Opinion: The Banality of Evil
Oct 25, 2006 | 8:46 pm
#16
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: San Francisco
Programs: AA 3mm Plat
Posts: 10,068
Bart, I am surprised by your post. I agree with almost all of it. I do include the TSA as part of the problem.
The erosion of a free society in the direction of police state, and incorporating Spiff's raising the notion of the banality of the slide in that direction, includes more than intrusion for nanny state things like seat belt laws. It also includes the witting or unwitting institution of rules, procedures and laws that are arbitrary, ambiguous, intrusive and which require compliance but which have no demonstrated civil or social purpose.
The TSA's current operations fit very well into the this territory. While it is necessary to have some screening at the airport, the inclusion of demeaning and witless procedures that one must go through in order to live a normal life in this day and country takes us there.
Add to that that too many screeners are not well trained or of high enough level of maturity/intelligence, and we end up with a Kafkaesque comedic/drama way too often.
People get to be inured to be treated as if they very likely might be criminals, they get inured to a level of treatment that a fee society should not tolerate.
To say that we all have the right not to fly is simply not a good argument. Too many of us must fly ... it is not optional. To suggest otherwise is a cop out.
Finally, though I wonder why, if you think that an adult has the choice not to wear a seat belt, why is it not equally reasonable to assume that we all know something of the risks (minuscule) of a fellow passenger blowing us up, and it being demanded that we take that risk as adults?
The erosion of a free society in the direction of police state, and incorporating Spiff's raising the notion of the banality of the slide in that direction, includes more than intrusion for nanny state things like seat belt laws. It also includes the witting or unwitting institution of rules, procedures and laws that are arbitrary, ambiguous, intrusive and which require compliance but which have no demonstrated civil or social purpose.
The TSA's current operations fit very well into the this territory. While it is necessary to have some screening at the airport, the inclusion of demeaning and witless procedures that one must go through in order to live a normal life in this day and country takes us there.
Add to that that too many screeners are not well trained or of high enough level of maturity/intelligence, and we end up with a Kafkaesque comedic/drama way too often.
People get to be inured to be treated as if they very likely might be criminals, they get inured to a level of treatment that a fee society should not tolerate.
To say that we all have the right not to fly is simply not a good argument. Too many of us must fly ... it is not optional. To suggest otherwise is a cop out.
Finally, though I wonder why, if you think that an adult has the choice not to wear a seat belt, why is it not equally reasonable to assume that we all know something of the risks (minuscule) of a fellow passenger blowing us up, and it being demanded that we take that risk as adults?
Oct 26, 2006 | 8:55 am
#20
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,972
Originally Posted by Bart
You are treated as a criminal only when you are arrested as one.
The post to which you replied actually said "in order to board a commercial aircraft, one must essentially prove that one is not a criminal.", which is true. It is also true that many TSOs treat passengers in a manner which most people, who have never been truly "treated as a criminal", would probably liken it to just that. Particularly if they happen to have one of the TSA's silly banned non-threatening items in their carrryon.
Oct 26, 2006 | 9:41 am
#22
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,343
Originally Posted by Bart
It's legalities. If the intent is to comment about feeling like you're being treated like a criminal, that's one thing. However, if the intent is to argue the constitutionality of the screening process, then the credibility of the post would be more substantive, IMHO, if it stuck to the legal application of the term. It's the same difference between saying "she's dress like a prostitute" and "she's a prostitute."
You do not have to prove you are not a criminal. We are screening your property, with your consent, for prohibited items.
You do not have to prove you are not a criminal. We are screening your property, with your consent, for prohibited items.
Oct 26, 2006 | 9:44 am
#23
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Originally Posted by Bart
I've seen real police states. We aren't there. However, I agree that there is certainly a danger of becoming one, and we need to exercise caution. Judicial review is still alive and well in spite of the rhetoric you read or choose to believe.
Seriously though, judicial review is still there, but it is being challenged. The executive branch is already pushing things to say that things shouldn't be tried in court because of state secrets. If they had their way, I think judicial review would be trashed. However, fortunately for now anyway, the courts aren't buying that argument.
Oct 26, 2006 | 10:10 am
#26
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Originally Posted by Bart
Never intended that as my point. My point is that when you are confronted by a police officer, the determination of whether or not you may leave is really up to the police officer and not you. When you are at the security checkpoint, you always have the option of refusing to be screened. The only limitation to that is, for instance, if you alarmed the WTMD and haven't been screened. At that point, the police officer on duty will determine and most likely direct a physical search to make sure that there are no weapons based on the metal detector alarm and refusal for further screening. The only other instance is once the suspicion of a crime has been established. X-ray operator sees a knife inside the bag, owner refuses screening; that police officer has probable cause to have the bag searched. Otherwise, what I am saying is that you can essentially walk away from screening without further penalty. Not true with a police officer. In fact, asking the police officer if you are free to leave is indicative of how much authority a police officer has over us.
Oct 26, 2006 | 10:48 am
#28
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Originally Posted by Bart
Thank you. And that is exactly my point. There is still a healthy struggle between the Judicial and Legislative/Executive branches. This is a strong sign that our Republic is still in good shape.
And there's another interesting aspect: seems that some folks are quick to criticize the Executive (and that's perfectly alright to do so) but are virtually silent about criticizing the Legislative. Let's not forget that Congress has had a role in this as well, and Congress is the Voice of the People.
Oct 26, 2006 | 1:12 pm
#29
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Southern California/In the air
Programs: DL
Posts: 10,380
Originally Posted by Bart
Disagreed. TSA has no arrest authority. You are treated as a criminal only when you are arrested as one. As for reporting contraband to law enforcement, this has been an old argument in FlyerTalk; however, whether it is a federal screener or private screener, each is obligated to report these items to law enforcement. This is not an expansion of any police powers.
I agree with your comments in general. TSA has moved back to risk avoidance. But I do not see this as a shift towards evil; I see it as a bureaucratic response carried out in a very stupid manner.
I've seen real police states. We aren't there. However, I agree that there is certainly a danger of becoming one, and we need to exercise caution. Judicial review is still alive and well in spite of the rhetoric you read or choose to believe.
I agree with your comments in general. TSA has moved back to risk avoidance. But I do not see this as a shift towards evil; I see it as a bureaucratic response carried out in a very stupid manner.
I've seen real police states. We aren't there. However, I agree that there is certainly a danger of becoming one, and we need to exercise caution. Judicial review is still alive and well in spite of the rhetoric you read or choose to believe.
Oct 26, 2006 | 1:17 pm
#30
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Southern California/In the air
Programs: DL
Posts: 10,380
Originally Posted by Bart
...However, if the intent is to argue the constitutionality of the screening process, then the credibility of the post would be more substantive, IMHO, if it stuck to the legal application of the term. It's the same difference between saying "she's dress like a prostitute" and "she's a prostitute."
You do not have to prove you are not a criminal. We are screening your property, with your consent, for prohibited items.
You do not have to prove you are not a criminal. We are screening your property, with your consent, for prohibited items.
As for consent, I never consented to any of this. I need to fly and am forced to put up with it.