I have no idea what OMNI/PR is...please enlighten me.

Thanks

Again, with all due respect, nobody is advocating blowing up universities, Boeing 707's, banks or railway stations. That being said, another "fringe / terrorist" once said "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." I would simply ask, how's that non-radical, cool-headed approach workin' out for you? Janet Napolitano really looks like she's on the ropes huh?

When they're groping our grandmothers and performing cavity searches on our children at bus stations, random roadside "safety stops" and shopping mall entrances...all for your security of course...will you be a little more open to some addle-headed rhetoric or will you remain as committed to timidity as you are today?

With respect, you've totally missed my point, which was that when the law itself becomes a tool of unjust power, one has a duty NOT to obey it.

Do you really equate Black September with the Norwegian Resistance? That seems addleheaded to me, although I generally agree with and learn from your posts. Should a farmer in 1858 Ohio finding escaped slaves hiding in his barn have returned them to their "owners" as the Supreme Court so recently directed? In 1953 would you have reported to HUAC a noncriminal, WWII vet employee who'd attended a few Communist Party meetings fifteen years earlier?

Rosa Parks knew the law and was prepared to deliberately break it, weeks or months before she actually did. Probably her feet were indeed tired, but what she did was not a whim, and she had no foreknowledge that her action would be the catalyst for mass legal action that changed law and custom. The students who desegregated the lunch counters also acted in an informed, prepared and deliberate manner. Today the laws have changed. They are good and distinguished people who took risks to fulfill the Constitution, not criminals.

The line at which it is wrong to obey legal imperatives is murky and winding, but there is a line.

Whether it crosses matters of pax interactions with TSA is at this point similarly murky to me, but TSA's behavior, not that of citizens or visitors, has brought it under discussion here and now.

Actually if you want a description of "working within the system", read the Declaration of Independence where the rebels recount their years of trying to get redress without rebellion. Oh, I'm sure they were considered the 18th century equivalent of terrorists when they finally gave up and revolted. So we need a way to sort out Mohammed Atta from Thomas Jefferson. Can't we find some significant differences?

Yes we should just toe the line and play fair while TSA attempts to force any legal challenge to a court where one cannot even present evidence or when TSA employees are not held accountable for misdeeds I should just accept that and go on about my business.

I don't mind a fair fight but when the opposition requires that both of my hands are tied behind my back I think it is time to use any tools that become available.

Could you, or anyone, elaborate on what that means -- what you feel those tools are and what you are advocating, or prepared to do?

I am all for non-violent resistance and using the system to effect change. Several voices here seem to have had enough of that, and advocate more. There is all this romantic revolutionary talk.

So, what, exactly? Extra-legal activity? Guerrilla tactics? More?

More to the point, what are you willing to risk or give up in the process? Most FTers won't even give up their seat assignments. :)

I don't know how seriously to take you guys. But I do find the high-octane revolutionary manifesto stuff disturbing. I find any rationale for breaking the law because of one's innate righteousness pretty disturbing.

Jefferson created a political ideology; he wasn't a mere ideologue. Although the Revolutionary War was necessary Jefferson thought, rather than fought, his way to greatness. And so far as I know he never murdered a bunch of innocents in cold blood to prove his points.

I think you are reaching conclusions that have not been stated.

I do not support violent acts agasint TSA or its employees. However I have no issues with making the individual TSA employees job just as hard as possible.

Since the citizens hands are apparently tied for legal actions then we have to use media, place pressure against the air carriers, and make enough noise that our electeds will finally understand that TSA is not acceptable to a free country.

Sustained noise from a growing population of people who find TSA objectionable might finally get the notice it deserves.

This is not a criticism, but when you have previously stated:

"I think it is time to use any tools that become available..."

It is logical to assume you included violence as part of the "any tool", as you certainly didn't provide a qualifier to your first statement. Its obvious now that is not what you meant, but only upon clarification. Without that clarification I can easily see how someone would assume you may have meant violence toward a TSA employee.

Well, BoggieDog, I am all for those things too -- putting pressure on the media, drumming up political support, trying to raise the consciousness of the man in the street, etc. But there's a big and ominous difference between those legitimate tactics... and resorting to what you have darkly referred to as "any tools that become available."

Am I? In the last 40 posts FTers have condoned misrepresenting their way onto juries to render anti-TSA verdicts:

FTers have declared they would violate jury oaths, ignore evidence, exonerate those who assault TSOs, and find TSOs guilty, no matter what:

FTers have called for economic and social isolation of TSOs in a campaign similar to racial / anti-Semitic discrimination, including withholding emergency medical care:

FTers have advocated violence against TSOs in certain circumstances:

An FTers has argued the law does not apply to anti-TSA campaigners, and that they may be exempt from legal "rules of engagement" because of the essential rightness of their position... blaming TSA for driving them to this position:

An FTer has compared the anti-TSA movement to the Minutemen, embraced the term "fringe / terrorist," and described those who stick to legitimate protest channels as "committed to timidity":

I'd say my conclusions are well-supported. The rhetorical rhythms are brutally apparent -- also scary and irresponsible. You could attribute most of this to SDS circa 1968 and nobody would bat an eye. (At least SDS was overheated kids; most of us are adults.) I'd say there's enough incendiary, threatening talk here to attract unwanted attention from authorities.

Now maybe -- in fact, probably -- this is just keyboard cowboy stuff, and when people cool down and think straight they will decide, as BoggieDog apparently has, that using "any tools that become available" doesn't mean half of what they typed last night. I assume most of this is just frustrated citizens venting, and if the FBI were to show up at their front doors asking about their plans to ignore the law, they'd go homina-homina like Ralph Kramden.

But just in case anyone's serious -- I'm disturbed and disgusted by the loony ad hominem justifications for ignoring or subverting the law.

The men who drafted and signed the Declaration of Independence would weep in shame at what their modern countrymen have become.

"Fringe / terrorist" were your words, post #149.

In any event this has certainly been enlightening reading. Clearly the only sensible, reasonable, non-loony solution is to lick the boots of our masters and then furiously post of our outrage on various websites, under assumed names of course, because we certainly wouldn't want to "attract unwanted attention from authorities". I suppose we could really up the ante and stop flying...yeah, that'll teach 'em. We'll just take the train, well until they install TSA checkpoints at the train stations. But hey, we'll always be free to take the bus...oh never mind.

First amendment, check. Fourth amendment, check. Ooooh look, a twofer.

Yup, my term, your embrace.

You're brand new here, but already setting a blistering pace on the anger, sarcasm, and attack fronts. In just six posts or so you've said you're ready to break a TSO's wrist and poured scorn on FTers of long standing for being insufficiently radical. All under an assumed name. As you are tweaking others for "timidity," why don't you come out from behind "MadScout," post your real name and hometown, and detail exactly what it is you intend to do about TSA that is so much braver and nobler? I will then alert the assignment desk of your local Eyewitness News outlet.

It is where threads are moved when they become more political or opinionated than informative.

As are most of the keyboard warriors.

I can see an OMNI-like qualification in the offing.

What's wrong about employing social isolation of TSO's?