Unfortunately, that's how governments often guise power grabs. Rarely will a government come out and say "we would like more power so as take away some of yours." Instead it's "this is for your own good, trust us."

Again, many of the provisions of the Patriot Act that were sold as anti-terrorism tools have been used much more in 'traditional' crime-fighting than terrorism fighting. I have a problem with that.

While personally I don't advocate complaining to the DHS/TSA (it will most likely get you put on some ugly list if you do) the TSA does provide contact information for just such purposes:

Email: [email protected]
Toll Free Phone: 1-866-289-9673

Snail Mail:

U. S. Department of Transportation
Transportation Security Administration
400 7th Street, Southwest
Washington, D.C. 20590


That information was given to me on a card by an AA gate agent in Orlando.

Additionally, the card contained information for complaining about customs:

Phone: 1-202-354-1000
Toll Free Phone: 1-877-287-8667
Internet: www.customs.ustreas.gov

Snail Mail:

U.S. Customs
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20229


Actually one of the best and most informative pieces of information I've ever gotten from any airline!


...and just for grins, the airlines don't personally select anyone for a gate check, it's all done by computer program (provided by the FAA) and is supposed to be quite random, (Unless your name happens to already be on one of the aforementioned ugly lists).

Happy Stripsearching!!

You've already labeled the operator of a vehicle a drunk driver. Is the owner of a handgun a murderer? Until a person shows some probable cause of or intent to commit a crime, then there should be no search or questioning of that person.

I'll take that risk in exchange for the free society we are supposed to live in. And who knows, I may be quicker on the draw than they are... ;)

Throwing the safety blanket around every intrusive law is weak. Pretty soon, the government will just include the word safety in every piece of legislation and it will be a-ok.

I'll take that risk any day over a wet-nurse government harassing me, trying to save me from extremely unlikely probabilities of harm when I am a much greater risk from driving, eating a Big Mac, or being exposed to solar radiation from the sun. I'd rather see un-obtrusive, sensible precautions taken with airport security and have the excess billions that are wasted harassing me and my fellow travelers spent on something like cancer research.

I did read the entire footnote. As you know, a 5-4 decision is just as binding as a 9-0 decision. While the reference to Edwards was contained in a footnote, it is still an endorsment of that case's holding. The way I see it, any changes that have occurred since 1974, like 9/11, would make a court more likely to uphold Edwards than reject it. That said, I would love for shoe removal to be declared unconstitutional. I just don't see it happen.

In Paris, on Sunday, March 28th CDG JFK my carryon bag was searched just prior to boarding AA#121 in First/Business. I asked the security guy why I had been selected. No response. I then asked in French. He said that he had just arrived at work, a few minutes late--second time that week--and he did not want his supervisor yelling at him--again--so he wanted to look busy, unfortunately, at my expense. To show just how sorry he was, he spared me the wand!

At least he was honest. :)

Oh, I don't think any court would reject Edwards out of hand. Again, I'm not saying that airport screenings are unconstitutional -- but I do think that certain policies or practices could be, should it ever get that far. For all of its faults, I do still believe in the system, and I've got to believe that at some point, someone more intelligent than the people running the TSA would look at things and say "wait, how would this (and you can pick what 'this' is) help ensure safety?"

You're right about the decision being a non-sequitur. The court has obviously shifted since then, but I'm not sure in which direction on these kinds of issues (it did strike down drug checkpoints though).

What do you think about this line of thinking...say that we got to the point where cockpits actually were completely secure. That is, other than a pilot opening the door, there's no way for that door to open. At that point, what are the safety issues? Certainly explosives, but what else? Firearms? Knifes? I'm just thinking, once you take the hijacking and crashing scenario out of the equation, what makes an airplane any different than a train, subway or bus?

And even with explosives, why is the danger of an airplane exploding so much greater than that of a train or subway train that it necessitates special security?

Just curious on your thoughts here. (and anyone else who wants to chime in)

Spiff, there is no point of debating you. Everybody here knows how you feel. You may be surprised, but I agree with you about 75% of the time. Still you will never give even a 1/2 inch to the others, which makes me believe that if you had the power, you would probably be your own worst enemy. The others have some valid points, which many times you choose to avoid when it doesn't fit your bill.

That said I just want you to think about the following. Having a sobriety check point on New Years early morning after it was announced in the local media is not something I worry about. If the drunk was stupid enough to drive in the first place and then drive down the street that the check point is set up on, well in my book s/he deserves to be popped. Pulling me over for a broken light cover and searching my car, I do have a problem.

When I go to the airport, I expect to be searched. I'm for it, as long as everybody gets searched. The secondary search is ridiculous. It doesn't serve any purpose. Set up the first line correctly and I'm there. And you know how I fel about personal data being used. Sorry if you don't feel that way, but the facts are facts. It's been proven over and over that criminals/terrorists will take AAdvantage of any weak point. I will give the authorities powers when I believe the good outweights the bad. Does that mean that the system is foolproof? no, it never will be, but in this case I rather be safe and sorry.

Today you walk into a grocery store and a picture is snapped, a bank and a picture is snapped, a jewelry store and a picture is snapped. Armed guards may follow you around if they find you suspicious. Is that an invasion of your privacy or the businesses right to protect itself? You tell me.

On that note I will leave this debate.

Those are private businesses, free to do as they please as long as they do not violate your civil rights. Contrast that to public places where such behavior has no place whatsoever.

Call me silly-- but is this even remotely AA-specific? Personally I couldn't care less about being searched (I'm "SSSS" with some frequency due to o/w tix), but I certainly understand the concerns of those who do, but with all the legal mumbo-jumbo and civil liberties issues being tossed about, maybe this conversation should continue in Omni or Travelbuzz? Not to say it hasn't been discussed TO DEATH both in those places, and here, previously.

I did say I would leave, but I just can't let this statement go.

Airlines are private businesses too if you haven't noticed. Owners, shareholders, employees, etc.

The airlines economic well being depends on smooth operations. Every time there is a hijacking, a bomb, a crash, ad whether you agree with the stupidity of the public or not, surely, you will agree that the public panics, thus less business for the airlines, thus bankruptcies, lay-offs,etc..

So how does that differ from the other businesses protecting themselves?

Then leave it up to the businesses (i.e. the airlines) to provide as much or as little security as they choose. The government has no business forcing these "security" measure on the traveling public.

I believe they will have that option soon. Oct or Nov 19 is the day that the airport authorities will have an option of opting out of TSA and going to private seurity. I would be willing to bet their decision will be heavily based on their tenants input, since they end up paying for it at the end, after collecting from us.

Does it make a difference if the security is wearing a blue shirt or a white shirt? to you, maybe, to me, no. I will still have to empty my pockets and take out the laptop and.......................

Meet the new boss....
 

Private security firms will still have considerable TSA oversight. The government should eliminate the TSA completely and give the airlines truly free reign to provide as much or as little security as they wish.

I'd really welome that idea. We could let all the people who think that 3 ID checks + Shoe Carnival + Cheap Feels at Happy House + The Great Sharp and Pointy Object Search = Security fly on one airline (preferrably CO ;) ) and let those of us who know that it's just insane to try and prevent the most improbable of events but welcome a nominal, prudent amount of security fly another carrier (preferrably AA).

FWIW, gate grope is personally repulsive to me, insults the hell out of me as a Navy vet and American citizen and will cause me to completely stop flying should this ridiculous bullsh!# reappear. Just more proof that the TSA and current "security system" isn't working and they need to hassle flyers further in order to catch their own screwups and failure to do the job right in the first place. I feel badly for the airlines, as they're the ones that will wind up paying for this when people quit flying due to the hassle again.