Bart, this is where you and I part ways.

Keep in mind that what is important about America is the Constitution.

When you were a soldier this is what you swore to defend -- not the flag, not the President, not the Rocky Mountains nor the Mississippi River.

Without the Constitution, America is just another piece of property.

There are times when the Constitution has to be put aside -- as Lincoln did during the Civil War -- but the only valid reason for that is the protection of the Constitution itself.

Shoe bombers do not represent a threat to the Constitution. They will never be able to overthrow the U.S. government. If you have reasonable cause to believe that a particular person's shoes represent a danger, you have a Constitutional right to have them removed and seached. Without reasonable cause, you are certainly violating the spirit of the Bill of Rights.

I would say that an x-ray of baggage is Constitutional but -- if nothing shows up on that x-ray -- opening the baggage and looking through it is not.

Might some people die as the result of holding firm to Constitutional values? Yes. On the other hand, Americans have died in wars since 1812 just to protect the Constitution and the rights it gives us. We have never put the possibility (or even the certainty) of casualties before the Constitution and we should not do so now.

Bravo!

Whoa - wait a minute. There are plenty of examples in the history of the USA where that is categorically false. Ignoring the numerous examples in the 18th and 19th century. I will jump to the last century. In WWI over 6000 European aliens residing in the U.S. were rounded up and interned in prison barracks at Army bases in Georgia and Utah until the end of the war. In WWII in response to the civil liberty "violations" of certain people (Japanese, Germans, Italians, even Hungarians, Romanians, Bulgarians, and French)....well, just listen to what the leaders were stating then:

"In time of national peril any reaonable doubt must be resolved in favor of action to preserve the national safety, not for the purpose of punishing those whose liberty may be temporarily affected by such action, but for the purpose of protecting the freedom of the nation....." FDRs three legal advisors - Benjamin Cohen, Oscar Cox, and Joseph Rauh

"We may be temporarily suspending or sacrificing some of our privelages and rights of citizenship in the greater aim of protecting them for all time to come and to defeat those powers which seek to destroy them." - Mike Masaoka of the Japanese American Citizens League

"Despite the fact that at least 8,000 - 9,000 of these Japanese living on the west coast are U.S. citizens, they should be guarded in detention camps, stripped of citizenship, and deported to Japan at the first opportunity. They should be considered guilty until proven innocent." - Kenneth Ringle, district ONI official


Dovster : "Shoe bombers do not represent a threat to the Constitution. They will never be able to overthrow the U.S. government. If you have reasonable cause to believe that a particular person's shoes represent a danger, you have a Constitutional right to have them removed and seached. Without reasonable cause, you are certainly violating the spirit of the Bill of Rights."

One Japanese that may signal a submarine off the coast of Oregon did not represent a threat to the constitution and would not be able to overthrow the U.S. government either. Of course that person's hands, mouth, and/or eyes may have represented a danger, so FDR removed the whole person, relocated and interned said person, until the end of the war.

The examples which you cite -- and which were deplorable errors in judgement -- occured during wars which endangered the Constitution. Had America lost either world war, the most likely result would have been the end of American democracy.

It is true, as you say, that one submarine sunk would not have lost the war but the logic was that enough acts of sabotage would indeed endanger the war effort.

In fact, in the quote that you gave from FDR's legal advisors the key words were "to preserve the national safety". This does not mean the safety of individuals but of the nation itself.

Individual safety has always come secondary to protection of the Constitution. For this reason, men were drafted and sent to die on the beaches of Iwo Jima and Normandy.

On a lesser scale, people who are known to have committed murder, and may well do so again, are set free when their arrests were the result of violation of the Constitution by the police. Here, too, the safety of the individuals they might someday kill is seen as secondary to the upholding of the Constitution.

If you really don't want to go through security, you don't have to. However, you agreed to undergo security as a condition for flying on a commercial airline. It's a contractual agreement. When you deliberately walk into a security checkpoint, you are consenting to security screening. No one forces you to walk to the checkpoint. This is something you do on your own with full knowledge that you are going to be screened.

The constitutional issue arises when you are deprived of your liberty. In other words, if you are arrested without a reasonable suspicion. When your bags are searched at security checkpoints, you are not suspected of committing a crime. You can stop the search at any time. However, when you do so, you are breaking your end of the contractual agreement and will not be permitted to fly.

I disagree with your interpretation of the constitutional issues regarding bag checks. However, I agree that there are only two reasons why your bag should be searched: because the x-ray operator sees a prohibited item in your bag or because the x-ray operator is unable to get a clear view of your bag and cannot rule out the possibility of a prohibited item being present.

Whenever I train new operators, the first question I ask them is, "what's the threat?" I do this to prevent them from calling unnecessary bag checks simply because they couldn't identify an object. I tell them that the idea is not to identify objects on the x-ray; the object is to identify threat objects. If they don't know what an object is but it doesn't look like a gun, knife, IED or other prohibited item, then it is not a threat.

But, is it not
 

the operator's call to search that bag or not? Not everyone interpets bag contents in the same manner.

And it's exactly that, the judgment call, that leads to the inconsistency among airports in all their screening procedures, giving pax fits.

A correct way to put it is that not all operators interpret images the same. However, it is always the operator's call. This is where leadership and training makes a difference between good calls and bad ones.

Bart, we both know that in practical terms that is no longer true in modern society.

Let's assume that I were to refuse to fly.

1. There would be many jobs I could not accept -- indeed, a number of professions would become impossible for me.

2. I would not be able to see my family again (very few trains from Israel to Florida).

The ability to fly is a necessity today.

To say that a traveller has given his consent to being searched is about the same as saying that a person with a gun to his head has given his consent to the thief to take his money.

The question is, how can airlines not be exposed to an unacceptable level of risk without ignoring Constitutional values?

The answer is four-fold:

1. The TSA should use non-intrusive search methods (eg: x-rays, puffers, magnetic devices) to look for materials threatening the flight only. If these same devices are used to look for other illegal material, such as drugs, they are outside of the scope of any implied consent for flying.

2. Intrusive methods (wanding, opening bags, pat downs) should be used only when there is reasonable cause to suspect that a particular person presents a danger -- such cause could include an alarm set off by the non-intrusive methods.

3. No LEO should be involved in the search process, be allowed to watch it, or be informed of the results except where the search has turned up a dangerous weapon. If I am carrying smuggled diamonds, they represent no danger to the airplane and should not be brought to an LEO's attention. Likewise, there is absolutely no reason for the TSA to look through my wallet to see if I am carrying a suspicious amount of currency.

4. No search of a passenger's property should ever be carried out without his presence -- unless he gives actual (as opposed to implied) permission for it. This means that the TSA should give me the same option in every airport as it does in FLL: I can keep my bag locked, wait until it has been cleared, and then board my flight knowing it will not be opened or I can leave my bag and risk it being opened without my being present.

It really is not difficult to protect air safety while not trampling on the Constitution -- it only requires the government's desire to actually follow that road.

My point on this is that the shoe removals, ID checks, no-fly lists, SSSS line, etc. is not a consitituional crisis and/or a disregard for basic civil liberties. In the last 200+ years, the United States under both Democrat and Republican administrations, have placed the security of the nation above the minor inconviences that may be "inflicted" upon people when a few civil liberties are "violated" or bothersome security measures are enforced. These liberties were restored after the danger was eliminated. In this time of peril for the Western World, as in the early 40s, the U.S. government has acted with only the best intentions for the common good of the country. Have some faith in the leaders. Tyrannical rule is not on the horizon due to a few bothersome security plans.

In response to your first paragraph, I disagree. History has been distorted and the facts trampled about the internment, relocation, deportation, etc. The Department of Defense declassified the MAGIC cables in 1977 and published eight volumes of transmissions that totally vindicate the Roosevelt administration's response to the threat of a fifth column operating in the U.S. Another great work on this matter is the book - Magic:The Untold Story of U.S. Intelligence and the Evacuation of Japanese Residents from the West Coast During WW II by David Lowman NSA official.

It is disingenuous to equate the constitutional rights of a common criminal with the acts of the U.S. government during the prosecution of a war.

1. There was only one Japanese-American even charged with treason -- and that was Toyko Rose, who spent the war in Japan, not America.

2. There were no acts of sabotage or espionage carried out by Japanese-Americans either before or after Pearl Harbor.

3. Japanese-Americans fought bravely in the European Theatre while their parents and sisters were being kept in internment camps.

4. Italian-Americans were in no way considered suspect because of their background.

5. German-Americans were not only not considered suspect but one of them was even allowed to have a fairly important job in the fight against the Nazis: Dwight D. Eisenhower.

When a Japanese pilot crash landed his Zero on the island of Niihau, a few of the local Japanese aided him, provided protection, and guarded his flight plans and documents. The attacks on the Ellwood oil field in Oregon and the Goleta oil fields, launching seaplanes that dropped incendiary bombs in Oregon, the sinking and attack of numerous ships on the West Coast by Japanese submarines, were all aided by Japanese in the U.S who in engaged in espionage and gathered and provided strategic information.

General Patton, in 1937, while stationed in Oahu was very concerned about the growing fifth column of Japanese who were gathering general information on U.S. military activities and were loyal to Japan. In that same year a group of Japanese formed the Japanese Military Servicemens League based in San Francisco, which grew to more than 12,000 members by 1941. This League engaged in intel gathering and plans were drawn for sabotage against railroads, harbors, bridges, etc. Even its prospectus stated, “Whenever the Japanese government begins a military campaign, we Japanese must be united and do his part for Japan” and “to assist in financing the war with the utmost effort on the part of both the first and second generation Japanese and whoever is a descendant of the Japanese race.” (These types of statements rang through many of the Japanese documents that were siezed by the FBI and others before and during the war, hence the reason many Japanese were questioned because of their race.) The Japanese on Hawaii purchased over 3 million yen of war bonds leading up to the invasion in 41, with most of these transactions handled by the consular officials in the islands. In Hawaii and on the West Coast thousands of Japanese prior to and during the war sent care packages and any type of scrap metal for war material to the Rising Sun.

Prior to Pear Harbor, reporters from two American based newspapers, World Sun Daily News and Japanese American News, traveled to Japan and received instructions for wide spread intel gathering for after the invasion.

Declassified in the 70s, Japanese government war documents reveal that the Japanese had over 200 agents in Hawaii alone for espionage activity.

The Tachibana spy ring, operating on the West Coast, was shut down in the summer of 1941. The FBI seized documents containing names of espionage agents, locations of military bases, bridges, power stations, data on defense factories, and correspondence between the spy ring and officials in the Japanese government and consular officials in California and Hawaii.

This is just the tip of the iceburg. History revisionism cannot hide the documented facts.

Within one week of Pearl Harbor 1,002 Germans and 169 Italians were apprehended by the FBI. During the course of WW II 10,905 Germans and 3,278 Italains were interned. (Your points 4 and 5 are also false.) In California over 10,000 Italian enemy aliens were evacuated from their homes and over 60,000 were placed on a strict curfew.

Some Japanese/Americans did fight bravely for the U.S. during the war but this does not negate the facts that many Japanese were engaed in espionage and provided assistance in some form to the Japanese governement both before 12/7/41 and after.

That was not the subject being discussed, but since you introduce it those lines do represent an equal exposure. The salient considerations are whether those lines are necessary and unavoidable. Maybe they are, maybe not. The lines generated by TSA security in the opinion of some, do not meet those criteria. Case in point: were there ever 100-yard long lines along the sidewalk outside LAX T1 prior to 9/11 ?

And continually categorising our dissatisfaction with the TSA as whining says more about your mindset than it does about ours.

Not "a few of the local Japanese" just one couple: Yoshio and Irene Harada. Hardly sufficient grounds to suspect the entire Japanese-American population.

In the 1950's, a Jewish American couple, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, gave American atomic secrets to the Russians. A Jew prosecuted them, a jury with Jewish members convicted them, and a Jewish judge sentenced them to the death penalty. The Haradas were no more typical of Japanese Americans than the Rosenbergs were of Jewish Americans.

The senior officer of the Japanese submarine was Nobukiyo Nambu. He said that his submarine was cruising the west coast of California looking for a place to shell. Nambu explained, "One plan was to bombard San Francisco. We looked around for a logical lace, but couldn't find anywhere we could get in close enough to make any damage with our cannon."

The Ellwood oil tanks could make a big explosion if the Japanese got in close enough to hit them. Nambu recalled, "We were scared. We fired 20 shells as fast as we could. When our gun began to fire, I could hear cars braking to stop, then sirens followed." It took about three minute to fire all the shells.

Results: In all, the submarine fired the 20 rounds with a 5-1/2 inch gun. They were trying to hit the oil tanks at the Ellwood oil fields. They only hit a wooden catwalk. If Japanese-Americans had provided them with intelligence, it was not very helpful intelligence.


Although a tactical genius, Patton was not known for his very good judgement. At the end of WWII he wanted to enlist the entire Wehrmacht for an immediate attack on the Soviet Union.

There was also a very large German-American bund movement on the East Coast. Both these organizations proved useless to the enemy once the war began.

You are comparing apples and oranges. I am discussing Americans of Japanese descent who were interned. You are talking about enemy aliens. Jumpin' Joe DiMaggio did not worry about being sent to an internment camp.

DMorris,

I do not understand your reasoning concerning TSA procedures and actions taken just before and during World War II. If the United States government were to act in a manner regarding airline trave consistent to those actions taken 60-65 years ago, Arabs would be rounded up and restricted in their daily activities. This for the most part has been limited to INS, ICE, or whatever it is called now checking on visa status for immigration violations. Such a limited approach has been criticized in many quarters. Meanwhile, TSA has a civil rights office devoted to complaints of discrimination in screening. Ordinary Americans bear the brunt of increased intrusive screening practices. In the absence of any indication that an American has engaged in activity likely to be involved with terrorism, intrusive screening is unwarranted.

What many of us FT'ers worry about is the slippery slope/camel's nose under the tent. We become used to increasing levels of government intrusion into our everyday lives, because "our security depends on these measures". If the government would do what it is supposed to do, namely keeping our borders secure, we would not have to endure many of these intrusive government actions. People should read the works of the patriots and Founding Fathers, plus the Constitution, to gain some perspective on this issue. Having read most of these works, my thought is that my namesake and others such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, James Monroe, etc. would be amazed that the national government is taking such extreme measures against American citizens while coddling foreigners and allowing such unfettered access into the U.S. :mad: