Silence is NOT Golden at the Airport [Archive]

bdschobel

Mar 15, 03, 8:19 pm

This afternoon, I flew from DCA to LGA. I got to the airport plenty early, and the number of passengers was very small (late Saturday afternoon). So, I checked in at a kiosk and proceeded to the security checkpoint in my usual way: all metal in my carry-on bag, shoes on the belt, etc. I'm alone.

The TSA guy asked if I had removed my laptop from my bag. Well, I don't have a laptop, so I just ignored him. Then he asked if I had removed all the metal from my pockets. Again, I knew I had, but he would see for himself soon enough when I walked through the magnetometer. So I remained silent.

After my bags entered the gaping maw of the x-ray machine, I walked through the magnetometer. Not a peep, of course. So, I headed to pick up my bags.

Not so fast! The TSA guy steps in front of me and says, "Please step over here for additional screening." I protest that the machine didn't beep. He agrees but says (yes, these are his exact words), "You are acting suspicious by not answering my questions. We need to examine you more closely." I ask for a supervisor, but it does no good. (The supervisor is dumber than the first guy.)

So I get wanded, uncooperatively, of course. They call a cop who says that they are only doing this for my safety. I tell him that's baloney, and he gets all pushy like cops occasionally do. I remind him that this is America, where we still can speak freely. Keep in mind, I'm the ONLY traveler there. I'm not holding up anybody!!!

Cop's final words to me are, "You better go get on your plane before I decide to call someone who will make you drive." Oooh, I'm so scared! The terrorists have clearly won.

Bruce

richard

Mar 15, 03, 9:06 pm

Distressing http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/frown.gif

ACES II

Mar 15, 03, 9:33 pm

Now why is it that you could not be civil to someone who was trying to help you get through the metal detector without setting it off? By not answering at all, you were suspicious. Common decency dictates that we acknowledge our fellow men (and women). I am not saying that the TSA guy was right, but you were not a stellar example either. Like a good king once said...."Can't we all just get along?"

bdschobel

Mar 15, 03, 9:59 pm

I simply ignored him. I was not rude in any way. For all he knew, I could have been deaf.

Bruce

1K wannabe

Mar 16, 03, 12:14 am

Common decency may dictate that we answer our fellow man or woman, but failure to do so does not usually come with the consequences of wanding, feeling up and threats to disallow one's chosen method of transport!

Just Passing Thru

Mar 16, 03, 6:57 am

Originally posted by ACES II:
Now why is it that you could not be civil to someone who was trying to help you get through the metal detector without setting it off?

And why must you assume that anyone who does not reply isn't being civil? I have had the same experience as Bruce, with one difference. I'm a disabled veteran with a hearing loss. If you speak to me on my deaf side, particularly when there's a lot of background noise, I simply won't hear you.

Result -- TSA person thinks he's getting ignored. Unintended consequence -- unwarranted selection of disabled veteran for secondary "insurance" screening.

Originally posted by ACES II:
By not answering at all, you were suspicious.

Horsesh*t. By not answering at all, I'd be partly deaf. I suppose we are now protecting airliners from the dangerous disabled people who might try to bring them down.

Further, what of a non-English speaker? What do you expect them to do? Make something up? Or just make an assumption? After all, that's what you're suggesting the TSA do.

Originally posted by ACES II:
Common decency dictates that we acknowledge our fellow men (and women).

And the Americans With Disabilities Act dictates that government and business (this would include the TSA) make "reasonable accommodation" for disabled individuals. Since I have a government-rated disability, I am covered by the ADA, which requires the TSA to make that reasonable accommodation for me. However, on those occasions when I identify myself as hearing-impaired (because of large amounts of background noise and the likelihood that I won't hear what the agents are saying to me), I still get the secondary screening. This is a blatant violation of the ADA, and apparently okay with our government.

You're stuck on "courtesy," and not quite so attentive to "law."

Originally posted by ACES II:
I am not saying that the TSA guy was right, but you were not a stellar example either. Like a good king once said...."Can't we all just get along?"

<furious> Geez. Sorry I'm partly deaf. It wasn't exactly my idea. I'll try harder not to become disabled next time. </furious>

http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/mad.gif

[This message has been edited by Just Passing Thru (edited 03-16-2003).]

tazi

Mar 16, 03, 8:44 am

http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/mad.gif

------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

ACES II

Mar 16, 03, 9:59 am

However, what you are missing is that he INTENTIONALLY ignored the guy. He went out of his way to be uncooperative. Now why is THAT not wrong? You guys jump to the defense of everything that you "percieve" to be wrong without reading exactly what was posted. I have seen deaf people going through the checkpoints along with me, they always go out of their way to let the screeners know they are deaf. Thats the difference. As for being a disabled veteran, I joined that club too due to injuries received serving in the middle east, so don't preach to me about some hearing loss, which I also have. Going out of your way to be uncooperative is only going to result in treatment that is less that pleasant. That holds true in every activity, not just at an airport checkpoint.

tsadude

Mar 16, 03, 10:34 am

Obviously when the screener spoke to Bruce and he responded, there was not a hearing impairment nor a language barrior. A simple nod or thumbs up would have been sufficient and prevented the whole thing. Isn't screening by the way one acts is what some of you suggested?

CameraGuy

Mar 16, 03, 10:37 am

UNCOOPERATIVE!!!!????

This head case get's his panties in an uproar because Bruce has better things to do than play his stupid little game and Bruce is being UNCOOPERATIVE?

You need to get a grip on reality. These Head Cases have got to go. This is shear and utter BS.

Bruce,

I hope you got the name of this head case and the supervisor. You need to contact the FSD at this airport and report this. These head cases who abuse their power MUST go.

ACES II

Mar 16, 03, 10:41 am

Yes, by all means report the guy. But be honest and tell it like it happened, make sure to tell how you were uncooperative, to the point of a police officer getting involved. I bet the screener gets a letter of commendation for his actions.

bdschobel

Mar 16, 03, 10:42 am

Unfortunately, no.

Bruce

tsadude

Mar 16, 03, 10:44 am

Originally posted by Just Passing Thru:
<furious> Geez. Sorry I'm partly deaf. It wasn't exactly my idea. I'll try harder not to become disabled next time. </furious>

http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/mad.gif

[This message has been edited by Just Passing Thru (edited 03-16-2003).]

Hearing loss is not as obvious as some of our brethern who cannot walk or have lost limbs. Former military members with prostetics come through all the time and do not mind having their devices checked. I am a disabled vet also and may not be able to stay in this job because of the physical requirements but you do not hear me whine about it. Get real and be thankful for what didn't happen to you.

richard

Mar 16, 03, 10:47 am

I agree with Bruce and also Aces.

I realized a while ago that the TSA is like the weather. There is really nothing we can do about it, just like we can't stop the rain outside. So by resisting it we are only hurting ourselves. I can resist the rain but the rain doesn't care. Or I can accept the rain and it doesn't seem so bad. (I loved the snow this winter even though most people hated it.)

I realized: why not make it easy on myself by conducting myself as pleasently as possible? I want to accept things as they are and love things as they are rather than some imaginary resistance that only hurts me.

I did what Bruce did a while ago and then I resolved to stop, to look at people straight in the eye and see them as real people. As soon as I started doing that, things went better for me at the checkpoints.

I still don't volunteer anything and I might be rather quiet like Bruce was. I don't like being barked at and I really hate the whole idea. But the checkpoints have gone much better somehow since I changed my approach.

That's why I agree with ACES. I agree with Bruce because I would not like to go through that simply because I chose to remain silent and I believe in the right to travel. Nobody should be able to insist I interact with the police and the feds just because I excercise my right to do so.

StarGoldmember

Mar 16, 03, 11:34 am

Last month, I was in a small airport, in a small country. I didn't speak the language, and the two staffers at the security checkpoint probably didn't speak much English either. I nodded upon approaching the security checkpoint, placed my carry-on into the onto the belt, and (leaving my jacket on thank you very much) walked through the metal detector. Of course, being used to these contraptions, the second screener heard not a peep from the machine. I got my bag, and left, without saying a word. I was not suspicious to these screeners, because my person and my baggage did not appear to contain any prohibited items. And really, that's all they're looking for.

Now, in the United States, you have this interesting new development, in which many TSA workers have taken it upon themselves to expand their mission. Not only is the security post a (first) checkpoint for contraband - it's now a mini-immigration post.

Anyone who has tried to enter most foreign countries is used to the routine. Comb your hair. Wear a nice shirt. Look showered. Look semi-wealthy. Look innocent. Present your passport. Hope for the best. Because the immigration officer has the veto power to deny entry to his/her country. This routine of "looking-the part" was, until recently, restricted to entering foreign countries. Not a requirement for getting on an aircraft in your homeland.

Unfortunately, recent incidents have left the TSA with a somewhat bloated head (and I mean this in the collective sense - not against specific screeners). No more is the mission to simply examine (physically) baggage and passengers. TSA screeners must now be motive-guessing machines. TSA screeners must now profile passengers by attempting to judge their right to be on an airplane in the firstplace. I might be able to remain silent in country X, but in country USA, I no longer have the right to remain silent. Or unfriendly, for that matter.

This means that I've been treating TSA workers a lot more like Russian immigration officers. I smile. I gladly offer my bagage for screening. Secondary screening even! http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif When they ask me to remove my shoes I say, "No thank you, these shoes are actually airport friendly!" I gladly answer the TSA screener who asks if I have a laptop in my bag, even though the other screener behind him just asked me the same thing. It's this redundancy which keeps our skies free of the evil-doers. And I always pause before walking through the metal detector. That friendly TSA screener has to finish eyeing that cute 20-something in Line C before he can notice that I'm gladly waiting to get through and board my flight. But that's okay.

I never used my pocketknife when I traveled anyway. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/rolleyes.gif

SGM

tsadude

Mar 16, 03, 12:07 pm

"That friendly TSA screener has to finish eyeing that cute 20-something in Line C before he can notice that I'm gladly waiting to get through and board my flight. But that's okay". We were informed that anything past three seconds is ogling. Florida is a hard place to keep from doing this.

Track

Mar 16, 03, 7:27 pm

As a matter of course I always greet someone like a TSA screener or a clerk in a store with a "Hello" (but then I was raised in Europe, where anything else would be rude). I never had any problems with the screeners until one checked my passport recently and then addressed me with my first name. I know this is common in the US, but he was obviously not US-born, and I was (mildly) offended, so I said, "My name is Mr. xxx (last name), not xxx (first name). He was a bit taken aback, but there were no further problems. I can accept the overly familiarity in the US, but I rather resent the presumption and bullying on the part of the TSA and the police, as I guess Bruce also does. As I see it, not answering is not suspicious (all they have to do is to check shoes, bags, etc.), but giving evasive answers might be. Are TSA screeners even trained to understand what might be a suspicious or evasive comment (as as Israeli screeners)?

Spiff

Mar 16, 03, 7:33 pm

As usual, absolutely disgusting, unwarranted searches inflicted on the traveler by the TSA. What possibly could Bruce have been hiding by not responding to the screener? No magnetometer alarm, nothing amiss on the x-ray = LEAVE THE TRAVELER THE @#$% ALONE. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/mad.gif

It's sad to see the cop taking Zippy the Screener's side, too. Osama must be celebrating this filthy decay of freedom and common sense in the United States of America.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

ACES II

Mar 16, 03, 8:12 pm

Spiff, all hyperbole aside, Bruce did say he was uncooperative. Not a very good way to get through any security checkpoint. Had he at least pretended to be civil from the start I would bet there would never have been an incident. Now before you scream that we don't HAVE to be civil to the TSA "nazis" (your words), just remember that you will catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

KathyWdrf

Mar 16, 03, 9:08 pm

Originally posted by ACES II:
Now before you scream that we don't HAVE to be civil to the TSA "nazis" (your words), just remember that you will catch more flies with honey than vinegar. 
So the TSA people are not "nazis" but "flies?" http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/wink.gif

Kathy

1K wannabe

Mar 17, 03, 12:26 am

More like maggots, not really developed to the level of fly.

FWAAA

Mar 17, 03, 3:24 am

Originally posted by Track:
Are TSA screeners even trained to understand what might be a suspicious or evasive comment (as as Israeli screeners)?

Nope.

We federalized the screeners, boosted their pay and benefits substantially, and banned all sharp an pointy objects (requiring, of course, many more checkpoint lanes and personnel to search for all sharp and pointy objects.

Unfortunately, unlike the Israelis, we don't closely scrutinze the young male non-citizen muslim extremists who hate us and want to destroy our way of life. In Israel, of course, citizens get a less intensive interview (while here, all citizens are potential terrorists in the eyes of the idiot Norm Mineta).

How pathetic. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/frown.gif

Just Passing Thru

Mar 17, 03, 6:21 am

Originally posted by ACES II:
However, what you are missing is that he INTENTIONALLY ignored the guy.

And what YOU are missing is that the TSA agent has no way to know if he's being willfully ignored or if he's dealing with a hearing-impaired person. Did the agent ASK Bruce if he was disabled? NO.

If it had been me, that would have been a willful violation of the ADA. Federal offense. Committed by a Federal agent. QED.

Originally posted by ACES II:
He went out of his way to be uncooperative. Now why is THAT not wrong?

Because the TSA agent had no way to know if Bruce was deaf as a post or uncooperative, and he didn't bother to try to find out. That's why.

Originally posted by ACES II:
You guys jump to the defense of everything that you "percieve" to be wrong without reading exactly what was posted.

The agent's actions WERE wrong. Place me in Bruce's shoes, and what the agent did rises to the level of a Federal offense.

Originally posted by ACES II:
I have seen deaf people going through the checkpoints along with me, they always o out of their way to let the screeners know they are deaf.

Now here's where YOU aren't reading everything that's posted. Did you notice where I tell the screeners, up-front, that I'm hearing-impaired when I'm selected for secondary screening? Get over yourself.

Originally posted by ACES II:
Thats the difference. As for being a disabled veteran, I joined that club too due to injuries received serving in the middle east, so don't preach to me about some hearing loss, which I also have.

Based on the way you're addressing this topic, I have a very hard time believing that.

Originally posted by ACES II:
Going out of your way to be uncooperative is only going to result in treatment that is less that pleasant. That holds true in every activity, not just at an airport checkpoint. 

And when a TSA agent doesn't bother to figure out if he's violating Federal law, well, that's okay as long as it's being done in the name of security, right?

Spare me. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/rolleyes.gif

[This message has been edited by Just Passing Thru (edited 03-17-2003).]

Just Passing Thru

Mar 17, 03, 6:30 am

Originally posted by tsadude:
Hearing loss is not as obvious as some of our brethern who cannot walk or have lost limbs.

That's completely irrelevant. "Reasonable accommodation," as written in the ADA, means "reasonable accommodation." If someone seems non-responsive to verbal instructions, then you are legally bound to make some sort of field-expedient determination regarding their hearing capability. Contrary to what another poster seems to think, responding to visual cues is NOT a field-expedient method; I'm partly deaf, not blind.

Originally posted by tsadude:
Former military members with prostetics come through all the time and do not mind having their devices checked.

You need to focus on the matter at hand, Mister. The issue is not "can we check disabled people out." You ABSOLUTELY can do so, and should do so. The issue is whether or not the TSA is abiding by Federal law. And if you treat me like Bruce was treated, without trying to determine if I'm disabled, you can bet that I'll be hollering for your supervisor and the GSC.

Originally posted by tsadude:
I am a disabled vet also and may not be able to stay in this job because of the physical requirements but you do not hear me whine about it. 

You don't hear me whining about anything, either. But you do hear me objecting to what appears to be disregard for Federal law. I thought the TSA was supposed to be the good guys. So now you disregard Federal law when it suits you? I certainly hope not.

Originally posted by tsadude:
Get real and be thankful for what didn't happen to you.

Get real yourself. And get right with the law.

Just Passing Thru

Mar 17, 03, 6:32 am

Originally posted by tsadude:
[BWe were informed that anything past three seconds is ogling. Florida is a hard place to keep from doing this.[/B]

I can dig it. I guess the trick is simply to not focus on any specific lady for too long, huh? http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/biggrin.gif

ACES II

Mar 17, 03, 6:53 am

JPT, people with hearing impairments tend to go out of their way to inform security personnel that they have such a disability. Bruce was WRONG and there is no getting around that. Federal offense indeed. I long for the day when guys like you drive and flying becomes civil again.

bdschobel

Mar 17, 03, 7:10 am

When guys like us drive, the airlines shut down. The number of people who resent these unnecessary intrusions far exceeds the number who welcome them. You may continue to fly, but the airlines can't continue to operate with only you and the few who think like you as passengers.

And, responding to Brian in advance, I realize that most Americans believe that the TSA is doing a fine job. I don't believe, however, that most frequent flyers share that opinion.

Bruce

ACES II

Mar 17, 03, 8:11 am

Yeah, the number of vociferous complainers like you is very small and pretty much limited to this forum. I seriously doubt that the loss of you few will do any real damage. I, like the VAST majority of business travellers don't have much of a problem with the TSA. It is only you "violating my civil rights" crowd that really complains. I fly every week with other business travellers and never hear complaints coming from them. Me thinks you protest too much.

bdschobel

Mar 17, 03, 8:32 am

You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. Of course, mine is correct and yours is wrong! http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

Bruce

FWAAA

Mar 17, 03, 9:33 am

ACES II

Mar 17, 03, 10:11 am

No, I don't support everything about it, but neither do I protest what I don't like so vociferously. Higher security is a necessary evil that we must all live with as the world has certainly changed in the past 2 years. In time the threat will subside and things will get back to not quite what they were, but on a more subdued level.

CameraGuy

Mar 17, 03, 11:32 am

Higher Security might be a "Necessary Evil", btu that is NOT what the TSA provides.

The TSA provides "Window Dressing".

StarGoldmember

Mar 17, 03, 1:48 pm

Originally posted by ACES II:
In time the threat will subside and things will get back to not quite what they were, but on a more subdued level.

That's right . . . in time, we'll get to Condition Blue, at which point the Department of Homeland Security and TSA will be shut down. The terrorists will take their ball and go home, and things will be "back to normal." http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/rolleyes.gif

SGM

Spiff

Mar 17, 03, 1:55 pm

I'd like to see that happen regardless of whatever threat level we happen to be at.

Originally posted by StarGoldmember:
That's right . . . in time, we'll get to Condition Blue, at which point the Department of Homeland Security and TSA will be shut down.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

Just Passing Thru

Mar 17, 03, 2:27 pm

Originally posted by ACES II:
JPT, people with hearing impairments tend to go out of their way to inform security personnel that they have such a disability.

Which is why I pointed out that I do it. However, you can't make assumptions based on appearances, and the ADA is quite clear on that point.

Originally posted by ACES II:
Bruce was WRONG and there is no getting around that.

Had Bruce been hearing-impaired, the TSA agent would have committed a Federal offense. There is no getting around that.

Originally posted by ACES II:
Federal offense indeed.

Indeed.

Originally posted by ACES II:
I long for the day when guys like you drive and flying becomes civil again.

What makes you think that I'm the one making flying uncivil? Seems to me we were all getting along just fine until 9/11 and the advent of the Pointy Things Brigade.

Just Passing Thru

Mar 17, 03, 2:51 pm

Originally posted by ACES II:
No, I don't support everything about it, but neither do I protest what I don't like so vociferously.

If you don't exercise your freedom of speech, that's not my concern. Neither should it be your concern if I exercise mine.

Originally posted by ACES II:
Higher security is a necessary evil

Stop right there, Cowboy -- no one here (except perhaps Spiff) is arguing against the need for security. Most of us are for security, but are arguing against certain practices and mindsets that appear to be operating in the security community that in our opinions, have no reasonable use or function.

You might agree with everything the TSA does, but you can't reasonably expect everyone to agree with you.

Oh, yes, and I disagree that a majority of the traveling public agrees with the TSA's policies and procedures. There is no hard evidence to support that contention.

StarGoldmember

Mar 17, 03, 7:24 pm

Originally posted by StarGoldmember:
That's right . . . in time, we'll get to Condition Blue, at which point the Department of Homeland Security and TSA will be shut down.

Well, at least they have the graphic ready to go . . .

http://www.dhs.gov/dhs/images/dhs-advisory-low.gif

SGM

FliesWay2Much

Mar 17, 03, 8:04 pm

I'm a late-comer to this thread -- sorry.

Bruce -- Good on you!

I've played the silence game a few times and it really makes them nervous. I wrote a note on another thread in which I said that that the TSA and the public have successfully turned the airport security debate from "security" versus "civil liberties" into one of "compliance" versus " making our flights on time." I'm like you -- the US Constitution is more important to me than making my flight on time. The TSA and the airport cops can't deal with that.

FYI -- I was in Staples the other day and was looking at the 5-pack of white board markers. Compare the colors of terrorism levels to the 5 colors in the package of markers. Really, really scary...

TakeScissorsAway

Mar 17, 03, 9:20 pm

Originally posted by bdschobel:
This afternoon, I flew from DCA to LGA. I got to the airport plenty early, and the number of passengers was very small (late Saturday afternoon). So, I checked in at a kiosk and proceeded to the security checkpoint in my usual way: all metal in my carry-on bag, shoes on the belt, etc. I'm alone.

The TSA guy asked if I had removed my laptop from my bag. Well, I don't have a laptop, so I just ignored him. Then he asked if I had removed all the metal from my pockets. Again, I knew I had, but he would see for himself soon enough when I walked through the magnetometer. So I remained silent.

After my bags entered the gaping maw of the x-ray machine, I walked through the magnetometer. Not a peep, of course. So, I headed to pick up my bags.

Not so fast! The TSA guy steps in front of me and says, "Please step over here for additional screening." I protest that the machine didn't beep. He agrees but says (yes, these are his exact words), "You are acting suspicious by not answering my questions. We need to examine you more closely." I ask for a supervisor, but it does no good. (The supervisor is dumber than the first guy.)

So I get wanded, uncooperatively, of course. They call a cop who says that they are only doing this for my safety. I tell him that's baloney, and he gets all pushy like cops occasionally do. I remind him that this is America, where we still can speak freely. Keep in mind, I'm the ONLY traveler there. I'm not holding up anybody!!!

Cop's final words to me are, "You better go get on your plane before I decide to call someone who will make you drive." Oooh, I'm so scared! The terrorists have clearly won.

Bruce

Just out of curiousity, why would you do this ? Were you just "in a mood" that day ? Did you think that "maybe this will change the TSA practices" ?
Sorry Bruce, but it seems to me you got what you were asking for.

goldmedallionflyer

Mar 17, 03, 9:55 pm

So a guy has had a hard day and doesn't feel much like talking to anyone. Now he's become an uncooperative terrorist threat? This TSA action is waaaaaaaaaaay overboard, and reminds me of those small town police chiefs who rule the town with their own set of iron fist rules. "Don't mess with me, buddy, 'cause I can put you away for a good, long time - ya hear?"

And we all thought the maffia was gone. Looks like the bosses found a new home - and it's all in the name of 'security' ... you know, bad things can happen if you don't make that security payment.

GMF

1K wannabe

Mar 18, 03, 12:50 am

This will pass eventually. These are the high points, the greatest most powerful days in the lives of the employees of the TSA. This is their greatest level of importance and achievement--the closest they will get to being the top cop or green beret. Times will change; and they'll go back to flipping burgers, driving delivery trucks, walking mall security and remembering the power they once abused because we their victims (and their ultimate bosses) will make the changes, fire them and send them back to jobs for which they are truly qualified.

StarGoldmember

Mar 18, 03, 4:58 am

Originally posted by 1K wannabe:
This will pass eventually.

While I agree, this proves that the current TSA is no more than a public relations machine. Great security comes with the consistency of doing something because it makes sense - because it makes flying safer, and reduces risk in a way that doesn't severely impact honest travellers. Not in doing things because they're in-trend, or because the public wants to "see something" being done - especially when what's being done is simply an attempted panacea with no logic behind itself.

SGM

porkyboy

Mar 18, 03, 6:24 am

Originally posted by ACES II:
Yeah, the number of vociferous complainers like you is very small and pretty much limited to this forum. I seriously doubt that the loss of you few will do any real damage. I, like the VAST majority of business travellers don't have much of a problem with the TSA. It is only you "violating my civil rights" crowd that really complains. I fly every week with other business travellers and never hear complaints coming from them. Me thinks you protest too much.

I wonder if that is true. A couple of weeks ago, my wife and I went on a cruise out of Charleston. We decided to drive (over 800 miles one way) rather than fly because of the hassle factor with so much luggage and all the screening etc. When we arrived, we were amazed at the number of people who also drove. There were folks from Minnesota, Michigan, Tennessee, Arkansas, Texas; virtually everyone within a thousand miles or so drove. The pier has a parking garage that holds 800 cars, it was more than half full. In talking with fellow cruisers, all of them who drove cited the hassle factor, airline attitudes and TSA as reasons for driving. Furthermore, almost all (except those close in) said they had always flown in the past.
We've cruised for years and have never seen such a high percentage of drivers. I think that the number of people driving as opposed to flying has drastically increased and it goes way beyond your contention that "the number of vociferous complainers like you is very small and pretty much limited to this forum. I seriously doubt that the loss of you few will do any real damage."
I believe there is a lot of damage being done and the airlines themselves as well as the TSA can take credit for it.
Business travellers pretty much have to fly, others don't. Take heart though, at this rate you can have the plane all to yourself and buy your peanuts and lunch and pay your fines and fees for trying to get a convenient flight without interference from the recreational travelers. Won't that be dandy? Of course the airlines will by then have added a new fee called the empty plane fee which will assess all unused seat fares to those who are actually flying.
http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/biggrin.gif

tazi

Mar 18, 03, 6:48 am

Originally posted by TakeScissorsAway:
Just out of curiousity, why would you do this ? Were you just "in a mood" that day ? Did you think that "maybe this will change the TSA practices" ?
Sorry Bruce, but it seems to me you got what you were asking for.



If a TSA screener asked me if I had taken my laptop out of my bag and I wasn't even carrying one, I'd be very unlikely to respond myself. They airlines stopped asking us stupid questions. We certainly don't need to be asked even stupider ones by a TSA screener trying to act busy.

------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

bdschobel

Mar 18, 03, 6:55 am

The airlines themselves are VERY concerned about the hassle factor driving away travelers. Look at congressional testimony from Leo Mullin (Delta), for instance. This effect of TSA nonsense is not merely a figment of our imaginations.

Bruce

JLL5100

Mar 18, 03, 7:26 am

Originally posted by bdschobel:
I simply ignored him. I was not rude in any way. For all he knew, I could have been deaf.

Bruce

So Bruce,
Why would you ignore questions posed by a screening agent? Would it not be a simple matter to give a short response to let them know that you understood the question and were in compliance? Appears to me that you brought this on yourself by your attitude.

Just Passing Thru

Mar 18, 03, 7:45 am

Originally posted by JLL5100:
So Bruce,
Why would you ignore questions posed by a screening agent? Would it not be a simple matter to give a short response to let them know that you understood the question and were in compliance? Appears to me that you brought this on yourself by your attitude.

The agent didn't know if Bruce had attitude or a hearing impairment. And the agent was legally bound to make a determination. In any event, "attitude" doesn't make someone a threat.

bdschobel

Mar 18, 03, 7:48 am

If the cops stop you on the street without probable cause, you DON'T have to speak with them -- or interact in any way. I simply wasn't in the mood to explain to this TSA guy that I know what I'm doing and didn't need his kindergarten-level instructions about laptops, metal in pockets, etc. Furthermore, I proved that fact by going through the process without setting off any alarms.

He then decided that my silence constituted its own "alarm" and sent me for secondary screening. It was unnecessary and spiteful -- and not what we have a right to expect from our own government.

Bruce

TakeScissorsAway

Mar 18, 03, 8:37 am

Originally posted by bdschobel:
If the cops stop you on the street without probable cause, you DON'T have to speak with them -- or interact in any way. I simply wasn't in the mood to explain to this TSA guy that I know what I'm doing and didn't need his kindergarten-level instructions about laptops, metal in pockets, etc. Furthermore, I proved that fact by going through the process without setting off any alarms.

He then decided that my silence constituted its own "alarm" and sent me for secondary screening. It was unnecessary and spiteful -- and not what we have a right to expect from our own government.

Bruce

In your opinion.

ACES II

Mar 18, 03, 8:39 am

Originally posted by Just Passing Thru:
The agent didn't know if Bruce had attitude or a hearing impairment. And the agent was legally bound to make a determination.

I would say he made a determination.

ACES II

Mar 18, 03, 8:54 am

Originally posted by bdschobel:
If the cops stop you on the street without probable cause, you DON'T have to speak with them -- or interact in any way.

Bruce

No you don't, but if you don't, they will take you in for further investigation to find out who you are. Ignoring the police is a real stupid thing to do. Playing games like that is the fastest way to look "suspicious" and get yourself looked at more closely in all areas. Arguments about hearing loss are a joke and feeble since people who have such a loss go out of their way to let others know they have such a loss. Plus, in the case of the walk through metal detector, you have to face the screener, thus even deaf people can communicate. Face it, you played your hand and lost on that day, get over it.

bdschobel

Mar 18, 03, 9:28 am

ACES,

I don't have to get over anything. I'm not claiming to have sustained any lasting damage. The purpose of my post is to show people how the TSA hassles people for no reason.

Clearly, I had no dangerous objects in my bag (which was never inspected, other than being x-rayed) or on my person. I set off no alarms. But this particular guy decided to impose his own, special "courtesy" test, which I failed.

If the police tried this on the street, they would lose their jobs. They simply can't stop people and start questioning them for no reason. But the TSA apparently believes that it can. That's not what I expect from my government. If you don't mind, more power to you!

Bruce

Ewan Mebabe

Mar 18, 03, 10:58 am

Bruce

To be blunt you are stupid and ignorant. You like a lot of other people still cant get it into your thick heads why these guys have been put there. All this bull**** about infringes ones freedom is the whole damm reason those idiots were able to fly the planes into built up civillian areas.

Next time I hope they take you out back and knock some sense into your obviously thick head.

Get a life and if you dont like the new arrangements then walk.

FWAAA

Mar 18, 03, 10:59 am

I've been barked at by plenty of people at the airport. "Take off your shoes!" "Do you have a laptop?" No. "I said, Do you have a laptop?" No.

This is not unlike the treatment one gets at the pedestrian crossing at San Ysidro upon re-entry to the US. There, Immigration/Customs officials are assigned to stand on the Mexican side and yell at returning citizens to "STAND AGAINST THE WALL, NOW!"

As I said before, any US government employee yells at me - I politely tell them to go to hell.

Since that doesn't qualify as "fighting words," any physical assault upon me will be without legal provocation. Bring it on.

FWAAA

Mar 18, 03, 11:17 am

Originally posted by Ewan Mebabe:
Bruce

To be blunt you are stupid and ignorant. You like a lot of other people still cant get it into your thick heads why these guys have been put there. All this bull**** about infringes ones freedom is the whole damm reason those idiots were able to fly the planes into built up civillian areas.

Next time I hope they take you out back and knock some sense into your obviously thick head.

Get a life and if you dont like the new arrangements then walk.

Re-read the FlyerTalk TOS and then come back and apologize.

Spiff

Mar 18, 03, 11:30 am

What a well-thought out and inciteful post!

Any chance you've received a few blows to the noggin yourself lately, Ewan?

Maybe we should just handcuff people to their seats to reduce the chances of the 'whole damm reason those idiots were able to fly the planes into built up civillian areas', eh?

Your civil liberties in Scotland are not the same as ours in the US. We treasure them and have no intention of surrendering them willingly. Nor do we have any intention, as you so elegantly put it, of walking. Feel free to "get a life" and stay safely put in the UK if the notion of civil liberties is too horrifying for you to comprehend. Or, feel free to drop 'em and spread 'em the next time you're at a US security checkpoint if you think it will add to security.

Originally posted by Ewan Mebabe:
Bruce

To be blunt you are stupid and ignorant. You like a lot of other people still cant get it into your thick heads why these guys have been put there. All this bull**** about infringes ones freedom is the whole damm reason those idiots were able to fly the planes into built up civillian areas.

Next time I hope they take you out back and knock some sense into your obviously thick head.

Get a life and if you dont like the new arrangements then walk.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

Ewan Mebabe

Mar 18, 03, 1:10 pm

typical US complacency - thats what gets people hurt. Oh I forgot to mention, civil liberties that dont allow you to have a drink outside, but its O to carry a gun in case you need to blow someone away

tsadude

Mar 18, 03, 1:27 pm

"That's completely irrelevant. "Reasonable accommodation," as written in the ADA, means "reasonable accommodation." If someone seems non-responsive to verbal instructions, then you are legally bound to make some sort of field-expedient determination regarding their hearing capability. Contrary to what another poster seems to think, responding to visual cues is NOT a field-expedient method; I'm partly deaf, not blind."
I have helped passengers who are hearing impaired and visual clues are very important to them. They will let us know beforehand of their disability.

bdschobel

Mar 18, 03, 1:32 pm

But what difference does it make? I had no metal and set off no alarms. Where did this guy get the idea that I was "suspicious"? (I'm quite obviously a middle-aged American male.)

Bruce

tazi

Mar 18, 03, 2:03 pm

Originally posted by Ewan Mebabe:
typical US complacency - thats what gets people hurt. Oh I forgot to mention, civil liberties that dont allow you to have a drink outside, but its O to carry a gun in case you need to blow someone away

What the heII are you babbling about now?

------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

Just Passing Thru

Mar 18, 03, 2:05 pm

Originally posted by ACES II:
I would say he made a determination.


Uh uh. Wrong. He failed to do so. An assumption is not a determination.

Just Passing Thru

Mar 18, 03, 2:09 pm

Originally posted by ACES II:
Arguments about hearing loss are a joke and feeble since people who have such a loss go out of their way to let others know they have such a loss.

So glad to know you feel this way. Your gratitude is palpable. Don't look for any sympathy from me the next time your disability hinders you in some way.

Just Passing Thru

Mar 18, 03, 2:11 pm

Wearing a brown shirt, are we, Ewan?

Just Passing Thru

Mar 18, 03, 2:15 pm

Originally posted by tsadude:
I have helped passengers who are hearing impaired and visual clues are very important to them. They will let us know beforehand of their disability. 

And I clearly indicated above that I do just that. However, you can't simply assume that someone who is non-responsive to verbal instructions is just ignoring you. You have to make an effort.

Judging from the effort I've seen expended by some of your co-workers, it wouldn't surprise me if a hearing-disabled passenger would be treated like Bruce. Assuming that passenger made the 'threatening' gesture of failing to respond to verbal instructions, of course.

Failure to respond is not a threat.

TakeScissorsAway

Mar 18, 03, 9:55 pm

Originally posted by FWAAA:
Re-read the FlyerTalk TOS and then come back and apologize.

Oh plz http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/rolleyes.gif

TakeScissorsAway

Mar 18, 03, 9:58 pm

ACES II

Mar 18, 03, 10:04 pm

Ewan, you got that right. Some over here jump up and down about their rights so much that it gets really old after awhile. Complacancy is the friend of Al-Queda I wonder what some on here would think of their "civil rights" if they were on a plane being flown into a tall building. I bet their thoughts would be different then, but they will find a way to trivialize that line of thinking as well.

TakeScissorsAway

Mar 18, 03, 10:05 pm

Originally posted by bdschobel:
Where did this guy get the idea that I was "suspicious"? (I'm quite obviously a middle-aged American male.)

Bruce

What does middle-aged American male have to do with being suspicious or not ? Do middle-aged American males not commit crimes ? How old was the "Unibomber" during his reign of terror ? Was he not a middle-aged American male ?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Ring a bell ?????? http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/rolleyes.gif

MIKESILV

Mar 18, 03, 11:20 pm

Now much contradiction realised here, the TSA experts have a new hero, a skin-head from Glasgow now doubt.
What strange world we inhabit.

Mike

bdschobel

Mar 19, 03, 6:18 am

Originally posted by TakeScissorsAway:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Ring a bell ?????? http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/rolleyes.gif 

But I didn't "DO" anything. I was just silent. I put my things on the belt and walked through the magnetometer. I set off no alarms. Since when is silence threatening?

Can't you see that this guy overstepped his authority and pulled me aside for no valid reason? Must you defend EVERYTHING the TSA does? Do you think for yourself occasionally?

Bruce

ACES II

Mar 19, 03, 6:26 am

Bruce, the screener thought you were acting suspicious and he acted on that. Now, does that make him right? Not necessarily, but he could always explain it away by saying he was doing "continuous" screening. From my recent travels, I have not seen any more of that since newer, more sensitive, walk through metal detectors have been installed that pick out so many that they could not pick anymore at random. I have also seen screeners go out of their way to try to get people through without setting it off, only to be ignored or argued with.

richard

Mar 19, 03, 6:28 am

I wonder what some on here would think of their "civil rights" if they were on a plane being flown into a tall building. 

What does this even mean?

That 9/11 happened because of "civil rights"?

Is that what you are implying?

ACES II

Mar 19, 03, 6:44 am

No, what I meant was, those who complain so vociferously about their civil rights being violated might think differently IF they were on that plane. It is easy to complain about things when you have no real worries. So many american complain about so much because they have no real problems. It is not the hungry or homeless that do the most complaining, it is the well off. They are the ones who have no "real" problems and so they find them.

edited for content and to properly fit your screen.

[This message has been edited by ACES II (edited 03-19-2003).]

Just Passing Thru

Mar 19, 03, 6:48 am

Originally posted by ACES II:
I wonder what some on here would think of their "civil rights" if they were on a plane being flown into a tall building.

As I've been saying since 9/11, if I found myself in that position, I'd get up and beat the hell out of the hijackers. And at 6'5", this veteran could take at least one or two down. You need to get a sense of perspective, Mister.

Originally posted by ACES II:
I bet their thoughts would be different then, but they will find a way to trivialize that line of thinking as well.

... are you talking about? Do you even think about what you're saying?

ACES II

Mar 19, 03, 6:49 am

JPT, just like I said, you trivialized it. That "I can handle those guys!" line. Don't you get it? The security is there so that does NOT happen again.

tazi

Mar 19, 03, 7:37 am

Originally posted by ACES II:
Bruce, the screener thought you were acting suspicious and he acted on that. Now, does that make him right? Not necessarily, but he could always explain it away by saying he was doing "continuous" screening. From my recent travels, I have not seen any more of that since newer, more sensitive, walk through metal detectors have been installed that pick out so many that they could not pick anymore at random. I have also seen screeners go out of their way to try to get people through without setting it off, only to be ignored or argued with. 

Since when are screeners trained in what determines "suspicious" behavior? He pulled him aside for one reason and that was because Bruce didn't play his power game. And yes, it was a game. We have to follow procedures that the TSA has spelled out quite clearly at the checkpoints. Answering questions about whether we have done so isn't on the list. The metal detector will give them their answers.

------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

ACES II

Mar 19, 03, 8:11 am

YOU can't tell when someone is acting suspiciously? I sure can, and without any training. As I said, do I think the screener was right? Probably not, but Bruce did not help matters either.

TakeScissorsAway

Mar 19, 03, 9:02 am

Originally posted by bdschobel:
But I didn't "DO" anything. I was just silent.

Didn't the screener ask you a simple question ? Wouldn't it have been just as easy to give him/her a simple answer ? By your silence, you were just looking for the response you received. I guess you were envoking your 5th amendment right. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/rolleyes.gif

[This message has been edited by TakeScissorsAway (edited 03-19-2003).]

bdschobel

Mar 19, 03, 9:07 am

Actually, silence is easier than answering. And, now that you mention it, I do have a Constitutional right to remain silent when questioned by law-enforcement personnel (which may or may not include the TSA -- an interesting question).

But the bottom line remains the same: I set off no alarms. All my metal went through the x-ray machine. Nobody had any interest in my bag. Yet I was pulled aside for a totally useless wanding -- which everyone knew in advance would be useless -- just because I chose to be quiet. This contributes to security? How? Seems like harassment to me -- and a TSA employee on a power trip.

Bruce

TakeScissorsAway

Mar 19, 03, 9:16 am

Originally posted by bdschobel:
But the bottom line remains the same: I set off no alarms. All my metal went through the x-ray machine. Nobody had any interest in my bag. Yet I was pulled aside for a totally useless wanding -- which everyone knew in advance would be useless -- just because I chose to be quiet. This contributes to security? How? Seems like harassment to me -- and a TSA employee on a power trip.

Bruce, your statement is most likely true, even though we only have your side of this yarn.

As I've stated before, we are just human, and act accordingly.

bdschobel

Mar 19, 03, 9:40 am

Fair enough! I appreciate the honest response -- really!!! http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

Bruce

TakeScissorsAway

Mar 19, 03, 10:23 am

Just Passing Thru

Mar 19, 03, 2:46 pm

Originally posted by ACES II:
JPT, just like I said, you trivialized it. That "I can handle those guys!" line.

You moan about our complaints, and when one of us is willing to get up and do something about it, you say that we're trivializing the issue. You're starting to contradict yourself.

Originally posted by ACES II:
Don't you get it? The security is there so that does NOT happen again.

I don't believe that our present security CAN stop it from happening again. In any event, why would terrorists pick airplanes? IMO, they're more likely to pick bridges or reservoirs, or something else lightly guarded/unguarded.

It's actually you who's trivializing the issue -- you're focusing on airline security to the exclusion of security in other areas. As I said, you need to get a sense of perspective.

Just Passing Thru

Mar 19, 03, 2:49 pm

Originally posted by bdschobel:
Fair enough! I appreciate the honest response -- really!!! http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

Bruce

I agree. This shows a great deal of character on Take's part. Good on ya, Take. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

Just for informational purposes, could Take perhaps tell us what policy is regarding the handling of hearing-impaired pax? If it's not a hush-hush thing, I mean. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/wink.gif

tsadude

Mar 19, 03, 3:51 pm

Originally posted by bdschobel:
Actually, silence is easier than answering. And, now that you mention it, I do have a Constitutional right to remain silent when questioned by law-enforcement personnel (which may or may not include the TSA -- an interesting question).

But the bottom line remains the same: I set off no alarms. All my metal went through the x-ray machine. Nobody had any interest in my bag. Yet I was pulled aside for a totally useless wanding -- which everyone knew in advance would be useless -- just because I chose to be quiet. This contributes to security? How? Seems like harassment to me -- and a TSA employee on a power trip.

Bruce

The TSA does not discriminate in it's screening, maybe he kinda liked you in a silent way http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by tsadude (edited 03-19-2003).]

tazi

Mar 19, 03, 10:22 pm

Originally posted by TakeScissorsAway:
Didn't the screener ask you a simple question ? Wouldn't it have been just as easy to give him/her a simple answer ? By your silence, you were just looking for the response you received. I guess you were envoking your 5th amendment right. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/rolleyes.gif

We spent several years answering stupid questions the airlines were forced to ask us. There is no reason why we should subject ourselves to the same idiocy when it is unmandated. You want us to answer your questions? Then do what is needed to make it as mandatory as the previous questions were and make sure to be consistant about it everywhere. Otherwise, STFU and just listen to hear if we beep.

------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

TakeScissorsAway

Mar 19, 03, 10:27 pm

Originally posted by tazi:
We spent several years answering stupid questions the airlines were forced to ask us. There is no reason why we should subject ourselves to the same idiocy when it is unmandated. You want us to answer your questions? Then do what is needed to make it as mandatory as the previous questions were and make sure to be consistant about it everywhere. Otherwise, STFU and just listen to hear if we beep.



DAUUM, did I hit a nerve ??

jailer1

Mar 20, 03, 7:52 pm

Tazi,

"We spent several years answering stupid questions the airlines were forced to ask us. There is no reason why we should subject ourselves to the same idiocy when it is unmandated. You want us to answer your questions? Then do what is needed to make it as mandatory as the previous questions were and make sure to be consistant about it everywhere. Otherwise, STFU and just listen to hear if we beep."

No need to post stuff like "STFU" here. Verbal interaction at the checkpoint is needed. If you choose not to talk, you are setting yourself apart from the "average passenger." Yes, screeners are taught to observe people's actions and responses. If the majority of passengers participate in some type of rudimentary communication, and along comes someone who offers none, the screener will pick up on that. I hope you can see through your anger and get the bigger picture here. However, you are entitled to your opinion, and I will respect that.

MIKESILV

Mar 20, 03, 8:07 pm

Oh no not ANOTHER troll.
They are multiplying like rats.

Mike

TakeScissorsAway

Mar 20, 03, 9:07 pm

Originally posted by MIKESILV:
Oh no not ANOTHER troll.
They are multiplying like rats.

Troll ???

What is your major malfunction numb nuts ?

Lowering yourself to the very "rats" you speak of ?

tazi

Mar 20, 03, 9:22 pm

Originally posted by MIKESILV:
Oh no not ANOTHER troll.
They are multiplying like rats.

Mike 

More like ants actually http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

tazi

Mar 20, 03, 9:27 pm

Originally posted by TakeScissorsAway:
Troll ???

What is your major malfunction numb nuts ?

Lowering yourself to the very "rats" you speak of ?



This is the person whose qusetions I am to answer at the airport? I don't think so. If your training taught you that silence is suspicious when you ask stupid questions then I am even more convinced that what I see is true .. security is a farce ... just a show for those easily fooled by smoke and mirrors. Enjoy your job while you have it and by all means, keep evacuating terminals .. these events are noticed and publicized and eventually, even the non-flying public will realize what a joke this is.

Verbal interaction is not needed, nor is it required, at the checkpoint. All that is required is that I do what is necessary to make sure I don't beep when walking through the metal detector. If I need to answer questions, then you **** well better spell out what they are on the TSA website. Most of us our tired of the inconsistancy found from airport to airport. Get a process and follow it. Don't publish guidelines to the public of what to expect at the airport and then subject them to more when they arrive. The less interaction I have with screeners, the happier I and they will be. I will say this once more ... the TSA decided we didn't have to answer stupid questions when checking in and we sure shouldn't be subjected to more at the checkpoint.

------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

[This message has been edited by tazi (edited 03-20-2003).]

tazi

Mar 20, 03, 9:36 pm

dupe

[This message has been edited by tazi (edited 03-20-2003).]

jailer1

Mar 20, 03, 11:00 pm

Originally posted by MIKESILV:
Oh no not ANOTHER troll.
They are multiplying like rats.

Mike 

Woah Mike, no need for the name calling. I have done nothing to you. My opinions are just as valid as yours, but let's try and keep it constructive.

jailer1

Mar 20, 03, 11:12 pm

Originally posted by tazi:
This is the person whose qusetions I am to answer at the airport? I don't think so. If your training taught you that silence is suspicious when you ask stupid questions then I am even more convinced that what I see is true .. security is a farce ... just a show for those easily fooled by smoke and mirrors. Enjoy your job while you have it and by all means, keep evacuating terminals .. these events are noticed and publicized and eventually, even the non-flying public will realize what a joke this is.

Verbal interaction is not needed, nor is it required, at the checkpoint. All that is required is that I do what is necessary to make sure I don't beep when walking through the metal detector. If I need to answer questions, then you **** well better spell out what they are on the TSA website. Most of us our tired of the inconsistancy found from airport to airport. Get a process and follow it. Don't publish guidelines to the public of what to expect at the airport and then subject them to more when they arrive. The less interaction I have with screeners, the happier I and they will be. I will say this once more ... the TSA decided we didn't have to answer stupid questions when checking in and we sure shouldn't be subjected to more at the checkpoint.



Why do you consider screeners asking you if you have removed your laptop, etc. stupid questions? Not everyone flys on a daily basis and has no idea what to remove, etc. Secondly, I would hardly consider airport security a "joke" or "farce". It can only go as far as the U.S. constitution will let it go. If folks wanted drop dead security, there would surely be some extremely oppressive rules and regulations adopted and enforced. Currently, it's not even close. As far as your idea of TSA posting questions for travelers on the website, that just will not work. Every conversation is unique and not everyone has the same questions. There is no way to anticipate what someone will say or answer when it comes to various questions that may or may not get asked. And remember, questions are just that, questions. You don't have to go into great detail about every facet of your life, just a simple yes or no works. Not to mention its just plain good manners. They do have a process, and it is evolving. Congress legislated some very vague and generalized statutory guidelines which are subjected to daily interpretation. Sometimes good, sometimes bad, but since each situation is unique there is a degree of latitude to be expected. Again, thanks for the dialogue.

1K wannabe

Mar 21, 03, 1:02 am

jailer1, welcome to flyertalk. You have such an inviting and comforting screen name!

jailer1

Mar 21, 03, 1:25 am

Originally posted by 1K wannabe:
jailer1, welcome to flyertalk. You have such an inviting and comforting screen name!

Don't be afraid! I worked in a correctional facility until I retired last year. Somehow that is about the only part of that career I still want to hold on to!

Ewan Mebabe

Mar 21, 03, 3:54 am

If you dont like the proceedure then dont fly. You obviously feel you are different to everyone else and conforming to what is there for a good reason is obviously not your cup of tea.

I would imagine your company is about as welcome as a fart in a space suit.

You desreve what you get and manners cost nothing.

bdschobel

Mar 21, 03, 4:58 am

Did they run out of apostrophes in Scotland? http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

Bruce

tazi

Mar 21, 03, 7:13 am

Originally posted by jailer1:
Why do you consider screeners asking you if you have removed your laptop, etc. stupid questions? 

Bruce wasn't even carrying a laptop, thus, a stupid question.

------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

Cholula

Mar 21, 03, 7:18 am

Originally posted by bdschobel:
Did they run out of apostrophes in Scotland? http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

Bruce

http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/biggrin.gif

Spiff

Mar 21, 03, 10:20 am

Tough haggis. The current security experience is unacceptable and I will continue to both fly (today, in fact) and complain about the idiocy of the system in this medium and in other media. Don't like reading it? Feel free to scroll past my posts or go jump in the lake. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

Originally posted by Ewan Mebabe:
If you dont like the proceedure then dont fly. You obviously feel you are different to everyone else and conforming to what is there for a good reason is obviously not your cup of tea.

I would imagine your company is about as welcome as a fart in a space suit.

You desreve what you get and manners cost nothing.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

bdschobel

Mar 21, 03, 10:28 am

No, no. You mean the loch. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

Bruce

jailer1

Mar 21, 03, 11:54 am

Originally posted by tazi:
Bruce wasn't even carrying a laptop, thus, a stupid question.



Ok, he had no laptop, but it seems to me that the speech they give to everybody contains many elements. They ask if you have removed any laptops, metallic objects, cell phones, pagers and a host of other items. I still fail to see where these qualify as "stupid" questions since they are aimed at getting people through the metal detector without it going off which, in my opinion, is helpful. Now, if you are a business traveler and travel every day I can see where this might get old, but they don't know that. And again I still come back to why be deliberately discourteous to another person based on their employment alone? I don't know about most folks, but I for one am not that quick to judge others. Anywho, gotta run. Good day to you all and I will catch you later on tonight!

tazi

Mar 21, 03, 6:01 pm

Originally posted by jailer1:
Ok, he had no laptop, but it seems to me that the speech they give to everybody contains many elements. They ask if you have removed any laptops, metallic objects, cell phones, pagers and a host of other items. I still fail to see where these qualify as "stupid" questions since they are aimed at getting people through the metal detector without it going off which, in my opinion, is helpful. Now, if you are a business traveler and travel every day I can see where this might get old, but they don't know that. And again I still come back to why be deliberately discourteous to another person based on their employment alone? I don't know about most folks, but I for one am not that quick to judge others. Anywho, gotta run. Good day to you all and I will catch you later on tonight!

Fine. If it is going to be the same questions asked repeatedly without any intelligence interjected at all, all for the purpose of reminding people what the signs say, then they might as well make a recording of it and play it continuously while you are in line. The message gets through and no one has to respond. Not to mention there would be one less screener required at the checkpoints http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/biggrin.gif

Again, if these are just rote questions then the screener obviously isn't actually trying to spot suspicious behavior if he doesn't even notice someone isn't carrying a laptop before asking for it to be removed. This guy was just on a power trip. It had nothing to do with Bruce acting suspiciously.

------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

tsadude

Mar 21, 03, 6:21 pm

Originally posted by tazi:
Fine. If it is going to be the same questions asked repeatedly without any intelligence interjected at all, all for the purpose of reminding people what the signs say, then they might as well make a recording of it and play it continuously while you are in line. The message gets through and no one has to respond. Not to mention there would be one less screener required at the checkpoints http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/biggrin.gif

Again, if these are just rote questions then the screener obviously isn't actually trying to spot suspicious behavior if he doesn't even notice someone isn't carrying a laptop before asking for it to be removed. This guy was just on a power trip. It had nothing to do with Bruce acting suspiciously.


There are messages played continuously and a bazillion signs. Passengers ask the same thing and do the same thing over and over.You do not have to carry a laptop in an approved computer bag. Students carry them in backpacks.

tazi

Mar 21, 03, 9:16 pm

Originally posted by tsadude:

There are messages played continuously and a bazillion signs. Passengers ask the same thing and do the same thing over and over.You do not have to carry a laptop in an approved computer bag. Students carry them in backpacks.



Then I would say this is no different than it was prior to the TSA taking over. Those screeners dealt with it so the current group should be able to do so as well since there are so many more of you. If so many people still don't do what is necessary to not set off the metal detector, they deserve to be wanded and you shouldn't be wasting time on someone who just didn't want to answer your stupid questions.

How many screeners could we eliminate from the government payroll if they didn't need a "Question Puppet" at every checkpoint?

------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

[This message has been edited by tazi (edited 03-21-2003).]

kcnwgold

Mar 21, 03, 10:29 pm

I have found this thread interesting as I have just recently, due to nerve damage, joined the hearing impair society.

I travel about 65K miles a year and this new condition has lead to some very interesting situations at security.

Someone posted that if you are hearing impaired, all the background noise makes it almost impossible to hear. I was SO! shocked to find out how true that statement is. When in the security area, if I cannot see your lips move and eyes looking at me, I cannot tell if someone speaks to me.

This has been the most stressful when trying to keep my items together after the x-ray while being pulled over to the secondary wanding. The security people in my airport (MCI) recently seem to want to take your belongings in different directions at the same time. I flat-out refuse to be wanded until I am in a place where I can view my personal belongings at all times. There is no way I would hear someone talking to me over by the x-ray machine if I am standing 20 feet away being wanded on the foot-feet pads.

It is a whole new world for me now. I don't want to tell the TSA that I am hearing impaired because, nine times out of ten, they just start screaming at me, thinking I will be able to hear them better, bringing my personal condition to everyone's attention. Just speak to me in a normal tone making sure I can see your lips move.

I don't want to tell anyone about my hearing loss, because then I fear that the TSA will start asking me to remove my hearing aids to -x-ray them because of the digital circuitry. NOT GONNA HAPPEN! At $2K per ear, they don't get access to them. I don't want to find out what would happen if they broke one, let alone put it back in my ear after the TSA has fondled it.

When push comes to shove, I will advise of my hearing problem so I don't get in trouble. However, I don't think it is necessary that I tell the TSA up front I am deaf just so I am not deemed a suspect because I didn't acknowledge them.

I always try to be civil when going through the process....it is just more difficult to feel like I am in control of my person and personal belongings now that I can't hear....I don't want to worry that my silence or lack of response tags me as a threat.

Keep flying!

KCNWGOLD

Mar 22, 03, 11:32 am

I agree with most of the complaints here about the TSA, but when I go through security, I joke with the employees, say please and thank you and have never had a problem (other than experiencing the whole process as an unnecessary annoyance).

CameraGuy

Mar 22, 03, 2:17 pm

RS,

I am the TAXPAYER, they are the EMPLOYEE.

I should not have to kiss their butts, it should be the other way around.

I refuse to kiss the butt of some power-tripping McDonalds reject.

bdschobel

Mar 22, 03, 3:08 pm

Furthermore, the very idea that we have to place nicey-nice with the TSA in order to avoid getting hassled is anti-American. They are welcome to check my things and establish that I'm not carrying any weapons. Beyond that, they have no authority over me. Wouldn't you agree?

Bruce

Just Passing Thru

Mar 22, 03, 6:01 pm

Originally posted by jailer1:
Woah Mike, no need for the name calling. I have done nothing to you. My opinions are just as valid as yours, but let's try and keep it constructive. 

I agree. Jailer and I appear to be on opposite sides of the fence here, but nothing is to be gained by calling each other names.

Freedom of speech means that you've got to put up with speech that you might not like.

Just Passing Thru

Mar 22, 03, 6:30 pm

Originally posted by kcnwgold:
Someone posted that if you are hearing impaired, all the background noise makes it almost impossible to hear. I was SO! shocked to find out how true that statement is. When in the security area, if I cannot see your lips move and eyes looking at me, I cannot tell if someone speaks to me.

I believe that poster was me. I suffer from bilateral otosclerosis, which results in a progressive conductive hearing loss and eventual atrophy of the auditory nerve. I have had one ear repaired through major surgery, which included the implant of stainless steel prosthetics to replace the tiny ossicles in my middle ear. There is a remote chance that they can set off the magnetometers, especially on the higher settings; this is more the case when I'm wanded and the wand comes close to that side of my head. Kind of hard to explain why one's head sets the wand off! http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/wink.gif

I need to get the other ear repaired within the next year or two; I'm currently dealing with a 50-55 dB hearing loss on that side. That's very nearly deaf for all practical purposes. Of course, the upshot of all this is that I can't tell what direction sounds are coming from, I'm essentially deaf on one side (so I can't hear people speaking to me on that side) and it becomes nearly impossible to filter out extraneous background noise.

All of this makes it a stone b*tch to deal with the TSA when things are busy and noisy. JPT is non-responsive to verbal directions? It might be because disabled veteran JPT can't ****ing HEAR you.

Please listen carefully, TSA. Hearing-impaired people are not a threat. Please do not assume that we are ignoring you, and we will reciprocate by not assuming that you are breaking the law and harassing us.

Originally posted by kcnwgold:
It is a whole new world for me now. I don't want to tell the TSA that I am hearing impaired because, nine times out of ten, they just start screaming at me, thinking I will be able to hear them better, bringing my personal condition to everyone's attention. Just speak to me in a normal tone making sure I can see your lips move.

There are things you can do to address the issue. You can ask for private screening if you want (they're obliged to do this for anyone who asks). You can tell the screeners about your hearing loss up-front and tell them how to speak (not yell) at you. Profoundly hearing-impaired people who have to fly can use cards (that give a brief explanation) that they hand to the screeners.

Originally posted by kcnwgold:
I fear that the TSA will start asking me to remove my hearing aids to -x-ray them because of the digital circuitry. NOT GONNA HAPPEN! At $2K per ear, they don't get access to them. I don't want to find out what would happen if they broke one, let alone put it back in my ear after the TSA has fondled it.

It may be worthwhile to be proactive here. You might arrange to meet with a TSA representative to find out what options are available to you. I don't have hearing aids, but I'm sure you're not the first person to come up against this problem.

Originally posted by kcnwgold:
When push comes to shove, I will advise of my hearing problem so I don't get in trouble. However, I don't think it is necessary that I tell the TSA up front I am deaf just so I am not deemed a suspect because I didn't acknowledge them.

I agree. It is total BS that hearing-impaired people are considered a potential threat (and selected for secondary screening) simply because we have an "invisible disability."

Originally posted by kcnwgold:
Keep flying!

Right back atcha. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/wink.gif

TakeScissorsAway

Mar 22, 03, 6:52 pm

TakeScissorsAway

Mar 22, 03, 6:57 pm

Originally posted by bdschobel:
Beyond that, they have no authority over me. Wouldn't you agree?

Bruce

Bruce, the way I view it, no, the screeners have no authority over you. However, I believe the "TSA" does have some authority over the air travelers, by law. So yea I agree, the screeners do not have authority over you, but the laws they are sworn to uphold, do.

tsadude

Mar 23, 03, 12:56 pm

Sorry about your disability

[This message has been edited by tsadude (edited 03-23-2003).]

tsadude

Mar 23, 03, 1:02 pm

Originally posted by tsadude:
Sorry about your disability but you will not have the special treatment that you deserve. Laws or not. Welcome to the real world were disabled troops do not receive anything. I can say this because I am one too. I am not trying to be ugly with you, but these are my experiences also. The only people who understand are in the same boat.Screeners cannot tell if you are deaf.Make up a business card stating your disability and give it to them when you approach the MAG.

tsadude

Mar 23, 03, 3:45 pm

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tsadude:
[B]

tsadude

Mar 23, 03, 3:46 pm

[

tsadude

Mar 23, 03, 3:47 pm

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tsadude:
[B]Sorry about your disability

tsadude

Mar 23, 03, 3:56 pm

Please excuse my brainfart mess I made here.

CCWilliams

Mar 23, 03, 5:00 pm

After reading all four pages of this topic I feel compelled to add my thoughts. The screeners in airports are simply trying to do their job. If a terrorist had a big flashing neon sign above his/her head proclaiming “Bad Person”, we wouldn’t need the elaborate and often inconvenient procedures, which are now in place. The screeners are simply people with a job to do. We may not like it and may very well feel that their methods leave a lot to be desired, but I am grateful for their presence. Having my bags opened, taking off my shoes, or facing “additional screening” is a small price to pay to keep the events of 9-11 from happening again. Simply cooperate with these individuals and be tolerant of the procedure.

I will admit that I am perhaps more biased that most of you. You see, I am a Firefighter who works in the DC area. On September 11, 2001 I lost over 300 brothers who were also “Just doing their job to the best of their ability”. Give these people a break folks. You don’t have to agree or understand, just exercise some degree of respect and patience.

------------------
Regards,
CC Williams

Bag Skivvy

Mar 23, 03, 7:36 pm

Thank you for your kind words C.C.. It is people like you who make my job enjoyable. I know that it is impossible to make every passenger happy. For every negative message that I've read here, I get many more in person daily. Speaking for myself, I try my best to be curteous and professional. If I am able to be helpful and make a pasenger feel more comfortable and at ease then thats all the better. I see that many of these posters have mega miles under their belts, but I am blown away by the number of travelers I meet who are first time flyers. Not every one lives in the fast lane. "Joe Six Pack" and Grandma and the grandkids have just as much right to safe travel and feeling safe as Mr. Million Miler. They are taxpayers as well, and spend their hard earned money for their seats. I appreciate the fact that most of our travelers comply graciously with the seemingly silly requests that we make of them. And for those of you who aren't able to act like the adults that you are: I aplologize for the inconvenience. Please realize that you are not the only fliers in the skies and do your best to grin and bear it. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/tongue.gif

CameraGuy

Mar 23, 03, 9:19 pm

You are correct, "Joe Six-Pack" and "Grandma" have every right in the world to fly safely.

Problem is that the TSA does absolutley NOTHING to make flying safe.

CCWilliams

Mar 23, 03, 9:29 pm

Sorry to disagre with you, but they do. Keeping the next bad guy off my plane is a great job and I appreciate it.

CameraGuy

Mar 23, 03, 9:57 pm

They receive little or no training in identifying "Bad-Guys", so how is it that they keep them off the planes?

Most TSA employees would not know a Terrorist if the Terrorist walked up to them and kicked them in the rear.

Cholula

Mar 24, 03, 1:07 am

Not every one lives in the fast lane. "Joe Six Pack" and Grandma and the grandkids have just as much right to safe travel and feeling safe as Mr. Million Miler. They are taxpayers as well, and spend their hard earned money for their seats.
BagSkivvy and the rest of the TSA folk on this board. Glad you feel the job you do is noble and useful. More power to you. The truth of the matter is the only travelers who feel safe as the result of your security procedures are, in fact, Joe Six Pack and Granny.
The TSA procedures in effect today are a classic example of closing the barn door after the cows have fled. You are reacting to a situation waaaay after the fact and one which, IMHO, will not occur in the same manner again.
Every time I see someone say they are thrilled with the invasive TSA procedures, I can guarantee it's someone who travels only very occasionally and doesn't have to deal with this indignity 52 weeks a year.
Having said all that, I do not fault the TSA screeners for doing what they are paid to do. If you didn't do your job, they'd find someone else to do it for you. My issue is with the bureaucrats who created this TSA monstrosity. Since these bureaucrats do not frequent FT, I guess you folks are the designated target for our "debate".
Thanks to the TSA folks for their spirited input on this board. Prior to the creation of this forum, I'd take out my frustrations with TSA by beating my wife and kicking the dog..... http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/biggrin.gif

jailer1

Mar 24, 03, 1:09 am

Originally posted by CameraGuy:
They receive little or no training in identifying "Bad-Guys", so how is it that they keep them off the planes?

Most TSA employees would not know a Terrorist if the Terrorist walked up to them and kicked them in the rear.

You are painting with a very, very broad brush CG. Your dissatisfaction aside, the TSA folks do the best they can with the information and training given. They cannot profile because that's illegal. No profiling means equally applied policy and practice. TSA must operate within defined legal parameters. To say most wouldn’t know a terrorist if they saw one would be accurate to a degree because terrorists don't dress like one in the U.S. I can safely assume that you dislike TSA, and that's ok. However, you or anyone else would be remiss to attack the individual people providing the service rather than the legislature that created it. It would be wise to find some middle ground here. Tolerate the people doing the job correctly. Complain about those who don't. But above all be productive. Blind rage against the machine will never work. Thanks for reading and I look forward to your replies.

CameraGuy

Mar 24, 03, 7:04 am

I do "Tolerate" the TSA Screeners who do their job correctly.

My problem is that the number of TSA Screeners doing their job correctly is dwindling. The longer they are on the job, the more they try to make their own rules and enjoy power-trips.

I have yet to fly out of BOS or LAS w/o encountering either theft or power-trips. This SHOULD be unacceptable, but sadly it is not.

Only 50% of the time I fly out of MHT is my luggage put back the way they found it. This SHOULD be unacceptable, but sadly it is not.

At BWI, I was forced to simply ignore the nitwit who was ORDERING pax to remove their shoes and belts. This SHOULD be unacceptable, but sadly it is not.

Until the TSA proves that it is serious about weeding out the bad apples, it will remain a farce.

bdschobel

Mar 24, 03, 7:30 am

Moreover, much of what the TSA does is nonsensical, ineffective and just for show. For instance, why are they STILL confiscating scissors? Does anybody on the face of the earth believe that a terrorist could successfully hijack an airplane with scissors, even if they were three feet long and razor-sharp? So why bother with that? They check shoes, but none of the countless other places where a determined terrorist could hide explosives. Again, why bother checking shoes if you aren't going to check everywhere? It's not logical -- and it wastes our tax dollars -- and time.

My personal pet peeve is how many TSA employees really seem to believe that they are defending America against terrorists. They see themselves as the "front lines against terrorism." This is a classic indoctrination technique that works especially well on former members of the military.

Some people get satisfaction from their jobs because they get paid a lot. Others can SEE what they are accomplishing, such as building bridges or skyscrapers. Still others work as teachers or in health-care, where the value of their services is obvious.

So how does the TSA fit into this picture? They don't get paid a lot. They can't see their accomplishments (that is, they haven't caught a terrorist YET!). However, they are told by their employer (and each other) that they are "defending the homeland" and similar nonsense. They have access to "sensitive security information" (SSI!). Blah blah blah. It's all intended to make them feel good about their meaningless, low-paying jobs.

Unfortunately, many of them start to believe this crap. If they REALLY are defending the homeland, then they better do it right! No such thing as too much security! If they really have access to secrets, then they better keep those secrets (although nothing told to 65,000 people can be correctly termed secret).

I very much support our soldiers on the front lines. They are REALLY doing an important, dangerous job. I support police officers on the street who face danger as they confront real criminals. But too many TSA employees are merely hassling law-abiding travelers for no good reason. We have to deal with these zealots every day. And I'm tired of it.

Bruce

porkyboy

Mar 24, 03, 7:51 am

Originally posted by CameraGuy:
RS,

I am the TAXPAYER, they are the EMPLOYEE.

I should not have to kiss their butts, it should be the other way around.

I refuse to kiss the butt of some power-tripping McDonalds reject.

I was gonna let this pass but on second thought, just had to reply. Mr. bigshot taxpayer, you may be surprised to find that many of the TSA screeners are NOT Mc Donald's rejects. In fact, many of them are probably better schooled than you and had more successful careers than you. The selection process is pretty good and weeds out most of the inane and incoherent. As well, many of the folks who joined the TSA came from retirement and did so to contribute to your personal safety and the well being of the air travel industry. If you have problems with the process, take it out on the organization, not the individuals.
I have several close friends with the TSA who joined to contribute.
One, a retiree from a major airline in a mid management level said "this is too important to not help out with."
Another with 30 years at a major air express company joined, "to help fight back in my own small way, this is worth coming out of retirement for." Another, a Navy veteran who took bullets for YOU and I joined to add his expertise. I could go on with lots of other stories but maybe you see the point.
These people are like you and I, they are taxpayers too and most want to do a good job.
Sure, there are a few dingbats but can you say that in your chosen field, there are none? Should we judge you by the dingbats, or better yet, should we judge others by you (they probably would resent that)?
So you are annoyed by the process, big deal. Life is full of annoyances and you can either look at the bigger picture or be a reprobate and take your frustrations out on everyone else.
I choose to look at the positives in this equation and there are many. At the same time, I see many flaws but don't allow them to cloud my opinion of the people trying to do a good job in spite of crappy leadership in many areas. You and others like you seem to choose to look at the negatives and project your own anger at others. The TSA people deserve better than your characterizaton of them. To use your method, I see one TSA employee who is a moron, therefore all TSA employees are morons. I see one taxpayer who is a reprobate, therefore all taxpayers are reprobates. Does that make sense?

http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/cool.gif

TakeScissorsAway

Mar 24, 03, 8:25 am

Originally posted by CameraGuy:
My problem is that the number of TSA Screeners doing their job correctly is dwindling. The longer they are on the job, the more they try to make their own rules and enjoy power-trips.

BS

Once again, a yarn spun by an individual with a LARGE chip on their shoulder, most likely on their "own" power trip. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/rolleyes.gif

FWAAA

Mar 24, 03, 10:11 am

I agree with bdschobel, who explained what is wrong with Mineta's and Loy's vision of airport security much more succinctly than I ever could.

And my patriotic patience is also wearing very thin. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/frown.gif

Just Passing Thru

Mar 24, 03, 11:16 am

Originally posted by tsadude:
Please excuse my brainfart mess I made here.

S'all right. Take a break, have some coffee. Come back and try again when you get it together. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

And thanks much for the good wishes.

Aubie

Mar 24, 03, 1:08 pm

"We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times. We live in a time where we have fictitious election results, that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. We are against this war, Mr. bush. Shame on you!" Academy Awards winner for best documentary film, Michael Moore, said.

First, I do not accept that the TSA has any right to search - and for that, I won't let them! I do not fly anymore! I talked to the ACLU about this issue and they are going to let this 'Right', slide...they don't want to appear to be extreme (they bowed to bushism). Before I finally quit flying, I objected to the searches. Once, I found myself surrounded by at least 6 FAA and Sheriff officers; the FAA agent informed me that my verbal objection to the searches (it was peaceful & polite) established myself as a suspicious person. I have written about this in prior posts.

Not only have I lost my ability to fly, but I am becoming ANGRY over the police-state tactics that the bushler regime seams to push, often secretly and deceptively. Those that have met me probably do not think of me as a person who to bring grief upon others, but I am becoming less certain about this Country's policies, dictated by a group of horrible, mean, uncaring, tyrants. Despite a Step-Brother serving as a Marine officer, a Step-Father a former Army Vet, and my Father, a recently retired Air Force General, I am to the point where I am either going to discard my native US citizenship and probably hope Canada will be accommodating, or stay and fight this regime with a vengeance! Leaving would be the smart thing, but I am stubborn, so I will probably fight, even if my opponents reek of assassination and other serious crimes against humanity.

Link by the international human rights watch, sent to george w. bush regarding Reports of Torture of Al-Qaeda Suspects

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/12/us1227.htm (while you there you can browse the other serious, inexcusable abuses)

And why Mike Moore said the election was fictional, and the war is for fictional means -

http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=239 (Florida vote fraud)
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0319-01.htm (Corp media promoting pro-war rallies - originally from The Chicago Tribune)

http://www.bushwatch.com/incubator.htm - (mislead to War)

www.bushwatch.com (http://www.bushwatch.com) - Endless articles of bushler, bushism, and bush-it policies

More balanced mainstream news -

www.cbc.ca (http://www.cbc.ca) (Canada)
http://www.globeandmail.com (Canada)
http://www.independent.co.uk (UK)

For those who read my post and have any favorable view of the bushler regime, I am sorry that I must speak with such hostility and lack of respect. My lack of respect is because the bushler regime consistently undermined any respect due, and I will show no respect for such people. My hostility is merely printed words expressing my anger against such despicable people. My hostility is far short of what the bush regime deserves - public condemnation followed by full trail, conviction, and exile. Ending the war is not the whole problem. A new President is not whole solution. And in my own words, here is what is needed...

I DEMAND MY RIGHTS BE RESPECTED BY MY GOVERNMENT that involunteered me as a member, based entirely on the geographical location I happened to be born. I DEMAND MY GOVERNMENT SERVE THE PEOPLE, and ONLY! the people, and STOP serving CORPORATE MONEY and CORRUPT INTERESTS. I DEMAND MY GOVERNMENT BE OPEN, and set forth the ability for Journalists to be investigative, independent, and balanced. I DEMAND MY GOVERNMENT INSTILL the policies, so that MAINSTREAM MEDIA REPORTING provides THE PEOPLE an ACCURATE ACCOUNT of the ISSUES that are truly important to us all. I DEMAND that CORPORATIONS be DESOLVED, or their licenses revoked, if THEY DO NOT MAKE POSITIVE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PEOPLE and our communities, and our environment, and all they encounter. I DEMAND that CORPORATIONS, LOBBYISTS, and FOREIGN GOVERNEMENTS, be REMOVEd from INFLUENCE OF my GOVERNMENT, unless, they present their contribution in a forum that is open, publicly-attended, so that we may scrutinize and debate and insure that ONLY THE PEOPLE will have the ability to have profound, direct INFLUENCE, on OUR REPRESENTATIVES; and IRREGARDLE