Really? So the government can also consider driving or across state lines a privilege too and also regulate it by harassing those who choose to travel in this manner?

It saddens me to see people who defend government stupidity and harassment. :(

Spare the crocodile tears.

Interstate travel is a right under our constitution. There is no constitutional right to interstate travel by airplane. The government may regulate it. How exactly is 5-10 minutes of questioning "harassing" people getting on an airplane? Please.

It's not crocodile tears. Some of us really care about freedom and don't just pay it lip-service.

I didn't know the Constitution mentioned planes. The Constitution doesn't mention horses either -- used for interstate travel back then too ;) -- but that doesn't eliminate the right of an American to engage in interstate travel by horse. Yes, Congress could regulate that, but that doesn't make it right. The current US government may regulate how many times an adult couple engage in consensual sexual activity too, but that doesn't make it right either.

Where is the gate for the "Totalitarian Air" flight?

Did the Fascists win WW2 or the Soviets the Cold War? They too thought that there was no right of people to travel freely (even by air) without interrogation.

You have my vote on this too. We would probably be the first to complain if we thought that our security was being compromised also. Security is a pretty thankless task. Much of it is a deterrent and it is difficult to know how successful that is.

Also, whilst I agree that some security "interrogators" may not be up to the task, it is surprising how much does come to light during these interrogations. Many of it is illegal rather than a security risk (smuggling precious stones or other contraband) or just the plain "secret weekend away with the mistress". Of course, none of that is relevant to a security official, however it does allow one to practice the art of judging people's reactions and the way they behave when they are lying..and of course there is the odd occasion when they DO actually catch someone who has malevolent intentions towards the flight itself.

Some maybe, but obviously not enough of you. If there were enough, you wouldn't have the government you do.

Ah, security questions
 

I wouldn't necessarily recommend this, but a fun little game I play myself is to just outright lie. I travel *a lot* and these kinds of questions have gotten very boring for me. So, now what I do, is to concoct a story on my way to the airport and see if I can pass it off. So far, I've determined that I would be a very good spy indeed as I've told outrageous lies to security staff without ever being caught once.

C'mon, now... examples please!
:)

Nope. Air travel is a right, not a privilege.

And why would one entrust a "right" to entities that are as irresponsible as airlines? :)

The US government is not famous for always being responsible (or taking it) either .... unless you count irresponsibility (or denial of responsibility) as a kind of responsibility. :eek:

Airlines are not running TSA, at least with respect to flights within the U.S. My understanding is that the national government in Washington, D.C. insists on additional "security measures" at some European airports, including CDG, for flights into the United States.

Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

You would think that the filthy communists were the winners, based on the sick harassment that happens at airports and the support of stupid "security" screenings.

Alternatively, the terrorists have won. They wanted to change our way of life -- and have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, I suspect!

Bruce

It's not a red herring. The government has made a habit of, and the airlines have cooperated with, creating a secret blacklist of names like "David Nelson" and "Robert Johnson" and not letting these people get on airplanes. There is no effective procedure for people to exercise due process and get themselves off this list such that they are not harassed by airlines and law enforcement and sometimes made to miss their flight every time they go to the airport.


What amazes me is that if the airlines/government conspired to deny boarding to people because they were black, because they were disabled, because they were gay, or because they were Muslim, the civil-rights groups would be up in arms and students would be marching in the streets; yet the uproar over a secret government blacklist denying people the ability to freely move about the country using the most expedient means (air travel) has been much more subdued. If the victims aren't overwhelmingly members of a politically correct favored "protected" class, nobody cares. (As an aside, this is the major problem with discrimination and hate-crimes laws; they encourage the creation of these favored classes and imply the rest of us are less important. A classic example is that courts have actually ruled that age discrimination against people over 40 is illegal because they are a protected class, but age discrimination against people younger than 40 is not illegal because they were not the class protected by the law. :mad: )

IMO air travel should be a "right" in the same way as interstate travel via riding a bus, taking a train, riding a bike, or walking is a right. (all after paying appropriate ticket prices where applicable) IMO the only ways government should be able to deny anyone passage on an airplane are 1) if they are arrested for a crime, brought before a judge, and tried/convicted by a jury. 2) if they are in the country illegally they should be deported immediately.

Creating a non-judicial infrastructure to deny people expedient access to travel, especially given how critical air travel is to many of our professional and personal lives, is simply a means of exercising control over the population. I don't think that's what the founders intended, and it's not my America.