Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

Today was the day...(The Michael Roberts/ExpressJet Story)

Today was the day...(The Michael Roberts/ExpressJet Story)

Old Oct 24, 2010, 7:36 pm
  #436  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Programs: Amtrak S+, HH GLD, AA 1MM, SPG, UA, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 371
Originally Posted by SpatialD
Sorry, can't let you guys off the hook, either. This is what I'm talking about when I say let's fix it this week. I don't believe it would take much longer than that to get their attention.

<...>

On another forum it was pointed out that I've asked for help, but haven't specified exactly what I need. I thought I'd been pretty clear, but just to be sure:

1. Do not allow federal security agents to place their hands on you. Your body belongs to you, not them.
2. Do not allow federal security agents to see beneath your clothing. Your body belongs to you, not them.
3. Study, reflect, and strive to understand what is going on here. I will help, if I am able, in the days ahead to make it a little more clear. But you must stop watching American Idol, put the game controller down, and pay attention (that part was for my beloved coworkers in familiar jest - not you guys).
Believe me, if I were flying this week, I would be more than happy to be with you and refuse a pat-down, even if it meant that I'd be denied my flight.

The thing is, I don't believe that 100 ordinary flyers who follow in your footsteps would generate the requisite media attention. And it would just make the TSA even more reactive. But just 1 or 2 additional flight crew would make national headlines: "TREND--Another Airline Crew Walks Out on TSA." This would get the attention of the right people in the right places.

My own personal opinion is that this isn't just about the courts, it's about winning the hearts and minds of the "safety at any cost" flyers. There are many who still think that TSA is doing the right thing. For them, the idea of sane, non-invasive checkpoint security for airline crewwho control the darned planes!would be more palatable than relaxed procedures for everyone. Note the public's acceptance of armed pilots. If we can win the easy battle first, the next stepsane procedures for everyonecan follow. "Safety at any cost" people can be converted into "But this is getting a bit ridiculous" with supportive media and persuasive colleagues. I don't want this story to end like Les Miserables.

There were a couple of references to Drudge in this thread. All politics aside, Matt Drudge has been consistently anti-NoS and critical of DHS for years. If you drop him a note, I have a feeling he'd write back...and help to keep your story in the spotlight. Your story wasn't just on Drudge; it was highlighted in red at the top of the middle column.

Any chance that either Colbert or Stewart would be interested in having you on in a productive manner? The TSA is an easy target for comedy, and you could reach millions with your message. Any FTers have connections to their editors or writers?
gatelouse is offline  
Old Oct 25, 2010, 5:56 am
  #437  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,726
Originally Posted by halls120
If TSA had, at any time, directly thwarted a terrorist from bringing down a US airliner, that would have immediately been communicated to the NSC and Congress, and eventually to the public. TSA would have worn out their fax machines and brought the internet to a standstill sending out press releases and patting themselves on the back.
You mean like when they took a battery pack from a passenger going to Hawaii? That was a "major victory against terrorism" according to Blogdad Bob.
n4zhg is offline  
Old Oct 25, 2010, 9:23 am
  #438  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
Originally Posted by divemistressofthedark
Unfortunately, poster TSORon has richly illustrated in this thread exactly what so many people dislike about screeners and the TSA as a whole. The burden is not on the public to avoid air travel - it's on the government not to overreach in turning this country into a police state. This is as it has been since the inception of the nation. We have a Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. for a reason, and those who don't like that fact are free to make accommodations to avoid it - they shouldn't be asking us to subvert our freedoms to suit their preferences.
While to a point you are correct, there is a vested interest for government to regulate travel. That does not mean that government can stop one from traveling, but that government has the right to require certain things of everyone who does. Example: Drivers licenses, insurance, safety equipment, all for cars. Pilots license, insurance, no-fly-zones, for aircraft. Masters certificate, insurance, lanes of travel, for commercial vessels (ships). All of the various transportation industries are regulated by government, and all for a large variety of reasons. Commercial air travel is no different despite the feelings of the folks here.

People don't like the IRS, CPS, or the EPA. In fact I can't think of a single government agency that does not have its detractors, and TSA is no different. All of these folks use the same tired and worn out complaints we see here so often. The most tired being that somehow the activities of the government agency is violating someone's rights somehow (ghads I hate seeing that one, its old and tired and most often made by some ignorant fool who thinks they know what they are talking about).

Originally Posted by divemistressofthedark
The most obvious pitfall is that of the slippery slope - if we let these misguided folks overtake air travel what will be next? No reasonable person should allow government to dictate where s/he can go, when, and under what circumstances. Anyone who claims otherwise is clearly under the influence of the same, pardon me, element of fascism that unfortunately is becoming all too common in our public discourse these days.
The "slippery slope" argument is drastically over used, just as are the terms of "fascism" and "Nazi". None serve any useful purpose in these types of forums other than to dive head-long into the pool of hyperbole.
TSORon is offline  
Old Oct 25, 2010, 9:25 am
  #439  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast Kansas | Colorado Native
Programs: Amex Gold/Plat, UA *G, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott LT Gold, NEXUS, TSA Disparager Unobtanium
Posts: 21,551
Originally Posted by TSORon
While to a point you are correct, there is a vested interest for government to regulate travel. That does not mean that government can stop one from traveling, but that government has the right to require certain things of everyone who does. Example: Drivers licenses, insurance, safety equipment, all for cars. Pilots license, insurance, no-fly-zones, for aircraft. Masters certificate, insurance, lanes of travel, for commercial vessels (ships). All of the various transportation industries are regulated by government, and all for a large variety of reasons. Commercial air travel is no different despite the feelings of the folks here.

People don't like the IRS, CPS, or the EPA. In fact I can't think of a single government agency that does not have its detractors, and TSA is no different. All of these folks use the same tired and worn out complaints we see here so often. The most tired being that somehow the activities of the government agency is violating someone's rights somehow (ghads I hate seeing that one, its old and tired and most often made by some ignorant fool who thinks they know what they are talking about).



The "slippery slope" argument is drastically over used, just as are the terms of "fascism" and "Nazi". None serve any useful purpose in these types of forums other than to dive head-long into the pool of hyperbole.
Even if we dislike the IRS, EPA, etc.... They do not try and steal our belongings, look at us naked, grope us, etc.
FriendlySkies is offline  
Old Oct 25, 2010, 9:30 am
  #440  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
Originally Posted by FriendlySkies
Even if we dislike the IRS, EPA, etc.... They do not try and steal our belongings, look at us naked, grope us, etc.
Another dive head-long into the pool of hyperbole.
TSORon is offline  
Old Oct 25, 2010, 9:35 am
  #441  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
Originally Posted by TSORon
While to a point you are correct, there is a vested interest for government to regulate travel. That does not mean that government can stop one from traveling, but that government has the right to require certain things of everyone who does. Example: Drivers licenses, insurance, safety equipment, all for cars. Pilots license, insurance, no-fly-zones, for aircraft. Masters certificate, insurance, lanes of travel, for commercial vessels (ships). All of the various transportation industries are regulated by government, and all for a large variety of reasons. Commercial air travel is no different despite the feelings of the folks here.

People don't like the IRS, CPS, or the EPA. In fact I can't think of a single government agency that does not have its detractors, and TSA is no different. All of these folks use the same tired and worn out complaints we see here so often. The most tired being that somehow the activities of the government agency is violating someone's rights somehow (ghads I hate seeing that one, its old and tired and most often made by some ignorant fool who thinks they know what they are talking about).



The "slippery slope" argument is drastically over used, just as are the terms of "fascism" and "Nazi". None serve any useful purpose in these types of forums other than to dive head-long into the pool of hyperbole.
There is a huge difference in the regulation of commercial travel and the regulation of commercial air travelers.

The lack of understanding the difference is a basis of our occasional disagreements.
InkUnderNails is offline  
Old Oct 25, 2010, 9:38 am
  #442  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Somewhere near BWI
Programs: DL DM, HH Dia, SPG Gold, MR Plat, Hertz PC
Posts: 3,654
Originally Posted by InkUnderNails
There is a huge difference in the regulation of commercial travel and the regulation of commercial air travelers.

The lack of understanding the difference is a basis of our occasional disagreements.
Occasional? Arguing with some of our TSO posters is like trying to make a Cabernet out of turnips and onions.
DevilDog438 is offline  
Old Oct 25, 2010, 9:47 am
  #443  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: RDU
Programs: OnePass
Posts: 772
Originally Posted by TSORon
Another dive head-long into the pool of hyperbole.
Its not hyperbole when it's the truth.
mikemey is offline  
Old Oct 25, 2010, 10:10 am
  #444  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Programs: AA Plat/1MM
Posts: 546
Originally Posted by TSORon
Another dive head-long into the pool of hyperbole.
Apparently, you do not understand the definition of hyperbole.
VonS is offline  
Old Oct 25, 2010, 10:12 am
  #445  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2
Body scan

I was scanned in Belfast recently. While I didn't like it at least the person who reads the scan isn't the one who is facing you. That person was up a floor or so I was told.
I did ask them to advise me if anything was out of order (considering my recent membership in the senior's club) and could they contact my doctor if a tune up was required.
We all had a good laugh, the only extra luggage on my body was through self indulgence.
The problem isn't with the security agents, it's from the thugs and terrorists that caused extra security measures to be taken.
I may not like being scanned but it beats having hundreds of lives lost.
I have the right to feel secure on an airplane.
Until there is universal peace you'll have to suck it up buddy.
CANFLY is offline  
Old Oct 25, 2010, 10:19 am
  #446  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 27,997
Originally Posted by CANFLY
I was scanned in Belfast recently. While I didn't like it at least the person who reads the scan isn't the one who is facing you. That person was up a floor or so I was told.
I did ask them to advise me if anything was out of order (considering my recent membership in the senior's club) and could they contact my doctor if a tune up was required.
We all had a good laugh, the only extra luggage on my body was through self indulgence.
The problem isn't with the security agents, it's from the thugs and terrorists that caused extra security measures to be taken.
I may not like being scanned but it beats having hundreds of lives lost.
I have the right to feel secure on an airplane.
Until there is universal peace you'll have to suck it up buddy.
You also have a right to not be exposed to dangerous radiation needlessly but that is America's TSA WBI Machine of choice.

TSA will not release the documentation needed to evaluate just how much radiation is being emitted and what studies have been done proving the claimed safety of these devices.

Why be safe on the airplane if the trip to get there is likely to cause harm to your body?
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Oct 25, 2010, 10:38 am
  #447  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Back in YYZ after 3 years of expat life in LHR
Programs: AC SE100K
Posts: 924
Originally Posted by CANFLY
I was scanned in Belfast recently. While I didn't like it at least the person who reads the scan isn't the one who is facing you. That person was up a floor or so I was told.
I did ask them to advise me if anything was out of order (considering my recent membership in the senior's club) and could they contact my doctor if a tune up was required.
We all had a good laugh, the only extra luggage on my body was through self indulgence.
The problem isn't with the security agents, it's from the thugs and terrorists that caused extra security measures to be taken.
I may not like being scanned but it beats having hundreds of lives lost.
I have the right to feel secure on an airplane.
Until there is universal peace you'll have to suck it up buddy.
I cannot speak to US statistics, but from what I could find ...
Canadians killed by drunk drivers in 2009 = 2,970
Canadians killed on the job in workplace accidents in 2009 - 1,603
Canadians killed in an airplane in 2009 = 4 (commercial airlines as we think of them)
- none of which were "terrorist"
Imagine the screaming if we put breathalysers outside of every licenced establishment ...

Last edited by lostinthewash; Oct 25, 2010 at 10:44 am Reason: added proviso re: aircraft ...
lostinthewash is offline  
Old Oct 25, 2010, 10:40 am
  #448  
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
Originally Posted by CANFLY
I was scanned in Belfast recently. While I didn't like it at least the person who reads the scan isn't the one who is facing you. That person was up a floor or so I was told.
I did ask them to advise me if anything was out of order (considering my recent membership in the senior's club) and could they contact my doctor if a tune up was required.
We all had a good laugh, the only extra luggage on my body was through self indulgence.
The problem isn't with the security agents, it's from the thugs and terrorists that caused extra security measures to be taken.
I may not like being scanned but it beats having hundreds of lives lost.
I have the right to feel secure on an airplane.
Until there is universal peace you'll have to suck it up buddy.
Welcome to FY.

You hit the nail squarely on the head of a big issue:

I have the right to feel secure on an airplane.
Do you want to feel secure on an airplane or do you want to actually be secure during your flight?

TSA is all about making passengers feel secure, not actually being secure.

I would suggest that you spend time reading through both TS/S and the volumes of other websites that address the TSA's deficiencies in order to educate yourself on the difference.

P.S. I realize that you are talking about scanning in No. Ireland, but those scanning machines are there at the demand of the TSA.

Last edited by doober; Oct 25, 2010 at 10:49 am
doober is offline  
Old Oct 25, 2010, 12:36 pm
  #449  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: various cities in the USofA: NYC, BWI, IAH, ORD, CVG, NYC
Programs: Former UA 1K, National Exec. Elite
Posts: 5,485
A big ^ and thank you to Michael Roberts.

Originally Posted by CANFLY
I have the right to feel secure on an airplane.
Seriously? What gives anyone the right to feel secure?

One does, however, have the right to be secure "against unreasonable searches and seizures" by the US government.

In what country is the right to feel secure, let alone be secure, protected? Regardless, given the warped perceptions many people (I'm not talking about anyone in particular, but people in general) have about "security", the right to feel secure has almost no relationship to actually being secure.

Originally Posted by CANFLY
Until there is universal peace you'll have to suck it up buddy.
So, suck it up forever?

Originally Posted by TSORon
While to a point you are correct, there is a vested interest for government to regulate travel. That does not mean that government can stop one from traveling, but that government has the right
(Emphasis mine).

People have rights. The US Government has no rights. It has only those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
ralfp is offline  
Old Oct 25, 2010, 1:55 pm
  #450  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marriott or Hilton hot tub with a big drink <glub> Beverage: To-Go Bag DYKWIA: SSSS /rolleyes ☈ Date Night: Costco
Programs: Sea Shell Lounge Platinum, TSA Pre✓ Refusnik Diamond, PWP Gold, FT subset of the subset
Posts: 12,508
The Rutherford Institute Agrees to Represent Michael Roberts, Airline Pilot Who Refused to Submit to Virtual Strip Search

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. In a case involving the continuing encroachment of modern technology upon personal privacy, The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of an airline pilot who refused to submit to airport security screening that exposes intimate details of a person's body to government agents.





More commentary from John Whitehead, the Rutherford Institute's founder here:

<SNIP>

The bottom line is this: forcing Americans to undergo a virtual strip search as a matter of course in reporting to work or boarding an airplane when there is no suspicion of wrongdoing is a gross violation of our civil liberties. Indeed, putting yourself through the full-body scanner is the same as subjecting yourself to a strip search. It completely undermines ones right to privacy and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by government agents.

The Constitution does not allow blanket strip searches or full-body pat downs of American citizens unless theres some reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. If we allow the government to reverse the burden of proof so that we have to prove our innocence, then we might as well give up on the Constitution altogether. At that point, we are all suspects in the surveillance state.

Right now, this is one mans battle against the surveillance state, but it should be every Americans battle. This is our fight, now, before its too late. Our country is rapidly moving toward a surveillance state where no ones privacy or freedoms will be recognized anymore. A lot is at stake. Its time to resist the ever-growing encroachments on our freedoms.
N965VJ is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.