GUWonder

Your rights under the Constitution don't include trampling upon the constitutional rights of other. If you don't like the Constitution, there are several options for you, including trying to lobby to change it. Good luck.

bocastephen

Detaining without cause, or detaining based soley on race or appearance without other supporting cause *is* both harassment and illegal. Many civil rights lawsuits have been filed against many a police organization because of this - and many police organizations have been hit with rather large punitive judgements to 'encourage' them to knock it off.

Travellin' Fool

My point exactly. You only care about yourself.
Son, you must really have a different dictionary that I do. None of the things described are a volunteering of your rights.
I don't need you to be my superhero thank you. You aren't protecting anyones rights, including mine, you are actually hampering my effort to just live my life as I please.

GoingAway

So if everytime person A wants to fly they get their bags opened and inspected, a pat down, etc -- that is NOT harassing, in your opinion? That person gets stopped more often on the street, for traffic stops, etc because of the color of their skin? (btw, there have been police depts that have gotten into trouble when they do this with regards to blacks/af americans) -- but you're saying it's okay. What exactly is that to those people? That person does not have the same freedom of movement that you do, and is very possibly the same as you in terms of american citizenship. Why does he have to give up anything? Because his skin is a different shade? Because he wears funny clothes?

Listen to yourself -- that is called RACIST and until recently was wholly and totally unacceptable in this country. Recently, the administration has been inviting the "fear" factor in and encourages people to be afraid -- that is not what this "melting pot" of a country is all about. And believe me, if you actually fell into that 'suspect' category, you would absolutely consider it HARASSMENT.

Travellin' Fool

So in your world, a clean cut white guy who is driving around a known drug area shouldn't be pulled over and questioned?

GUWonder

Yes, and not the only one.

In Syria they detain people for writing down political opinions like the OP's "Kip Hawley is an idiot" and hassle them in exactly the way evident in the OP. In America, I don't welcome an imitation of Syria's regime.

Those who support a Syrian-type regime can either try to immigrate to a land ruled by dictators and/or a single party, or they can fight at home against the Constitution. I hope those who fight against the Constitution as it stands today lose. Freedom to criticize "the rulers" is a fundamental American value.

Travellin' Fool

1. I do
2. No I don't

GoingAway

Better yet - he CANNOT be pulled over if there is no cause. That is what this is all about and you seem to be missing.

I'm no lawyer but I do know that.

GUWonder

What does this have to do with the incident in the OP? The OP was not detained because of drugs and/or ethnicity; he was detained because some power-abusing government employee acted like the political thought police. [Driving through or in "known drug area" does not rise to the standard of probable cause. If it did, a good number of US government employees -- including up to the top -- in the DC-area would be "at risk".]

Do I have to expect that the discussion is going to center around dishonest word-games and bringing up items that have nothing to do with the OP's circumstances?

It's about freedom of speech, the right to criticize public officials and state-sponsored nonsense.

GoingAway

I just noticed your location is Northern S. Africa ... are you an american citizen living over there? visiting? How often are you actually in the states?

Superguy

Not until he does something more suspiscous than driving thru the area.

GUWonder

Exactly; detention without probable cause as evidenced in the OP certainly falls under the category of harassment. But that won't put an end to the dishonest word games.

Gargoyle

No. Because it is much easier to get a 50 kilo bomb in the cargo hold than a 1 kilo bomb in the pressurized cabin. (and, if you fail to get it on board, the risk factor of getting caught with the cargo bomb is significantly smaller, so you can try again next week).

That certainly tilts the balance.

robvberg

Look, I agree with you on knee jerk responses. Creating a federal force after 9-11 was something that I railed against here in flyertalk before and after the passage. You are more than correct about there being other threats, and other ways to mess with air transport. Many of those threats are less likely and can only be solved by agencies outside of aviation security. Especially as Al Qaeda is more fractured and broken into smaller less capable cells. The threat of a sophisticated altimeter based bomb is much less likely than an operative that is helped by someone who pased through a jihadi camp several years ago with some type of bomb they attempt to sneak on the plane.
Yes cargo based bombs like the air india one is a threat. The reason more people have not tried the air india style attack is that it is so hard to make sure a specific package is in the air at a specific time if sent as standard air cargo. you first say you want logical and balanced responses, but knowing that there have been few and too be honest less loss of life from bombings than from either crashes or a 9-11 style hijacking. Actually I don't know the total but with persons lost during rescue attempts, regular hijackings have probably had as many people killed as the three main air bombing. It would be close.
Next the small survival style lighters were never stopped by security and if specifically banned prior to the new rules, I was never bothered even when they pulled it out overseas and I know it was looked at once when I had a knife that was looked at in the early 90s. It was about 3.5-4 inch blade. Slightly longer than allowed but they passed me through. The lighter, knife, compass etc were all in a small od pouch for use in my day bag.

lastly talk about knee jerk, if we want to blow alot of money for very, very minute threats from all but a state sponsored attack. Go and out fit aircraft with defenses against SAMs. First small shoulder fired are not great against big planes flying straight courses. There have been successful attacks against the soviets by US supported afgans, by other state sponsored rebels in combat zones. Mainly against smaller cargo planes and other military craft. But in Iraq there have been many firings at planes and the worse was an engine destroyed on a big fedex? I think cargo plane. there have been 1-2 in saudi arabia unsuccessful, there was kenya with 2 missiles launched unsuccessful. Many reasons. First it is a skill like shooting. Not easy, takes some practice and specific knowledge. Usually need a state sponsor as a trainer to succeed. Next the stingers and the new russian copy have specialized batteries. the stingers from the afgan was are great wall decorations but you will not take down a plane with one today. newer stingers are accounted for. Next while the older sam 7 and other copies are floating in large numbers, they need to be bought, transported and the operator also bought to the location of the attack. Not easy at all no matter what TV movies say. the feds and overseas intel people are running sting operations all of the time. There is a trial starting in new york shortly on someone how said he could aquire them for sale. If you are flying into an area with combat going on, you have a small risk. In the center of the US the risk unless it is a foriegn government operaion. lower than any other major risk. And sadly one that will not be countered by anything that an airport/airline could do.
While several companies want to sell countering devices. None are proven, all would be multi billion initial cost, plus very expensive continuing maintenance costs. Next the only somewhat proven ones launch flares and require quick radical actions by the pilots. I am not sure what would be better. Being in the flight path during one of the many times flares are launched by a false positive or being in the air as a pilot tries to do radical manuevers at low altitude in congested air space. Until the technologies improve dramatically. the solutions for a limited threat. Because you also have to remember that the team that stages the attack has to be assumed will be captured and more of your assets rolled up.
Again all I am saying is that while the current system is way from perfect. I am not sure that anyone can come up with a system that is better. We are definitely facing much less capable groups and so we will see much more limited ops against non air assests like london, madrid and russia. that said the attacks that will be attempted against the air will more likely be things that they try to sneak on in some way or shape or are stashed into a secure area via food service, or maintenance and then carried on by a cleared passenger. That seems the weakest areas based on threats out there. All of the other threats are easily possible but much more likely to fail by current groups and definitely on a cost ratio more knee jerk than the current flawed response.

I wish someone with time would look back and see if after 9-11, how many of the people complaining now asked for the TSA legislation. I swear atleast some of the people complaining now said I was an idiot for thinking it could be a airport/private company function.

pdhenry

Not to mention that the cargo hold is pressurized.