When you have hundreds of thousands of Arabs vowing to drive you into the sea for the past 56 years, it sort of gets your attention. Israel hasn't gone far enough to ensure their security. I don't support the nutty settlers, but this whole problem is more based on the Arab's refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. The Arab countries give lip service to the Palestinian's welfare while goading them into more suicidal acts which almost guarantee that they'll never be independent. They've been living in squalid refugee camps since the mid 20th century (which actually isn't much better than the living conditions of most other Arabs), preaching hatred and revenge instead of trying to improve their lot. What happened right after 9/11, when the Palestinians were cheering in the streets at the murder of 3,000 Americans, taught me all I'll ever need to know about which side (Isreali or Palestinian) is more deserving of American support. Eff'em.

Some of us need a dose of reality.

You don't deal with terrorism like you deal with a war and people need to get real about that. We Americans are so new to the counterterrorism game that I consider us infantile in our approach (especially when you see how the Bush Administration does things). Instead of a winning strategy, we are accepting Israeli-nonsense as doctrine that yields no results of substance in eliminating the problem. [Israel's national interests and strategic positioning conflict with our national security interests and thus relying upon them so blindly is a mistake. That, and the intelligence they, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Pakistan feed us is so full of crap that to rely upon it is to want to be a lemming moving toward the cliffs. Of course, with Pres. Bush shallow friendships from a person who pats you on the back counts for more than ground-based good intelligence of our own. We don't have 5 more years to rely upon conflicted so-called "allies". We are our own keepers.]

Dealing with Osama bin Laden & Co. terrorists does not require a war. It requires a quasi-war-like positioning with a combination of intelligence (including intel special ops), law enforcement and wisely ripping the political rug out from under the feet of terrorists while we squeeze the testicles of our so-called "allies" in that region so that they stop feeding us crap while making the pot boil over in ways that burn us too.]

How did you know? Excuse me while I get my jackboots polished up for tonight's SS meeting. Weins down here ain't all edducatted like you Yankees, but somehow we manage to survive despite our extreme stupidity and total disregard for the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. :rolleyes:

Well, driving the Israelis into the sea won't happen. The nuclear deterrent guarantees that. Most of the Arab countries and people recognize that fact that Israel is there to stay. Israel's right to exist is no longer in question. Not even with most of Hamas and Hezbollah today. [However, eventually Oppenheimer's deadly toy will spread and then all bets are off.]

[By the way, seeing you condemn all Palestinians for the cheering of a few hundred/thousand for 9/11 does not surprise me since you justify communal punishment. Perhaps when you get a speeding ticket, we should ticket your parents, siblings, children, and neighbors as well. I understand being furious but what you are saying is like saying screw civil rights because a few thousand African Americans were celebrating that a segregationist's family was shot.]

I do agree that the Palestinian issue exists so that the significant Palestinian maximalist minority, the regional autocratic hegemons and our and our allies' black sheep illegitimate children like OBL & Co. can exploit the situation. But you know people that grow up in refugee camps (regardless of region or part of the world) become more oriented toward extremism. 40 years of refugee camp living do little to make good little democrats with respect for the rule of law, diplomacy and human rights. Have you visited a refugee camp? Any refugee camp visited since the end of WW2 can be quite telling. You see previously tolerant people becoming rabid bigots espousing violence and soon enough that is the only message their children know. And the hate is breed regardless of faith (although my very limited knowledge only covers christian refugees, muslim refugees, animist refugees, hindu refugees, and buddhist refugees).

Are you a transplant to N. Virginia (since Arlington, Alexandria and Fairfax are a bit less jackboot-oriented than the rest of the state)? [Perhaps a consequence of the Founding Father's footprint. :D ]

I have a question:

Isn't submitting your bags and personal effects to xray screening and then submitting yourself to the WTMD against your 4th amendent rights also?

You're right; we don't agree
 

We are not at War. Only Congress can declare war and that has not happened with respect to this terrorism conflict of late. Please inspect a copy of the War Powers Act. Otherwise, you could make a parallel comparison about the so-called "War on (some) Drugs" and start shaking ordinary citizens down even more than they are as a result of that "war".

"Is that cold medicine??? Prove it!"

"Johnson's Baby Powder?!? We'll see what the gas chromatogram has to say about that!"

"We are not allowing the use of needles for EVERYONE's safety..."

and more ridiculous parallels can be made. How about a War on Fast Food. "No fried anything. It's for your SAFETY."

I'm sorry 3,000 people were murdered. But that's no excuse to discard the freedom of the people for this so-called (w)ar on terrorism. I'd rather see a slightly increased risk to my safety than see my civil liberties go into the crapper, especially since many of the actions disrupting my civil liberties do absolutely nothing to improve my safety.

I view a post-WTMD (not set off) wanding as nothing more than harassment, just like the Shoe Carninval and Gate Grope. I would love to see those who have thrust this harassment upon us receive comparable harassment in prison where they and other traitors belong...

Those are REASONABLE searches. Big difference!

If the first screener checkpoint cannot do its job, why should we expect any better from the guys at the gate? The only thing they will find is basically "offensive" material unrelated to terrorism and a bunch of people with minor criminal charges. Good way to tie up the federal court system. :rolleyes:

Spiff,

I can understand the WTMD being a reasonable search, maybe.

But whats the difference between me searching through all your belongings on the X-Ray and searching through all your belongings in a physical bag check?

1) There's no need for it - that's what the x-ray is for.

2) It's unhygenic.

Spiff,

Don't see that mentioned in the 4th.

The fact is, I still see everything in your bag. One way is nice and hygenic I guess and the other way is unhygenic. One is a hassle and the other isn't. Thats the one big difference I see.

screener

here's the argument I'd make:

1. Essentially, in this context, reasonable searches are constitutional.
2. I would agree that some EFFECTIVE screening before entering the gate area would be reasonable. (i.e. xrays and metal detectors -- I think the shoe thing is pretty unreasonable)
3. If we accept that the initial screening process is reasonable (and in order to be reasonable, it has to be somewhat effective), then any additional screening at the gate would almost by definition be unreasonable.

In essence, you can say that the initial screening is reasonable to filter out all weapons and dangerous items. If that's the case, then any additional screening in an attempt to filter out those items is either unreasonable, or it means that the initial screening is so ineffective as to make IT unreasonable.

I'm not sure that is going to make sense if you're not in my head, so let me know if it doesn't and I'll try to say it differently.

"Unreasonable" is not qualitatively described in the Constitution - there just isn't enough space. Digging through my stuff and exposing me to the pathogens that were in the previous traveler's bag when you have an x-ray machine is extremely unreasonable and unnecessary to me.

I have been following this thread for a few days, wrote a response which was lost when my computer crashed, and now feel it is time to post my thoughts. While many may not agree with it, it is what I do believe.

First of all, I think that the gate searches are ineffective. I really how much contraband (knives guns etc) are actually found during one of these searches. I am sure one of the TSA screeners here could give us an idea on the overall effectiveness of these searches compared to the front-line screening.

Second of all, it is my belief, being a federalist (and leary of any government intrusion in my life), that the searches conducted at the gate, regardless of reasonableness are in fact constitutional. I base my arguement on the following. The 4th amendment hinges around consent, and the concept of "free to leave." One must also consider that an airport is divided into two areas, at least for the purposes of the 4th amendment, a public area, and a semi-public area. The public area is open to all members of the public regardless if they are traveling or not. Any search conducted in this area must conform the current concept of 4th amendment law. That is consent must be given and that it must not be coerced consent (i.e. 5 cops with guns drawn at you saying "can we search X"). As for reasonableness, in this area the standard of reasonable articuable suspision holds for determining the reasonableness of a search. This is a broad concept, but provides a limited degree of restraint on law enforcement.

When one wishes to enter the semi-public area of the airport, which is much like a military base, you must give consent to be searched at the checkpoint. This is a condition of entry to the semi-public area of the airport. You can always refuse, but you will not have access to this area. Therefore, you are searched, with consent, when entering the secure area. Once in the secure area, have you now taken back your consent to be searched. My belief is no. So long as you are in the semi-public area of the airport, you may be searched at any time for any reason. Now you can always refuse the search, but at that point you have lost your right/priveledge to be in the secure area and should be escorted out and back to the public area.

Now as far as the gate check screening, effectiveness aside, you are now moving from a semi-public area to a private area. (last I checked planes were not per se government property). The private operator has the right to search anyone on their aircaft, as is covered in the contract of carriage. Now while the government may mandate the searches, the airline has the right to refuse, but may lose the right to operate. Therefore they agree to the gate searches.

Therefore, I believe, that once you voluntarily enter the secure area of the airport, you are subject to search as a condition of your entry, and that consent given to enter remains until such time as you leave the area. Thus, any search in the secure area meets the tests for the 4th amendment.

These are my thoughts. I may be wrong, and you are free to disagree with me. Now, I have to say I think the gate searches are a waste of time and manpower that could be used to better stop contraband at the first point of entry to the secure area