"Security" -- Not a Partisan Issue
 

In the dual hope of quieting some growing tensions on this forum and getting those who oppose the unbridled growth of "Security" in the United States to funnel their activities in the right direction, I am going to re-state what I have posted numerous times: This is not a partisan issue.

The TSA, Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, and the 9/11 Commission's recommendations all have widespread support which cuts across party lines. Yes, there are a few politicians who have spoken out against the trend to have Big Brother protect us, but they tend to come from the true liberals and true conservatives of their parties -- and both are endangered species.

Consider the following:

1. George Bush established the TSA with bi-partisan support in the Congress and under the jurisdiction of his Democratic Transportation Secretary. Kerry's objection to the TSA is that there are not enough screeners.

2. The Department of Homeland Security was proposed by the Democrats, and initially Bush was against it. He later agreed to it.

3. John Kerry voted for the Patriot Act.

4. George Bush signed it into law.

5. Bush agreed to most of the recommendations of the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission regarding the appointment of an Intelligence czar witih cabinet level rank. Kerry agreed with all of the recommendations, said he would make it his first priority, and attacked Bush for not wanting to give the czar enough authority. This started to look like a tiny campaign issue but Bush quickly gave in.

The simple fact of life is that it is political suicide today to be seen as "anti-Security" and both parties recognize this.

I am certain that if a poll were to be taken today asking, "Do you want to return to the airport security which existed pre-9/11", 90% of Americans would say no. The remaining 10% would be frequent flyers and ideological purists.

Until the American public realizes that the TSA does not provide security, but rather the illusion of security, it will support it.

Until people understand that the dangers inherent in having one person in control of all national intelligence and law enforcement far outweighs the security benefits that it will provide, the 9/11 Commission's recommendations will be considered Holy Writ.

Until people grasp that you are not being patriotic when you sacrifice the freedoms upon which America was built, they will continue to favor the Patriot Act.

This is a matter of education. Get these points across to enough people and both parties will do an about-face. Meanwhile, attempts to show that "my guy" or "my party" is the good one on these issues is purely partisan propaganda poorly disguised as opposition to these measures.

An excellent post! ^

I have no illusions about President Kerry restoring civil liberties and ending the harassment that is impersonating security at our nations airports. However, President Bush let all this nonsense happen on his watch and is more culpable than John Kerry. If things do not change in 4 years, I will be championing the cause of President Kerry's removal from office, much as I am presently looking forward to opening a bottle of champagne on 2 Nov when President Bush concedes.

I agree with you and Dovster. The bipartisan foolishness (of the dog and pony show as security) is triumphant today and all of us will lose, current trends standing. That said, I will be supporting Kerry in this election and will likely be supporting his opponent in 2008 -- given what I expect Kerry to do and not do. The reason Kerry gets my support is that Kerry-appointed judges are far more likely to be pro civil liberties vis-a-vis "security". Furthermore, I don't think Pres. Bush will be appointing a Souter-like individual again. ;)

Well, here I am a Republican arguing against them. I think that both parties did react the same way, and it is all they could've done, politically. It's true that the people need to be educated, but I also recognize that we can not expect Republicans to move in line with that education because the current fear within the nation feeds into their world view which is something like "eternal vigilance." When Kerry spoke about reducing terrorism to a nuisance, what he was talking about trying to get to the point where talk of terror does not dominate our lives. Seems like a worthy goal to me. And, again, that is a different world view.

No, Dovster, I agree that both parties had to react the same way, but I don't think that both parties are equally vested in the current state of fear.

If the two of you voted for John Kerry for reasons other than Security, I have no objection to that.

I had intended to abstain in this election, but at the last minute sent in my absentee ballot for George Bush -- again, fueled for reasons other than the Security issue.

This board is not the proper forum for us to discuss all those other issues and even if it were, I truly doubt that at this point one of us could change another's mind about for whom to vote.

Over the past year or so, I have contacted a number of personal friends in the press (from my years as a journalist) and discussed the whole Security question with them. In a few cases -- admittedly the minority -- my letters prompted them to write columns and editorials which expressed my point of view.

Getting the message to the general public (via the press, internet, or just speaking with your acquaintances) is the path that I suggest opponents take. If they are successful, in four years we can be arguing about which of the two presidential candidates who support our position is the better one.

Yes, for me it was the Supreme Court nominees question also.


Point well taken.


Now, quick. Can some moderator close the thread before the inevitable happens?

You mean, like a self-appointed moderator crying "Omni! Omni!!!" ? ;) :D

I think Kerry will win and will make me angry at him for the same reasons that I am angry at Bush. I am quite alright showing him the door in 4 years, but I would also prefer any Supreme Court vacancies (c'mon Antonin, have another pizza!) be filled by Kerry and not Bush.

Yeah, yeah... I couldn't resist :)

Neither could I.

Sorry, moderators. This thread does have a little to do with travel inSecurity, but we recognize it's getting away from that.

Dov,

You are correct except for one glaring inaccuracy:

President Bush did not create, nor did he propose the TSA. President Bush and the Republicans in congress wanted stronger federal oversight of private screeners. Senator Daschle (D) and Representative Gephardt (D) and the rest of the Democrats saw a golden opportunity to create yet another workfare program and to put another 100,000 plus people in the "Dependant on the Government" column. Both of these con men then stonewalled any attempt to pass legislation that did not include "Federal" screeners. Remember Daschle's now infamous (and inaccurate) comment that you could not "Professionalize, until you federalize"?

Once created by congress, the TSA was formed at the hand of yet another Democrat, Norman (moron) Minetta. Under Minetta's "brilliant" leadership, the TSA blew through money like drunken sailors. In retrospect, this was fitting since he filled the upper management of the TSA with Coast Guard washouts.

I'll be the first to admit that the current administration has many flaws, but the TSA and it's idiotic leadership is not one of them.

Hope everyone is well this morning! Even though many of the posts here are about politics and not about TSA and the views of it from both sides, I find the topic raised by the OP to be an interesting one. Since CameraGuy's last post seems to be bringing the discussion back on track so I am going to let it stay open as long as it doesnt get out of hand.

JLM_USAIR
TS&S Moderator

I hope you'll handle this criticism well. This forum is not about the TSA, it is about travel&security. That's a bit wider.

Unfortunately, the mechanism that is used to make policy decisions about security in this nation is political, and the people making the decisions are political appointees. You will see more discussions of politics in this forum. It is impossible to talk about security programs administered by the government without discussing the people making the decisions, their perceptions and the decision making process. Sorry.

That said, I agree that we should have civil discussion, but, you know, sometimes the civil discussion is going to be about civics. :)

I did not say that he proposed it but I stand by my statement that he created it. Keep in mind that the Democratic Party does not have a 2/3rds majority in both houses of Congress (indeed, it is a minority in both houses) so it can not override a Presidential veto. By signing the law creating the TSA, and not vetoing it, Bush established it.

Of course, that is a mere technicality. In the current American political atmosphere it would have been impossible for him to do anything else. Imagine the backlash if he had vetoed the TSA and then there had been another successful takeover of an airplane!

For the very same reason, no Senator or Representative can afford to be seen as opposing the security measures which were passed.

Only after the American people are convinced that these laws are wrong will the politicians repeal them. JFK's "Profiles in Courage" not withstanding, it is a rare -- and unsuccessful -- candidate who will go up against popular opinion.

(The last that I can recall was Barry Goldwater who made a speech in Florida denouncing Social Security. It was a courageous and suicidal act which helped seal his fate in the 1964 elections.)

It is, however, very possible to discuss this without getting mired in partisan politics -- especially since, as I stated in my first post, they really played no part in establishing what we have today.

It is also possible to discuss this issue (or any other) without getting into personal attacks on other FlyerTalkers.

You are forgetting about the fillibuster. No bill was going to reach the presidents desk that did not include Federal Screeners because Daschle and Gephardt threatened fillibusters.

Keep it up.... ;)

I can handle criticism well, I also welcome it because it allows for the eventual best decision to be made. That aside, I mis-typed in my post and by TSA meant Travel Security, sometimes the two mold together in ones mind. I am freely open to political discussion, I am a Political Science major. :) However, as stated by yourself and Dov there are ways to have those discussions that are much more progressive than what I have seen in the past on these boards. My point, as Dov pointed out so well was to make sure the discussion stayed on the informed statement side, rather than just ranting. Now back to your previously scheduled programming...

This is an opinion of which I disagree wholeheartedly. I think those who cry "illusion" are those who are angry with the terrible inconveniences which going through security now is. Such anger and disruption harbor accusations of constitutional improprieties. One could argue the same thing if cops stopped every driver at a particular location on a highway causing huge backups and tested them extensively for sobriety---even though they themselves are tea-totalers.

Sadly, the actions of the TSA (and police at random checkpoints) are currently Constitutionally valid.

I sincerely hope that both the TSA's actions and sobriety checkpoints, as well as all applications of implied consent are deemed illegal or Constitutionally revisited and deemed to be Unconstitutional.

I don't "cry" illussion because of the inconvienence. I STATE illusion because with close to 20 years of experience in the security industry I know an illusion when I see it.

Analise, you forget that I live in Israel and face security inconveniences which make the TSA's pale by comparison.

The difference is that I can see the logic behind what Israeli security is doing as opposed to how the TSA is going about the job.

Offer me a Mercedes for $10000 and I will be thrilled with the bargain. Try and sell me a package of chewing gum for $50 and I will scream that you are a crook.

The TSA is combining both -- the price of a Mercedes with the value of a package of chewing gum.

Are you kidding me? Analise, do you really think that the TSA confiscating pointy objects and examining tennis shoes really makes us safer? I'm not asking if it makes you feel better (illusory). I'm asking if you rationally think that civil aviation in this country is objectively safer than it was pre 9/11.

On another note from early in the thread, the fact that John Kerry wants to increase TSA screeners is enough to make me vote for George W. Bush.

For whatever reason, I go through no more "inconvenience" when travelling via US carriers today than pre-9/11; however, I do pay for the inconvenience caused to others and for the charade that is called "security" today. This "security" amounts to a substantial national tax long-term with a medium-term dog & pony show that is likely to get worse before it gets better (cost- and efficiency-wise).

I suspect that "security" is still playing the elusive "catch-up" game and that what we have today -- given the foolish policy decisions in regards to
"security" (read: domestic and international security) -- is an even greater security threat than pre-9/11 or at anytime in the months immediately following. The security situation is worse and has been made worse due to poor domestic policy choices and horrendous international policy ones.

Anyone familiar with reports that no less than a dozen or two Chechen battle-hardened extremists have possibly crossed over from Mexico to the US after having acquired TX or FL drivers' licenses. Apparently, after the Putin-Bush deal of oil-for-Chechens, they got "motivated". ... and none of the "security" measures widely in place today will prevent what we saw strike Russian passenger planes earlier this year.

Safer than September 10, 2001? Yes. The TSA's approach is more than just checking at the Xray machine. Your opinions that what you see are that of an illusion probably match my assertion that there is more to the TSA operation than what happens at the gate.

There is no evidence that the TSA, with its massive bureaucracy and out of control cost mis-management, provides even a shred of improved security over the private screeners of pre-9/11.

Tests run against the TSA have shown that guns, knives, bombs and other planted prohibited items continue to be missed - all it takes is one determined individual to get past the checkpoint just once to wreck havoc, and it does not appear the TSA has a better chance of catching them than Globe Security (or other contractors) would. The 'no-fly' list, the silly SSSS system or any of the other "behind closed doors" procedures the TSA manages can easily be circumvented and only make travel that much more frustrating.

"Improved" security offered by the TSA is an illusion. The attacks of 9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with airport screening. The terrorists were able to do what they did because of outdated guidelines that said "do not resist - cooperate". If box-cutters were banned back then, they would have found something else to bring onboard, or perhaps they could have taken bottles into the lavs, broke them and used the glass as a weapon - avoiding the checkpoint issue altogether.

The TSA's groping, poking, and confiscation of toenail clippers will not make us safer. People need to understand something - this is very important - there is absolutely nothing - nothing that the government can do to make air travel or life itself perfectly safe from a terrorist attack. No matter what the government does, no matter how far they go, no matter what laws or repulsive rules they pass, they will never, ever make our nation attack-proof. If terrorists want to attack and do harm, they will. Period. The problem is we have a society that cannot wrap their minds around that concept. They are constantly being fed information that reinforces their fears and phobias while being shown demonstrations of security designed to teach them our new processes will make them safer. I have said before that you could ban all luggage and force passengers to fly nude and guarantee there won't be a hijacking or bomb, but you can do nothing about the terrorist hiding in the bushes firing a missile at the plane full of naked people as it takes off.

Our Nation has a habit of fueling unity and patriotism based on a common fear of a bogeyman. It started out with the British, then Spain, then Germany, then the Soviet Union, then the Colombian Drug Lord and now the terrorist. At each step, the government relies on our feelings of fear and vulnerability to push the agenda of the day. While we complain about the Patriot Act and other freedom and privacy busting initiatives from the current government, we should remember the not so distant past under a Democratic administration, when the fear of the Drug Lord bogeyman ushered in the age of private asset confiscation, RICO laws, and the early stages of the dismantling of the 4th Amendment. No politician screamed loud enough back then for fear of being labeled a drug supporter, and few will scream too loud now for fear of being labeled unpatriotic.

Don't get me wrong - I am all for airport screening. I do not want another passenger on board with a gun, bomb, chemical agent, or anything else that can do me harm - I am just stating that the TSA and it's processes have not demonstrated any increased effectiveness, or that its existence has any chance of improving my safety over what it was on 9/10. I also accept that the government will never be able to guarantee my safety, and I accept that the price paid for living in an open and free society is the assumption of some personal risk. Since the government cannot absolutely take away the risk, I would prefer they do not take away my open and free society.

Is an American living in New York or Washington likely to be safer on September 10, 2006 than on September 10, 2001? No. I wish it to be otherwise, but wishful thinking delivers little more than an inevitable (albeit painful) reconciliation with reality.

This whole post was excellent IMO and I can't help but :D at the visual image of this.
Good way to make a serious point with humor!

Agreed. Props to bocastephen!

Oops :) I didn't mean it to be funny, but I guess when looking at it again, it is abit funny to picture a plane load of naked people. Although when I picture my fellow pax from FLL and PBI naked, it's more scary than funny.

If memory serves me, I thought there was a charter operator who was going to run 'clothing optional' flights to Cancun (or someplace similar). I wonder how the TSA would handle screening that flight.

Then they could really get a handle (so to speak) on some mysterious bulges! :D

I echo bocastephen's sentiments. In fact, I think there is substantially less to the TSA than we see at the WTMD, and I think you give them far too much credit.

You are entitled to your opinion, however wrong it may be. ;)

(Please take that as a friendly joke, as it was intended!)

Absolutely, clearly even a plane filled with nude passengers with no luggage is not 100% impenetrable.

Oooh! Nekkid passengers and not impenetrable -- cheeky! ^

:eek: :eek: :eek:

:D

Civics 101
 

There is no filibuster rule in the House as in the Senate. House votes are straight up and down, unless the majority party refuses to put a bill on the floor. I don't recall exactly who started this bill, but it could not have made the House floor without the approval of the Republican leadership.

I really don't see how two congressmen can be faulted for the birth of TSA.

I know that the house cannot fillibuster, but it was those two con men who "forced" the TSA upon us.

The reasoning behind this thought is easy:

In the hysteria following 9/11, the public was demanding that congress "Do Something". The Republican Leadership had a viable plan that did NOT include federal employees. Enter Daschle and Gephardt, they threatened to fillibuster in the Senate any bill that did not include federal screeners. They also threatened to portray the Republicans as doing "nothing" in the wake of 9/11 if the bill did not include federal screeners. The Republicans were in a no-win situation, the Democrats knew it and took advantage of it.

So, yes it was these two jackasses who are responsible for the TSA.

In addition to that, Daschle included language very favorable to the company that employed his wife. That language forced the TSA to purchase inferior equipment from his wife's employer.