There's that trademark right-wing hyperbole again.

Of course we want clandestine operations, we simply don't want secret laws. Regulations have the effect of law, you can go to jail for violating a regulation, you can have your property siezed. Regulations should be published and public. Period.

As a self-proclaimed expert on when free citizens have the right to complain, will you please detail for us at what point in the constriction of rights are we permitted to complain? Before or after its too late?

I've picked the Steelers over the Oilers for quite a few decades now. Three for the Steelers. :D

Whatever. You're talking apples and oranges.

Sometimes it contains that information. Other times it doesn't, which is why we get infants and toddlers on the no-fly list, too.

No, it doesn't prove that because most of these people are able to travel, just after they are held up for a few minutes to a few hours. But they shouldn't be harassed in the first place.

Didn't any of you folks in favor of less freedom and more government control watch President Bush's State of the Union address?

"Every step towards freedom makes our country safer . . ."

I agree with the President.

Right-wing hyperbole? Nice to see name calling back into the mix. Radical anarchist hyperbole is OK on the other hand ie calling TSA employees fascist pigs. Give me a break. You know fully well that if Gore had created the TSA you and the rest of the freedom fighters here would see the TSA as great protectors. Publishing regulations of any clandestine operations, be it the TSA, FBI or local police is idiotic. You might as well not have clandestine operations. Did you see the Steelers publishing their playbooks today?

You have all the right to complain, I have the right to tell you that your complaints are without merritt. Just because you think your rights are being cosntricted does not make it so no matter how loudly you scream. if this is too right wing for you please let me know, I would hate to bring in a differing point of view and ruin the echo chamber effect going on here.

Uh, for the record, Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD) was a major force in creating the TSA as we know it with statements along the lines of, "To professionalize you must federalize." Many in the other party wanted to avoid creating a new army of federal workers and just wanted stricter federal standards on private screeners. This debate continues...

You'll find an interesting mix of conservatives, liberals, and libertarians, not to mention Democrats and Republicans, speaking as "freedom fighters" on this issue. (I for one am in the conservative-libertarian-republican camp.)

People here don't seem to be asking the government to publicize all of its operations, just to publicize the aspects of their operations that restrict the legal actions of innocent citizens. There are enough of these no-fly cases that if you do a google-news search on "no-fly list" every few weeks you will see a few new cases. These are almost always entirely innocent Americans with no real means of redress or due process. How is that protecting anyone? Why can it not be fixed after 4.5 years?

I encourage the government to throughly investigate every person on the no-fly list using all lawful law-enforcement and intelligence investigative techniques, and then issue arrest warrants for those that are criminals and leave alone those that are not. I don't want them to publicize the results of the investigations of the innocents, just leave them alone. I do want the results of the investigations against those charged publicized in a public court of law as is required by the Constitution: "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Blocking innocent citizens from travel is depriving them of liberty, period. Claiming the airlines are private entities blocking travel and therefore legit is BS because the government forces them to do it and implements/maintains the secret blacklist.

I don't want TSA to publicize all their procedures. I do want them to present and follow a consistent SOP (or even range of SOPs as long as pax can know what the boundaries of the SOP are.), follow all relevant government rules without silly attempts at self-exemption (e.g., Privacy Act), and give passengers an effective means of complaining when such rules are not followed.

Do you consider complaints about secret government blacklists that restrict the legal activities of innocent Americans with no effective means of redress to be without merit?

Again, the issue is secret blacklists as above. You are as entitled to your opinion (whatever it is) as the rest of us are to ours. You have used quite a bit of hyperbole in your own posts (e.g. post 192), but I don't think anyone has called TSA employees fascist pigs in this thread.

Okay, you've carried the day, we don't have to publish regulations. Burn the CFR, toss into the trash the FedReg. Not sure how much tax to pay? Trust the man who shows up at your door. Unsure why you pay twice a year, but others never pay - tough, regulations are secret. And while we are at it, let us just toss the statutory codes as well. Burn the speed limit signs (don't want to give away tips as to what is unlawful conduct) and torch the libraries, lest they incite mindful debate.

Did that contribute anything to the debate? No, not really, so let's drop the rhetoric and get down to facts.

You keep saying this constriction of rights is appropriate, but you continue to refuse to say where you would draw the line. Why is that?

Finally, in all due respect and seriousness, I don't think you understand what is a regulation and the role a reg plays in American jurisprudence. They are not play books. They are not operations manuals. They do have the full effect of law and they are put forth by an agency as a means to enforce a statute or statutory obligation. If you need more guidance, I am willing to research citations about regulations to assist you.

Deleted

You're simply not paying attention. Here's the latest: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=523298
Again you misconstrue. The no-fly list may or may not have actually prevented someone from flying domestically, but its main effect continues to be to subject people with similar names to a list 'member' to unwarranted harrassment in order that they may fly. Nobody (and I include the DHS in that) knows how many people have been thus delayed, because we only hear about those cases where the aggrieved individual informs the media. I would imagine most simply shrug and accept it because It Makes Us All Safer ®.

Yes, a world without a no-fly list certainly could reasonably be characterized as "radical anarchy." Boy, I don't know how we all survived before the no fly list was introduced :rolleyes:

Do you think that having to show "papers" a la East Germany is an infringement upon liberty? Are we there yet? No. Should we keep our mouths shut and wait until it gets to that point to start complaining? No. You need to look at the big picture - the cumulative big picture.

I think history is pretty clear that the dominant strategy is to fight the slide away from freedom what it's happening, rather than wait until it's gone and then try to fight to get it back.

So it's OK for you to be a conservative and spew anti-government diatribes. Then it's intelligent debate. If I am a conservative challenging your views then it's right-wing hyperbole. Got it.

Oh so then some secrets are OK. I thought any secret procedures were signs of creeping fascism. Which is it?

Pax do know. Show ID. Take your shoes off if asked to do so. Not a secret guideline by any means. A 3 year old who's flown a few times knows this.

Oooh secret governmnet blacklists....sounds so scary. And you accuse me of using hyperbole?

Maybe not in this particular thread but the term fascist pig has been used in this forum with regards to government employees with no accusation of hyperbole.

For the benefit of the participants who never had a security clearance, let me explain.

The process of obtaining a security clearance (at least at a Secret level) is not clandestine. There are published guidelines, the presumption is in favor of the applicant, and there is a process to appeal the denial of clearance and a hearing before an administrative judge (some rulings actually went in favor of applicants, so it is a "real" judge). Being a Naturalized Citizen, I have researched these issues throroughly for the interview for my present position, so that I could confidently tell the hiring mananger that I was clearable.

Contrast this to the no-fly list process. First of all, it is clandestine: Nobody has ever explained how a person ends up on the list. Secondly, the presumption is against the person: He/she must prove that (s)he do not pose a danger. Finally, there is no hearing of any kind and no way to get off the list.

I think this illustrates Bart's point about the difference between risk management and risk avoidance: The DoD practices the former by conducting a background investigation appropriate to the level of clearance. I don't know if can even say that TSA practices risk avoidance: What specific risk categories are being avoided by this list?

You seem to think that only the lefties who voted for Gore and Kerry think TSA and DHS are a bad idea.

I voted for Bush both times and I think it's a bad idea.

No one's saying that they should be published. But then again, TSA doesn't conduct clandestine ops either.

If there's a reason someone is on a list, a case should be built. However, the "secrecy" of being on the no fly list shows up as soon as you check in for a flight. Thus if you're on it, the person should be able to find out WHY, be able to appeal and to rebut it, and get off the list. All the current appeal process does now is ask for a bunch of information and gives you a letter saying you're "ok", but that still doesn't stop people from getting the treatment at the airport.

The list contains names, not people. The list should be a lot shorter than what it is now.

I think the converse is true too.

But pax do not know and it appears that neither do you. There is no requirement to show ID. If you don't, you will receive secondary. And there is no requirement to take off your shoes unless they set off the WTMD or the HHMD even though many TSA officers "recommend" that all shoes come off. Yes, there are secret guidelines (SSI), like what is the requirement for a profile shoe even though Hatfield has publicly stated the one inch rule. So pax do not know what is expected since consistency is not present many times.