Newsstand - America Returns To Pre-9/11 Complacency

AviationPlanning.com Article (http://www.aviationplanning.com/asrc11.htm)

"Today, America has returned to that same dangerous state of affairs. The TSA has evolved into the DMV from hell - a bureaucracy with no clear goal except to find pointy objects, and absolutely no accountability to anyone for its performance. None. Just like the FAA which let aviation security degenerate into a condition that was criminally negligent. (And, please, for all those apologists, all one can say is get real. There were enough reports and warnings prior to 9/11 to choke a landfill, outlining our security weaknesses - all which were ignored by the FAA, congress, and repeated Administrations.)"

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

Isn't this pre-9/11 security system that is derided in this report the one that you always fondly harken back to?

Why do I not find this state of afairs suprising ??? The invites will be in the pist next ??

Wow, this is EXACTLY what Spiff wanted. So I guess he will be less vocal now. Nah, not possible.

------------------
"Be the inferior of no man, nor be the superior. Remember that every man is a variation of yourself. No man's guilt is not yours, nor is any man's innocence a thing apart." William Saroyan, American Playwright

Nope, not possible.

We spent billions to get "security" to the joke that it is, only now the passengers are being harassed while the overall safety is as good as it was before we embarked on this sad and disgusting experiment in civil liberties erosion.

Civil liberties -> less

Safety -> same

Money wasted -> billions

Score: terrorists 3, US 0

Box score:

Goals: Atta: 1, Bin Laden: 2

Assists: Assorted Terrorists: 1, Loy: 1, Mineta: 1

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by The Unknown Screener:
Wow, this is EXACTLY what Spiff wanted. So I guess he will be less vocal now. Nah, not possible.

</font>

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

[This message has been edited by Spiff (edited 07-22-2003).]

Every major change has its detractors. There were probably people who thought fire or wheel were bad inventions too.

We'll just have to accept the fact that Spiff will never be happy with anything related to security.

If something right is done, it would have been done anyways even if the US did absolutely nothing after 9/11.

Anything bad happens, even common stuff like luggage theft, and it's 100% the fault of the government.

Spiff is a Libertarian, he can't help it if everyone does not agree with him on everything, nor should they. He does go over the top, but I think he does that on purpose to get a rise out of others. However, his name calling does reduce his argument to a diatribe and detracts from the veracity of his statements. Of course that is just my opinion, I could be wrong.

------------------
"Be the inferior of no man, nor be the superior. Remember that every man is a variation of yourself. No man's guilt is not yours, nor is any man's innocence a thing apart." William Saroyan, American Playwright

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Plato90s:
We'll just have to accept the fact that Spiff will never be happy with anything related to security.</font>

I'm not Spiff, but I doubt that's true either.

He's got a valid point - cost and hassle are up, quality is questionable, and civil liberties are down. Who would be happy with that situation?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Anything bad happens, even common stuff like luggage theft, and it's 100% the fault of the government.</font>

Well, when it's the government banning luggage locks and government agents stealing stuff, who else would you blame?

d

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Doppy:
Well, when it's the government banning luggage locks and government agents stealing stuff, who else would you blame?

d</font>

First of all, locks are not banned. That's just the misreprentation which is being used to blame the TSA for luggage theft.

TSA merely advises passengers that locks will be cut off if your luggage is chosen for inspection.

Secondly, can you provide proof that theft is up since the TSA takeover of security? Detractors claim things not in evidence and expect us to accept them as facts. Well, I need proof.

Third, while I would agree that some TSA rules are silly, I think Spiff's theory that all security beyond reinforced doors are useless is equally silly.

Why are there so many people who seem to think Spiff is alone or in small minority? It's been clear to me for ages that we've spent if not wasted a lot of money to get "security" that's arguably no better than pre-Sept 11 but does involve a lot more hassle to everyone involved. I can see that. It's a valid point. The only difference between me and Spiff is that I'm not nearly as vocal about it around FT, because it causes such a d*mn shouting match for some reason. Anymore it's not a reaction to the realities of the situation as much as it is a reaction to the messenger. Thus, it seems, a normal discussion can not be had on this topic.

It's interesting how strongly in favor of all the "anti-terrorist" government the FT community clearly is. There's a thread in BA about another outspoken gentleman who boarded one of their flights wearing a "suspected terrorist" button - intended to mean that when we arrive at the airport, that sometimes seems like what the government thinks of us - and was ejected from the flight (after it had left the gate.) Nothing in the article suggested that he appeared threatening in any way, and I'm surprised at why the matter wasn't treated as a joke and ignored, but the FT responses were 100% "the jerk should have been offloaded over the Atlantic" or similar.

All along I just thought that Spiff was against the waste of the TSA type policies. Now I find that he thinks we need more security and that the lack of it caused 9/11.

There is no possible way in a free society that we all love to have enough security to stop what happened on 9/11. It might had been stopped IF we had a "never open the cockpit door" policy in place. But all of the foolishness currently on the ground would not have stopped it, and even more feds feeling up the passengers would not stop a determed terrorist.

So, as Spiff has pointed out, we have lots of losses in the USA column, and too many wins in the bad guy column. All of this is the typical American REACTIONARY stance.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Plato90s:
First of all, locks are not banned. That's just the misreprentation which is being used to blame the TSA for luggage theft.

TSA merely advises passengers that locks will be cut off if your luggage is chosen for inspection.</font>

OK. But, the effect is similar.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Secondly, can you provide proof that theft is up since the TSA takeover of security? Detractors claim things not in evidence and expect us to accept them as facts. Well, I need proof.</font>

I didn't claim that theft is up. It could be down overall, but that doesn't mean that some TSA employees don't have sticky fingers. There certainly have been a lot of complaints.

d

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Doppy:
OK. But, the effect is similar.</font>

No, it's not. To use a real-life example, there are public beaches without lifeguards. Some towns allow people to swim there, but posts signs to warn you there's no lifeguard on duty.

Some other towns simply prohibit swimming when there's no lifeguard and you can be fined for going into the water.

There's a BIG difference when it comes time to pay the fine.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by CrazyOne:
Why are there so many people who seem to think Spiff is alone or in small minority? It's been clear to me for ages that we've spent if not wasted a lot of money to get "security" that's arguably no better than pre-Sept 11 but does involve a lot more hassle to everyone involved. I can see that. It's a valid point. The only difference between me and Spiff is that I'm not nearly as vocal about it around FT, because it causes such a d*mn shouting match for some reason. Anymore it's not a reaction to the realities of the situation as much as it is a reaction to the messenger. Thus, it seems, a normal discussion can not be had on this topic.</font>

Maybe because the national surveys done by various groups indicate most people approve of the post-9/11 security policy despite being annoyed by the delays.

Americans are just a bunch of ignorant wimps.

I lived in Italy during the Red Brigades terror. The second-class waiting room I often sat in at the Bologna train station WAS BLOWN UP.

One of the trains I rode occasionally (Florence-Bologna) WAS BLOWN UP in the tunnel.

The bank branch I used in Milano (dell'Agricoltura) WAS BLOWN UP.

Did the Italians demand a return to Mussolini's "security"?

No, they realized that part of living in a free society (you appreciate this better if you are more recently free, apparently) was taking risks.

Earthquakes, floods, crashes on the autostrada, Red Brigades: they were all part of life (and death). You did your civic duty to keep an eye out and didn't let it bother you much that soldiers patrolled a lot more. But you didn't have to be groped, demeaned, harassed or taxed to increase the deficit another 5%.

Eventually, the threat was defeated.

I can tell here who doesn't understand probabilities. Why not go back to school rather than inflict the rest of us with your, uh, uninformed opinions?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by LexPassenger:
Americans are just a bunch of ignorant wimps.

...

No, they realized that part of living in a free society (you appreciate this better if you are more recently free, apparently) was taking risks.

...

I can tell here who doesn't understand probabilities. Why not go back to school rather than inflict the rest of us with your, uh, uninformed opinions?</font>

Part of living in a free society is that the society chooses what type of life to lead. If the free society decides to implement things you personally find distasteful or silly, that's still our right to do it.

Free society doesn't mean accepting risks. It means choosing the level of risk to assume, and your (or Italy's) level of acceptable risk isn't the same as Americans.

To call Americans ignorant wimps just because of the different levels of acceptable risks is the same as Americans calling Italians a bunch of lazy people due to the difference in working hours.

People who want to dictate to the entire society what's acceptable and what's not aren't really for a free society.

I agree. The majaority should generally rule. (exceptions to everything I guess).

But, we keep hearing that the majority of Americans approve of the airport security measures, yet most I talk to do not. And those that approve are not knowledgeable about what is and is not going on. When you talk for a about 3 minutes about reality, they change their tune in a minute.

Remember, most Americans think that Gov't spending really does not impact their personal pocket book. The money must come from trees - seems my Dad was wrong all those years.

Keep in mind that most Americans either never fly, or fly less than once a year and have not witnessed the foolishness.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Plato90s:
There's a BIG difference when it comes time to pay the fine.</font>

I'm not sure what your point is.

Our current situation is that it's posted that you can swim, but if you're caught doing so, you get fined. That is, you get your lock destroyed.

Sure, you're allowed to swim/lock your bag, but if you get "caught" doing so you get fined. ("caught" - i.e. get your bags selected to be screened)

d

I'm a long-time lurker, and rarely post. In my readings, I've found that I rarely agree with Spiff. But in this instance, I wholeheartedly agree. When is common sense going to come into play when it comes to security.

I truly don't want to offend anyone, but this is my honest opinion. The TSA isn't any better than what we had before (in practical terms). Most of the folks employed by the TSA are mindless drones, who work for an agency run by morons, established by a president who is a moron. The need for the TSA (again, in practical terms) is the biggest fraud perpetrated on the American public since the Supreme Court "elected" the current president. A complete knee-jerk reaction. Talk about the need for a regime change.

Note: I posted something similar on the Delta forum. Apologies for the duplication.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
AviationPlanning.com Article (http://www.aviationplanning.com/asrc11.htm)

"Today, America has returned to that same dangerous state of affairs. The TSA has evolved into the DMV from hell - a bureaucracy with no clear goal except to find pointy objects, and absolutely no accountability to anyone for its performance. None. Just like the FAA which let aviation security degenerate into a condition that was criminally negligent. (And, please, for all those apologists, all one can say is get real. There were enough reports and warnings prior to 9/11 to choke a landfill, outlining our security weaknesses - all which were ignored by the FAA, congress, and repeated Administrations.)"

</font>

It seems from an outsiders point of view that in a country where the majority should rule, the majority are very often overruled by those with plenty of $$$$

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by manfromoz:
It seems from an outsiders point of view that in a country where the majority should rule, the majority are very often overruled by those with plenty of $$$$</font>That is true, but one of the most basic principles on which the US is based is that it is the rights of the *minority* which are to be protected from the tyranny of the majority. In this case the minority (airline traveling public) is most certainly NOT being protected from the majority.

As for this comment above: <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Maybe because the national surveys done by various groups indicate most people approve of the post-9/11 security policy despite being annoyed by the delays.</font>The survey results are quite dependent on the exact way that the questions is asked. Most people like the new security because they feel "safer." That does NOT mean that they are actually any safer.




[This message has been edited by xyzzy (edited 07-24-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by NoStressHere:

I agree. The majaority should generally rule. (exceptions to everything I guess).

But, we keep hearing that the majority of Americans approve of the airport security measures, yet most I talk to do not. And those that approve are not knowledgeable about what is and is not going on. When you talk for a about 3 minutes about reality, they change their tune in a minute.</font>

Majority rule is fine in some cases, but when we're talking about national security, we need to do what is best.

And the majority of Americans don't know anything about airport security. Regardless of whether they feel safer or like the current security strategy, we need to be holding the TSA accountable and determining whether we're actually safer or not.

After this is determined, the public can be informed and make a decision. But in the current situation where the public is clueless, it would be crazy to simply defer to the status quo.

d

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Plato90s:
Part of living in a free society is that the society chooses what type of life to lead. If the free society decides to implement things you personally find distasteful or silly, that's still our right to do it.
...
People who want to dictate to the entire society what's acceptable and what's not aren't really for a free society. </font>

But Society has the right to dictate to individuals? I'm having a hard time reconciling these two statements.

Free Society does not mean that someone else chooses for me what type of life I should lead. Free society means that I have the right to go to h*ll in my own personal handbasket if I so choose (as long as it does not infringe someone else's right not to).

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Louie_LI:
But Society has the right to dictate to individuals? I'm having a hard time reconciling these two statements.

Free Society does not mean that someone else chooses for me what type of life I should lead. Free society means that I have the right to go to h*ll in my own personal handbasket if I so choose (as long as it does not infringe someone else's right not to).</font>

Of course the majority has the right to dictate to the individual. It's called law.

Being in a free society means the minority has the choice of trying to persuade the majority. Or they can leave freely.

The philosophy that the minority group's rights should be safeguarded isn't a requirement, only a philosophy.

You should feel free to do what you want, but if it contravenes the law, your personal liberty, property, and possibly even life itself will be forcibly taken away from you. That's one of the things which separates a free society from anarchy.

Americans have become a bunch of gutless wimps afraid of their own shadows expecting "government" to protect them from anything with the remotest possibility of risk! The terrorists have won! We bow to the "Secutity God" and repeat the mantra: "security is good. TSA will protect us. We are all suspects. Freedom must be sacrificed to protect us." Yes, the "Chicken Littles" are everywhere AND the sky Is falling. Just ask Tom Ridge .

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Plato90s:
Of course the majority has the right to dictate to the individual. It's called law.

Being in a free society means the minority has the choice of trying to persuade the majority. Or they can leave freely.</font>

Do you really think the law exists to enforce the will of the majority? Hardly! That's why we have a Constitution in the first place.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Plato90s:
Of course the majority has the right to dictate to the individual. It's called law.

Being in a free society means the minority has the choice of trying to persuade the majority. Or they can leave freely.

The philosophy that the minority group's rights should be safeguarded isn't a requirement, only a philosophy.

You should feel free to do what you want, but if it contravenes the law, your personal liberty, property, and possibly even life itself will be forcibly taken away from you. That's one of the things which separates a free society from anarchy.</font>

Law is hardly made by the majority. Elected representatives were never meant to reflect 100% the "majority" that elected them, but to serve the whole constituency. Some of the safeguards in the Constitution were to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority.

Your definition of "free society" seems to boil down to "society is free to tell you what to do and you are free to leave it if you don't like it."

As for safeguarding the rights of a minority (political or otherwise), rights are for all and are not privileges to be handed out to those who agree with the majority.

What separates a society from anarchy is the social contract, not to be confused with the force of law. Your "free society" sounds very scary to me and a bit to close to fascism for comfort.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Doppy:
Majority rule is fine in some cases, but when we're talking about national security, we need to do what is best.

Come on, do you really think we are doing "what is best" these days? It's a joke and anyone that has thought past the "better safe than sorry" mantra can see we are NOT what is best. If we can not make us safer, than why do it. Most of the hassles that are being inflicted on the traveling public add little if any to the "security or safety" of our skies.


..we need to be holding the TSA accountable and determining whether we're actually safer or not.
</font>

Excuse me, with all due respect, but I have to laugh at this statement.

The TSA is a bloated agency designed to fight the last war, not the next one. While they are patting down grandma, who is going to spot the terrorist in the van at the end of the runway with the shoulder-fired Stinger missiles?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by RobertS975:
The TSA is a bloated agency designed to fight the last war, not the next one. While they are patting down grandma, who is going to spot the terrorist in the van at the end of the runway with the shoulder-fired Stinger missiles?</font>


Or the one that drives the van through the fence and into a plane - low tech, but possible. Or the one that drives the van upto the front door of the terminal. Or the guy that lugs his "bad" suitcase into the terminal? Or.....

We need to get on with our life America.

There is always risk in life.

But what the moorons fear most here is FEAR. So we strangle the airlines because we have completely unlearned the lesson that most of what we have to fear is fear itself.

Well, personally I don't like to be molested. So I'm not flying as much. Yah, yah, yah! And bin-Laden wins! Happy, guys?

I just want all TAs at airports to stop telling me to unlock my checked bags, when I have to keep telling them to send them in locked. Then they say, "But you risk the TSA breaking your locks" and I return with "Then I`ll buy new locks". After all that, my bag is checked in locked, I fly 6000 miles with a connection and guess what...

I get my bag locked with my locks. If there is anything more annoying is a bunch of F*heads wasting my time with useless talk about regulations that are bogus.

Arrest all TSA agents at airports that have unlocked checked bag policies in which owners are not allowed to be present in case of checking!! ILLEGAL!!

My oh my....LOL

------------------
"Be the inferior of no man, nor be the superior. Remember that every man is a variation of yourself. No man's guilt is not yours, nor is any man's innocence a thing apart." William Saroyan, American Playwright

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Plato90s:
First of all, locks are not banned. That's just the misreprentation which is being used to blame the TSA for luggage theft.

TSA merely advises passengers that locks will be cut off if your luggage is chosen for inspection.
</font>

On "paper" locks are not banned - just "discouraged". In reality, they sometimes are banned.

An Example:

I recently passed through MCO and the TSA agent asked if my bag was locked. I replied, affirmative. The TSA agent replied that I *must* unlock my luggage otherwise he would not accept it for processing. We exchanged words but I finally gave in and unlocked my luggage as I didn't have time to waste with this goon. A week and a half ago at MCO my lock wasn't a problem, but a few days ago it was. So much for policy & so much for anything being consistent.

This is not the first time I've encountered this with the lock policy. I have had locked luggage refused to be accepted for processing on several occasions.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
Secondly, can you provide proof that theft is up since the TSA takeover of security? Detractors claim things not in evidence and expect us to accept them as facts. Well, I need proof.
</font>

This would be a bit difficult as I don't believe there are any firm statistics for the airlines in regards to luggage theft. However, with more individuals handling luggage and most luggage being unlocked I would say it's likely theft is up.

The first (new) problem is the possibility of theft from TSA agents (note: TSA agents have been busted for luggage theft).

The second (new) problem is most luggage is now unlocked, which provides more opportunities for theft through-out the luggage system (baggage handlers & others with access to checked baggage). While locks have always been easy to cut, they serve as a deterrant. That deterrant is no longer there unless you are one of the few that lock your luggage, have the TSA accept & process your locked luggage, and finally not cut the lock off in the process.

Last but not least, there are some airports overseas where theft is a problem. When unlocked suitcases go through these airports it is of my opinion chances are greater of a theft occuring with an unlocked suitcase. This "keep luggage unlocked" policy makes theft easy plus it invites other problems.

While rare, it's not unheard of for drug smugglers to use passenger luggage as a means to transport illegal items. A lock may not prevent this, but would at least serve as a deterrant.

Best,

SDF_Traveler

------------------
"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 SDF_Traveler (edited 07-27-2003).]