TSA mess and the police

[pilotwife_02]

I am guessing that they don't want the "bad guys" to have video documentation of our security procedures.

Think about it, as offensive as the new searches are to some people, do we really want to be in the business of providing terrorists with ideas for ways to prevent detection of explosive or other dangerous contraband?

I will fly on business twice in December - I'll happily go through the scanner. I just don't see the big deal. Sure the screener can see an image of you - but it is all anonymous.

Hopefully the scanning will be enough, but IF I were to be chosen to have a pat down I will comply. I'd rather go through that than find out (too late) that there is an underwear bomber sitting on my plane.

But what these people are filming is simply what is going on at any security checkpoint hundreds (if not thousands) of times a day. So can't a potential terrorist just do a dry run a few times and then remember how the pat downs go and then find a way around them? They don't need video to figure out how the pat downs are performed, they can have actual personal experience. So I don't see they "for the sake of security" argument, if that's what the TSA is going to use.

I do see it as a way to keep bad publicity at bay. We've already seen pat downs/security checks "gone bad" online. So I think they are trying to stop that because as much as they would like to tell all their employees to follow the rules, be polite, etc., you can't guarantee that and at some point the TSA personnel are going to get frustrated with a difficult person or a TSA agent will act inappropriately and it will be caught resulting in further anger by the general public.

 

[punkin]

Do TSA agents have to have their child abuse clearances?

They backed off the enhanced pat-down for children under 12 apparently.

 

[tiggerplus5]

I don't know the whole story, but from what I've read I applaud Sam Wolanyk's civil disobedience. This is also what I learned and admired about Americans - the strength to stand up for their rights. It was why I used to be a liberal - I loved learning about the civil rights movement. As a conservative, civil rights are still just as important to me.

I agree with you that every American has the right to protest. The police also have a right to arrest you for doing it. I love my country and think that government has a role in providing for my family's safety. It is in the first line of the constitution. That was not my point. The first line of the "news story" was TSA gone wild. A more accurate lead in would be "civil disobedience gone wild". What did the TSA agents and the police do wrong? The story has clear bias to back up your opinion. That's why it was posted originally. What about all the hundreds of thousands of passengers that go through this daily with no problems. No stories about them. Because it's not an attention grabbing story. The media concentrates on the negative because it sells. And the lemmings just follow because it is easier to be led than to formulate their own opinions.

If you were there during the civil rights movement you would agree that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has nothing to do with illegal search and seizure but treating others equally (of course I'm paraphrasing). You are scaring people for no reason but to get others to agree with your point (as Bicker has so eloquently posted previously).

Do you refuse to shut off your iphone on the plane because it interferes with your "civil rights". In a civilized society, we have restrictions/laws for the common good. Sometimes our lawmakers change the rules because it is the right thing to do, not because it is popular thing to do. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not exist if that was the case. The first sentence in the constitution says that the government should be involved in safety of its citizens. "..insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". Our world has changed and we need to change with it.

I also understand that the enhanced security bothers you. And you have a right to feel that way. You have the freedom to stay home where your belongings will not be searched. You don't have a right to go into a public or private facility like an airport or rock concert and dictate policy at that event. Our elected officials decide what is policy. I know this statement is a simplistic approach. But it is essentially what our constitution says.

I flew for the first time since 9/11 this summer. It took me a long time to get the courage to do it. I want more security. I want my children to be safe. I know we can't protect the public from every possible scenario but how would you explain to your children that you didn't even try.

 

[LuvOrlando]

But what these people are filming is simply what is going on at any security checkpoint hundreds (if not thousands) of times a day. So can't a potential terrorist just do a dry run a few times and then remember how the pat downs go and then find a way around them? They don't need video to figure out how the pat downs are performed, they can have actual personal experience. So I don't see they "for the sake of security" argument, if that's what the TSA is going to use.

I do see it as a way to keep bad publicity at bay. We've already seen pat downs/security checks "gone bad" online. So I think they are trying to stop that because as much as they would like to tell all their employees to follow the rules, be polite, etc., you can't guarantee that and at some point the TSA personnel are going to get frustrated with a difficult person or a TSA agent will act inappropriately and it will be caught resulting in further anger by the general public.

My thoughts exactly.

There is simply no justification to prohibit recordings of any kind. The Airport is a public place and recording the agents does not break any laws because they are neither police and nor in the armed forces. Are the TSA de facto police now? Now that is suspicious.

I bet celebrities would LOVE to be able to confiscate the cameras from the paparazzi but they can't because their right to film in public places has been tried and found to be true. Funny how all our rights are intact unless they make someone in power uncomfortable.

I kind of get it with the police, sort of, after all they sometimes go undercover... but even that argument is questionable considering all the police abuse that goes on.

Not enough transparency for an organization of laypeople who are neither police nor armed forces.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Do TSA agents have to have their child abuse clearances?

Excellent question. A relative of mine is a TSA agent and they do not carry weapons so I suspect there has been no FBI clearance of any kind, but I'll ask to make sure.

BTW, this relative of mine is a veteran who has a carry permit all on his own. I remember him going through training but i don't remember anything at all about child abuse clearances like teachers have to get.

 

[Jennasis]

What the blazes is a "child abuse clearance"??? Or are you asking if they've had a background check that includes their criminal/sex offender status?

 

[LuvOrlando]

I agree with you that every American has the right to protest. The police also have a right to arrest you for doing it. I love my country and think that government has a role in providing for my family's safety. It is in the first line of the constitution. That was not my point. The first line of the "news story" was TSA gone wild. A more accurate lead in would be "civil disobedience gone wild". What did the TSA agents and the police do wrong? The story has clear bias to back up your opinion. That's why it was posted originally. What about all the hundreds of thousands of passengers that go through this daily with no problems. No stories about them. Because it's not an attention grabbing story. The media concentrates on the negative because it sells. And the lemmings just follow because it is easier to be led than to formulate their own opinions.

If you were there during the civil rights movement you would agree that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has nothing to do with illegal search and seizure but treating others equally (of course I'm paraphrasing). You are scaring people for no reason but to get others to agree with your point (as Bicker has so eloquently posted previously).

Do you refuse to shut off your iphone on the plane because it interferes with your "civil rights". In a civilized society, we have restrictions/laws for the common good. Sometimes our lawmakers change the rules because it is the right thing to do, not because it is popular thing to do. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not exist if that was the case. The first sentence in the constitution says that the government should be involved in safety of its citizens. "..insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". Our world has changed and we need to change with it.

I also understand that the enhanced security bothers you. And you have a right to feel that way. You have the freedom to stay home where your belongings will not be searched. You don't have a right to go into a public or private facility like an airport or rock concert and dictate policy at that event. Our elected officials decide what is policy. I know this statement is a simplistic approach. But it is essentially what our constitution says.

I flew for the first time since 9/11 this summer. It took me a long time to get the courage to do it. I want more security. I want my children to be safe. I know we can't protect the public from every possible scenario but how would you explain to your children that you didn't even try.

Sometimes egos become more relevant than the preservation of rights. I would love to agree with you that the people in charge always act in our best interests but there are times when the very institutions that are supposed to protect us turn on us because the people in power can't handle the assault to their vanity.

My Grandmother always told me to remember this example of when our own were treated like the enemy:

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/snprelief4.htm

History is riddled with cases when a countries own population is assaulted in the name of some greater good. It's dangerous territory and a potential for harm within any system of governance was considered deeply by the drafters of the Constitution because they, themselves, were victims of this very behavior. THIS fact is why we have The Bill of Rights. Government is good when there are limitations. There always have to be limitations because government, although it is a separate entity, is actually made up of human beings no less flawed than anyone else.

 

[LuvOrlando]

What the blazes is a "child abuse clearance"??? Or are you asking if they've had a background check that includes their criminal/sex offender status?

It is the clearance teachers are required to get because of their close contact with children and the ease with which they can abuse their position of authority.

My Church now requires the same clearance for anyone who wants to be near children in any capacity.

 

[WDWisTheBest]

Excellent question. A relative of mine is a TSA agent and they do not carry weapons so I suspect there has been no FBI clearance of any kind, but I'll ask to make sure.

BTW, this relative of mine is a veteran who has a carry permit all on his own. I remember him going through training but i don't remember anything at all about child abuse clearances like teachers have to get.

I believe you will find that TSA agents have been through a FBI clearance.
Weapons carry clearances are administered by state agencies.

 

[JLTraveling]

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana

I also found this quote from Santayana when I was googling. "Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim."

It's so funny that you would choose to use those two quotes. I think they apply to the other side of the argument. Are you (general you, going out to everyone on the thread) aware of the events that set in motion the rise of Nazi Germany?

January 1933: Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor. Parliamentary elections were to follow in early March.

February 27 1933: A fire broke out in the Reichstag chambers six days before the election. Although the exact circumstances were never discovered, it was thought to be a terrorist attack by the Communists. Note the wording: *terrorist attack* It was believed that further terrorist attacks would follow.

The next day, Hitler and German President von Hindenberg passed the "Order of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State". Similar to the Patriot Act, it invoked Article 48 of the German Constitution, which allowed the government nearly unprecedented powers to oversee the public safety.

Under the terms of the Order, certain civil liberties were abolished or severely restricted for the "safety of the German people." These included freedom of the press, the right to public assembly, and the right to secrecy regarding the post and the telephone. It also gave the German government the right to assume powers that were traditionally in the hands of the German states.

What you have to understand is that the majority of the German people were initially in favor of these measures. They were terrified of the Communist terrorists and believed that it was worth sacrificing personal freedoms for the common good. Hitler didn't start out putting people in gas chambers. That developed over time, as each new measure proved not to be entirely efficient.

The German people were just like we are today--good hearted people who wanted to keep their families safe. They were also devastated economically at the time (again, does that sound familiar?). Their government kept impressing upon them that each new step in stripping their freedoms was crucial in the fight to make Germany a safer, stronger, and more prosperous country. By the time the majority of Germans realized what was happening, it was too late. They had no legal recourse, and they themselves were being executed for speaking out against the government or assisting those who were marked for execution...it wasn't just Jews that died (though that was certainly tragic enough). It was gypsies, homosexuals, freedom fighters, those who were too elderly or weak to fight for the Nazis. Some escaped of course, but increasingly other countries closed their borders.

Learning from history indeed. I think we would all do well to decide if Nazi Germany is really the direction we would like to go in.

The hysterical sound bytes by the conservative media really saddens me. Many try to scare the general public with outrageous stories clearly trying to sway the public to their side. I like to make my own decisions based on fact, not on what someone writes with clear bias on the internet.

I utterly fail to understand how this keeps being turned into a liberal versus conservative debate, with liberals being painted as those in favor of the searches and conservatives as those against. I am about as far left liberal as I could be and still believe in government at all. And I follow media from ALL sides. And I see the new searches as a great attack against liberal values. So I don't want to be treated as a conservative wingnut, okay? (Not saying all conservatives or even most conservatives are wingnuts, but there seems to be this perception that only the very far right are against the searches).

You can have your freedom. I want to be on the other plane that has security.

Again, welcome to Nazi Germany.

There was public outcry after 9/11 that something needed to be done about security. There was more public outcry after the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber. How soon we forget. It only matters if it inconveniences us.

I guess it's all in your perception. I seem to remember an outpouring of emotion after 9/11 in which we all cried and promised ourselves that the terrorists would never take away our way of life. How soon we forget that little notion. Honestly, I am starting to feel like those who died, died in vain. I would be so sad to know that not only did I lose my life, but those I left behind lost their liberty. The terrorists have, indeed, won.

 

[DMRick]

We have never been able to take pictures in either the customs area of an airport terminal, or a cruise terminal. We also can't take photos at many shows we go to, including Disney (although people do, even though it's been prohibited, and sometimes they have to give up their cameras until the end of the show). Being in public doesn't mean we have the right to do whatever we want to do. While it may be legal (or I should say allowed, since the airport or TSA may choose to make that off limits) right now to take photo's in the security area of an airport, that may soon become a place where we can't.

There is simply no justification to prohibit recordings of any kind. The Airport is a public place and recording the agents does not break any laws because they are neither police and nor in the armed forces. Are the TSA de facto police now? Now that is suspicious..

 

[LuvOrlando]

We have never been able to take pictures in either the customs area of an airport terminal, or a cruise terminal. We also can't take photos at many shows we go to, including Disney (although people do, even though it's been prohibited, and sometimes they have to give up their cameras until the end of the show). Being in public doesn't mean we have the right to do whatever we want to do. While it may be legal (or I should say allowed, since the airport or TSA may choose to make that off limits) right now to take photo's in the security area of an airport, that may soon become a place where we can't.

That may well be true but doesn't the WHY concern you?


Maybe it doesn't, but it does concern me. If the whys are for valid reasons that's one thing but if the why is to prevent embarrassment for higher ups, well that doesn't quite hold water. All of us are free to challenge any inhibition of our rights, that is what the judiciary branch is for, 'we the people' are part of the system of checks and balances. A very necessary component too because we vote and we have access to the courts.

 

[kaytieeldr]

That may well be true but doesn't the WHY concern you?

The owner or operator of the facility said no. Works for me. I tell you not to take pictures (or smoke, or, heck, breathe out of your left nostril) in my facility. You could question me, but ultimately you either comply or you leave, or don't enter in the first place. Granted, my facility is my abode, not an airport or Walt Disney World attraction, but it's comparable.

 

[olwyngdh]

The next day, Hitler and German President von Hindenberg passed the "Order of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State". Similar to the Patriot Act, it invoked Article 48 of the German Constitution, which allowed the government nearly unprecedented powers to oversee the public safety.

Under the terms of the Order, certain civil liberties were abolished or severely restricted for the "safety of the German people." These included freedom of the press, the right to public assembly, and the right to secrecy regarding the post and the telephone. It also gave the German government the right to assume powers that were traditionally in the hands of the German states.

So do what needs done, and work and vote to overturn the Patriot Act, since this is the basis that allows everything people are upset about. Don't take it out on the TSA agent trying to do his or her job. Don't call all those people doing their jobs perverts and other names, that is just hurtful and mean. Aim for what will do some good--the disease rather than the symptom.

 

[kaytieeldr]

It's so funny that you would choose to use those two quotes. I think they apply to the other side of the argument. Are you (general you, going out to everyone on the thread) aware of the events that set in motion the rise of Nazi Germany?

Are you aware of Godwin's Law?

At any rate, I'm not in favor of the changed screening procedures; I'm just not against them. But then, I've been patted down before. No, nobody's put a hand on my crotch yet, but other than that I'm familiar with the procedure. MOST of the people screaming so loudly haven't even been to an airport lately; they're just yelling because others are. The three year old boy 'strip-searched' recently? Let's not forget, his father removed his shirt, no TSA Agent did or requested that.

 

[JLTraveling]

Are you aware of Godwin's Law?

I most assuredly am. Are you aware of the known abuses of Godwin's Law?

From Wikipedia:

However, Godwin's law itself can be abused, as a distraction, diversion or even censorship, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons.[8] Similar criticisms of the "law" (or "at least the distorted version which purports to prohibit all comparisons to German crimes") have been made by Glenn Greenwald.[9]

So, since Godwin's Law clearly does not apply in this situation, would you like to point out to me precisely HOW the two situations differ?

So do what needs done, and work and vote to overturn the Patriot Act, since this is the basis that allows everything people are upset about. Don't take it out on the TSA agent trying to do his or her job. Don't call all those people doing their jobs perverts and other names, that is just hurtful and mean. Aim for what will do some good--the disease rather than the symptom.

I don't take it out on TSA agents. I know some do, but I have repeatedly stated that my issue is with the policy itself, not with the agents or even with those who support the policy. I do, however, believe that only public outcry will overturn the Patriot Act. Some TSA agents have joined the fight as well. This will be, as it should, fought in the court of public opinion. As LuvOrlando rightly pointed out upthread, the public serves a critical function in the checks and balances of our system.

 

[DMRick]

That may well be true but doesn't the WHY concern you?

No, actually it has never concerned me. I assumed they had their reasons in the customs area, and I know why cameras are not allowed at shows (in a public place, sometimes at our local parks).

All of us are free to challenge any inhibition of our rights, that is what the judiciary branch is for, 'we the people' are part of the system of checks and balances. A very necessary component too because we vote and we have access to the courts.

I do believe we have the right to legally challenge something to make sure it's legal. As part of the judicial system. I do not believe we have the right to know that we may be patted down, or scanned and pick that time to disobey, by deciding to remove your clothes and deciding you didn't want to put them back on. Flying is not a consitutional right.

If I decided I had the right to smoke in public anywhere I want, would it be ok for me to light up in a public place so I could be arrested and fight it in the public place? I mean how dare they say where I may or not smoke..smoking isn't illegal. No, the place to make changes is in the courts.

If it's decided that camera's need to stay packed, and I didn't like it, I also have a choice to not fly. I've never understood how people get their long knitting needles on the plane, but for the longest time I couldn't bring tiny scissors. If it really bothered me, I would drive when possible and not fly.

 

[JLTraveling]

Flying is not a consitutional right.

So people keep claiming. Actually, it is currently unknown whether flying is a constitutional right, because thus far it has not been tested by the Supreme Court.

If I decided I had the right to smoke in public anywhere I want, would it be ok for me to light up in a public place so I could be arrested and fight it in the public place? I mean how dare they say where I may or not smoke..smoking isn't illegal. No, the place to make changes is in the courts.

Certainly that would be okay. That's been exactly the basis for thousands of test cases. Rosa Parks sat down in the front of the bus, and she's lauded as a hero (and rightly so). In order for precedent to be set, someone somewhere has to be the first case.

 

[DMRick]

MOST of the people screaming so loudly haven't even been to an airport lately; they're just yelling because others are.

Funny you should say that. I was at a party last night when this was brought up. The four people the most upset about it, have never (and have no plans to be) been on a plane. Several others had already decided their flying days were over, long before this new pat down started so this would not affect them at all, other than a discussion of their rights. Those planning on flying (four of us) are more upset with how long before a flight we have to be there, than we are of the actual security measures.

 

[kaytieeldr]

I do, however, believe that only public outcry will overturn the Patriot Act. Some TSA agents have joined the fight as well. This will be, as it should, fought in the court of public opinion.

Disagree. The court of public opinion can scream as loud as it likes; the primary result will be a lot of sore throats.

The people who are contacting Congress, the White House, etc., to change the airport screening back to - what? - might be better served to put all that effort into repealing the Patriot Act, disband the TSA, eliminate the Department of Homeland Security.

Think big.