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!!!" ?

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....