And I disagree with you.

Travel by airplane may be a privilege, but it is a privilege granted by common carrier airlines, not a privilege that should be lorded out by the government.

Folks, I am moving this thread over to the TSS board as that board is the more appropriate home for this type of discussion.

Rssrsvp - Moderator

Remember however that these security types at CDG actually identified Richard Reid as a threat and held him off the flight that he initially attempted to board. Despite the security staff's concerns the airline let him board the next day after putting him up in a hotel overnight.

Security staff 1 : Airline 0

El Al is the one airline where I know that certain Indian terrorists -- including those who posed a real threat to a plane (even if not an LY one) -- have gotten on board planes and not been "flagged" by questioning of the sort.

Tamil Tigers have had no problem getting through AA's CDG questioning. Security staff: -3; Airline: N/A.

I want good security at airports too. What I don't want is a dog and pony show -- including stupid questioning -- that takes away resources from security. If the money spent on these inquisitive types was spent on better explosives and firearm detection, that'd be better money spent IMO.

What I like is stuff like this:

Papers, please!

peace,
~Ben~

Who do you think should have the authority to limit the privilege to fly (domestically in the US, since you mention the Constitution) on a commercial airline? The airline? The TSA? The DHS? Courts? Law enforcement?

If any (other than the airline), what due process do you think should be necessary to restrict that privilege? Conviction by a jury? Warrant from a judge? Arbitrary government decision to put passenger on a secret no-fly blacklist?

Nope, it's a right.


You could lobby for a special line for yourself.

I don't know how I acted, but I know that I was feeling pretty peeved. The AF flight we had just connected from was late, so we had run through the airport to make it to the DL flight only to be interrogated by this guy. We went through no less than 4 metal detectors (2 in Cairo and 2 in CDG) and the carry on bag was xrayed 3 times.

I posted this in another thread recently.

The TSA did a test of its behavioral profiling where they set up a guy behind the ID checkers at a dozen or so airports during the holidays. Based on watching pax interact with the ID checker, they pulled over 500 people to talk to. People were either let go, sent for secondary, or sent for secondary and an LEO was called, depending on how "suspicious" they were.

Just under 30 people end up getting nailed for something. No terrorists, of course. Mostly people who had outstanding warrants, "too much" money or drugs.

30/500 = 6%

That's not a bad percentage, but the problem is that 99.9999999% of the people they catch are going to be people who are no threat to aviation security, but have "too much" money on them or something of the like. If we were just trying to catch criminals this might be a good idea (and I'm totally against using the checkpoint for that purpose), but I'm not sure how valuable it would be in catching terrorists.

Actually, I believe that the more peeved you are -- and show it! -- the quicker they let you pass. Real terrorists probably try very hard not to stir up any trouble. I always complain about stupid questioning and answer questions literally.

True example (from Frankfurt): "Are you carrying anything that looks like a weapon or could be used as a weapon?" My answer: "I really have no idea what 'looks like a weapon.' How could I possibly know that? But I am carrying many things that could be used as weapons, including my hands and feet. What would you like me to do about that?" Response: "It would be helpful if you would cooperate" (wink, wink). My response: "Oh, I get it: You want me to say 'no.'" Response: Another knowing look. My answer: "OK, the answer is no." Response: "You can go."

The whole thing is just as silly to the questioners -- in Europe, anyway, where people are educated -- as it is to us. Everybody is just acting out a role. What a waste!

Even in the U.S., where people tend to take anything labelled "security" very seriously, they stopped asking these kinds of stupid questions years ago.

Bruce

On point one -- Nope, it's not! Get the facts straight before you spout off.

On point two -- I've got a better idea -- I'll lobby for one line for people who peacefully answer annoying questions, and another for smarmy people who think they don't have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

On point one, all of the parties you mentioned do and should have the authority to limit the privilege to fly.

On point two, due process means whatever process is reasonable under the circumstances. You obviously cannot demand a jury trial before a plane can take off without you if you've been denied boarding. Assuming that there IS some due process argument, a decision by an official on the spot that somebody is suspicious is more than enough to take a passenger off a plane. If you later prove that decision was based on something other than reasonable discretion, you can sue. Bringing up due process is a red herring.

Either way, I have a hard time understanding the hysteria over answering 5-10 minutes worth of questioning. If the experiment proves worthless, it will be scrapped. And yes, I would rather have the government with all its flaws making that decision than a bunch of frequent flyers (including myself) with their own self interest clouding their judgment.

I sincerely hope this nation will come to its senses and rip this abused, unnecessary authority away from the government which has chosen to stupidly harass its citizens and guests.

Um, the government of the United States has the power to regulate interstate commerce. It cannot do so in violation of our rights under the constitution. Travel by airplane, being a privilege, is most certainly something that can be regulated -- or "lorded out" if you insist -- by the US government. The fact that airlines are "common carrier[s]" has nothing to do with it.

Now, if the point is that the government is doing this the wrong way, then the solution is to exercise one of our actual rights and petition the government, not claiming that somehow "rights" are being violated by 10-20 irritating questions at an airport.

PS -- I was writing this response before Spiff's post just above this one. My second paragraph and his post agree on the proper solution here. Common ground amongst disagreement!!