which in all likelihood creates no measurable improvement in airline safety?

1,135 posted on 12/29/2002 7:36:06 AM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1134 | View Replies]

To: inquest
I didn't say we could determine the answer instantly, but we can most certainly determine it logically.

Oddly enough, the left says exactly the same thing, just before arriving at their preferred interpretation.

But that's neither here nor there, really. The key question is one of balancing competing interests. Why does your presumed 4'th Amendment right outweigh someone else's right to live?

What exactly is your argument for "interpreting" the Constitution to allow the government to continue engaging in an activity which in all likelihood creates no measurable improvement in airline safety?

How about the fact that your assertion of "no measurable improvement" is simply false? In 1961, before FAA-mandated universal passenger screening, there were four cases of hijackings on flights from US airports. From 1992-2000, after the FAA mandate in 1973, there were zero.

Why does your asserted right to be free from this search outweigh the right to life of others?

1,136 posted on 12/29/2002 8:48:16 AM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1135 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Oddly enough, the left says exactly the same thing, just before arriving at their preferred interpretation.

I've never heard a leftist make that argument. Their position has consistently been that the Constitution is a living document, and that it's up to the judges alone to decide what it says according to the "needs of society" - a position that bears a striking resemblance to that being promulgated by another poster on this thread.

In 1961, before FAA-mandated universal passenger screening, there were four cases of hijackings on flights from US airports. From 1992-2000, after the FAA mandate in 1973, there were zero.

Those aren't terribly conclusive numbers. How many from '61 to '73? From '73 to '92? And if left to their own devices, what do you expect that airlines would do differently that would be detrimental to safety?

1,137 posted on 12/29/2002 9:08:04 AM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1136 | View Replies]

To: inquest
I've never heard a leftist make that argument.

That logic supports their position? No?

Everyone claims the mantle of logic and reason. Reasonable people will disagree on this issue. Therefore, unless we are prepared to define reason in terms of one's position on this issue, it seems to me that there are reasoned arguments on both sides, and we must all weigh those arguments to see which we find most persuasive. I happen to accept the inconvenience of minimal searches so that others might live. Am I "unreasonable"? Illogical?

Those aren't terribly conclusive numbers. How many from '61 to '73? From '73 to '92?

The first case of a hijacking in the US was in May of 1961. From 1961-1972, there were 132 hijackings, or an average of 11 per year. After the FAA's mandate, from 1973-2000 there were 107, or about 4 per year. From 1980-1998, 23,409 people were arrested in US airports for attempting to carry either firearms or explosives on board airlines. 1300 arrests per year, seven arrests every two days. "No measurable improvement"?

And if left to their own devices, what do you expect that airlines would do differently that would be detrimental to safety?

Nothing. Therefore there's no practical reason to change.

Why does your presumed right to be free from a search upon boarding a commercial airline outweigh the right of others to live?

1,138 posted on 12/29/2002 10:11:24 AM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1137 | View Replies]

To: general_re
That logic supports their position?

No, that the Constitution has a fixed meaning that can be determined objectively. That is the virtual antithesis of the leftist position.

And if left to their own devices, what do you expect that airlines would do differently that would be detrimental to safety?

Nothing. Therefore there's no practical reason to change.

Good. Now that we're clear that requiring government to back off would not result in a decrease in safety, why get them involved? While there may not be a "practical" reason for making the change, there's an important constitutional reason. The difference between requiring that you be searched before being allowed to board a plane, and requiring that you be searched before being allowed to leave your house, is a difference of degree only, not of kind. Like Madison said, "It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle." Of course, that's just an 18th-century gentleman's way of saying "Nip it in the bud!"

1,139 posted on 12/29/2002 10:41:07 AM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1138 | View Replies]

To: inquest
If we both agree that I'm going to be searched before boarding Air Inquest, what difference does it make in terms of who does the searching? Does it make a difference that a private screener has a banana and a chimp on his badge instead of a government badge, and only has a can of pepper spray instead of a gun, when he feels your wife's breasts? Will it make a difference to your wife?
1,140 posted on 12/29/2002 10:52:16 AM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,081-1,1001,101-1,1201,121-1,1401,141-1,147 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson