So, you think it's OK of the public to take it out on the troops when they don't like the war ?

If a cop pulls you over for not wearing a seatbelt (another anti-freedom law I despise) is it reasonable to have a go at the cop for enforcing the law ?

We live in a democrcy, however flawed; lots of people do jobs that require them to enforce lots of laws that I, as a libertarian, regard as anti-freedom. But I don't see a need or a reason to feel personal ill will towards them unless they use their job to abuse power at a personal level.

No one is "required" (your word) to do any particular job. If you believe that working for the TSA would require you to do things that you would rather not do, then go work someplace else! Is that so difficult? Why do people keep claiming that they have to do these things? It's ridiculous.

Bruce

How many times, & in how many different ways, have screeners done exactly that in the 5 yrs of their existence? This forum is filled w/testimonies from your fellow FTers of them doing exactly what you're describing.

You're free to hassle the cop. You'll probably get hassled back, but that's a choice.

However, unlike the things with TSA, you at least have a means of effective redress againstl the law: you can take it to court and have a judge review the matter. While the judge may not decide in your favor, the fact that the process is even there speaks volumes compared to what the TSA offers.

Please show me an effective means of redress with the TSA.

If "go at" means complain verbally, then you have every right to. It's unfortunate that most cops would be petty and selectively enforce more laws (additional punishment) in response.

At least with the cop you have a legal recourse; tickets can be contested (in theory). With the TSA, there is no recourse.

Requiring shoes to be removed is a far cry from removing all Muslims and sending them to a special room...

One is unconstitutional, the other is a response to a bona fide security threat - whether or not it's an effective response is another issue.

Which one is unconstitutional?

The screeners are just regular Joes doing a job;

Sorry, that defense didn't work at Nuremburg 60 years ago, and won't work here either.

Of course, both TSA and the FBI have admitted that there hasn't been a single shoe bomb attempt since Richard Reid, thus calling into question how bona fide that threat is and how necessary the shoe carnival really is.

What's that about?

BTW, Lately, I have not been taking my baggies out of my carry-on's because 1) there is no threat from liquids and 2) it (usually) saves time going through the checkpoint since most of the time they don't seem to notice the baggies anyway.

How about a large percentage of Muslims (or muslim looking) or every other Muslim? And to confuse the issue, blow somesmoke, by pulling aside some benign white grand mothers as an accompaniment to mirrors. Would that be aceptable to you? That's pretty much what is happening now.

Seat belts are a Law. Plastic baggies are not a Law. Elected representatives and in some states the electorate themselves chose the seatbelt law. And they chose it over significant debate. Only the TSA has chosen the war on toothpaste. I am quite sure if we had an election debate on plastic baggies that it would never become Law.

As for the harassing the troops, everyone can make their own value judgement about harassing troops. Personally I fully support the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan except for the ones who break the law. The troops take their orders and judiciously enact them. By and large I think they do a great job.

As to the post about what is unconstitutional or not, I'm not sure if TSA personnel making medical decisions is unconstitutional or not, but it sure is illegal in each state as well as most if not all the countries in Europe. Yet that doesn't stop the TSA and their Euro equivalent from deciding what is medicine and what isn't at the checkpoint. Not all the TSA's actions are legal, not that anyone has the guts to challenge them.

Once again TSO's compared to Nazi's.

Okay, Cleverclogs, what did people compare Nazi's to back in the day.

Once again, someone trying to dismiss immoral actions by rolling their eyes at a Nazi reference.