Some of them do. Just as in every profession, there are some law enforcement officials and some TSA folks that wake up every morning and thank God that they can go on another power trip. The biggest problem with this isn't necessarily that they can go on power trips (we all do from time to time), but that they are in a position when they do and can cause harm to others when they do.

This case is a textbook example of that. The TSA agent abused his/her power and overreacted. The TSA supervisor abused his/her power, probably with the thought of being hailed as the next "hero of the skies". And the LEO certainly abused his/her power in this whole thing. I certainly hope that all 3 people have sufficient negative marks placed on their records over this to severely stunt their career growth with their respective agencies. That is a start to a fitting punishment.

Ahhh, so I see... Just following orders, then? Whatever happened to thinking for one's self-- you know, exercising one or two brain cells every once in a while? If all these people do is act like robots, then perhaps we should come up with ways to replace them with robots. They would certainly be more efficient and less error prone than the average TSA screener.

I'm sure that as a LEO, part of your training has included ways to assess situations and use logic and reasoning when dealing with people and problems. The people involved in this situation ignored any such training and chose to act like fools instead of like people who were focused on providing true security to those flying that day. Shame on them.

There may be a world of difference, but there are also some commonalities:
- Both groups have secret directives and procedures that are kept from the public for "security" reasons
- Both groups are more concerned about appearance than substance
- Both groups have done a lousy job of public relations
- Both groups appear to believe that women are objects, and that it's OK to grope them

I could probably come up with a few more too, if I wanted to take the time. In case you haven't guessed, I'm one person who thinks that the TSA is a joke and total waste of money. The TSA is no better at stopping terrorism than the pre-9/11 private security screeners that the airlines used. The main difference is that now the flying public has its pockets picked a little more because of the TSA.

I am not necessarily an anti-police, anti-security person. I do, however, believe that limits-- strong limits-- need to be placed on what these types of agencies can and cannot do. I support catching terrorists and stopping killing, but not at the expense of liberty and privacy.

In short: I may have nothing to hide, but that does not mean that I don't mind the government overstepping its limits. I may not be smuggling anything on board a plane, but that does not mean that I wouldn't hesitate to take appropriate action to stop a TSA agent from groping me during a secondary "search".

Of course some of them do. But on this forum EVERY SINGLE LEO in the media is doing so. Everyone who carps so hard for the Bill of Rights does not give any LEO, TSA screener, etc. the presumption of innocence.

Ever. Not once.

Again, textbook as written by the media. Not a court of law. Also, is it likely to be that ALL THREE people have that attitude? Just bad luck that the passenger caught the three people that think like this on one day all together?

I say Occam's Razor.

Most people start out thinking for themselves. Then, as they get burned time and time again by our lovely citizenry for "not following policy" (sound familiar?) they decide, "To hell with it - I'm going strictly by the book" so as not to get in trouble again.

I hear often on this forum - "follow the policy". Now I hear "show discretion and think for yourself". Which is it?

See above.

Here are some more:
-They all breath air.
-They were all born.
-They were all employed by the government.

Your list is not probative. We all share commonalities. They prove nothing, except that they are commonalites. They are not indictive of anything. Many of us in the world share commonalites with serial killers. Does that make us serial killers ourselves?

There have been few wars in our country that did not involve the limitation of freedoms in the short term. They have all be returned at wars end. If you do not want any infringement on liberty you will not be able to stop and prevent much killing. So long as you are willing to throw the dice that is fine. But remember you live in a republican democracy and your ideas are not everyone else's.....

Such as?

Isn't your assertion as broad and generalized as your complaint about TSA being branded incompetent?


Which wars and rights might you be thinking of here exactly...?

Vietnam? Korea?

In World War 2, yes--we dutifully marched Japanese citizens and Italian citizens off to internment camps because everybody thought the country would be safer--and it was the "right" thing to do.

Of course, in retrospect, now we find it unbelievable that this country could have let something like that happen then.

And hopefully we are wiser after making that tragic mistake of taking away a person's liberties and will try to improve ourselves and not rush head long into restricting other's liberties in the future.....

Maybe not...

Recently, the Supreme Court boxed the current administration's ears by over- ruling the President's claim that in this new "war" of his, he could hold suspected terrorists as long as he deemed necessary without being charged or tried.

It is telling that even the most conservative members of the Supreme Court found this line of logic incredulous and in violation of one of our most cherished rights---the right to be free of indefinite confinement at the will of the sovereign....

Of course, this is the same President who said that he is not bound by the Geneva Convention with regards to treatment of detainees because this a "new kind of war".

While we do need stepped up security in the USA, the approach of this administration has embarked upon is an insult to our basic rights and an arrogant "middle finger" to the rest of the world community about how we intend to conduct ourselves with respect to international relations.

It is a disgrace to this country and a violation of the oath of office where the President pledges to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States.

When you think of what Clinton did and how the Republicans rammed through an impeachment--Bush should already be standing in front of the American people and explaining himself for his breach in not fulfilling the oath of his office.

No. Just look at the posts after every single article posted against LEOs/TSA on this forum and the choruses of "Amen!" before anything other than the media report.

Those are some of the few with no infringement of civil liberties in our nation's history. Look at the Civil War. Look at the War of 1812. Look at WWI. Look at rationing in WWII.

No it is not. It is a difference in interpretation. In YOUR interpretation it is a violation. In other's eyes it is not.

Name the lie that Bush told under oath. I am no Bush fan, but he hasn't committed a crime yet. And if you say he knowing lied about Iraq I will know where you get your sources from.....

------------------------------------

Lie--I don't believe it takes a lie to fail to carry out your oath of office.

Is decreeing that you can detain individuals indefinitely without charge or trial defending the constitution?

How about sanctioning--or at least not condemning torture? Is that something to hold your head up high and be proud to support...?

I don't know if Bush lied about Iraq. I do know that Bush stood in front of a crowd one week before Election Day in 2000 and said that this country should not be involved with nation building and the military should fight wars--period.

That’s not his tune now.

He has used incredibly poor judgment in Iraq, his underlings are spreading mistruths about what is happening now in Iraq (Rice saying that Iraq is similar to post war Germany is a complete falsehood---no Americans died in the WW 2 post war occupation as are dying now in Iraq).

And even Republicans who can stand on their own 2 feet and think are criticizing Bush and his "economic" policy that is bankrupting this country.....

Joe Scarborough, former Republican congressman and now an MSNBC host writing on the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal last week:

"Mr. Bush, like most Republicans these days, only pays lip service to smaller government and balanced budgets..."

If Scarborough's indictment isn't strong enough, listen to Pete Peterson, Nixon's Secretary of Commerce and now chairman of the influential Council on Foreign Affairs:

"This administration and the Republican Congress have presided over the biggest, most reckless deterioration of America's finances in history."

That's from his new book: "Running on Empty: How The Democratic & Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future & What Americans Can Do About It."

How about some answers from Bush on some of these problems---

1. World War III deficit

Well folks, America is now in World War III, which we're euphemistically calling a "war on terror." This global war will drain America's resources for decades. And yet, amazingly, the Federal budget totally omits long-term estimates of maintaining 138,000 troops in Iraq. We've already spent $200 billion -- that's $2 trillion every decade.

2. Energy-oil deficit

Contrary to initial expectations, the Iraqi war has reduced oil supplies, driven allies away, encouraged terrorists and made enemies of Islamic nations, many which control the supply and price of oil. Meanwhile China's rapidly developing consumer demands are competing for oil and driving up the price. And we continue to promote gas-guzzlers.

3. Federal budget deficits

Congress just passed Bush's tax cut No. 4. Plus, the president has promised to make permanent all the prior tax cuts. Meanwhile, the federal budget balloons out of control with a growth of 9 percent annually, way over inflation. Today's $500 billion annual deficits have reversed a $5.6 trillion surplus of three years ago. In another decade America will be well over $10 trillion in debt.

4. Medicare deficit

Prescription-drug freebies targeted the senior vote. But the real winner was America's drug cartel; huge benefits included no-price-negotiation protection. Afterward, the White House admitted the price tag was $500 billion not $400 billion. Boston University economist Larry Kotlikoff estimates long-term Medicare debt at $36.6 trillion and climbing. And that doesn't include the economic burden of 45 million uninsured Americans.

5. Social Security deficit

Critics warn of $7.4 trillion shortfalls. Privatizing Social Security will actually increase the federal debt another $2 trillion through lost revenues, will increase market risk and still will not solve the underlying structural problems of America's retirement system.

6. Global credibility deficit

America's international credibility is below zero. The Iraq war has backfired. Allies no longer trust us. A billion Muslims don't trust democratic reforms. As another Nixon strategist, political historian Kevin Phillips put it: "Most great nations, at the peak of their economic power, become arrogant and wage great world wars at great cost, wasting vast resources, taking on huge debt, and ultimately burning themselves out."

We, the people, better wake up and see where Bush 2 is taking the country.....


---------------------------------

ChicagoRich,

Without getting into the merits/demerits of your arguments, what possible connection do they have to Travel Safety/Security? It was a good post for Omni, but not for this forum.

True. But it does necessitate a crime in order to impeach, which was your point.

Lincoln did in the Civil War and Wilson did in WWI.

You need to read your history. It has happened in every war in history and will continue to. In war you have to check your naiveity. It WILL happen. You punish it when found but the moral shock that "oh my God how could this happen" is disingeneous.

True. And the world showed us what happens when we stay uninvolved.

One difference invalidates an analogy? I will remember that the next time you make one on this forum.

Your opinion (along with some supporting cites), but not everyone's.

I agree with some of the things you say about Bush, but essentially it is the direction YOU think that the country needs to go in. Others have a different opinion. You cannot impeach someone because you do not like the way they run things. You need a crime first. Perjury (Clinton) is a crime. Management style and philosophy is not.

Lying about sex versus lying about what you intend to do with the future of the country.....

Which is worst...

And I do not buy that atrocities are the price of war, especially one where we are the agressors.

"That makes fifty deadly weapons this month not counting a small tortoise"

TSA HQ