essxjay

Oooh, don't say bullets!!



Just a general and very warm welcome to all the many newcomers to our little corner of the Internet that we call home -- Flyertalk. Whether you've already decloaked or are still lurking, please have a good look around, poke through some threads and jump in anytime ... the water's just fine! There is LOTS of barking in here, but we try to keep the sharks at bay (no personal attacks on fellow FTers).

Remember, think before you post and feel free to ping us mods if you feel someone's gone over the line (use the Report Bad Post icon in the lower left corner of the offending post) or send us a PM if you have any questions.

Carry on!

----------
essxjay
Travel Safety/Security moderator

GoingAway

Will you still feel that way when YOU fit the profile they are after, even though you are just trying to go through your normal day to day life? There is no good end to this downward spiral once it gains enough momentum

Also as others have noted - what we're going through is not "security" it's a show and not a particularly effective one. If you want security, then all that money TSA has spent should have been on machines that could check the contents of liquids and gels - this threat has been around a LONG time, it is NOT new (Japan has it today). If you want security, then ANY and ALL the freight on the plane should be checked - remember that's how the ValuJet plane came down in Florida (and it had everything to do with safety & security and nothing to do with 'terrorism'). If you want security, then people trained to identify valid and fake id's should be verifying your identity at the checkpoint, not subcontractors who have just finished an ESL course. If you want security, then the rules shouldn't be written to encourage the general population to go against them (do you really think there was no lotion or liquid on those planes you've been on for the three week total ban). If you want real security, then put real security officers in place at checkpoints, not minimum wage folks who couldn't find a better position. If you want real security ....

If you think security requires you to remove your shoes to walk over a filthy, germ ridden floor OR risk dehydration while you travel OR risk losing your medication or special food (diabetics, those with dietary restrictions, etc) to a TSA on a power trip who doesn't know the rules, then you just don't have a clue.

Tell me - and think hard on this one - if you had a problem at a TSA station, do you actually feel comfortable speaking up against their action or would you just take it meekly and walk away your tail between the legs? If it's the latter, ask yourself why and what level of intimidation is currently at play by our government, especially with HS and TSA.

bocastephen

Welcome to Flyertalk Well firstly, we're not at war...except the one in Iraq that we started. Secondly, there is no enemy on our shores...but the dramatic prose was quite eloquent. We have a global safety and security challenge, but not a war. Let's not over-exaggerate the problem.

We don't profile people based on race in the United States because firstly, it goes against our values and beliefs as a Nation. Perhaps not yours, but that's ok. Secondly, we don't do it because it doesn't work. Terrorists come in every age, race, color, religion and sex. Pulling over all "them Muslim lookin' varmints o'er thar" will only allow the caucasian Christian teenager to complete her mission that much easier. Sounds like you forgot about Oklahoma City and the various abortion clininc bombings that were all committed by some very white Christian looking people. I don't recall reading about a hue and cry to start profiling white Christian looking people within a 3 mile radius of abortion clinics and government buildings.

As someone with a fair shake of credentials in this industry, I wrote about airport security challenges years ago, and years later along with my professor, watched as the TSA did just about everything wrong. Although we weren't shocked. Would it surprise you that air cargo and mail undergoes no security screening whatsoever? Does that help you feel safer knowing that someone could easily plant a bomb on your flight by shipping it and the TSA isn't the slightest bit interested in knowing if any of the boxes being loaded on your flight or mine contain a bomb? But they are certainly interested in knowing whether my tube of Colgate Total is 3oz or 7oz, and whether it's in a regulation size approved ziptop baggie. Apparently they are also more interested in what I write on the baggy.

Protecting our people is not done by sacrificing our freedoms, liberty or rights. We don't hand the government a blank check to "protect us, save us" in some kind of weird political worship session at the expense of traditions that millions fought and died to establish and protect. Or perhaps like some, you feel that our Founding Fathers and their followers acted out of line and should have just shut their mouths and done whatever King George told them to do, so everyone in Colonial America could be safe.

For the record, I'm a combination of old school Republican (think T. Roosevelt) and civil libertarian. I'm not a Democrat, and I'm certainly not a RovianRepublican.

MKEbound

Welcome to Flyertalk! I know this tread has gotten quite long, but if you go all the way back to post #157 you read the complaint that I submitted to the TSA though their website. I did suggest alternative ways to improve security, trust me I fly over 140 flights a year - I'm all for real, common sense security.

jonesing

^ Well said!

WRT the emphazied areas, this is how I explain it to my relatives who are THE definition of Nervous Nellies but they just don't get it. They were nervous to fly to begin with and ever since 9/11, most of them just refuse to fly at all! They'd rather take the train or a bus and even those modes of transportation have them put off ever since the Madrid train bombings. And now, in light of the UK "liquid bomb" incident, they will pretty much only drive...but they are 4 states away. So now they pretty much just sit at home and won't come visit because they're afraid of (a) being attacked and (b) the tough airport security.

crhptic

I must have missed the part in the first amendment about how free speech is only allowed when you don't expect a response.

Sort of like how Rosa Parks should have gently suggested to the bus driver that maybe black and white passengers should be able to sit together? Then we'd get a whole 'nother litany of complaints about how the poor, uneducated, hard working bus driver/TSA agent/whoever shouldn't have to listen to this. Makes a lot of sense.

Personally, I think that when we start allowing, or expecting, our government officials and police to act like uncivilized teenagers, we are truly pathetic.

Besides, if , then it seems possible that could be too. What do you suggest we do THEN?

FWAAA

Here's what I'm gonna write on my baggie:

"Chertoff and Hawley are both idiots and their infantile "security" solutions to real security concerns are laughable. And if you're dumb enough to think this is an actionable threat, then you're too dumb or emotional to work for the TSA or to be carrying a gun as a peace officer. If you interpret the words on this baggie to be a threat, then do us all a favor and resign. Immediately, Idiot."

VADemocrat

Speaking of shirts...I saw the most fabulous one recently and think I'll order it and wear it the next time I travel in November. It said:

I went hunting with Dick Cheney and all I got was this lousy tee shirt.

The shirt appears to be full of little holes from bird shot. It's very funny...but I wonder what the TSA would think? Hmmmmm

Flaflyer

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ (eight TSA thumbs up, one for each opening when the cavity searches begin )

To all new readers coming here because of the CNN or AP stories: welcome.

Read the above GoingAway quote again, slowly. It explains, in one beautiful sentence, the essence of that is going on and why so many here feel the way we do.

JohnneeO

Not entirely. In fact, Kip Hawley may have a case for libel against the OP. As matter of fact, the OP has great case for libel against me, based on some of my earlier posts.

MovieMan

^
To that helpful quote for newbies by GoingAway, I would add this one from bocastephen:

exerda

Kip Hawley, as a public figure, is legally expected to be exposed to criticism and ridicule. Libel, as I understand it, would not apply in this case.

MovieMan

Besides, it's not libel if it's a patently true statement, is it?

JohnneeO

The TSA Agent(s) who originally screened the bag only called over the supervisor, which is a reasonable action, and I do not think they are at fault. It was solely the supervisor who escalated the situation.

I disagree with everything the supervisor did, but by that point it was out of the OP's control. Now he/she was in danger of all sorts of mistreatments by overzelaous TSA Agents and LEO's. Not what he/she expected, I am sure.

fiedler77

It's my understanding (and I'm not a lawyer) that Kip Hawley is a public figure, thus can't sue for libel or slander. He's a political appointee, not a GSer.

jon