PhlyingRPh

Tell me about it!

However, it can be fun when one, "in all good faith" sends those doing the blackmailing on a wild goose chase, when they think they are defending their country from a threat that is non-existent. It's win - win. They need something to do - the blackmailed needs a ssssense of ssssatisfaction.

PTravel

I'm no defender of TSA, nor the illegal tactics of this administration. However, do you really think the threat from terrorism is "non-existent"?

PlatinumScum

Can't they already get that from American Airlines.

NoStressHere

Sure there is a threat. But do you really think the airport foolishness is keeping them at bay?

After all, test after test has shown it is not hard to bypass the TSA scam. Heck, a guy did it in Charlotte this morning and they have no idea where he is. But, to make everybody feel better, they stopped all flights.

PTravel

Absolutely not. The airport kabuki security is a dog and pony show for the Kettles and Gomers, only.

I was just responding to the "non-existent threat" part of the OP's post.

bseller

Hasn't there been remedial legislation taken to address the decisions made by SCOTUS?
In addition, are you positing that the Administration took such actions KNOWING that they would run afoul of SCOTUS, or did they simply take a position which they believed to be defensible? And then lost?

Best, Dave

chartreuse

Probably not. But then, making up a load of bull to waste the feds' time & resources, then having a little chuckle about it probably isn't that helpful either...

PTravel

I don't know. Legislation wouldn't fix a constitutional defect in process, however, i.e. passing a law that says, "this procedure is okay" wouldn't be enough.

You're asking me to look into the soul of the administration, such as it is. I have no idea what they were thinking, either about these issues or much else that they've been up to.

bseller

Fair enough. With that having been said - how do you get to the point where you claim:
Don't you see a disconnect between these two POV's?
I do.

Best, Dave
(BTW: you've some catching up to do- I'm ahead of you by over 1200 posts!! )

PTravel

Perhaps a better word term than "ignored" might be "tried to side-step," which was certainly the case with the inception of Guantanamo. I can think of a number of other actions of this administration which are violative of the First Amendment and, with respect to the whole wire-tapping issue, violative of the Fourth. Particularly with respect to the latter, Bush appears to have ignored the advice he was given. The problem is that he has staffed the Executive branch exclusively with like-minded individuals, so I'm sure there's no shortage of yes-men.

bseller

OK. My question is really based on whether or not there was sufficient difference of opinion as to whether Bush (in his Executive capacity in a wartime situation) held enough power to do things like Gitmo "legally". I submit that there was such a belief in the Administration. YMMV.
Aren't we still in Federal Court w/r/t the wiretapping issue? So, that one seems a slam dunk for the belief that it was not "ignoring the Constitution", isn't it?
I'm unaware of the advice to which you refer.
This is shocking, I tell you! SHOCKING!! I can't imagine such a thing occurring in any other Administration, be it D or R!!

Best, Dave

erictank

Not necessarily relevant to air travel, but:

Bush signed the McCain Feingold Bipartisan Incumbent Protection Act (aka "Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act") into law, stating that he believed that at least part of it violated the First Amendment's protections of free speech, but that he expected the Supreme Court to declare it (or at least sections of it) unConstitutional. The Supremes upheld it very nearly in its entirety, and now non-"press" corporations and groups get fined if they mention a candidate's name on the air within 60 days of a general election. But hey, who needs that nasty old freedom-of-political-speech thing anyways, the Founders never wanted us to have THAT...

That would be a fairly glaring example of an action taken by the Bush Administration EXPECTING to be shot down for its blatant Constitutional faults. That it did not only makes it worse. And since I'm not eligible to follow this to Omni yet, that's all I'll say on that.

bseller

Good point. I'm done here - have a good day! (You, too PTravel! )

Best, Dave

777-100SP

It could end differently.

Me: That's a private matter and not your concern
TSO: Please go to line Z (the one that delays you while you get questioned)

In line Z, "Me" could become hostile leading to arrest or it could merely be a 5 minute delay.

A customs (or immigration) officer once asked me where I was going (aquarium) then what was there. I said "Beluga whale". If I would have fought, he may have fought, too. You can say the TSA is wrong or abusive but they have the guns.

Superguy

Actually, they don't. Thank heavens. Otherwise, instead of Do You Want to Fly Today?® it would be Do You Want to be Shot Today?