Originally Posted by
Bart
I agree with you. I think the selectee list and no-fly policy is a wasted effort. As I've stated previously, I don't see the selectee and no-fly policies ever going away simply because they've become a political sacred cow by virtue of the 9/11 Commission.
It looks like we may actually see eye to eye on more than I thought. However, there's a couple things you said in a post to essxjay I may take exception with. As long one disagrees in a civil manner, I believe it makes for a good discussion and debate.
Again, I agree with you. I think there's a way to streamline the screening process without resorting to surrendering all sorts of personal data to TSA or any other government agency. But first things first: get rid of the selectee and no-fly programs. And that's the problem: no politician would ever dare go on record making such a proposal at the risk of being labeled "soft" on security.
You're spot on here. The problem is "Secure Flight" is supposed to be the fix to the broken no fly list and selectee list. However, even if these lists were abolished, I believe the Kippies of the TSA would still push to obtain pax data and run such a program.
I think it's best that the public fights "Secure Flight" through contacting elected representatives, writing editorial letters, and keeping the media involved. While the status quo leaves a lot to be desired, it's a lot better than having the "Secure Flight" program in place.
Secure Flight will affect everyone who travels - the no fly list only affects a small number of people, but that small amount is still too large of a number.
I will agree that this is certainly a slippery slope, but I don't see it as part of a government conspiracy to steal away civil liberties. I see it more as a result of bureaucracy and careerism as a new government agency tries to define itself. I'm not condoning this; I'm just saying that this isn't a concerted effort to infringe upon our liberties. At any rate, I agree with you that this needs to be pulled back under control.
I don't necessarily agree 100% here. Is there a big government conspiracy to steal civil liberties? I don't believe so per se; but there are many policy makers and officials of a certain mindset that have no problem taking away civil liberties and taking us down this slope with the mindset that it'll make us safer. This is very dangerous.
Take a look at Michael Chertof, Kip Hawley, and Alberto Gonzales. The latter really disgusts me as AG of the United States. Gonzales along with recent predecessors have done a lot damage. I honestly believe he has no respect for the US Constitution, due process, and something called the Bill of Rights, the 1st and 4th amendments specifically. States Rights?
No argument here; I agree. And I expect these things to be challenged in court and the policy to be redirected back to a better path.
Gonzales and company will fight this in court. There is a lot that still needs to come to light with the federal AG's that were fired. In August of 2006 a federal court ruled the domestic spying programs to be unconstitutional - setting aside changes that have supposedly been made - Gonzales is on record saying "We also believe very strongly that the program is lawful," he said in Washington, adding that the program is "reviewed periodically" by lawyers to determine its effectiveness and ensure lawfulness. (
CNN)
While this example isn't exactly tied to travel, it is a good example of how the administration stonewalls and believes they are above the courts. This is part of the erosion of civil liberties here in the USA; domestic spying, wiretapping, federal terror targeting systems, and let's not forget GITMO which is even backfiring with the military tribunals.
There is a pattern of reckless behaviour here for things such as due process, the god given rights provided to us by the US Constitution, and the perception that the government doesn't have to follow court rulings.
I could bring in several more examples, but I expect the attorneys for the TSA & DHS to act and behave the same way. I expect Gonzales to fight dirty when many of these things are challenged which have spiraled the US downwards on this slippery slope.
What good is the checks and balances between the Judiciary Branch, The Executive Branch, and the Legislative Branch when the Executive Branch (which includes the TSA/DHS) feels & acts as if it is immune?
In your message to essxjay you talk about TSA attorneys going over procedures being reviewed by staff lawyers. These staff lawyers have an agenda and will even go as far to say the no fly list, selectee list, and even CAPPS II, if it were not shot down, were legal and constitutional.
There may be some parts of TSA participating in these efforts; I don't know of any, but I'm only in one small corner of the world. If there are any airport TSOs involved in these other efforts, it's purely news to me.
There are screeners who report travellers carrying 10k + in cash; if travelling international, it is up to the traveller to file the appropriate FINCEN form. If flying domestic, there isn't anything illegal carrying cash.
Others looking for drugs and other items that have nothing to do with aviation security. The focus needs to be on aviation security, not a mission creep or dragnet to catch anything and everything.
What about intra-California flights where the state has legalised MJ for medical purposes? The federal govt doesn't approve, but it is not the job of the TSO to turn the passenger over to a LEO to determine if the MJ is legal or not.
Every once in awhile I have to take controlled class II medications. I once had a TSO who took interest in the class II medications. The TSO opened the bottled, looked at the tablets, and even asked for my BP to compare my name with the name on the bottle. Is this aviation security? I think not.
Originally Posted by why are we on Orange
Been asking myself the same thing.
lol - I'd personally like to know why we're on orange. The answer will probably be the binary/liquid bit, but I don't buy it. As I said previously, I believe it is political and part of it is to justify the huge budget.