Originally Posted by
PTravel
You've consistently ignored all my responses, but I'll try again:
Sorry, no I’m not ignoring your responses, I am using them. I am trying to give you some credit for them as well, but there are only so many hours in a day and like every other person on the planet I have responsibilities that take time. Be patient PT, there are quite a few of you out there, and only one of me. I have only so much time I can spend in here.
Gate searches. They're violative of the Fourth Amendment.
Sorry, you are going to have to be more specific than that.
I've provided numerous case cites.
And I have read them. Some are on target, some are not. None of them show gate screening as a violation of the 4th amendment.
You, however, seem to be under the impression if there is not a specific statute forbidding the conduct it is allowed. You are completely mistaken. The U.S. is not a civil law jurisdiction.
Not quite. You seem to be of the impression that anything that is not specifically authorized is prohibited. Neither belief is totally accurate.
I've supported my beliefs with facts continuously in these threads. You've simply ignored them.
Honestly. I’m not ignoring you. But my fingers
are getting a bit sore.
I'm still waiting for an answer to these questions:
It is a fact that uninspected air cargo and U.S. mail is loaded on board all commercial passenger aircraft in the U.S. How can TSA claim to provide any security whatsoever when this is so?
I am a TSO, not an inspector, not an FSD. I know that inspections of the cargo on all air carriers is required to be inspected, but not necessarily by the TSA. So, you may think you have a
fact there, but what goes on behind the scenes is usually not observed by the public.
Wow, I’ll take those one at a time if you don’t mind.
It is a fact that, after discovery of the terrorist group in Britain that was planning a liquid-based bomb attack on an airliner, TSA banned all liquids on board.
Correct. They banned all liquids until they could determine what the threat was, how dangerous it was, and specifics on how to thwart it if possible.
It is also a fact that business travel on commercial flights in the U.S. dropped precipitously and the airlines complained. Finally, it is a fact that, after the airlines complained, TSA instituted the 3-1-1 rule, which permitted each passenger to bring what is, for all intents and purposes, a quart of liquids on board. If on-board liquids don't present a danger to commercial aviation, why did TSA ban them? If on-board liquids do present a danger to commercial aviation, why did TSA give in to pressure from the airlines to allow them? We know that terrorists worked in groups of 5 in the past. Five terrorists times 1 quart of liquids equals 1-1/4 gallons of potential explosives, poison, etc. How does intensive screening, both at the WTMD and the gate protect passengers from such an attack?
OK, they do present a danger. If one reads the advisement signs at one’s local airport, one will note a line that says “Container size is a security concern”, or something very close to that. What that is telling you is that as with any explosive, quantity is important when considering liquid explosives. A gallon will bring down a small building, but 15 wont take out a sky-scraper (just an example mind you, not meant to be a claim of expertise on destroying houses or buildings). 3.4 ounces is rather a small amount, and not enough to bring down most commercial grade aircraft. A quart might be, maybe. But if 5 people get together and combine their quarts, then definitely. OTOH, don’t you think someone would notice 5 guys duct taping bottles together during a flight?
I'm looking forward (but not particularly expecting) a rational answer from you that doesn't include an insult or personal attack, and that addresses the facts rather than your belittling assumptions about what I believe.
I have no intent to belittle anyone. I find your posts useful, even if somewhat lacking in certain areas. And honestly, I’m not trying to avoid you, but you are one of the many who want a reply.