And it's disgusting to ME that you DON'T see that it is. :td:


If they haven't got what one of the TSA's bloggers referred to as "pointy objects" (as in, something that can legitimately threaten the safety of the aircraft and passengers), then yeah, I pretty much don't give a frak if I sit down next to Osama himself. What's he gonna do, if deprived of his AK and Semtek?

Granted, TSA ain't doin' so hot in that department - but checking ID's can only make that WORSE, not better.

Well, I don't recall whether Bocastephen is a veteran or not - but THIS is coming from someone who HAS paid for that freedom. USN '91-97, reactor operator on board USS Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71 from '93-97, including THREE tours in the Persian Gulf during my Med cruises, which was a combat zone the entire time I was in the Navy.

How're MY credentials, as far as you're concerned? :mad:

If we HAD some real security, as opposed to the security theater being foisted on us, we might be complaining less (although the civil libertarians among us, including me, won't stop). As it is... :mad::td:

TJ predicted it 226 years in advance
 

You mean this radical terrorist claptrap from ole TJ himself:

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

And who knew Jefferson would correctly predict DHS and the TSA and screeners helping themselves to confiscated jelly donuts:

(the Government) "has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."

At least now we know why they insist screeners be called "Officers". ^

Spoken like one of us perps... Oops I mean pax. At least it's over quickly for us, but we do have the added pain of arbitrary, sometimes idiotic screener rule interpretations.


Perhaps you two don't remember the <1" sole; no shoe removal rule. It was removed when the liquid nonsense was imposed, and all footwear removed rule (except the 3 dozen more equal animal exceptions to that rule) was implemented. Clearly your org. had this rule change on the shelf, and shoved it in with the "urgent" rule change as part of the initial "shock and awe" on liquids in 08/06. The apparent reason this rule change was ready to go? The grief screeners took when they insisted on removal of flip flops and non-alarming shoes with soles clearly < 1". That was a silly rule with little consequence. Arbitrarily decide on confiscation of liquids based on a screener's perception of pax need? The confrontations from that would be emotional and dramatic. I'd give it 2 weeks to reversal if it ever did see the light of day.

OMG, a TSO actually FLEW?!? This may be the first time I've ever seen evidence that a TSO has actually experienced what we do from OUR point of view!!!

No slack? Congratulations, it means you are no longer one of "Them". You have crossed the line. You are now a sheeple pax and a Flyertalker. Welcome to the Light and Right Side. :D

Funny you say that - I have a cousin who I don't see very much, but she works for TSA and is SCARED of flying. She'd rather drive anywhere than get on a plane - talk about having no clue of the experience.

If your argument is relevance, then it depends on what you are comparing. If the quality of freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution rise and fall based on the bad acts in other nations, then our system means nothing. That may be your argument, but it is not mine.


If a terrorist has no ability to commit terrorism, is he still a threat? If physical screenings work, then the terrorist has no tools to ply his trade once on the secure side. If he has nothing on him, what does he care if you look at his ID. What interest does the government have in ensuring Tim is not Bob. All they should care about is whether Tim is has the ability to commit an act of terror.

Seriously, what does an ID check do? Unless ... Of course ... someone is building a database of who travels where and when, some sort of monitoring database where all citizen travel is watched and evaluated ... Is that your vision for America? It is not mine. There are no status crimes in the United States. We punish people for what the do (or attempt to do), not for what they wish to do or hope others might do.



Large sweeping generalizations are a poor substitute for fact and fair consideration. I pay for my freedom the ol' fashioned way: by paying my taxes and by being brave enough to let others live as they wish to live.

Walking a post doesn't grant you any special rights nor does it allow you any special waivers w/r/t logic. As much as you may think that argument is compelling - that only the boys in the blue and green know what it means to be a patriot and only they have actually earned their freedom -- it is not. It simply identifies you as someone who while claiming to love freedom actually stands in opposition to it by claiming an elitist position separate from the masses.

While some political scientist argue that only through the participation in war does a class of American society earn it acceptance (see, Jean Bethke Elshtain's Women and War) America has always rejected the conceit of a Warrior Class. We are the opposite. We are a nation of citizen soldiers who join when needed, return home when not, save a comparative few. Further, our hallmark is that our military answers to a civilian master. Is is the citizenry, though its democratically elected representative, that control when and to what measure military action is permitted. If you got problem with that, you got a problem with America, and then you got a problem with me.

Here ya go, a magazine just for you: XXXX
That said, thank you for your service.

I don't know how you came to join, but I appreciate service does come with sacrifice. I hope you got as much as you gave during the experience.

And so where should one draw the line? Let's look at the First Amendment:

The US Supreme Court has said that the freedom of travel is part of the First Amendment and the right to association is part of freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment. So no, we are not kidding you. If you want to check ID at the airport, why shouldn't the government be able to check your ID while you are walking on a public street?

The feeling is that people don't mind being "inconvenienced" if it promotes true security and is not a violation of one's constitutional rights. But in this case, the ID requirement does not enhance security and is heading down a slippery slope of what the government is permitted to do. You have to understand that the security that we have in checking passengers is not effective. Too many times the TSA fails its own tests. In fact, I am not aware of an airport that has passed a Red Team test. So let's focus on intercepting true threats to an airplane: firearms and explosives. Let the penknives, liquids and other non-threat items through. Let's deploy effective technology to detect those threats. Only after the TSA has been shown to be doing a credible job in that area should we even consider expansion of its role. One has to learn to basic blocking and tackling before moving on. The TSA has not shown me that.

But was a round chambered while you were in the airport? :)

What is going on the world that is, in any way, effected by this policy?

Exactly what do you think is accomplished by demanding ID? Do you Osama bin Laden would show a driver's license from Afghanistan: "bin Laden, Osama. Height: 5-11. Weight: 180 Hair: Grey with long beard. Address: Deep hole in the third mountain to the right, Afghan/Pakistan border.

You are aware, are you not, that the real terrorists are not included on the No Fly List for reasons of "national security"?

And, unfortunately, this is coming from someone who doesn't understand either the basis for freedom in the United States or the extent to which TSA and DHS are completely ineffectual in protecting it.

Sorry, but it seems to me that you are the one taking our freedoms for granted. One doesn't surrender liberty to safeguard it, but that is what you seem to want to do.

Well, if you're so sure we've forgotten, then perhaps you can explain to us the relationship between the deaths of Americans and lessons learned and this latest intrusion on constitutional liberties.

Go ahead.

We're waiting.

Please explain how secondary screening at the gate will let "it" (by which, I assume you mean 9/11) happen again. Please explain why:

1. a terrorist wouldn't use false ID

2. a terrorist wouldn't plant a bomb in the uninspected air cargo and mail that is aboard every commercial U.S. flight

3. a terrorist wouldn't fire a Stinger missile from any of the open and unmonitored areas that surround virtually all U.S. airports

4. a terrorist wouldn't use his real ID, as did the hijackers on 9/11

Go ahead.

We're waiting.

Sorry, but you very clearly haven't thought this through at all. TSA's gestapo-like tacticts offer virtually no increase in security. If you want to accept them blindly, that's your business, but I'm far more concerned with preserving our constitutional liberties and will not surrender them to pacify sheep who thinks inconvenience and intrusion is the same as security.

No, but I work at a fairly large airport now, so the standards are pretty lax.

At the most, if I have to open a bag to check the sizes of LGAs within, I'll explain to the pax that if they follow the rules -- put their stuff in a baggie and put it in a bin -- next time, we won't have to go fishing around amongst their underwear and whatnot if we need to take a look! Most seem to appreciate the sensibility of this suggestion. :)

As far as flying -- when I flew out of my old airport last year, I'd see TSOs I'd worked with in '05 who had hated their job, but they were still there! Always made me sad. :(

Oh, I remember the stupid 1" rule. No two screeners had the same perception of an inch. If anything, this will give way to just eliminating the liquid policy. If I am correct, the new SOP should be in effect on the 28th.

I read about this on the Southwest forum but didn't know it was actually happening. It is actually making me dread my upcoming flight, because back in the days of secondary screening for water I ALWAYS got selected.. with Southwest boarding in groups of 5 its harder to strategize so you dont get nabbed too. It's bad enough to not have overhead baggage space, but an ambitious TSO and a higher A boarding pass can easily mean the difference between an aisle/window seat and a middle seat on Southwest. UGH. I normally don't like direct flights since you're stuck on a plane for a longer time, but I get to avoid the gate screening a second time (unless of course they now decide to start screening thru pax on a plane.. I guess we just have to give it time).

I will be writing my congressman on this one. Stupid, stupid waste of time.

WOW,
How long have you been employed at TSA?:rolleyes:

Prove to me that being detained 25 minutes makes one safer to any degree and I might stop LMAO and send you a drink chit or some O'Reilly Cash.


It is a fact that the only real terrorists airside at US airports today are american soldiers either freshly back from murdering, raping, torturing or stealing from innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan. A review of the definition of terrorism will allow you to independently reach this same conclusion.

Actually, Inthewind, to make an example of the frequent poster here who was detained at a screening checkpoint for 25 minutes because he expressed an opinion about the government, it IS a civil liberty injustice under our fundamental law. And in 1979 I swore an oath to defend that fundamental law, the Constitution that protects us all from such civil liberty injustices, from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I consider that oath to be a lifetime commitment.

Which brings us to another of your ad hominem points about not paying for the freedom that must constantly be defended. I swore the oath I mentioned above on the first day of my connection with an organization whose initials are sometimes interpreted as Uncle Sam's Motherless Children.

It's been my observation that some of those who are the bravest and most willing to sacrifice for that constitution and our nation have never taken such a formal oath at all.