Didn't we just go through this ? US airlines are Common Carriers and accountable to laws governing that category of entity. They cannot make "any rule".

That the government (FAA first, then DHS) acquiesces to their revenue-protection ID checks was the basis of the lawsuit. The court of course, completely ignored or at least avoided that point. Quel surprise !.

True, Alito will be no friend of civil liberty. Indeed, under his unified-president theory any action ordered by the executive branch is lawful by the simple nature it was ordered by the executive branch.

Prove it, and in doing so try to avoid the phrase "shock and awe."

Also, please explain your sig-line. I'm curious to learn why you hold the American founding fathers in such contempt.

He's been Ashcrofted:And I have some Florida real estate for sale.

Kinda going along with this theme, Bush and Reps are losing support on wiretaps and other security measures

NY Times Login may be required.

Mixed bag and it goes either way depending on how the question is asekd, but there's definitely concern brewing over the loss of civil liberties.

There is, of course, a couple obligatory "anything for security" quotes.

Super

This ruling really wasn't a "pro-security" ruling. The problem is Gilmore really wasn't the right plaintiff. He was not a selectee nor on the no-fly list. In fact, he was never even flat out told he "couldn't fly." He could have submitted to a legal secondary search in lieu of providing ID, but he refused. Gilmore really overreached in terms of what he was trying to fight versus what actual injuries he incurred.

An effective plaintiff would be one that was flat out denied air travel. Luckily, despite all the selectee horror stories and hours long delays that go along with that, I have yet to hear about someone being told to turn around, go home, you can't fly because you're on the list. Now THAT would be a case.

In '04 Bush won 51-48. Now between 46 and 53 % support his unwarranted wrietaps based on how the question is asked, so splitting the difference it's 49.5% support. 51 to 49.5.....huuuuge loss of support indeed.

You missed the point.

The point that some try to make here is that we're the minority, and a small one at that, in how we feel. The article was to point out that isn't the case.

I also think comparing electoral percentages, splitting the difference, and your general application of the figures is comparing apples and oranges.

You said he was "losing" support. In order to lose something, one must first have what one is losing. Are there any polls to indicate the public's views on wiretaps before this poll was taken? If so, provide it and show the "loss". If not you are speculating as to the "loss". For all you know 6 months ago 90% would have been against warrantless wiretaps in which case it is a gain in support.

I gave the previous election's result since unlike a poll which is unreliable, this was a concrete measure of support for Bush where terrorism and security were among the issues voted on.

Remember that this is 51% of the approximately 40% of us who bothered to vote. Let's run some numbers:

51% x 40% = 20.4% of registered voters nationwide actually pulled a lever or punched a chad with George Bush's name on it.

51% x 60% (Just in case my percentage of eligible voters who actually voted was low) = 30.6%

The survey was conducted among 1,229 fellow citizens. This represents people who either don't have cell phones as their primary residence phone (hence those numbers aren't available to pollsters) and people who had the misfortune to not look at their Caller ID before they picked up.

Ha...based on how the question was asked. Because of this, the data, in my opinion is poisoned and invalid. People were asked to approve a specific measure to achieve a specific outcome. There is no evidence the measure will achieve this outcome, nor is there evidence the measure will be restricted to this outcome either. Most people are unaware of that association.

They might as well have asked these people "do you approve of the use of wiretaps without warrants in order to capture OBL next Tuesday at 2pm". Of course most people would agree with that. Dangling the terrorism carrot in front of a nation of hungry donkey's is not going to help them think abstractly before rendering an opinion.

Here are some better questions to ask (to take the proper pulse of the public):

"Do you agree or disagree the use of domestic wiretaps without warrants is a threat to your privacy"

or

"Do you agree or disagree the Government has exceeded its authority by ordering the warrantless wiretapping of domestic communication"

or

"Do you support the President's claim the use of warrantless wiretaps on domestic communications does not infringe on our Constitutional protections"

1. 40%? Try more like 59.6% voter turnout in 2004.

2.Whatever the number is, you are assuming what the non-voting public thinks. Maybe the 40% would have voted more or less for Bush, you have no way of knowing and any assumption you make is purely speculative.

3. In most cases, when it comes to political related polls, only registered voters are used who are much more likely to have voted, meaning you are dealing with mostly the same people on the phone as those who vote.

4. A good pollster would factor out things like cell phone usage, caller id etc. If that is not done, the poll is inaccurate and might as well not be done.

So either the poll is meaningless due to the pollster's error or the poll is accurate and measures opinion of the same people who voted for or against Bush. The comparison to the election results is valid and his support among those whose support he already had in '04 has remained steady. Therefore your origial claim that he is "losing" support is just not true.

Or they might have asked do you support the use of warrants on people linked to al-aqaeda?...probably a big yes or they could have asked do you support wusing wiretaps against your aunt Jenny..probably a big no...you are making my point for me...the poll is meaningless because you will get widely different results based on how it is asked just like with most polls

The poll *is* meaningless to determine the level of support for Bush's illegal behavior. However, news outside the scope of this poll seems to indicate a growing unrest with the direction the Government is taking in its relationship with us.

I believe a turning point is slowly creeping closer...something I have been waiting too many years for.

Btw, my opinions are not just to take stabs at Bush. Long before Flyertalk and long before Bush, I was rallying against the decimation of our rights and privacy by a Democratic administration whose AG appeared to be Ashcroft's mother. Back then it was a different bogeyman, but the result was the same. The current Administration is only continuing a trend started by the previous one.

I don't believe I offered an opinion one way or the other.

But they weren't the only issues voted on. People could hate the war on terror and in Iraq, but be ok with him on the economy and tax reform.

Or they just could have been people like me who didn't like either candidate and took who I saw to be the lesser of two weasels at the time. And believe it or not, I voted for W both times. I was open to change ... Kerry didn't convince me he could make it happen.

There was a time when people were much more united on the war on terror, security, etc. That time has passed, and if he only has barely over 50% of the support of the populace, I think that's a loss.

If going to war Iraq were pitched now instead of 3 years ago (assuming what we knew at the time were what we knew now), I don't think it would pass.

I think people are starting to wake up to the fear mongering that's going on and starting to look at the consequences of things like the Patriot Act, the government asking for Google searches, etc.

[QUOTE=FliesWay2Much][\


30% of those eligible to vote voted for Bush. That is not the same as saying 30% of all registered voters. Eliglible voters means anyone over 18 and a US citizen, registered or not. So your 70% is absolutely wrong, you are assuming what the ratio of eligible voters to registered voters is. I can assure you it is not 1:1 as it would have to be for your 70% to be correct.

You make the rest of my point for me. Polls are unreliable. The claim was made that Bush is losing support based on a poll. If polls are unreliable, this claim is unreliable.

Pray tell, what the hell do popularity poll numbers of the current President have to do with this forum?

Hint: Maybe OMNI, instead?

Of course, that would prevent our newest 150k-200k annual mile frequent flyer from participating.

Politicans usually can get a good sense of the public mood on issues and they change their way of thinking pretty quickly too. If as you say the public doesn't want the Patriot Act, the TSA etc, things will change. But if they don't change and nothing major happens in November, the anti-govt zealots who see themeslves as champions of liberty and democracy will still be unhappy claiming the majority is simply too stupid to know what's good for them.

Who brought up this issue? Sure wan't me.

Do you doubt my flying totals? Would you like an emailed copy of my ff statements? The level of arrogance and outright hostility to differing points of view displayed here is unreal.

He also misread your post, for whatever reason.

I wouldn't worry about it too much. When one loses the ability to debate on logic, one moves to personal attack.

This is false. There is no evidence to indicate that it's a success. There are plenty of examples (including an ATP rated airline pilot, two US Representatives, and a US Senator) to indicate that it's an abysmal failure.

And that's before one considers that it's trivial to fake an ID, credit history, background--and does nothing to address the "sleeper" problem.

So, thousands of Americans have their rights infringed on a regular basis by a program whose principal tactic can be defeated by a bored ID thief.

You don't want to go here--I don't believe you are actually in the employ of an agency that would release you SSI, and even if you did, I'd still point out the holes in it. There are government agencies who know how to implement real security; the TSA lacks the intellectual and organizational capacity to do it--which is why we end up with the half-baked system with more holes in it than Senator Kennedy's liver we have today.

The problem is that the terrorists we're concerned about mostly aren't on that list. Most of the 9/11 hijackers weren't previously known to us, and wouldn't have been on any such list. And this is pretty fundamental -- there's no known way to obtain an exhaustive list of everyone who might ever commit an act of terrorism.

[QUOTE=2lazytothinkofname]OK, as long as we're splitting hairs and I'm up for a good debate tonight before I watch The Cheap Seats on ESPN Classic, I will admit I blurred the line between eligible voters and registered voters. Here's my definitions, which I anticipate you will find a way to disagree with:

Eligible voters: Any living, breathing US citizen over 18 at the time of the general election minus the number of calendar days (if any) that one has to be 18 to register in a given state or county.

Registered voters: A subset of eligible voters who take positive action to potentially participate in a given election. I'm sure you will agree that the number of registered voters is less than or equal to the number of eligible voters.

Actual voters: A subset of registered voters who took positive action to cast a ballot for somebody in a general election. The number of actual voters can be no greater than the number of registered voters, except, perhaps, in Chicago during the Daley years.

So, in absolute terms, 70% of registered voters can be no greater than 70% of eligible voters.

As long as you compare apples to apples, which I did, one should draw the same conclusions.

It's political football. Those who brings it up is going to be "soft on terror and security." "If you're not with us, you're against us." Sound familiar? There's plenty of zealotry on the security side, so please spare the name calling of those who disagree.

Calling us "antigovernment zealots" is way off base. No one here is advocating the overthrow the government (and keep in mind I worked for the federal government as little as three weeks ago, and not as mailman or patentl clerk). Are we advocating change in the way things are done? You betcha. I'm a Republican and I'm even getting tired of the crap the administration is spewing.

I think people individually are rather intelligent for the most part, but people as a mass are stupid. Sad thing is by the time the people wake up, it could be too late.

I'm not confident anything will change this year. It's an election year and politicians generally don't like to rock the boat too much. So unfortunately, I don't see much change heading our way with TSA or the Patriot Act. Although, there's always debate about whether the Patriot Act should have various provisions renewed as sunset clauses near. It hasn't been a walk in the park to convince Congress that we really need to keep it.

Things will get worse if there's another attack, because the "anything for security" / "I'm terrified of everything" crowd will use the attack to further its fearmongering and freedom-busting agenda.

Interestingly, a professor points out that there seems to be a negative correlation between civil liberties and terrorism. That is, most of the islamic terrorists these days (including the 9/11 terrorists) are people who came from wealthy countries, but countries with very limited freedom/civil liberties (e.g. Saudi Arabia). So the idea that cancelling freedom will equal security doesn't seem to have much empircal support.

Heh heh, but there's not a whole lot of terrorist attacks in Saudia Arabia now, is there? ;)

This is the fundamental flaw with your hostility to all security measures. None will ever be perfect. You find a few examples (Ted Kennedy, the pilot) and use that as your case for scrapping a program. This is intelectually dishonest. Planes crash every now and then, does that mean we shouldn't fly because there is a chance the plane will crash? Point me to a system, any system in any field that is always accuarate. Doesn't exit.

Of course there is no way to know who every potential terrorist in the world is, nobody is saying otherwise. But if you know some names of some people who you know or are fairly certain to have ties to terrorism, why not use that information? Might you mistake Ahmed Mohhamed al-Jabbar the terrorist from Saudi Arabia with Ahmed Mohhamed al-Jabbar the accountant from Chicago? Maybe. But that is a chance I am willing to take if it means the chance of the former getting on a plane with the intent to crash it into an office building is minimized.

You are missing the point. As we know (from the government itself), the "no-fly" list currently includes thousands of names. We don't know exactly how many thousands, but clearly the list is long. And the number of people represented by those thousands of names is even longer, because many people have the same or essentially the same name. It is within the realm of possibility that as many as a million people risk being stopped from flying -- even if only temporarily, while they prove they are not the terrorists the government is looking for. ("These are not the droids you are looking for..." Jedi mind trick.)

OK, if you're with me so far, then ask yourself how many terrorists are likely to be in the U.S. waiting to "strike." Personally, I believe the figure approaches zero, but you may prefer a higher number. Is it a thousand? Even using that figure, the ratio of innocent people stopped by the no-fly list to actual terrorists is maybe as high as 1000-to-1. Is this acceptable to you? It certainly is not acceptable to me.

Bruce

Hmmm, the government says the list is in the thousands, but it is within the realms of possibility that it's a million. It is within the realm of possibility that I will win the lottery get struck by lightning and shoot a hole in one on the same day, but I doubt it's gonna happen. Why bring up the government's number only to dismiss it in favor of a purely speculative number that you or anyone else cannot prove?

So you'e another one of these "there is zero threat" guys. If that is your argument, then sure we don't need a no-fly-list, we don't need the TSA, we don't need security period since there is nothing to fear. I am going on the crazy assumption that al-Qaeda isn't quite done and may, just may try to strike again.

I think you misunderstood part of what I wrote. If the list of names is in the thousands, then the number of people affected is much, much greater, because many people have similar names. For instance, if "Edward Kennedy" is on the list -- as we know it was, at least at one time -- there must be thousands of Edward Kennedys in the U.S. Now do you agree that perhaps a million people may be caught up in this dragnet? Is that acceptable to you? Are you willing to pay so high a price to be "safe"? :rolleyes:

Bruce

No, we should continue to fly because planes are extremey safe. Most crashes are caused because of suboptimal aircraft maintenance, pilot error, weather-related troubles, air traffic control issues, etc. Don't you think we should do more analysis of those things to see if we might get more safety improvement per dollar shoring up other problems than on using a faulty list that increases the chance that everyday Americans will not be able to fly conveniently?

Increased security hassles (especially for the tens of thousands of innocents on the no-fly list) increases the likelihood that people will drive long distances instead of fly. Extra security costs and taxes increase flying costs for passengers, which increases the likelihood people will drive instead of fly. Flying is so much safer that the extra security costs and hassles causes increased highway deaths. Although you said this was absurd, this can be shown statistically, and you never responded to my post #17 in this thread.

2lazy(and others):

Obviously, losing family in work camp, et. al, is part of fascism. Being forced via coercion by a purportedly 'good guys' government to partially strip in public and be frisked is far more than an inconvenience. Without due process, being singled out as a public example UNABLE TO LEARN WHY is also a prong of fascism. Even with the herniated excuse of "implied consent" and "security", in a 'free society' it is an affront not only to your entitlements, but to your intellect, or should be.

By extension, those involved in its promulgation are part of fascism. Your argument sems to depend on basically ignoring the 'small stuff', which you refer to as "inconveniences". In that same light, murder and kidnapping might be crimes, but burglary or attempted assault might be inconveniences, not worth noting or taking action.

IMHO, you might need to check your Richter Scale of Rights. If you violate constitutional mandates, you seem to be saying, a LITTLE bit, then that's okay.

'taint okay with this old guy. Scary as sweet jeepers. Further down that tunnel you go the darker it gets.

Actually, that wasn't my argument. You're attacking a strawman. What I said was that most of the terrorists aren't on the list.

I understand that security mechanisms don't have to be perfect to be useful. What I'm saying is that this security mechanism is so incredibly imperfect, and so costly in terms of its harm to civil liberties, that the miniscule benefits aren't worth the costs.

By the way, your suggestion that I harbor hostility towards all security measures gave me a good chuckle. You're misinformed. (It is true that I harbor considerable skepticism about security theater. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of.)

It's not "a few." It's dishonest to suggest that it is just a few. There are 80,000 names on the list, but for each name on the list there are several other similar names that also get caught up in the dragnet because they're pronounced or spelled similarly. So far we've heard no stories of any terrorists actually being caught by the no-fly list (and I'm sure the government would love to have an example to "vindicate" the program), but we do know that a number of people get harassed because of the no-fly list every day.

Terrorism happens extremely rarely in the US, but auto accidents have killed 200,000 since 9/11 (versus less than 3,000 people who died on 9/11). Does that mean that we should be terrified of air travel and engage in a massive program to restrict rights, privacy, liberty and freedom on the off chance that doing so might accidentally stop terrorism? And if we're going to do that w/r/t terrorism, shouldn't we be doing something even more severe to stop car fatalities?

Right. And systems that are never or almost never accurate tend to get scrapped.

To virtually the entire U.S. population, the difference between terrorism and auto accidents is self evident, which is why that bird won't hunt.

I'm afraid you don't seem to understand how the no-fly list works.

It's a list of names. Sometimes more than one person has the same name. Puruse your local phone book for an example. Or you may have some friends or family where the first born son, for example, has the same first and last name as the father. If the father's first and last name are on the no-fly list, so are the son's. If the father's first initial and last name are on the no-fly list, so are the son's.

So, you see, having "J. Smith" on the no-fly list doesn't mean that one person is on the no-fly list, it means that everyone whose last name is Smith and first name starts with a J is on the list: John Smith, Joan Smith, Jerry Smith, Jill Smith...

Furthermore, as you may know, there are multiple ways to translate names from Arabic to English, and even multiple spellings of English names. Some people spell it Osama Bin Laden, others Usama Bin Laden. Others Osama Binladen, or Usama binLaden. If "Osama Bin Laden" is on the no-fly list, the computer will automatically catch people who are "Usama Bin Laden" because that's an alternate spelling for the same name. Once again, this means that many more people get caught up by the no-fly list than just the number of names on the list.

Nobody is saying that there's no threat to aviation security. What they are saying is that we shouldn't throw away 230 years worth of progress on freedom, rights, liberty, privacy, etc., all because the bad guys asked us to.

A no-fly list may or may not have caught the 9/11 hijackers. Strengthened cockpit doors and passengers and crew who won't willingly hand over the controls to hijackers would have saved a lot of lives, however.

OK, well why don't you make the argument here so we can analyse it.

A little proactive work by the FAA, the Government overall and the airlines MIGHT have prevented 9/11 (the 8/6/01 memo is an example).

The 9/11 bad guys followed all the rules -- hell, a couple of them got a secondary (as seen on the videotape at IAD).

But like PH1775 correctly said in another post, the hardened cockpit doors and the willingness of passengers to attack any wiseguys on an airplane (what stopped Richard Reid on AA63) is what would prevent any attack within the cabin.

The cargo bin is another story. We're just going to have to wait until an aircraft is blown out of the sky before anything is done about that.

I'm eager to hear the argument too. The only difference between auto accidents and terrorism that I can discern is that the latter has more scrutiny.