[QUOTE=whirledtraveler]They need a challenge from an Alaskan who can only travel by air.[/QUOTE

There is always a boat.

Deleted

But how about "papers, please" for this poor kid?

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=222

Supposedly not on the list, but yet TSA gave him a letter to help him when he gets harassed at the airport. :rolleyes:

Deleted

But it has to start somewhere. Countries have turned from democracies into tyrannies exactly because people "shut up and took it" - which is what you seem to be suggesting we do here.

Nobody is saying that the US today is exactly like Stalin's Russia where people get executed on a whim. But here in the US today we do have many (including top government officials) who argue for secret detentions of people who are secretly arrested for secret reasons. Didn't the "summary execution" states you complain about also lock people up with no charges, possibly secretly? Isn't this something that we used to complain about every tyrant doing since the beginning of time?

You're right, this isn't East Germany or the Soviet Union where one needed government approval to travel inside the country. But there are people here who are advocating that kind of thing and the government, in many ways, is working towards it. Look at comments from people who think your credit score should determine if you're allowed to travel inside the country, or who want to give the government the ability to "no fly" people for secret reasons, or Congresspeople who think that the "no fly" list should determine if you're allowed entry into a public park. Isn't arbitrarily blacklisting people from travel what we used to complain about East Germany and the Soviet Union doing?

Just because we're not living under "true tyranny" it doesn't mean that we should just sit back and do or say nothing. The founding fathers weren't living under "true tyranny" either. They may have been taxed without representation, but that's not exactly Stalin. Yet the framers of the Constitution spoke, debated and wrote endlessly about freedom and liberty and worked to create a country where those principles were respected.

Four years ago the only reason the Patriot Act, a huge power grab, could pass was because it was "only temporary" and hastily pushed through when people were terrified and not paying attention. When it came up for renewal in December -- permanent renewal -- everyone fully expected it to sail through Congress with little or no debate, no public outcry, nothing. In fact, the only reason that it didn't get passed on that day was because the New York Times "coincidentally" published the NSA spying story on the same morning that it was up for a vote.

You really can't see how far we've come from 9/10 with regards to freedom, privacy, liberty, etc. and how fast it has happened? How far down the slope should we get before you think we're "allowed" to speak up? Will we even be allowed to speak up at that point? There was an article in last week's Newsweek about the Department of Defense's little known domestic spying program that is spying on such "dangerous" groups as some peaceful folks who protested outside of Haliburton's headquarters. And of course, we've read stories of other dissenters who "magically" found themselves on the "no fly" list.

Finally, saying "it's worse elsewhere" is not an argument. A greater percentage of the population of Ethiopia is starving than the American population. That doesn't really make me feel any better about starving kids here in the US.

Deleted

The tyrants of classical times were popularly supported and would have majority/plurality support from the populace and take ground incrementally at first before making far larger and more absolutist power grabs,. This often began with restrictions on fundamental aspects of life -- including transportation, finance, consumption, etc. A good history lesson would show that tyranny was a classical manifestation of mob rule desire -- esp. by and for the scared chickens and chickenhawk mob -- and would be vested in a unitary executive and excercised by the unitary executive and people who claimed to be loyalists to such unitary executive. And it is no surprise that waving the flag of "popular" concerns related to safety/security of the majority were routine.

Thankfully, we were previously given a Constitution that is supposed to protect us from such excess and excuses; unfortunately, too many people nowadays are surrender monkeys willing to give "security" increased resources and powers while stripping down -- at least in practical terms -- checks and balances.

I agree, indeed, with both parts of the statement.

I also agree with those who responded with arguments stating that this contry is on a dangerous path towards a police state.

"Objectionable" is an understatement. I consider some security procedures to be egregious violations of right to privacy. I am specifically referring to dump searches of my bags and patdowns in the absence of any suspicions, reasonable or otherwise.

We both agree that there is no security value in SSSS. In fact, there is no value in it even from the risk avoidance point of view. Then why is it in place? I suggest that the purpose is to desensitize the public and then impose a more stringent regime.

TSA was also planning to introduce programs such as CAPPS II and Secure Flight, which would amount to conducting background investigations of all air passengers. Thank God, neither of these programs has been implemented.

And what about thousands of names on the no-fly list? How is this not a KGB-style blacklist?

I know we have once agreed to disagree, but since you specifically mentioned my name, I am prepared to reopen the debate. Unfortunately I don't have a lot of time right now.

You certainly are an intelligent and worthy opponent. Debating with you is a pleasure.

Enjoy the Superbowl!

No, declining to remove one's shoes at the WTMD is not a "stand" against government tyranny. Mainly because the government, in the form of the TSA website, does not require or demand their removal. What it is is a stand against individual tyranny in the form of TSA staff who insist that removal is required. You probably disagree (judging by your choice of adjective), but I believe that it is both worthwhile and necessary to resist any unlawful or unsanctioned acts perpetrated by the Securty Machine.

Tyranny ? Probably not. Oppression ? Maybe. Intimidation ? For sure.

Not this cupcake.

Now, wanna debate how ID for complaining differs from tyranny ?

I realize everyone here belives the governmnet is incapable of walking and chewing gum but I think the database contains more than first initial, last name. DOB, sex at the minimum come to mind. If the no-fly list were indeed in the millions, we'd have empty planes as nobody would ever get on. The fact that there have been so few examples of no-fly list errors proves that your millions scenario just doesn't exist.

Yea, okay, you've said that time and time again.

You clearly haven't been reading this thread, nor do you seem to be even vaguely aware of the issues addressed in the Gilmore case.

We wish it was just taking off shoes, but it is not.

It's about secret regulations that carry the effect of law, but can change at any moment, without review or public comment.

It's about the government deciding whether citizens may travel, without right of petition.

It's about the government tracking where and when and with whom its citizens travel, even domestically.

It's about random, intrusive searches and forced checkpoints.

Because you claim heightened enlightenment, please reveal to us how much freedom we have to sacrifice before we may protest.

You're absolutely right.

No regulations should ever be secret. The TSA should publish everything they do, exactly how they do it, when they do it, why they do it. While we're at it the FBI should be required to publicize every time they start an investigation, can't keep that stuff secret for the citizens. The DEA should be required to disclose who their undercover agents are, again can;t have those goons keeping secrets. The militray should publish all their R&D at once. After all a government agency keeping secrets? Tsk tsk tsk!!!

And while we're at it what's with this security clearance business to work for defence contractors? How dare the government require its citizens to undergo security checks? Fingerprinting simply to get a job? Why that is an outrage and is the first step towards a totalitarian regime,

Some of the entries on various US government blacklists are nothing more than partial names. And at least one name on one of the blacklists perpetuated by our government and used in the aviation sector was shared by at least one million persons. ;) Another series of names on the blacklists were entered with the wrong gender and not corrected for nearly 3 years. ;)

Sure there are actual persons who are more uniquely listed in some of the blacklists, but there have also been mere names on blacklists that equated to over a million persons who were not individually identifiable or distinguishable from the name on the list.

Our government's implementation of blacklists is many things, but one thing it is not is perfect. And with the public-private "workaround" approach beloved by a government that believes laws should be skirted when convenient and don't apply to "the ruling establishment", I won't be surprised if it gets worse for many more before it gets better. ;) (I don't ignore that we have a government that believes in -- and has a policy of -- burning bodies of those who it kills but wishes not to publicly mention as having been killed by it. ;) )

Please note I wasn't talking about removing shoes. In that post, I was referring to secret lists that the government is keeping and the fact that there is little to no due process for getting one's self off the list, or even finding out why you're on it.

If you view that as a good thing and a means of protecting liberty, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

Please remember that I did work in the same field as you. I don't have as much experience you, but I do know more about intelligence, lists, Washington BS, etc, than a lot of people because I dealt with it and worked it on a daily basis. I know what they CAN do, and I believe they need to be kept on a short leash as not to abuse it.

If the agency I worked for was constantly breathing down people's necks about oversight and compliance, and scaring people with time at Club Fed for violating policies on protected entities, EVERY agency had better be under the same scrutiny. I was called to the carpet for a simple mistake, and I didn't get in trouble because of unknown identity at the time. I also know the mess that can happen when that policy IS violated and the repercussions that can happen down the road. I don't think DHS and TSA are under the same scrutiny.

No, removing shoes isn't a hallmark of facsism and tyranny, but secret government lists are. And if a Senator got hassled, had a hard time getting off the list, and only got off the list because of his clout and position as a US Senator, we have a serious problem. Most citizens don't have the clout, connections, or resources that Ted Kennedy did to get off the list. And yes, I've even seen people on official travel orders get hassled over this.

Secret lists are heading us down the wrong direction. I agree that certain aspects of the list need to be kept secret (as life is in the world of spooks), but there should be a due process to get people who are on the lists removed, and a way to ensure that innocent people aren't constantly getting flagged, harassed, and denied boarding simply for having the audacity to have the same name as someone who IS a threat. The current method does not allow this.

If someone truly is on the list that deserves to be, build a case and pick them up and get them off the streets.

Super

There's something we can agree on. :D