My point is that inflamatory statements to prove a point actually harm the position of the person making the argument. Your rhetoric needs to be in proportion to your cause. I think that advocating the execution of TSA employees is something that your average sane American will find difficulty handling.

Let me give you an example. Imagine that I am a city councilman and you are petitioning me to put speed bumps in front of the elementary school on your block. You will impress me if you cite the speed of traffic along the street, and the number of children who walk, and discuss the number of accidents that occur. But if you start calling people NAZI and call speeding on your street the worst thing to happen to the United States, then you will start to look crazy and will not help your cause. You will have damaged fellow supporters of your position through guilt by association.

Spiff you remind of the tactics of talk radio. Many people don't know that some radio hosts have people call in fake calls. Conservative hosts sometimes have people pretend to be liberal and say absolutely crazy things. Then the host spends the next hour talking about how crazy his liberal caller was, and people call in to agree with the host. Liberal hosts probably do the same thing. So Spiff, are you actually a TSA plant trying to discredit the opponents of TSA with your rhetoric?

Truthfully if I was Kip Hawley, I would pay for Skip and others to testify before Congress. Lets see how many people line up behind him as he calls people NAZI, advocates the execution of TSA employees, and accuses wounded veterans of treason.

Angry Dan

Not to start anything, but I would say we MAY be STRETCHING the definition of treason just a bit here?;)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Main Entry:
trea·son Listen to the pronunciation of treason
Pronunciation:
\ˈtrē-zən\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English tresoun, from Anglo-French traisun, from Latin tradition-, traditio act of handing over, from tradere to hand over, betray — more at traitor
Date:
13th century

1 : the betrayal of a trust : treachery 2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

While I am not thrilled of going through an additional security point, I cannot see how criticizing the people who work for TSA on this site is EVER going to do any good? Do we think we can get everyone who works for TSA to quit, and by doing so, it will cease to exist?

On the other hand, are we writing our congresspersons, calling our local TV, Radio stations? Writing opinion letters to our Newspaper outlets? Voting to get people into offices we THINK will change something?

Those I believe are the only things we can do to make a difference.

Or, simply move out of the US if we think it is that bad. There are many other countries to live in on this planet.:)

My disagreements are minimal and I believe in the mission. I also do not have the strong philosophical objections to the agency's mission that many do. My disagreement is more in terms of implementation.

I believe that I do a good job in the position that I hold. And I believe that if given a chance I could do a better job than my superiors. However I have a much greater impact on the inside than on the outside.

I have had a chance to improve my airport as a supervisor that I wouldn't have had if I had quit when I saw problems as a screener. I am young enough that I could advance into a policymaking position with enough hard work. And that is my goal.

I also don't know which direction that the TSA will go after the election. I can always do something else. But as long as I am doing good, and have a chance to make improvements then I won't be compelled to leave.

Angry Dan

That definition nails it on the head.

Yes to all of the above + letting TSA employees know that their efforts to destroy our civil liberties are not appreciated at all.

Nah, I'd rather the proponents of the destruction of civil liberties get the hell out of the USA and go live someplace else like North Korea.

I am not scared. I am a loyal member of an organization.

If I worked for GM and they decided to emphasize production of a type of vehicle that I did not think would be successful, I wouldn't broadcast that decision to the world.

Angry Dan

I am certain that the TSA's lawyers do the same thing. That's what lawyers do. That is why I specifically advocate taking the ID decision to the courts and to the court of public opinion.

I think a reasoned debate on this issue is appropriate. I think a test case is appropriate. I hope the Supreme Court is asked to rule on this in a straight forward manner.

However I do think that the extremist language used by many members of this board prevents a debate. No politician in the mainstream is going to stand next to someone calling people NAZI.

Angry Dan

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8703e/4.1.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)

Truth be told Dan, I'm still having a hard time taking you seriously. You've posted quite a bit or antagonizing and hostile text yourself.

You're right about the Nazi thing, but your own gets a little diluted with your past rants.

But what "trusts" have they betrayed? I certainly didn't give them any. I believe they were entrusted, by an organization within OUR government, to do a specific set of tasks. Those tasks are defined by (again) OUR government. So as long as they do these tasks, in a prescribed/government approved way, they are not betraying any trusts.

That is my point. It is NOT the people, it's the way the agency is using what power they have, to do certain things none of us like (yes, even me).

I believe we should change the people in power, assuming they will have the guts to make the necessary changes to this agency. If the TSA was actually working to provide Security, while the public uses Transportation, I think we would all be OK with that.

I asked on another thread, but I will ask again. Has there been any case where someone has questioned the legality of the TSA, and/or any of the policies it puts in place, and if so, what were the results?

I didn’t read this whole thread so I’m not sure if someone mentioned the obvious…but I think they’re doing it because they hired on too many minimum wage laborers and need to have something for them to do to justify their existence until the next fanatic gets through the defenses! And I truly believe it's just a matter of time. Coming from a civil servant who experiences the government from the inside...

And secondly, I'm just curious who has actually had their civil liberties disturbed because of TSA policy? When you fly, you agree to the policies set forth by the TSA who's been given jurisdiction by the Federal Government. Why is it that we seem to forget the past? Right after 9/11 everyone was in TOTAL agreement when it came to increased security because it gave them a sense of well being in the terminals and in the air. Now that some are inconvenienced by a few minutes for an extra screening here and there, things turn to talk of civil liberty disturbance and Nazism…common people…gimmie a break!

Has anyone been cavity searched unjustifiably by the TSA? Has anyone missed a flight because of something the TSA has done for no good apparent reason? (Can you tell I feel like ranting?) I, for one, appreciate the additional measures taken…and if it inconveniences me a little bit…oh well. I live with it. We could go back to having Soldiers carrying automatic weapons around the terminals…how would you feel then?

Folks,

Please take the personal finger-pointing and treason-mongering over to OMNI. The topic at hand is the reappearance of gate-screening.

Thank you.

----------
essxjay
TS/S moderator

Well let's see. As a TSA agent, I man a checkpoint at which people can choose to avoid and I ask to see a person's ID to verify that they are the person listed on their boarding pass. I search individual's property and person. I have no arrest powers. I can only deny passage under certain circumstances, and I can only deny certain items passage through the checkpoint.

There is a reasonable debate about whether government should be allowed this authority.

However there is no comparison to the NAZIs who committed genocide. Show me the TSA employee who has gone to any of your houses seeking out people to put in death camps. Many of you joke about how you play games with TSA employees thereby proving how little we resemble the NAZIs. I don't think that the NAZIs had a complaint department.

I think these types of statements have two effects. First they entrench TSA powers by preventing a reasonable discussion of the issues. I have outlined this in other posts. But my position is simply that no one wants to be associated with a kook. And since you believe that the TSA is working against the nation's interests, your comments are in fact treasonous because you are making it easy for the TSA to stay in power.

Secondly I think that your comments trivialize the evil of the NAZIs. I work at a checkpoint not Aushwitz. I screen people, I don't gas them. And Anne Frank didn't have the option to choose to avoid a NAZI death camp like you can walk away from a checkpoint. I believe that in order for us to truly avoid another Holocaust is to truly comprehend its evil. By comparing it to the TSA you negate the true evil that you oppose, and make it far easier for it to be repeated.

Angry Dan

Do you actually believe telling a minimum wage TSA employee the above would get you anywhere? Do you really think they do what they do because they are making it up as they go or that they have any say what so ever concerning policy??? That would be like walking into a Burger King and yelling at the kid behind the counter because you don't like the fact that they sell beef!

How about if you knew the vehicle was dangerous?

There is a point at which I would quit any organization and/or complain about it publicly. TSA has not reached that point with me.

Angry Dan

I am trying to strike a more reasoned tone.

Angry Dan