I’ve had my encounters with the TSA on a number of occasions. I would be considered a TSA Troll if such a definition existed. I follow their Twitter and have had some back and forth constitutional arguments with them about their ignorance, stupidity, and illegal actions. I’m convinced that since I use my real name and practically DARE them to discriminate against me for my outspokenness that I’m on their pat-down list.
Not long ago, the TSA rightfully recognized that their willful disregard for American civil liberties has given them a black eye that probably won’t go away any time soon and started a blog to spin their excuses.
By now, you’ve probably all seen the latest video of a woman in Phoenix distraught after being molested by the TSA for no reason. If not, here it is:
The video gained quite a bit of play and publicity. As per their standard operating procedures, the TSA rolled out spin its typically innocent response yesterday:
After reviewing this passenger’s time at the checkpoint, we found that our security officers acted properly and neither the CCTV footage nor this YouTube video support any of the allegations levied.
So, the TSA is lying that it DIDN’T fondle an innocent American’s breast in the name of “national security” with their typical pat-down. If this is true, no one should have a problem with me going around and just randomly feeling my hands over women’s breasts in the name of “national security.” After all, anyone walking down the street could have an explosive breast implant hidden under that C cup!
Well, I went to the blog as I usually do to express my displeasure and left this comment:
While your most-likely-oppressive policy is “under review” TSA agents will continue exceeding your authority and making up crimes for which you will threaten illegal detention of innocent citizens.
I know I left that comment because I copied it and put it as a comment under my link of this post on Facebook as well! Interestingly, the comment never posted. When I left the comment, it would have been the first one. There are now 53+ comments under this post. I even left a comment directly calling out “Concerned Observer” as a TSA plant that was never published.
The TSA is afraid of me because they can’t argue with the constitutional argument. Reality and truth make them look bad. They have no problems posting comments by people that are just flying off the handle (which is good), but since most of my comments quote the constitution and various high court decisions that oppose their policies, I guess they’ve decided it’s no longer in their best interests to approve my comments.
Understand that I never use profanity. I don’t call them names. I don’t use strawman arguments in my responses. I used thoughtful, constitutional, and logical arguments and I don’t post anonymously! I’ve even commented on their blog railing against people who DO post anonymously because they are afraid the TSA will target them. I hate to break it to these people, but the TSA can see EVERYONE’S IP address that comments on their blog! No one is anonymous.
They spew false facts like the low number of complaints they receive about these pat-downs, ignoring the fact that most people either don’t have the time to complain or don’t think it will do any good to complain! They mention that only 3% of travelers are targeted for the enhanced search techniques while ignoring that they’re admitting to violating the 4th amendment rights of that same 3%!! “Hey, we only illegally searched 3% of travelers without a warrant or probably cause, so leave us alone! You don’t want another 9/11 do you?!”
And how many terrorists have these searches caught? Zero. The ones you hear about made it successfully through the searches and then failed either at the gate or on the plane. Or they were turned in by concerned passengers! The TSA is just another bloated, inefficient welfare program to employ a certain segment of the population that enjoys fondling Americans genitals and breasts!
I’m a frequent flyer who routinely opts out of the xray scanning. I’ve had the “enhanced” pat downs a half dozen times — most recently last week, flying out of LAX to Detroit and again back out of Detroit — and, other than for the additional delay, which I inflicted on myself by opting for pat downs over xrays, I can affirm that it’s absolutely no big deal whatsoever. It was always done professionally and discreetly and at no time did I feel as if I were being violated, degraded, molested, etc.
Is it remotely possible that the odd rogue employee might do something inappropriate? Sure. But so does the odd, rogue doctor. Stuff happens. Life goes on. But calling this an assault on liberty is trivializing the word “liberty.”
The TSA does a darn good job. I’ve flown extensively — Europe and Asia — and the American TSA stacks up just fine, by world standards. I’m glad that they are working to keep me and my family safe.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Why would you “opt out” of the X-ray?????
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: I don’t think the issue is HOW they do their searches. As long as we, as citizens, allow any government agency to search to any degree without probably cause or a warrant, we are subverting our own rights to the government and allowing THEM to set the rules as to HOW FAR they will violate our rights. The 4th Amendment is very plain in its language:
Notice it doesn’t say:
The government can only take away the rights that we freely give away – and we’re giving them away bit by bit with discussion of “well it wasn’t so bad.”
CJ,
These searches are reasonable, and no one is forcing you to undergo said search. The search is avoidable, thus voluntary.
Thus is it constitutional.
You can agree to a nude scan or a groping, or not fly on an airplane.
You can agree to a nude scan or a groping, or not travel on an interstate highway.
You can agree to a nude scan or a groping, or not buy groceries in any store.
You can agree to a nude scan or a groping, or not leave your house.
It’s voluntary – you have multiple choices.
No, we have not caught anybody with a bomb.
We have however, punished many people for resisting the program.
@Ivan: Why? Because the mode of transportation is a plane? Why stop with a plane? The courts have ruled that we have a fundamental RIGHT to travel. In People (California) vs. Charles Sprinkler the court ruled:
Now the casual observer would say, “that’s talking about driving or using the roads. This is about air travel.” Plainly reading, yes, but legally the same principle applies. The airways are also public “roadways” used by private citizens. All that needs to happen is a lawsuit to directly and linguistically apply the case law to airlines as opposed to just wheeled vehicles.
I promise that the minute I’m subjected to a separate enhanced search that involves someone touching me inappropriately without a warrant or probably cause that I will bring this argument into case law!
I may be a little extreme in my constitutional beliefs. I’m an “all-or-nothing” kind of guy.
Yes, you are extreme in your beliefs. These searches have PREVENTED many, many attacks.
The folks at Heritage.org have an article about a House Committee report on the TSA’s obstruction of the private screening program. You are right about the bloat.
“…the report cited a screening cost of $4.22 per passenger for a federal screening workforce, as opposed to only $2.42 per passenger for private screeners. Furthermore, the report indicated that “taxpayers would save more than $38.6 million a year if LAX [for example] joined the SPP,” which would reduce personnel by 867 people.”
Link: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/03/tsa-gets-a-pat-down-on-screener-privatization/
I am waiting for someone to dig up the video of Senator Charles Schumer (D, Tyrannous) scolding us that if we would allow airport security screeners to be federalized that they would become a professional and efficient work force. It needs to be replayed every time we have another professional groping, which would be in just a few days at the rate they are going. Happily, I have my own aircraft and don’t have to put my wife through this outrage, but I am obligated to speak up for those who must travel in this pitiful manner. This is the modern analog to being forced to billet soldiers in your own home. Only now citizens are forced to allow the soldiers to put their hands in the pants and bras of their wives, girl friends and daughters.
@Ivan: Ivan, can you link to those incidents please? Amazingly, I’ve never heard this before. Thanks.
Ivan sez “prevented MANY MANY attacks”??? BWAHAHAHA… hell, they couldn’t even catch the underwear bomber with advance notice!
yeah… good luck with getting links out of Ivan on that one, @CJ. You’ll be deployed and home again.
And hopefully, you will find time for us at FA while you’re there, yes? We’d like to hear from you regularly, if possible.
@MataHarley, my plan is try and post here periodically! Obviously will depend on mission, location and Internet access.
.
Napolitano’s new security campaign is called, “If you feel something, say something.”
CJ, I would like to remind you of a few things.
Texas passed a bill, unamiously, in their House of Representatives, HB 1937, that would make it a felony for any TSA agent to “grope” a passanger without “probable” cause. The bill was very specific as to what consituted groping, and it was written in a way to protect the 4th Amendment rights of any citizen using air travel. The bill was scheduled to be put on the docket for the Senate when the Lt. Governor, along with the Speaker of the House, the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate received a letter from U.S. Attorney John E. Murphy, on behalf of the Department of Justice, threatening to make Texas a “no-fly” zone if the bill passed the Senate making it Texas law. The TSA even sent two top officials to Austin to work the hallway of the Senate to convince the Texas Senators that this bill would essentially shut down all air traffic (other than military) in Texas while the TSA pointed out the economic damage to Texas by being a “no-fly” zone. The letter even indicated that this would be done immediatly, while it sought a stay of the statute, “Unless or until such a stay were granted, TSA would likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it could not secure the safety of passengers and crew.” Under the pressure of the U.S. Attorney’s office, and the TSA, the Texas Senate caved and removed the bill from the docket.
But the letter was even more frightening when you read this part:
“The proposed legislation would make it unlawful for a federal agent such as a TSO to perform certain specific searches for the purpose of granting access to a publicly accessible building or form of transportation. Now, read that very carefully. The letter did NOT say “for the purpose of granting access to an airport” but rather used the vague term “a publicly accessible building.”
What can be classified as a “publically accessible building”? Well, a Wal-Mart, grocery store, movie theater, Blockbuster, back, et al, or any other building where the general public has access. Basically, it is the position of the DoJ, under Eric Holder and directed by Barack Obama, that the TSA, and its agents, have the authority to violate our 4th Amendment rights at ANY publicly accessible building. IOW, the federal government now feels that it has the right to curtail the freedom of travel in the name of public safety. Ironically, as the TSA continues to violate the 4th Amendment rights of citizens every day, the U.S. Attorney’s office argued that the Texas HB was “unconstitutional” in its violation of federal authority.
Now there are those who will argue that the TSA is just doing its job, and that these goons who are feeling up women and children are just doing it because they have to. That is like saying a cop is dirty because he was ordered to be dirty, and no American would tolerate dirty cops simply because they were ordered to violate our civil rights. And the TSA has not thwarted even one terrorist attempt on a plane. The one that was thwarted by done so by passengers, not the TSA and the TSA even admitted that the Christmas Day bomber would not have been stopped by even the current practices of the TSA. So you have to wonder; if this system does not work, or would not work, why subject Americans to the loss of their Constitutional rights of being “secure in their persons” an being protected against “unreasonable” searches?
But there is something going on that no one talks about. Do you remember when the ACLU Detroit sued the Bush administration for a violation of its civil rights? The ACLU wanted the NSA to prove that it was NOT wiretapping any American citizen or its clients who had connections with the Gitmo detainees. The ACLU could NOT prove that it had ever been wiretapped, or any of its clients (Muslims who were suspected of having Al Qaeda ties) had ever been wiretapped, it wanted the NSA to prove it had NEVER wire tapped anyone represented by the ACLU. IOW, the ACLU was simply trying to force the NSA to prove a negative, and bring light to what it considered an unconstitutional act on the part of the NSA.
But where is the ACLU now on TSA groping? Nowhere to be found, silently hiding under their desks, as they now have a socialist in the Oval Office who will continue to erode our civil liberties as most Americans simply accept that erosion without so much as a word of dissent.
There is a reason that there are no state border crossings. The Founders felt that freedom of “movement” was an unalienable right. And that citizens had the right to move, from one state to another, at will. Also, the Constitution does not grant the federal government the right to maintain security over a municipally held building (i.e. airport) or privately owned businesses such as an airline. Airlines contract with those municipalities to be able to use airport services, not with the federal government, consequently, if there is security to be provided at an airport, it should be provided by the city that owns the airport, not the federal government. Once on a plane, a privately owned entity, security should be provided by the airline itself, again, not the federal government.
You are right that until this practice is taken into court by an individual, or a group of individuals, challenging the Constitutionality of the TSA searches, it will continue. Obviously, Americans are not as sue happy when it comes to the government as is reported.
Frankly, this is just the philosophy of putting a frog in cold water before you boil it to death. Little by little, inch by inch, you remove the civil rights of Americans slowly so they don’t really notice it all that much until there are no civil liberties left to exercise.
@Ivan: @Ivan: Yes, you are extreme in your beliefs. These searches have PREVENTED many, many attacks.
Really?
When? Where? How?
@Ivan:
According to whom?
My, I see the “doubting Thomases aren’t limited to the pages of the bible! ;->
“Ask, and ye shall receive…”
I see, Ivan… so RKBA makes you a terrorist, bent on an attack? You did say searches prevented “many many attacks”. So any citizen attempting to board a plane with a gun (mistakenly or not) is now a terrorist?
pathetic… Tell me, Ivan… were any of those people arrested for an attempted plot?
In fact, when was the last time a terrorist bomber tried to board with a gun? When was a gun used on an aircraft for a bombing attempt? Were the 9/11 hijackers carrying guns? The underwear bomber?
extra pathetic….
BTW, Ivan…. something you said above nags at me and begs for correction.
Searches are not “voluntary”. What is voluntary is that you may choose to fly… and must submit to either the detector or a pat down… or not fly.
It is Constitutional only in the way a state’s mandate that drivers carry liability insurance is Constitutional… because you do not have to own a car.
However searches are not voluntary if you want to fly.
@Ivan, so does that make me a terrorist then? I once went to the airport with my pistol in my bag, forgetting that I had used that bag during a Campout. Thankfully, WHILE I WAS LINE I happened to go digging for a pen and noticed it. I almost always check a pistol when I fly depending on the laws of the state to which I’m going. I’ve almost screwed up by deciding at the last minute NOT to check my bags because of lines or whatever but remembered I had no choice cause I was exercising my rights as an American to be Armed.
With the number of people traveling daily, this doesn’t surprise me and neither does it defend your Conner that terrorist attacks (or any attacks) were averted. Next!
@MataHarley:
Good morning, Mata! Always good to mix it up with my favorite poster.
Tell me-we both have agreements and disagreements on what is constitutional, correct?
So, let’s let a third-party determine the constitutionality of these searches! How about we find out what the SUPREME COURT has said about searches? What do they say, Mata?
I’m curious for your comments on this!
CJ,
It’s Probable Cause, not Probably Cause.
@CJ:
Do you honestly believe you have CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT not to have any of your possession searched prior to boarding a commercial flight? If it’s not right to search your body by scan or hand search, why is it acceptable for them to search your lap-top or bags? They are, in fact, your possessions?
@MataHarley: @MataHarley:
No one, I repeat, no one says you have a right to fly commercially. You can fly in your own plane if you want to and not be searched. Or travel by private “non-commercial” aviation.
Where does it say in the constitution that United or Southwest HAVE to let you fly without a search???
You seem to be having a reading problem this morning, Ivan. I did not say it is not Constitutional. What I said was that you stated the searches were “voluntary”, and thereby “constitutional”. There’s not a lick of truth in that relationship.
The searches are Constitutional, but they are not voluntary. If you fly commercial… and no where did I say there was a “right” to fly commercial (????)… you must submit to either the detector or a pat down or you don’t fly. That’s not “voluntary”. What’s “voluntary” is that you choose not to fly, or that you choose between the detector or the pat down.
So I’m not sure what your problem is here, save that you are clueless as to why the searches are deemed Constitutional. That status is in no way related to “voluntary searches”.
And speaking of Constitutional… most especially in your comment to CJ… your concept of “constitutional” is downright scary. You seem to think that any right must be specifically penciled out and itemized/detailed in the Constutition when it’s quite the opposite. The 4th Amendment does, indeed, specifically secure citizens in their “persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”. The exception is if a citizen “volunteers” to that seach… and in this case, opts to choose commercial flights. So as I said, the search itself is not voluntary. The choice to fly is, and to do so requires you waive your 4th Amendment as part and parcel of that choice.
There’s two ways to lose rights in this country. To voluntarily surrender them at a given moment and under certain circumstances, and to not know them…. most especially when you’re in a court of law. Ignorance of your rights doesn’t mean they will be granted. And judges will not remind you they exist.
Ivan, let’s see if y0u can comprehend a few things: first, please show me where the federal authority has the right to interfer with private commerce by imposing rules on those contracts made by businesses and their customers. That is your first challenge.
Second, when you buy a plane ticket, it is a free market agreement for services. If the business (i.e. the airline) wishes to make as part of that contract their right to search you, and your luggage, then that is between you and the airlines. You can agree to the terms of the contract, or refuse them. The federal government has no CONSTITUTIONAL authority to inject itself in a business arrangement.
Third, the airports are owned by municipalities, not the federal government. Hence, it would be up to the municipalities, not the federal government, to decide who can, or cannot enter that facility.
And of course, typical of your practice of spinning an issue, you failed to acknowledge that the guns that are detected by TSA agents are ALL detected by a metal detector, not by graping someone’s crotch.
On other thing, you have as much right to fly on a commercial (please make not of the word “commercial”) airlines as you do to engage in commerce with McDonald’s. The airlines, like McDonald’s, have a product to sell, transportation from point A to point B. Now, again, if you can find where the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to place barriers on private commerce between a business and their customers, provide that Constitutional example.
Mata, the “unreasonable” searches done by the TSA as a condition of travel are no more Constitutional than would be the government’s decision to tell you that because there are overweight people in the world they have a right to determine what you purchase from McDonald’s.
Yes, I know. I blame my iPhone auto-correct.
Actually, retire05, the highest the airline searches has gone in the US court system is the 9th Circuit back in 1973…. in US vs Davis. You can read a bit of the history as to it’s support from the courts at The Boarding area. Absent any higher ruling to the contrary to that decision, and ensuing precedents, the search is Constitutional because they opined it was reasonable for travelers to be safe by screening for explosives etc, and they can avoid the search by opting not to fly.
Therefore the voluntary is opting to fly… not the searches. Choose to fly, you waive your 4th Amendment rights to do so.
@Ivan:
Once again, Ivan has no Earthly clue what he’s talking about. We actually DO have a right to fly. Not under the Constitution, but in the United States Code. 49 U.S.C. § 40103 to be exact.
To wit:
Mata, I think if you research the cases that have been ruled on prior to the actions now currently being deployed by the TSA, you will find that in each case, the question is the legality of “screening” airline passengers. Now the screeening process at the time involved being required to walk through a metal detectors, the technology of the day. But in none of those cases do they allow the TSA to negate your right to be “secure in your person” and to be physically searched without “probable” cause.
I have a legal expectation of being secure when I get in my truck and drive down the highway. But it is unreasonable to expect that law enforcement, from any agency, can totally protect me from harm. If that were the case, then is it reasonable to say that law enforcement has the right to subject me to a breathalizer test everytime I want to drive.
The TSA’s actions are designed for two reasons: a) to give a false sense of security when flying and b) to randomly check everyone to avoid the accusation of “profiling” which CAIR has been shouting about, i.e. the Flying Imams case. The actions of the TSA are re-active, not pro-active. Total body searches, being intrusive, could be eliminated with the use of dogs. Dogs are apolitical and nonbiased and have the ability to seek out drugs, explosives, etc. The sense of smell is so great in many breeds that they are now being used to locate contraband cell phones in prisons.
The truth of the matter is that Americans have been willing to give up their Constitutional rights for a false sense of privacy. The searches done by TSOs would get any police officer fired. Which brings us to another point; what other inalienable rights are we willing to forfeit for a false sense of security?
@TheBronze, thank you for that. And because it’s a RIGHT, not a privilege, the enhanced putdowns or anything outside the norm of reasonable acceptance is illegal and, I maintain, unconstitutional!
@retire05, if you read US vs Marquez in 2005 – again from the 9th Circuit, you’ll find ample precedents for our current screening technology… defined as
Marquez, who had his crotch packed with bricks of cocaine, tried to fight because he was one of the random who was ushered into the “selectee” line, tho his detector pass and luggage x-ray gave no reason for such a random act. The court also ruled that was “reasonable”.
Like I said, I may or may not agree with court decisions, but they are our rule of law. And even with current technology and screening methods, they are legal and only made stronger with the passage of The aviation and Transportation security Act in Nov 2001.
You have hit the nail on the head, but not listening to yourself, when you said: “The truth of the matter is that Americans have been willing to give up their Constitutional rights for a false sense of privacy.” I will also add that Americans also yield their Constitutional rights for a sense of safety and security when they fly.
The fact that someone waives their 4th Amendment rights in order to get aboard a commercial airline does not negate the 4th Amendment for the rest of their lives. No more than if you invite a law enforcement officer into your home for a search without a warrant means he can do that again the following hour, day or week. That also means that because that your invited the officer in without a warrant, doesn’t mean that officer can go into your neighbor’s house without a warrant. You chose to waive that right. The neighbor did not.
Anyone who opts to waive that right to fly commercial doesn’t mean you lose your right *not* to fly, thereby requiring you to submit to a search.
Our lives are filled daily with waiving of rights of all various impacts in magnitude in exchange for something we wish to do… whether it’s eating at a restaurant that mandates a dress code, purchasing a home in a neighborhood with CC&Rs and HOAs, or submitting to a search or searches in order to board a commercial airliner.
@retire05:
Sorry, you’re wrong (as usual). It’s called the INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE. The Fed use this loophole all the time to interject themselves into most business dealings.
@thebronze:
Sure, and if you want to fly commercial then subject yourself to the searches. Or buy your own plane or hire a pilot who has a plane to exercise your “right”.
You don’t want to be searched, then don’t use commercial aviation. It’s so simple.
Mata, a law enforcement officer would have no reason to enter my home. Unless he was called to do specifically that. Knocking on the door because another house was robbed and wanting to enter mine to make sure I was not hiding the burgler would not be sufficient reason without a warrant.
Yes, I am listening to myself, but you seem to not be listening to me. My comment about relinguishing our civil rights was in direct correlation to flying, but applicable to other things as well.
You last paragraph is moot. If I chose to eat at a cafe that has a dress code, those rules are applied by the owner of that commercial enterprise. The airlines (a commercial enterprise) do not impose those rules of unreasonable search, the government does. Secondly, if I don’t like the rules of the restaurant, I am free to eat somewhere else that does not have those rules since they are not universally standard. So I have other commercial options, not just the use of one restaurant. My freedom to eat in a restaurant is not thwarted by the rules of one restaurant owner. The government dictates for flying are applied to all commercial airlines, not just the one I may want to use, so my freedom to fly commercially is blocked by the government unless I am willing to be subject to a violation of my 4th Amendment rights. Come on, Mata, you’re smarter than to give that as an example.
I have no read Marquez, but I would suspect there was a “reasonable” suspicion of criminal activing in order for him to be searched in such a way.
Ivan, because you accept the fact that the federal government has bastardized the Interstate Commerce clause in ways it was never intended to, doesn’t mean the rest of us are willing to accept it. Some of us still adhere to the Constitution as written, not how you liberals would like to rewrite it.
@retire05:
Okay, so you agree with me that the law and the courts have ruled on the ICC and you’re talking about something ex-constititional. You and I despise the fact that the Feds use the ICC to screw up our nation, our liberties and just about everything else, but you must also admit you were WRONG when giving your quasi-tin-foil hat opinion of what is constitional. You see, what is constititional is not what you say it is, not what I say it is, but what the SC says it is.
Retire, you and I agree on many issues, but you’re ignorant of the law-as Mata adeptly pointed out-and on the concept of tacit consent.
If you don’t like how our elected officials have interpreted the law perhaps you should move to Canada?
;->
Some of us still adhere to the Constitution as written, not how you liberals would like to rewrite it.
Reply
“You see, what is Constitutional is not what you say it is, not what I say it is, but what the SC says it is.”
How unlearned you are. The SC is NOT to say what is Constitutional, but to uphold the Constitution. It is not the purview of the SC to be an interpreter, but rather to uphold what is already written. There is where you lefties go wrong.
Why should I move to Canada? So that there are fewer conservatives, and originalists for you left wingers to have to deal with? BTW, our legislation also are not tasked with intrepreting the Constitution, they are tasked with creating legislation that meets Constitutional standards. But everytime someone writes a bill that would require legislation to meet Constitutional muster, the Democrats shoot it down. Now, for most rational thinking people, that says a lot, but I am sure that excludes you.
Seems it is you who knows little about the law, or or form of government. But hey, go ahead and remain complicit while The Won continues to usurpt your inalienable rights. Russia was such a success, that I am sure you can’t wait until we emulate it.
You are missing the point entirely, retire05. It doesn’t matter whether the law enforcement officer has a reason to come to your door or not. The moment you invite him in, as a professional, he no longer needs a warrant.
I understand you are trying to relate it to flying, but my views on TSA searches as legal, under the guidelines of the 9th Circuit precedents, stands. It is Constitutional because when you decide to fly commercial, the feds have a mandatory search for the reasonable safety of the other passengers. So fly commercial, you also agree to waive that 4th Amendment right.
And actually… yes.. the airlines do impose that search as part of their legal terms to operate. In fact, and again I will stress that you read 2005 Marquez that I linked above, it can be either a TSA agent OR an airlines employee that can randomly select any passenger.
From the ruling:
That answers your other comment when you said, without reading Marquez, that there must have been something suspicious to trigger his additional enhanced inspection. No… there was not.
And as you can tell, both the TSA and the airlines most certainly do have the random search selection authority, and are involved in that process. That means that your ability to fly commercial, sans a mandatory search, is affected both by federal mandates and airline policies…. not just the government.
And to add fuel to the fire, the court system has found it legal in every case brought before the higher courts.
And yes… I agree that the courts and their aid in expanding intended federal powers is deplorable. But still, we are a country of laws, and I tend to use them as the last word.. whether I like them or not.
Which brings me to your comment:
I’m sorry, retire05. But here you are wrong. Legislative branch creates law. Administrative branch enforces law. Judicial branch interprets law when there is a dispute.
The entire existence of our court system, and their sole power is to interpret the law… not to “uphold” the law. That’s Curt’s job.
Mata, you’re wrong again. The legislative branch writes law, the administrative branch enforces law and the judicial branch “settles” law. Settling the law and determining the law are two different things.
Now to Marquez:
“additional procedures involve a full-body wanding with a handheld magnatometer” And just where does it say that a physical exam is allowable? You see, it doesn’t. No where, in any case, has the matter of the running of hands over an individual’s private body parts been addressed. Up until the recent changes in TSA techniques, those type of searchers were not done on anyone who had not been arrested on some criminal charge. If you can show me where ANY case has involved the authority of the TSA to include the touching of a person’s sexual organs as part of a routine search, although they are not suspect of any crime and have not been arrested, you can count coup.
And having the authority to randomly select someone for a full-body wanding is just a bit different that having someone being able to grab your crotch, fondle your breast or run their hands down your pants. That, Mata, by all standards of the law, is sexual molestation when there is no probable cause for such an exam due to an arrest.
Perhaps you can show me where police are allowed to do the same thing the TSA is doing without reasonable cause, a warrant or an arrest.
But you will not do that. See, Mata, this is not my first go-round with you and I know you are not prone to admit when you are wrong.
Well that’s nice, retire05. But I used neither the term “settle”… your mickey mouse saying, nor “determining”. And there’s a specific reason for that. Because the judicial branch’s purpose of creation by the Founders is to *INTERPRET* the law…
Now if you want to play games with your own use of “settle” or “determine”, go right on ahead. However I used “interpretation” as the word for a specific reason… and that’s because of Constitutional studies on their power as one of the three branches. But let’s go back to your convoluted sentence:
Yes, the judicial branch “upholds” the Constitution… provided there is a lower court decision to agree with because the legal definition of “uphold” is to not reverse a lower court decision. It’s simply a misuse of the term. Nor do they “uphold what is written” because if a law is written unConstitutional, they do not “uphold” it at all. SCOTUS cannot rewrite legislation. They can only declare what has been written as unenforceable because of unConstitutionality. They don’t work for the legislative branch, but are a check and balance to their legislative creations.
But you compounded it by saying the High Court is not “to be an interpreter” when, in fact, that is their entire existence… to interpret the laws as created by the legislative branches when challenged.
Now, I’ll admit my that my response to you may have been confusing because the legal use of “uphold” does mean to agree with a prior decision. But also the terms “uphold” and “enforce” are interchangable legally as well. (See also the footnote of this NWU abstract where they state “2Throughout the rest of the paper we use the terms uphold and enforce (a contract) in a completely interchangeable way”>) Quite common in legalese.
You may have been trying to say what you think you meant. But you simply negated yourself with you said the courts were not to “interpret”. Elementary civics, retire05.
And your contined ‘tude towards me is noted. Washes off the back like water off a duck, bubba.
Yeah, perhaps I do have a “tude” toward you, Mata. I find you unbendable, and conceited. You obviously think you are hot stuff because you can ride a Harley. So friggin what? I was riding a rigid ass end ’46 police special when you were still crapping in your diapers. The first new Harley I bought was a DuoGlide, black, sporting Duco windshield and Duco hardside saddle bags. At the time, I weighed 119 lbs. soaking wet. So count me unimpressed with your ability to straddle what is nothing like what we had and has as much in common with my first bikes as a BMW has with a Model T. I doubt if you could have even kicked over those old police specials.
Now, that I have that off my chest, let’s see how really silly you are. Many times the SC “upholds” the ruling of a lower court (the system by which one reaches the SC) although the lower count has not met the Constitutional litmus test. Your beloved 9th Circus Court of Appeals would be one of those who seems to fail to met the Constitutional litmus test time after time. Yet, the SC can “uphold” the Constitition, and reverse a lower court decision. And nowhere did I use the term “uphold” in reference to a lower court. That is just something you threw in to fatten your opinion.
Perhaps quoting Chief Justice Warren will settle the matter. He said that “however the Court may interpret the provisions of the Constitution, it is still the Constitution which is the law, not the decisions of the Court.” IOW, the SC has gotten in wrong, and one of its errors is finding affirmative action Constitutional. It is not. Nor is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.
My point, that seems to elude you, is that although it has taken to doing so, it is not the purview of the Courts to create law. What it boils down to is the two camps. One relies on interpretation and the other on orginalism. I am in the originalist camp.
BTW, I am NOT a bubba. But your arrogance got in the way of you knowing that.
And I am still waiting for you to show me where any case that has gone to court involving the ability of the TSA to “screen” passangers included their right to fondle a person’s private body parts. I noticed you did not repond to that. Ummmmmm, wonder why?
Well that was a fine, on topic personal assault… LOL
Of course that ” Many times the SC “upholds” the ruling of a lower court “. But that’s not what you said. You said it was their job to “uphold what is already written”
First of all, no higher court is under any obligation to “uphold” a lower court decision. They can also reverse and remand. Thus the “interpretation” bit, where they may read the intent of the law entirely different than lower courts. Not unusual. I think you were trying to get to something correct, but just tripped over your own terminology.
Never said it was the “purview of the Courts to create law”. They are not allowed to do so. That power lies solely in the legislative branches… federal, state and local.
Why would I respond to some imaginary case that has supposed “gone to court involving the ability of the TSA” to “fondle a person’s private body parts”? If you’d like to give me a specific case, I’d be happy to read what briefs you link, or that I can find, and respond. By why would I play imaginary court cases with you? I go by what’s on the books… not what I want to see on the books.
Frankly, I think there’s a lot of laws that may be unConstitutional. However, unless they are challenged in a court of law, and go thru the appellate system to the top, we’ll never know.
Tell me, is “crotchety” your middle name?
BTW, your rigid hard ass end ’46 police special sounds magnificent. Love the classic rides, and frankly think the rigid frames with the spring seats are probably more comfortable than what we have these days… even the rubber mounts. But tell me, when have I ever discussed any sense of superiority because I happen to enjoy m’cycle riding? ’tisn’t I who has the ‘tude, retire05. It is what you seem to want to project onto me.
Probably if we met on the road, we’d like each other. But of late, can’t say that you impress me much either.
Added: PS: BTW, out of all the Circuit Courts, the 9th is my most unfavorite. Hate those guys… But then, that’s just another fantasy projection of yours. Don’t know where you come up with this stuff, but at least you have an active imagination.
Mata, you’re spinning like a top. Yes, I said uphold what is already written meaning what is already written in the Constitution. If you need, I will start drawing pictures for you so you can understand. And remember, it was you, dearie, that brought up the lower court.
Then you really do your dance of the Dervish by asking why you would refer to an imaginary case involving the right of the TSA to fondle a person when it was YOU that said you felt the actions of the TSA were legal, according to already decided case in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, (meaning that you accepted their ruling). I pointed out that the court ruled on the ability of the TSA to wand a person, not sexually molest them. You ignore that and go off on some tangent about an “imaginary” case.
You think if we met on the road we would like each other, although you add that you are not impressed with me of late. You think I would like someone who tries to make nicey, nice and then insults me? You are living in denial, child. Your sense of superiority isn’t because you ride, it is because of how you respond to other posters on this blog. Now, I can understand you taking on the bleating heart liberals (actually, they are progressives and not true liberals) but you have seemed to want to thrust your dagger at me since I came here. Maybe I am reading you wrong. Perhaps you are not as arrogant and snipy as you read. If so, OK. If not, oh well!
But please tell me, what kind of nitwit uses their “least favorite court”, and its rulings, to prove a point? Kinda like using the opinion of a Las Vegas prostitute to argue your support of abstinence, isn’t it?
Lordy, retire05. I guess I can assume, from all your stretches of reality to defend yourself here, that “crotchety” is indeed your middle name. heh BTW, that is delivered with some affection… the term, that is.
YOU brought up the “lower court” by erroneously using the “uphold” phrase. I didn’t. Word usage in legalese is important.
I don’t “feel” the TSA actions are legal. I *know*. Because, unlike you, I don’t believe my personal feelings and opinions usurp those of a US federal circuit court…. even when I detest their rulings. But I also read thru the court briefs when I’m interested in particular cases, and see where the oral arguments and presentation by an inferior attorney can laed to a decision I detest. If this doesn’t ring a bell for you, why don’t you research some of the history of Richard Quigley over the past decade and a half, and how Abate of California dropped the ball on all he begat in the past year approximate. With the wrong choice of representation, and a lazy, over confident attorney, they blew what should have been a cake walk in the 9th.
But then, that seems to happen a lot these days. A lot of inferior attorneys getting high profile jobs… and blowing them. Problem with some of these cases is they are only as effective and successful as the attorney, presenting the arguments. Justices can’t fill in the blanks for what an attorney brings, or doesn’t bring them. They have to rule on what’s before them, even if it’s deficient in it’s argument. Then add that, just like our High Court, the 9th tends to be extremely heavy on the liberal side of justices considering the cases. Just an ugly reality.
In the long run… doesn’t matter. What they issue as a ruling is what we have to live with. Like it or not. Which them makes me ask you, in like tone, just what kind of nitwit discounts legal federal circuit court rulings in favor of his own layman opinion?
As far as my responses… why don’t you go back and read my responses to you, retire05. None were rude, nor were they intended to be. That you took them as such seems to be a recurring personal problem. Yes, I think you are reading them, and in fact me – overall – incorrectly. Hey.. that’s the breaks. No clue why you have a primary chain up your rear end about me. But no harm, no foul. I shan’t lose any sleep, and I doubt you will either. I do find it kind of sad since the hard core riders and freedom fighters of BOLT are amongst some of my closest friends, and instrumental in my enhanced political awareness. They took me on in my infancy as a late starting rider, helped steel me for battling California in the courts for years over a decade ago… and to this day, there’s none I cherish more then them for sundry awakenings. Both for pure pleasure in the sport, and for the political awareness and legal training.
But I really don’t take much stock in “internet contacts” that want to fill in the blanks about me… most especially incorrectly… because they have some kind of personal problem or assume something about my handle that has no bearing on reality. I just don’t think much about it. Overall, it’s pretty much a waste of your irritation, and my time typing back, trying to play PC conversation with you. I can be polite and provide links, but the bottom line is, if I don’t agree with you 100%, you’re just a crotchety ol’ guy who gets his dripping wet 119 lbs all a’dither. Since it’s always a lose-lose with you because of preconceived notions, I can choose two options. Let you roll along and let someone else call you out – perhaps less kindly than me – on your errors, or try to engage and see what you do.
So far you’re batting 1000. Yup… crotchety. LOL That’s okay. I love a lot of my crotchety friends. You just don’t happen to be one of them at this time. Maybe in the future that will improve, but I’m not holding my breath. You have a lot of preconceived personal notions to break down first and, frankly, it’s not important enough to me to stay that course.
“Lordy, retire05, I guess I can assume, from all your stretches of reality to defend yourself here, that “crotchety” is indeed your middle name.”
Which doesn’t have jack shit to do with the subject at hand and is only another one of your feeble attempts to twist, divert and distort.
Now, frankly, I couldn’t give a shit less about your political awakening, and I doubt you are a Constitutional scholar, or ever a lawyer, and you are pretty lousy at debate. Anyone who has to resort to the “I have friends who are, yada, yada, yada” is on the losing end.
News flash, chipie, I don’t want to be your friend. I don’t need you as a friend, and frankly, your lack of mettle as a person who can debate in a rational way disqualifies you as a friend. And it is clear that you are not very smart, as I clearly told you I am not a “bubba” but once again, you refer to me as a crotchety ol’ guy. I don’t choose stupid people as friends. Don’t hold your breath waiting for that to change.
Now, why don’t you run off to your friends here and tell them how harsh I am on you because I have no tolerance for those who spin their original comments trying to get out of a hole they dug for themselves. I understand that you can probably get me banned from this site, and if you do, it will only prove that you are less than you try to represent yourself as. Ol’ crotchety Retire05 picking on poor Mata who claims that the 9th Circus rulings allows the TSA to sexually molest people but can’t cite case law where groping has been the issue.
Yup… figured you’d still personally be an ass, retire05. But I gave it a civil shot. Now, you deserve none.
Anyone bothering to read the Huffpo level to which you’ve sunk on this debate may draw their own conclusions. From me? No quarter. And not a moment extra of my time.
Mata, let’s review what you have said:
“The searches are Constitutional” (entry #25)
I argued that the body searches are NOT Constitutional and a violation of our 4th Amendment rights.
“choose to fly, you waive your 4th Amendment rights to do so” (entry #29)
You cannot waive a a right as our rights are not granted by government, but are inalienable. Read the Federalist Papers.
You then went on to use a 9th Circuit Court ruling (a court you later denounced and that has been overturned more than any federal appeals court in the nation) on U.S. vs. Marquez to claim Constitutionality of body searches when the ruling clearly dealth with “wanding” as you later showed, and not hands on body searches. When I asked you to provide a ruling that hands on body searches (which, after all, is the subject of the debate), including the fondling of a person’s private body parts, are Constitutional, you started spinning about an “imaginary” case.
So………….when I challenged you to show how the hands on body searches were consitutional, or had been ruled constitutional you got snipy because you cannot present case law that agrees with that premise. I even pointed out that TSOs are conducting searches that are illegal for police officers to do, without an arrest or formal charges of a crime. Then you went into the whole “we would like each other, but…….” stchick. But had to up the ante with terms like “crotchety”, “ol’ guy” and “ass”. And as a parting shot, you labeled my comments as “Huffpo level” as if I am to be so insulted by that comment I would slink off in shame.
Now, in spite of your insults, I will tell you where I stand. I believe that the Constitution means what it says and I have inalienable rights to be secure in my person and not be groped by some undertrained TSO without reasonable cause. I believe that you cannot guarantee the safety of the general public, no matter how severe the tactics of the federal government and that those who are willing to be violated in the name of safety have bought into a false sense of safety that they don’t expect in any other instance, such as driving the Interstate highway systems (check the annual traffic fatality numbers). I believe the government is reactive, not proactive on terrorism (you go through a metal detector until Richard Reed shows up and then you have to take your shoes off, reactive policy). I also believe that the Obama administration has a nefarious goal in restricting freedom of movement, first using air travel, all in the name of national “security” although the TSA has a lousy record of pre-empting any terrorist attack, and all airline terrorism has been thwarted by passengers, not the TSA.
But the bottom line is that these hands on searches are unconstitutional, and that is why Texas Congressmen, with the help of Constitutional scholars, wrote its “anti-groping” bill. Other states are looking into doing the same. When we are willing to have our rights violated in the name of a false sense of security, we are sliding down that slippery slope to ending our nation as it was designed to provide people with the greatest amount of freedom known in human history.
And finally, just to be clear, I don’t make friends on an internet side. I do not know you, nor do I need to. I simply post my opinions here, and if you never show up again, I have lost nothing. I place greater value on friendship that you seem to do.
To retire (#50):
Where do you get this “fondle” stuff? This “grope” stuff?” This “poorly trained” stuff? Have you actually gone through these searches? I have — 6 times. So has my wife — 4 times. I think that I’ve probably flown at least 24 times during the past year (one round trip per month). I’ve observed nothing short of competent, polite professionalism. I’ve observed, over this time, thousands of passengers willingly observing regulations which make perfect sense to most of us (and to travelers at airports around the world), notwithstanding the odd strange, humorous, or apocryphal tale.
The suggestion that this is a plot by the Obama administration to “restrict freedom of movement” stands as self-evident testimony of the seriousness (or rather, lack thereof) of the general complaint.
In point of fact, millions of Americans will travel by air this month. Virtually none of them will enjoy the inconvenience of the TSA screens, anymore than international travelers enjoy the inconvenience of clearing customs, while virtually all of them will experience nothing beyond inconvenience and virtually all of them will understand and accept the measures which have been taken to minimize the risks of air travel.
By the way, here’s what goes in so-called “groping.” First, men are screened by men and women are screened by women. Second, the entire process is explained in advance and all questions are politely answered. Third the most offensive part of the procedure includes the agent putting gloved fingertips in the top of the belt line and going around the circumference of the waist. The so-called “groping” part of it consists of the BACK of the fingertips quickly being run up the inner surface of the thighs and the BACK of the fingertips very briefly brushing against the very bottom of the “junk” area, simply to determine if there is a wad of explosives or drugs or whatever. In the 6 times that I went through this, during the past 3 months, I never even felt the examiner’s fingertips against my actual “junk.” This is exactly what was described to me — each time — before the “pat down,” and this is exactly what took place.
There is no reason why the overwhelming majority of travelers, who are far more concerned about safety than about tortured definitions of “liberty” being distorted beyond reason, should be exposed to increased risk to satisfy the political views of people who voluntarily choose to use airline transportation, but who would insist on flying only according to their own personal terms.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, thanks for proving that the dumbing down of Americans has now been complete. Your logic that because thousands of passengers are willing to be humiliated (and yes, there are tons of complaints that you want to ignore) in the name of some false sense of security shows that Americans are not willing to buck the system that is eroding their civil rights on a daily basis.
But hey, it’s OK if someone is checking our your “junk” as long as they are the same sex, right? And because they told you, before hand, that they were going to sexually molest you, you, in your learned state, had no problem with that. Lemming.
Americans are not “willing” to go through these searches that violate the 4th Amendment. They do it simply because they feel they have no other choice.
So tell me, if all this is being done in the name of “public” safety, then why doesn’t the TSA initiate checks for people everytime they get in their vehicles to get on “public” roadways? Far more Americans die as traffic fatalities than have EVER been blown up in an airplane. Are you willing to go through the same kind of “search” to be able to drive your car? How would you feel if you had to have a police officer approve everytime you wanted to start your engine just to go to the grocery store?
You, and the rest of the sheeple would be screaming to the mountain tops about a violation of your civil rights. The ACLU would be filing law suits against LEs as fast as they could get them typed up. People would be screaming about police intimidation and abuse of authority. Yet, you are willing to give up your inalienable rights to be secure in your person for the convenience of flying. How pathetic. Perhaps you have forgotten how the ACLU Detroit sued the federal government over the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretaping, demanding that the government prove the ACLU was NOT wiretapped, and none of their clients, some with connections to Al Qaeda, were NOT wiretapped. Yet, the ACLU seems to have no problem with this administration initiating regulations that are not Constitutional by any far stretch of the imagination.
But I understand why you do it. The history books are filled with cases like this where people, out of fear of bucking the system, allowed their rights to be eroded.
Now, tell me just how many terrorists the TSA have every thwarted with their abuse of our civil liberties. Give me specific cases.
@retire05: Again, you grossly exaggerate the intrusiveness of the procedure (where do you get this “humiliated” stuff? Presumably the same place you got the “groped” stuff and “fondled” stuff and “poorly trained” stuff; i.e. you made it up) and you distort the meaning of “inalienble rights.”
And your point about the ACLU and who they sue and who they don’t sue is a total straw man, which has nothing at all to do with the discussion at hand.
With regard to the question of how many would-have-been terror attacks the TSA has thwarted, that’s a question which can’t be answered. You complain that many TSA actions have not been proactive, but, instead, have been reactive. Fine, but the point is that we had a shoe bomber before the TSA started screening shoes and, since they did, there have been no shoe bombers. We had an underwear bomber before the TSA started screening underwear, and, since they did, there have been no underwear bombers. We had people bringing weapons on board before metal detectors and x-ray screening of luggage. Yes, weapons continue to get through, but the risk of detection has become so great that none of the people who made it through screening with weapons have been actual terrorists, but, rather, people who knew that they wouldn’t be going to prison if they were caught. We had terrorists taking over cockpits before we locked the doors, but, since we started locking doors, there have been no more of that.
Once again, if your political sensibilities are offended by TSA screening, then just don’t fly. But don’t put me and my family at increased risk to satisfy your own sense of righteous indignation.
P.S. Your point about “tons of complaints” is a huge piece of distorted misinformation. As I said, I’ve personally seen literally thousands of airline travelers proceed through screening with me over the past year. Not once did I witness a single episode of a passenger complaining or being treated with disrespect or in any way being treated inappropriately. Does it ever happen? I’m sure it does. You are talking millions of passengers and tens of thousands of employees and millions of encounters. A couple of weeks ago, another driver gave me the finger, when I slowed down to change lanes, so that I didn’t miss my freeway exit. When people interact with people, occasionally one or both of them gets pissed off. That’s life. Sometimes I get a really lousy waiter in a really expensive restaurant. Stuff happens.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
flying is a bitch
read my “normal” story
http://theregjoe.blogspot.com/2011/05/flight-nightmare.html
The ranting and ravings of Retire05 only reinforce in my mind why the 4th Amendment is the amendment cowards and criminals hide behind.
He who screams “Fourth Amendment!” is usually the most guilty of something.
I think the Republic would be better off if we did away with that Amendment, as well as the 19th.
Larry, perhaps you would like to tell me how your chances of getting blown out of the sky by a terrorist on a plane are greater than you being killed in a motor vehicle accident. The truth of the matter is your chances are greater of being killing on any highway all across this nation. Hell, your chances of being murdered by an illegal immigrant is greater than your chance of being blown to smithereens in the air.
You must think that those who want to kill us are really stupid. They murder 3,000 people in a day by flying three planes into buildings and you think that they will try it again. They won’t. Just because they belong to a religion that remains in the 7th century doesn’t mean that they are stupid and unaware of modern technology. Nidal Hassan did not use a plane, did he. He simply drove on to his home base (after he had been shuffled due to polical correctness) and murdered 13 Americans. 3,000 or 13, it doesn’t matter to them. Dead Americans is the goal.
For over 7 years, after 9-11, we did not suffer another attack. And until Obama, the Marxist, took over, I was not subjected to sexual molestation by a TSA agent. If checking out a passenger’s “junk” is the only way to keep us safe while flying, then why was that policy not enacted immediately after 9-11.
You keep using the fact that millions of people use air travel every day and you claim no one complains about being molested. Yet, there are articles in the press almost every week about how someone is complaining about the enhanced searches. You seem to not be aware of them in your little ivory tower.
So tell me, Larry, are you willing to have to get police permission before you drive your car? Because that is the only way the government can protect you from a drunk driver, who will probably be an illegal, by making sure that no drunk is ever driving. Just how much of your liberty are you willing to forfeit?
Now, what I am saying is that these enhanced searches, including the touching, moving, etc. of private body parts is directly against my 4th Amendment rights. You also ignore that a number of states are looking at “anti-groping” laws. But being the Constitutional scholar you are (NOT) perhaps you can tell me how the TSA groping meets Constitutional muster.
You are a fool. The federal government, in a society that is as open as our is, cannot protect you from harm. And relinquishing your Constitutional rights because you have bought into the meme that it can by violating your civil rights only makes you a dreamer, not a realist.
@retire05: You persist in exaggerating the intrusiveness of the “enhanced” pat down. What on earth are you worried about? As I said, I’ve been through it 6 times and there was absolutely nothing about it which was “humiliating” and I never once felt as if I were being groped or molested. Anyway, low radiation scanners are being rapidly introduced. They give 1/40th of a chest xray’s worth of radiation. Presumably, you also object to the revealing nature of these scans. If this freaks you out so much, then just don’t fly. Don’t degrade my safety for the sake of whatever it is about which you have such a sense of moral outrage.
With respect to drunk driving, I’d be very much in favor of a system in which you had to blow into a tube in order to start your car. This is simple and sensible technology. Just as important, I’d be in favor of a ban of all mobile phone usage while driving, including hands free. Studies show that this is every bit as dangerous as driving under the influence.
The federal government has, indeed, protected me from a lot of harm. When I grew up, seat belts weren’t mandatory and I used to take naps on the ledge over and behind the back seat of our car and adults used to smoke while driving me around in it. I swam across the Ohio River when I was a teenager, and it was filthy. Today, it’s much better. Los Angeles air was brown in the 1970s and mostly blue today. Airplanes were regularly hijacked in the 1970s but haven’t been hijacked since 9/11. Automobiles are much safer today than in the past, owing to lots of things, but owing partly to government regulations, crash test data, etc. The FDA does a darn good job of keeping both pharmaceuticals and food supply safe. Department of Transportation rules regarding long haul truck operation make the highways safer. South Carolina has more than double the automobile fatality rate than California and Texas has a 35% higher fatality rate than California. Government got rid of smoking on airplanes and most public places. I know what’s in the food I buy, because it says so right on the labels. And on and on.
Government does a spectacularly good job of protecting the health and safety of its citizens.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, I understand you are a bleating heart liberal. I get it. But you are wrong on so many levels I don’t know where to start.
The government cannot protect you from harm. Do you not understand that? You think they can, after you admit the TSA agent touched your “junk” simply because you have bought into the false meme that government can safe you from harm.
As to having to blow into a breathalizer when starting your car, what would prevent a drunk from getting someone else to blow into it for them? Nothing. And then the drunk is on their merry way.
Seat belts? Another government intrusion into my life. Yeah, they provide some safety, but recent reports on the fact that we are driving lighter weight vehicles will contribute to a higher motor vehicle accident death rate. I drive an F-250 diesel. Who do you think is going to come out better if I am hit by a drunk driver in a light weight car? As to seat belts: my dad is dead because of a seat belt. He was hit head on by a drunk driver and the engine was shoved in my dad’s lap. The police report stated that had he not been wearing a seat belt he would have been thrown from the car and chances are he would not have been killed. So please…………don’t give me that crap about how safe we are due to seat belts.
And last time I was in L.A., (8 years ago) the sky looked like spoiled pea soup. As to the food you buy, hello? Spinage?
Now, again, I ask you; where is it Constitutional for a TSA agent to search you in a manner that even police officers cannot do without you being arrested? Or do you just accept that the government has the right to unreasonable searches without a warrant?
Let me tell you what degrades your security: the Democrats open-border policies. Why are you not demanding the government protect you from criminal illegals, or drunk drivers, or home invaders who are in possession of an illegally obtained weapon? And again, why are you so willing to give up your 4th Amendment rights for a false sense of safety, because to be honest with you, the terrorists are a hellofa lot smarter than the TSA. That is why the TSA is always one step behind.
Now, answer my questions.
@retire05:
Seat belts: http://main.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=45962
Los Angeles air:
In car breathalyzers: In principle, they could be defeated by a drunk getting a friend to do it, but so what? Realistically, how easy would it be to do that? Are you going to do that for a “friend?” Take on liability for yourself by enabling him to drive while impaired? In Sweden, all public transportation vehicles (including taxicabs) have such breathalyzer ignition locks. They work very well. There’s no such thing as 100% effective risk reduction, but it’s about taking reasonable measures to reduce risk. I know that you agree with this. What we are arguing about here is what is reasonable and what is not reasonable.
The most effective way to curb illegal immigration has always been to place stiff sanctions against employers — say $1,000 per day per “illegal” employed. Try selling that to the construction industry or the food processsing industry or the farming industry or the restaurant industry or to upscale suburban homeowners, etc.
All pat downs are intrusive. There is not a material difference between the garden variety pat downs of days or yore and the pat downs being done by the TSA today, in the rare instances in which they are still being done (scanners rapidly replacing them). I consider it much less intrusive to be lightly brushed with the back of a finger than to have my thigh grabbed by the palm of a hand. The goal of the pat down isn’t to palpate your genitals; it’s simply to detect if you are wearing a diaper and it is done with that degree of care. It is certainly NOT a violation of the 4th Amendment!
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
what if TEXAS buy some, like a couple of AIRPLANE, AND PUT A MARSHALL IN THE PLANE
AND A COUPLE OF VETERAN TO SEARCH PROPERLY WITHOUT EXTREME THE PASSENGERS THAT DON’T HAVE A CARD TESTIFYING THEY ARE NOT A PROBLEM HAVING PAST A CHECK BACKGROUND FROM THE TEXAS STATE EMPLOYED AGENCY AT THEIR PREVIOUS TIME, AS IT EVEN PUT IT A REQUIREMENT TO POSESS IN TEXAS GIVEN A TIME LIMIT TO CITIZEN TO BE ABLE TO GET IT EVEN FOR A FEE THAT TEXAS WOULD CHARGE FOR THE EXPANSES THAT WOULD BE FAIR; THAT WOULD RENDER TEXAS COMPLETELY IN CHARGE OF THEIR OWN STATES LAWS AND MOVEMENTS OF THEIR CITIZENS WHICH WOULD LOVE IT’S INCENTIVE FROM THEIR OWN STATE TO NEGATE THE CONSTANT ADVANCE OF CIVIL RIGHTS ABUSE FROM GOVERNMENT AGENCY UNION EMPLOYEE AND LEADERS WHICH ARE ON THE PAYROLL OF GOVERNMENT
Larry, what you are saying is you are willing to reduce risk based on the thought that government can do that for you.
You live in California. If it had been up to people like you a 150 years ago, California would still be frontier. You see, wagons could be unsafe. And so the government would have had to have certain rules and regulations requiring your ability to drive a wagon. And there is that whole thing of making sure that everyone who traveled in a wagon wore a seat belt in case the wagon tipped over, and they often did on uneven terrain. The government woul have been required to make sure that all water supplies were fit to drink. And that all food packed by the pioneers met federal safety regulations in order to be taken on the trip.
You obviously think that people would accept personal responsibility and not breath for a drunk. Really? You mean that this nation is so full of people who accept responsibility for what they do? Or that someone who did that would even think about the liability attached? Have you taken a look at the unwed mother rate, or the welfare rate, the criminal convictions? Obviously, personal responsibility is not real high on their priority list.
Yes, all patdowns are intrusive. But the difference between the days of yore and today is that in the past, you could not be patted down unless you were arrested on suspicion of a crime.
People like you disgust me. You have lost the very pioneer spirit that build this nation. You are so afraid for your own personal safety you are willing to give up your freedom, fought for so hard by others. You think government can eliminate risk in your life. It can’t. So what happens when terrorists devise another method for killing Americans? How far are you willing to let our freedoms erode for your narrow minded sense of security?
“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
Benjamin Franklin
You, Larry, deserve neither.
@retire05:
While people like you don’t disgust me (much too strong a word), I can say that you do perplex me. You wildly exaggerate. Let me make a wild guess: you’ve never actually been subjected to one of the airport pat downs which we’ve been arguing about. As I’ve pointed out, I have. 6 times. And your wildly exaggerated descriptions of “fondling,” “groping,” and being “humiliated” by “poorly trained” TSA employees simply don’t apply. These are not accurate descriptions; therefore your complaints and protestations are not relevant.
It’s not true that pat downs were not previously applied in the absence of probable cause. I’ve been going through metal detectors since the 1970s, in all manner of places. Whenever the machine goes off (or isn’t working), I’ve gotten a pat down, and I’ve lived to tell the tale, without the horrific emotional scars of being “humiliated.”
Let’s look at the statistics:
In the 1970s, there were 8 hijacking of US commercial airliners. Since the enhanced security measures were put into place after 9/11, there have been ZERO hijackings. By Fisher’s exact test, there is less than one chance in a million that we’d have 8 hijackings in one ten year period and 0 hijackings in another ten year period by chance alone; therefore the null hypothesis that enhanced governmental screening measures haven’t made a difference is rejected. i.e. government did protect its citizens and its air transport industry.
Your quotation of Benjamin Franklin is an odious comparison. You trivialize the meaning of a truly great saying by a truly great American, in the same way that you trivialize the meaning of the sacred word “freedom.” The freeedoms about which Franklin spoke were the sorts of freedoms that men would give their lives to defend: freedom of speech, press, assembly, representative government, religion. No one would give up his life for the right to be stupid (i.e. to not wear a seat belt or motorcycle helmet) or to avoid something truly trivial, such as airport screening.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
I apologize for butting into your conversation with retire05, Larry, but I believe you are mistaken. It is not he that is trivializing “freedom”, or the other oft-used word of “liberty”.
Using the dictionary defined term, any constraint upon our person is an abridgement of freedom. Benjamin Franklin’s actual words were, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
So, liberty is the state of enjoying freedom. Freedom is defined, as above, with the absence of constraint. A TSA patdown is an abridgement of freedom, no matter how one tries to spin it. You are trying to generalize the word to exclude detailed expressions of freedom. We are not trivializing the word at all. In fact, we who espouse more freedom, and thus liberty, from governmental intrusion, revere the idea of it more so than those who espouse the belief that such mild intrusions upon our persons and lives do not impact the overall freedom, and liberty, that we Americans enjoy. We place the idea upon a higher pedestal than others, hence, we engage in the opposite of ‘trivialization’ of the word, and by extension, of Benjamin Franklin’s words in that quote. Just my two cents.
@john:
A couple of years ago, I was driving up to Bakersfield. There was a wildfire up the road. There was a chance that it might reach the highway (the I-5), through the Grapevine (windy mountain pass just south of the Central Valley). The cops made me wait for two hours, before giving the all clear. The fire never made it close to the road. I’d have been willing to take the risk, rather than sitting there in the hot sun for two hours with no access to a men’s room and nothing to eat or drink. This was an abridgment of my freedom.
Not being able to carry in a cooler of beer on a public beach is an abridgment of my freedom.
In California, I can, however, walk out into the surf and swim out as far as I want, any time I want, and the lifeguards will allow me to literally take my life into my own hands, if that’s what I wish to do. Back when Jeb Bush was the Governor of Florida, his state lifeguards wouldn’t let me go out much beyond the surf line, to my great annoyance (it’s much better swimming out well beyond the surf line than swimming at the edge of the surf line, where the water is turbulent). I had a similar experience in Wrightsville Beach, NC (lifeguards intruding on my “freedom”).
I could go on and on and on, and so could you. When the red state lifeguards abridged my freedoms, it didn’t even enhance the safety of anyone else (unlike the airport screeners, which do enhance the safety of the vast majority of air travelers, who are appreciative of their efforts — and success — in doing so). What’s more important: your “freedom” or my family’s safety?
There are freedoms truly worth defending with one’s life, honor, and fortune, and there are freedoms of comparatively trivial importance, which we all surrender in the name of being law abiding citizens in a nation of laws, under representative government.
The ACLU comes the closest of any organization I know, with regard to fighting for pure freedom in the true (and often abstract) sense of the word. But many of the freedoms for which they fight are abhorrent to you and to retire05.
One man’s freedom is another man’s curse, and vice versa, at the level of daily life.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
openid.aol.com/runnswim,
this isuue has values, on those who wish to preserve the FREEDOM FOR AMERICA as a whole,
AND AS THE FOUNDERS WROTE THE RULES , WHERE YOU CANNOT DENY THOSE VALUES that are foundamental to AMERICA, THOSE WHO OBJECT TO ANY ADVANCE OF BREAKING THOSE RULES THEY WILL NOT ACCEPT IT AND ARE THE KEEPERS OF AMERICA AS IT WAS AND WILL BE WHEN ONE COME TO TAKE OVER to stop THIS ABUSE ON PEOPLE’S LIFE NOT HAVING ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAN TO SUBMIT TO THOSE RULES IMPOSED ON THEM, under the name of security
THOSE ARE THE TRUE AMERICANS THAT WILL ALWAYS STAND TO PROTECT THE POORS AND OPRESS
OF THIS NATION, YOU JUST HAVE TO READ HOW THEY WILL STAND IN GUARD FOR THEIR BELOVED AMERICA
Larry, yes, people like you, who seem to admire the ACLU that was started by a Communist, disgust me. Because your captulation to a government flies in the face of everything that was fought for by those Americans who simply valued freedom over the security provided them by the British government. They were not willing to submit to a distant government, that acted in its own best interest and not in the interest of its subjects.
Now, perhaps I am more libertarian than conservative since I feel if you want to wade out to dangerous waters and kill yourself, go for it. Just don’t expect someone to pull your ass out of the water when you use poor judgement. And if you want to drive into an area that is burning all around you, do it. Just don’t expect the medics to come rescue you.
You seem to think that is appropriate for the federal government to violate a person’s liberties in the name of the “common” good. It’s not. No where in the Constutition will you find those two words “common good”.
I am also going to call b/s on your “pat-down” after setting off the metal detector. Back then, if you set off the metal detector, you were “wanded”, not patted down a la arrest style. But then, I would expect no less from you because I find liberals are not very honest. Not one mention from you that Israel, who runs the safest airlines in the world, do not subject passengers to sexual molestation procedures to make it safe. You also ignore (with your diaper comment) that the same goal could be acheived with the use of dogs, which are non-intrusive, but which the government is not willing to spend the money on. You see, it is so much cheaper to hire undertrained people to grope your crotch.
I have asked you before to provide Constitutional basis for the patdowns. You continue to refuse to do that. You see, there is none. And “freedom” is not just some word that you can twist the meaning of to suit your own policial agenda.
You obviously are a proponent of the nanny state, thinking that government’s responsibility is to control your life so you remain safe from harm. I asked you what other freedoms you are willing to give up for a false sense of security. Again, no answer from you. You would have fit in well in 1930′s Germany.
I say, to pretend that if you don’t want to be touch your private part it your foundamental priviledge
to refuse the touching, and nobody should refuse you from flying because of it as long as you are not a profile suspect or and a foreigner or prison escapy on the list,
and to say to one ,don’t fly , or by your own plane is quite out of reason,
today ,flying is not the same as years ago, because it has become a must do to reach certain faraway places,
so you or the GOVERNMENT HAVE NO RIGHT TO NEGATE YOUR RIGHT OF FLYING FOR ANY REASON
AND ANY EXCUSE ALSO,
IF PEOPLE ACCEPT TO BE TOUCH IT IS THEIR FREE CHOICE ,BUT TO IMPOSE IT IS WRONG
@retire05:
Number one, I’ve been both wanded and patted down — many times. I’m sure that most people reading this who have done a lot of flying and have had reason to do a lot of business in government office buildings, courthouses, etc. can say the same thing. I was even patted down in a hospital (Swedish Hospital in Denver CO) last August. Number two, your suggestion to have dogs sniffing the crotches of airline travelers in all the lines in all the nation’s airports is ludicrous on its face. Number three, the overwhelming majority of Americans support TSA policies. http://www.gallup.com/poll/125018/air-travelers-body-scans-stride.aspx This is consistent with my own observations of the past year, with respect to an aggregate total of (I’m sure) thousands of airline passengers being screened, with not a single observed incident of a screened passenger in any way protesting the screening process, arguing with a TSA agent, etc. So you are not only “disgusted” with me, you are disgusted with 78% of your fellow citizens, who appreciate the fact that the TSA has put an end to the hijackings which used to plague air travel.
With respect to the ACLU, your comment proves my point. You aren’t in favor of defending all liberties and freedoms. You are only interested in defending liberties and freedoms with which you agree. You are perfectly happy, it would appear, to let freedoms and liberties be abridged when you don’t feel that these freedoms and liberties are meaningful or important to you, or if you disagree with these freedoms and liberties.
By the way, the ACLU has argued forcefully against government intrusion into the lives of Americans in the name of national security, e.g.
With respect to the Constitutional basis for allowing such things as body searches by metal detectors, xray scanners, and pat downs,
Everyone who buys an airline ticket knows that he/she is subject to screening. No one is forced to undergo screening. It is in no way an involuntary, warrant less search. The screening procedure is explained, in advance, on signs and, in the case of the pat downs, personally, and all questions are answered – in advance. The traveler to be screened is free to go, at any time, without going through a metal detector, x-ray scanner, or pat down. There is no advance expectation of privacy and there is the freedom to decline to be scanned at any time. It is perfectly Constitutional. I’m sure it will be so found, if such a case ever makes it to SCOTUS.
What an outrageous statement. The government doesn’t exist to protect me from each and every possible harm, but the government was founded to “provide for the common defense and to promote the general welfare” of its people. It’s right there, at the beginning of the Constitution. But you are only interested in those parts of the Constitution which are consistent with your libertarianism.
As I keep saying, you are hysterically exaggerating the loss to individual liberty and freedom necessitated by airline screening. Your use of the word “grope” illustrates this, along with the use of the word “humiliating”" to erroneously describe what actually occurs during one of these searches (which are, in any event, very rare occurrences, as the low radiation scanners are being brought onto line). As I also said, “liberty” and “freedom” are sacred words, and you trivialize their very meaning with your wild exaggerations.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, perhaps you did not understand the survey you referenced. While it did say that most people have no objection to the full body exray, in your attempt to spin, you forgot [deliberately] to mention that the survey also said that 70% of those survey objected to the patdown, which is, after all, what we are discussion. And when I buy an airline ticket, my contract is with the airlines, not the federal government. But I don’t fly anymore. I refuse to be felt up by some undertrained goon who thinks their uniform and their badge make them superior to me. So yes, the federal government, under your beloved Obama, has taken away my right to fly (a guaranteed right of freedom of movement) because I refuse to be subjected to Nazi tactics.
As to your use of ACLU vs. NSA as to how the ACLU are such defenders of freedom, their case was thrown out of court. Basically, the ACLU wanted the NSA to prove that they (the ACLU) had never been wire tapped. The ACLU had no evidence that they had ever been wiretapped, they just want proof they were not. Included in their suit was representation of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a group that has represented Gitmo detainees and was, at the time, suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda.
Now, I also would recommend you look up the word “promote” since the “promote the general welfare” is the two words you progressives use when you are trying to impose your socialist state on the rest of us. There is a tremendous difference between “promote” and “provide” and the word “provide” is not used in relation to the general welfare.
You are a liberal and you are a supporter of the nanny state. Fine. But I am not. I have security and it works a lot faster than my telephone dial and is just as available. Unlike you who live in Loonafornia (your state ceased to be a free state a long time ago) we Texans have a different idea what liberty and freedom mean. And if you don’t mind a TSO fondling your balls in order to allow you entry to a plane, then perhaps you are just another Anthony Weiner and get your jollies by being sexually molested, or watching your wife being molested.
Oh, and about that whole “common defense” thing: how’s that going as more and more Americans are murdered by illegal aliens, which your state has millions of?
You are the one who trivalizes our right to be secure in our person. You and your left wing, ACLU supporting friends. Gee, maybe you can find some Boy Scout troop to harrass. The ACLU excels in that, along with trying to end all expression of faith and religion, that is, except for Islam.
And yes, you and your Frankfort School of Marxism friends, get nothing but disgust from me. I would suggest you read the history of this nation and learn why men fought even though they had no warm coats or even shoes. The fought to curtail the oppression your ilk brings upon us.
Oh, and when you reply to me, include in your reply the arrest rate of the TSA. Since this administration likes to brag on how great they are, surely that information is available. If millions of people are going to get groped, at least let’s see the results of the groping.
retire 05
because you are a keeper of the FOUNDERS ‘S CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHT,
YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO FIGHT FOR IT, because the AMERICANS FORGET THE ONES WHO SPILL THEIR BLOOD FOR HAVING THEM TRYING TO DEBATE YOU AND YOUR GROUP,
THEY HAVE FORGOTTEN TO BE AMERICAN THE REAL ONE PROUD AND WALKING TALL,
NOT BOWING TO ANYONE WHO IS TRYING TO SUBMIT THEM TO SUCH HUMILIATION ,
THEY AGREE BECAUSE THEY LOST THE WILL TO SAY NO NEVER IN MY COUNTRY.
@openid.aol.com/users/110:
The point I was making, Larry, is that no freedoms or liberties that matter to people are “trivial”. And the ACLU does more than “fight” for freedoms and liberties. They also fight for “rights” that happen to infringe upon others’ freedoms and liberties.
BTW, you won’t find me defending anything like what you’ve pointed out happened in FL.
ilovebeeswarzone,
it seems some people have forgotten the reason we have a country called the United States of America. They are willing to forfeit their liberties in the name of safety. Had George Washington’s troops shared that mindset, we would be British.
I am a supporter of the Constitution, as it was written. I don’t accept this “living document” crap that people subscribe to so that they can twist the Constitution to suit their agenda.
retire05, yes SR, YOU EARN THE RIGHT TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION,
and you earn the respect for your STANDING FOR AMERICA,
@retire05 and @john:
I’d like to propose that we simply discuss these issues objectively and without personal invective (thanks, John, for so doing). Sarcasm is OK. Attacks on personal integrity are not OK. And your (retire05′s) comments regarding Anthony Weiner, me, and my wife were reprehensible. Would you sit still and quietly accept personal trash talk like this? Would your mother be proud of you for talking like this?
Now, to consider the issues raised by @retire in #69:
The Gallup poll I cited did, indeed, indicate that 78% of the respondents felt that full, revealing body scans were not unreasonable, given the circumstances. With respect to the question of pat downs, they didn’t ask what percent of respondents felt pat downs were unreasonable, they asked respondents whether they themselves would be more uncomfortable with a body scan or with a pat down. 70% said they’d prefer a body scan to a pat down. Because I, myself, am a medical professional with a radiation phobia (probably unwarranted in this case, given the tiny dose of radiation administered — why I still opt for the pat down versus the body scan is a topic for another time), I’m one of the few who opt for the pat down over the scan.
It is evident that you (citizen05) have never undergone an actual “enhanced” pat down, the way that the TSA carries it out. I also doubt that you’ve personally talked to someone who’s atually gone through it. In the abstract, I would entirely agree that it would be unacceptable to be “groped,” “fondled,” and/or “humiliated.” As I stated, however, I’ve undergone the procedure 6 times, and I can assure you that I was never in the slightest “groped,” “fondled,” or “humiliated.” While driving home from work (after reading #69) I asked my wife if she ever felt in any way uncomfortable in her 4 TSA “enhanced” pat downs (without prompting her why I was asking). She said no. I said, are you sure. She reaffirmed “no.” The only complaint she had was that they made us wait a long time, on one occasion, before “our” screeners appeared on the scene (they had to be repeatedly paged). You see, the only people allowed to do these “enhanced” pat downs are specially trained TSA agents (i.e. the charge that the TSA agents who do this are “poorly-trained” is entirely spurious).
I’d like to see a poll of people who’ve actually undergone the “enhanced” pat downs.
In any event, the only people who have to undergo the enhanced pat downs are people who set off metal detectors or people (like me) who voluntarily choose the pat downs over the body scanners. People with implanted metallic devices need only take medical documentation with them; so that no one need undergo the pat downs, provided that she/he does some common sense advance planning.
Getting back to the ACLU, the point wasn’t whether the ACLU won the case in question or not. And it’s irrelevant that Gitmo prisoners signed onto the case. The ACLU wasn’t representing the latter in filing the case. It was representing those Americans (including a great many libertarians) who felt that the Patriot Act was going too far. Additionally, the ACLU has challenged the new, more intrusive TSA screening methods, by the way:
I think that a general debate about the ACLU and what it’s done which has been “good” and what has been “bad” would be of interest for another time. The ACLU has, at times, enraged liberals as much as it’s enraged conservatives and it’s actively worked hand in glove with conservative-libertarians (e.g. Dick Armey – former GOP House Majority Leader, from Texas, by the way and Bob Barr).
Let’s proceed to the Constitution.
Retire05 says:
Actually, this is incorrect:
Here are a couple of references (one from a Libertarian blog, by the way):
http://www.reasontofreedom.com/general_welfare_clause.html
http://www.reasontofreedom.com/general_welfare_clause.html
Now, the Libertarian blog (link above) makes a very interesting point:
Now, this was from 1828, i.e. decades after the Constitution was written. I think it’s likely that definition #2 was added precisely because of the language in the Constitution, not vice versa (i.e. it’s likely that definition #1 was the accepted definition at the time the Constitution was actually written). As the Libertarian blog author correctly notes, we’ll never know for sure; so we have to rely on Supreme Court decisions — these are (quite interestingly) discussed in the first of the above links.
In any event, your (citizen05) assertion that
is demonstrably incorrect.
As I previously asserted, the TSA screening procedures are reasonable, effective, supported by the vast majority of the traveling public, and entirely Constitutional (as I’m certain they will be found by the Supreme Court, if/when a case ever makes it there).
P.S. I find it interesting that Obama is personally blamed for actions of the TSA, yet is felt to have no role whatsoever on this blog in the actions of the intelligence services and military.
P.P.S.S. With regard to US vs Israeli airline screening, the inconvenient truth is that the US record, post-9/11, is every bit as good as Israel’s, e.g.
http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000490.html
This is notwithstanding that the challenges and logistics facing US air transportation are vastly greater than those facing Israeli air transportation. Israel requires a relative handful of highly trained screeners, in a single airport. Compare and contrast that with the TSA’s burden in the US air transport system.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Well, now, Larry, I would assume that since your wife confirmed your opinion then it is settled. After all, who am I to dispute the opinion of your wife, someone who I am sure holds like-minded opinions to yours. Did you also check with your neighbor? Or perhaps a first grader in your neighborhood? How sad that you have to resort to school yard tactics to add credence to your position. Unfortunately, I can’t ask my mother how she would feel since she is deceased. But don’t let that stop you from dragging her into this. And please, don’t come back and say I dragged your wife into this, since you were the first one to mention her. I am quite capable of debating my own opinion without the aid of sympathetic troops.
Now, I really wish you would stop trying to spin what I said. I never said that the ACLU had signed Gitmo detainees onto their case. I said, if you want to be honest, that they represented the Center for Constitutional Rights, who represented Gitmo detainees and were suspected of having connections to Al Qaeda. Also, in ACLU vs. NSA, the complaint did NOT represent ALL Americans, it only addressed the issue of wiretapping the ACLU-Detroit and other plaintiffs listed. So please, do not spin the case to represent ALL Americans, for it did not. It was plaintiff specific.
Now, if you want to quote the opinion of a Constitutional scholar, and not some obscure blogger, who you say is a libertarian, I am willing to take that into consideration. But your argument, providing quotes from someone I have never heard of on a website I have never heard of, is a reach too far.
Article 1, Section 8 is called the “spending” clause. And while you might subscribe to the theory that Congress has the right to tax, and spend, for any program that meets the “general welfare” litmus test, the Supreme Court has ruled in South Dakota vs. Dole the spending power must be in persuit of the “general welfare,” a requirement that the Court left to Congress’s judgement to satisfy because ‘the concept of welfare or the opposite is shaped by Congress.” Simply put, it is up to Congress, and not the TSA, nor Janet Napolitano, to determine what constitutes general welfare. I can find no legislation that Congress has passed that permits arrest style patdowns as a condition of travel. In fact, the Congress could, should it so desire, according to your reasoning, defund the salary of TSA agents to conduct patdowns since it is the purview of the Congress, not a Cabinet member, to determine what best serves the general welfare. In fact, the argument has prevailed that Congress, not an agency, has the right to determine “general welfare” standards. How far we have come from the original intent of the Constitution.
Basically, what you are saying, by supporting the illegal actions of the TSA, is that you are helpless to protect yourself from harm, consequently, you are dependent on an agency of the federal government to do it for you. You cannot show that the tactics and policies of the TSA has thwarted even one would-be terrorists, and you can damn well bet that if it had, Janet (our borders are safer than ever) Napolitano would be shouting it from the top of the Capital dome. Yet, in case after case (Richard Reed, et al) it has been passengers, not the TSA, that thwarted a would be terrorist.
You also argue that since a majority supports enhanced searches, that the majority rules. Tell me, do you also accept that premise when it comes to a display of Judeo-Christian beliefs on public buildings? If I pay taxes, and those taxes support those public buildings, and the majority of people want the Ten Commandments on a court house wall, should the majority not also rule in that instance?
Now, here is the problem I have with you, personally. People use monikers because there is safety in anonymity on the internet, yet you use your real name, opening you up to harm (think Anthony Weiner) as everyone knows exactly who you are, where you work so consequently, it would be an easy task to find out where you live. You are not uneducated (as shown by your resume) so I can only assume you are not very wise, and in fact, have no problem personally putting yourself in harm’s way. Yet, you wish to hamper the civil rights of everyone else, based on your own personal safety. Sorry, you cannot have it both ways.
retire…Larry has asked you to quit bringing his personal family, in the manner you did, into this argument….so cease with it. There is no reason to bring that kind of crap up in any argument on this blog.
retireo5, hi SR, WE ALSO know that the TSA are unionizes so their is a conflict of interest, proving the role the UNION PLAY AS TO WANT TO KEEP THE TSA continiue to be profitable for them which are profitable for OBAMA, WHICH IS PROFITABLE FOR THE UNIONS, THAT IS A TREESOME WELL KNIT TRIANGLE
TRICK ON THE CIVILIENS WHO DON’T HAVE ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVE IF THEY ARE IN a HURRY TO GET WHERE THEIR LIVELYHOOD ARE, wait I left out the transport by air COMPANYS WHO STIPULATE THAT THE CITIZENS MUST ALLOW THOSE TSA TO WORK ON THEM OR NO FLYING,
iS IN THERE PRIVATE PLANE THAT COULD get in the busyness to become the ALTERNATIVE FOR PEOPLE WHO REFUSE OR WOULD WELCOME THIS ALTERNATIVE TO FLY HAPPY AND RELAX WITHOUT THE TSA IN THEIR POCKET OR ELSEWHERE?
AFTER ALL THERE SUPPOSE TO BE AN ALTERNATIVE ON EVERYTHING WE DO , ON EVERY CHOICE WE TAKE IN LIFE AND ON EVERY PROBLEM WE SOLVE
Curt, I was NOT the one to bring Larry’s wife into the discussion. He was. (see post #51, where he references how his wife had been searched “4 times”) He then reaffirmed her position in the debate by remarking how he had involved her in the debate by questioning her about this very issue. Had he not brought her into the debate, I would not have mentioned her. It is not my style to drag family into a debate (if you have read my previous posts, you would know that). Larry was also the one who discussed having his “junk” touched by a TSA agent. So perhaps you should re-read the posts. Also, you seem to have no problem with Larry bringing my mother (now deceased) into the debate when I have NEVER mentioned her, not once. So why the double standard?
Larry seems to have no problem with security by putting himself in harm’s way by using his actual name on this blog. All security experts will tell you that is a foolish thing to do, to allow unknown people to have access to your personal information, and I have warned him against the use of his actual name, which no one here does. Perhaps you should chastize him for that, if you are so concerned about him.
Fortunately for Larry I am not some crazed leftwinger who would want to harm someone because they simply have an opinion that differs from mine. You see, unlike Larry who seems to think there are limits on the 4th Amendment, I think there are no limits on the 1st Amendment.
I understand that he brought them up first, so it’s fair to include them in the discussion, that is why I edited my comment to include “in that manner”. This kind of stuff
I will not allow.
I understand you feel a certain way about this subject but there is a point when it gets crude and then to bring his wife up in that manner, I just won’t let happen.
This has nothing to do with a specific reader, it has to do with the blog itself. FA will never become Ace of Spades HQ lite, I won’t allow it. I enjoy that blog but I strive for some decorum here.
CURT, GOOD THAT YOU’RE with us, to temper our words,
if we get carried away, that is fair enough,
thank you
Curt, if you want to maintain “decorum” then I suggest you tell Larry not to arbitarily bring my deceased mother into the conversation. Yet, you did not do that, did you?
retire05, you know that,
the weinershneyzel are very hard to digest without the mustard!!!
specialy when you’re swimming across the surf.
I have been following this fascinating discussion in the comments thread the last couple of days. Unfortunately, as often happens, as it’s tilted heavily in one direction, the imbalance has brought out the worst from the guy on the losing end. Let me say I think Larry’s postings have been nothing short of brilliant, and he’s offered up his arguments with class and restraint. It’s unfortunate that his opponent couldn’t keep up and had to resort to personal attacks, a clear sign of desperation. I guess that’s par for the course on discussion boards. But what’s followed is truly disturbing:
What a cowardly and pathetic thing to write in an anonymous posting.
I, unlike Larry, am not too classy to make the following observations: Retire, you’ve shown yourself to be Larry’s inferior in intellect and character. I’m sure deep down, you know that, thus the wild display of anger. Unable to win the battle of ideas, and apparently constitutionally incapable of losing with dignity, you react like a typical bully, mindlessly descending to verbal attacks on his family and intimidation through threats. At the end of the day, you’ve come off like an unhinged goon with anger management issues. For your sake, I really hope you can salvage some small shred of dignity and apologize to Larry.
@retire05: I apologize to you for asking the rhetorical question “would your mother be proud of you?” I meant this in an entirely generic sense and it’s the sort of language I use about my own (also deceased) mother, e.g., as in, “would Mom really be proud of me for this?,” or, “mom really would be proud of me, if she could have lived to see this day.”
In any event, I’m sorry. I should have made my point in a different way.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
oh, poop. I truly didn’t read Tom’s #83 before writing/posting my #84. I don’t want to come off as pandering. I didn’t mean to do that. Apology was sincere. It hurt when I lost my Mom.
TOM, nobody is asking for you’re opinion,
so what else do you want to talk about?
ilovebeeswarzone, ignore Tom, as he seems to be in agreement with Larry’s opinion that their rights to have some false sense of security trumps my right to be free from intrusive government. And of course, Tom finds Larry (whom he agrees with) brilliant while he insults my intellect because he does not agree with me.
But Tom is correct in one thing; he is not too classy.
RETIRE05, YES, I WONDER HOW COME THEY PUSH THIS ON CITIZENS,
DON’T THEY CAN FIGURE OUT THE MOST IMPORTANT FACT,?
that is the CITIZENS ARE NOT CARBON COPY OF EACH OTHER LIKE THEM.
OF COURSE SOME FOLLOW OBEDIANTLY BELEIVING THEIR RHETORICS,
but what about the other who are free to not agree with that, SO ,
THEY SHOULD HAVE HAD ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE FOR AMERICANS OF THE OTHER SIDE,
THAT IS HOW THEY DIVIDING THIS COUNTRY, SINCE THEY TOOK POWER,
THAT MEAN THEY ARE IGNORING THE NEEDS OF THE SO CALLED OTHER
@retire05:
Did I hurt your feelings Retire? Typical of of bully to instantly feel like a victim when receiving 1/10 of what he delivers. To clarify one thing, as to why I insulted your intellect, it’s not because I disagree with you. I disagree with a lot of people around here, but I don’t think less of their intellects or characters. The problem here is that while Larry is trying to have a “Larry’s ideas” vs. “Retire’s ideas” debate, you keep trying to steer it back to Larry vs. Retire. You seem incapable of having a purely intellectual debate. No matter how much latitude Larry offers you to get back on topic, you keep making it personal. Clearly, you have a screaming inferiority complex which has bred a a giant ole chip on your shoulder. That’s a shame, but it’s not Larry’s problem, so perhaps you should stop trying to make it so.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
That is true and I appreciate the reminder. I also apologize to Larry for butting in.
@retire05: He brought up your mother in response to the comment you made that I already brought up. How that would be considered out of bounds I have no idea. Either way, this ends the discussion. You can either abide my rules or begone. Up to you. If you want to discuss this further email me offline.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Larry, I’m not sure why you are even discussing the “general welfare” clause in regards to the TSA patdowns. The clause itself was never meant to confer powers to the Congress. It is a simple heading leading to the specific powers granted to Congress, and their ability to lay duties and taxes upon the states and the people, to accomplish those specific powers outlined in Article I, Section 8.
James Madison argues in Federalist Paper no. 41;
Unfortunately, the reservations of those Madison is arguing against have borne out to be true. The “general welfare” clause has been abused and expanded to include nearly everything Congress wishes to be able to do, including welfare, Social Security, Medicare, the Highway system in the U.S., Obamacare, and many other things.
More;
Article I, Section 8 displays such a general phraseology of the powers, with a further qualification of it by delineation of the particulars of those powers. Simply put, the phrase that includes the clause “general welfare” does not include any powers granted to Congress. The listed specifics following it do. Yet, for over a century, this clause has been used as a defense for all manner of legislation for which Congress has no power to accomplish. It has only been by the lax attitude of the citizens, and the aggressive pursuance of progressive idealists that have resulted in such overreaching by the Federal Government.
In relation to your discussion with retire05, and the mention of the “general welfare” clause, no linkage to powers of congress should be made. It is in direct conflict with the stated and intended purpose of the author of the Constitution, as argued by him within the Federalist Papers, that the clause not be used to assign any power to Congress.
TOM, same for my friend ,
by the way, you just not qualified to make a profile of any CONSERVATIVES HERE,
BECAUSE YOU HAVEN’T LEARNED NOTHING FROM YOUR PAST VISITS .
@john, re “general welfare” clause. Nicely summarized, but it can be argued otherwise. I think it’s an interesting topic, of obvious importance to the whole Right vs Left debate. I’d like to discuss it further, but will have to do so later. – Larry W/HB
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Just pointing it out, Larry. I’m not sure, however, exactly how it can be argued otherwise when the primary author of the Constitution himself has argued, within papers meant as an argument for the Constitution, that the “general welfare” clause is not meant to confer powers on Congress, and as such, cannot be used to argue for legislation that Congress passes. We are talking about the source here, not the opinions of those uninvolved, and indeed, not even within the same time frame, as when the Constitution was written.
@John: You are referring to James Madison. Yes, he was the “primary author” of the Constitution, in the same way that Jefferson was the “primary author” of the Declaration of Independence. It’s never really practical to have a document drafted by committee. You assign a single author to make the draft and then the committee gets together and haggles over it. There is no doubt that James Madison, a single “founding father,” would agree with your views. However, it is well known that his views were not accepted by other, equally important founding fathers, i.e. Federalists, such as Hamilton, Adams, and even Washington himself. Madison did not have the power to impose his views on anyone, although I’m sure that, like Jefferson, he did his best to defend his views. In the end, the final language of the Constitution is sometimes ambiguous (as in this case) precisely because that’s what it took to get agreement.
As I said, it’s an interesting topic and I look forward to discussing it with you.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Tom; no, you did not hurt my feelings. As a matter of fact, you simply confirmed what I have known about liberals for a long time, that when THEY feel threatened, the insult their opponents intellect. It is a tactic as old as Woodrow Wilson were he still alive.
Curt, obviously Larry feels he overstepped the boundaries by bringing up my mother. He apologized, and I accept his apology. As to my comments about his wife, who he brought up, the very system of inhanced patdowns that Americans, with no criminal records, are being subjected to has been determined to meet with the definition of “sexual molestation” not only by my state but by a number of states that are now looking into it. If Larry was insensed by my use of the term “balls” instead of “junk”, I apologize to his sensibilities.
Here is the bottom line: I understand the inherent risk of air travel, just as I understand the inherent risk when I get on the highway in my vehicle. Air travel, while prior to 9-11, was actually safer than road travel. But as a nation, we have overreacted to what happened on 9-11 by allowing the government to restrict our freedom of movement. I find the TSA policies just as abhorant as I would if I were required to get police permission before I could drive my vehicle.
Knowing the risk of taking to the road, I still make a personal choice to do so. And I don’t expect the federal government to protect me in everything I do. I accept the risk that comes with everyday actions. The same should apply to air travel. If I understand the enhanced risk, then it becomes a personal choice as to whether I want to take that risk, or not. But if I am willing to assume the risk, I should not have to be subjected to an unlawful search in order to do so.
Larry lives in California. Let me tell you about how safe the TSA agents at LAX keep us:
I was willing to go through the scanner. No problem as I needed to get home. I had on a pair of Cole-Haan penny loafers that had pennies stuck in them. I did not set off the metal detector, but a TSA agent pulled me aside and asked about my shoes. I took them off to be examined or run through the scanner. Instead, the highly trained TSA agent wanted to tear my shoes apart. My spouse had just gone through the scanner, still wearing a pair of New Balance atheletic shoes (i.e. common name, tennis shoes). No problem. I had a dispute with the TSA agent about tearing up my shoes since they did not set off any bells or whistles. It took a supervisor to tell the agent that my shoes were no threat. The whole affair almost caused me to miss my flight. Yet……….. two men, dress in traditional Arab garb (to quote Juan Williams) were allowed to pass through the line without even so much as a body scan per orders of a TSA superintendant.
Another incident happened at the Jackson, Mississippi airport: I carry my father’s lighter (a Zippo) that he had with him during WWII. It has his name on it and holds a lot of value to me. It was in my pocket, and the scanner was set off by it. I gave the lighter to the TSA agent and went back through the scanner. No alarm. The TSA agent told me he would have to “destroy” the lighter and proceded to take it apart. I objected, called my spouse who had dropped me off at the airport to return to take possession of the lighter. By that time, the highly trained TSA agent had broken my lighter, requiring me to get it fixed.
So please……….don’t tell me how well trained these people are.
Again, not Larry, not Tom, no one on the left, can tell me how effective the patdowns have been. I see no headlines talking about how successful the polices have been in rooting out those who would try to bring down a plane. And believe me, if the TSA had thwarted would be terrorists, Janet (our borders are safer than ever) Napolitano would be bragging about it.
Again, if I disparaged anyone’s overly sensitive natures, I apologize.
Larry, the wording of the Constitution is not “ambiguous.” Quite the contrary, it was written so that the “common” man could understand it. And Madison, as its author, was more in a position to determine its meaning that those who have followed him 100 years later.
The modern day philosophy that Congress has unlimited power to tax, in order to provide for the “general welfare” is based on a New Deal case, United States vs. Butler which came down on the side of Monroe, and not Madison, who wrote the Constitution.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Just one correction. Madison was a Federalist, as was Hamilton and others, hence the writings for the Federalist Papers in defense of the Constitution as was written. The Anti-Federalist Papers, a hodge-pdge collection of writings and speeches by those opposed to ratification of the Constitution, presented arguments against the language included within the Constitution more so than the construction of the government itself. The “general welfare” clause is one, along with the “necessary and proper” clause, that they seem to have gotten right. While I agree that some language included within the Constitution seems ambiguous, there is no better way to understand the language than the source of it, and second to that, the defenders of the document at the time. One may wish it to mean what they want, but unless it can be reconciled with what is discussed within the Federalist Papers, and the meanings inferred therein, then they would be wrong, and they have been wrong, even when they have successfully passed legislation granting powers that were never meant to be held by the Federal Government.
You should ask yourself why progressives are some of the staunchest defenders of certain passages, to the point of being strict Constitutionalists, and then vary that with such wide latitudes on other content within the Constitution. In my opinion, they merely are projecting what they want the Constitution to say, and mean, instead of the actual, hence their variances of strict to liberal viewings of sections, clauses, and phrases within the Constitution. In short, they are inconsistent with their viewings of it. What this leads to is rule by the whim of men, instead of the rule by law, which our nation was founded upon. And each successive grouping of progressivist leaning congress, with differing views, expands further the accepted powers of the federal government, well beyond what the original intent was.
@John: I do want to take this up, but I can’t properly do it until tonight.
- Larry
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
I understand, however, I have to work tonite. Just one of the joys, or drawbacks, depending on how one looks at it, of working within the power generation field.
@John: That’s OK. We can do this just like postal chess. – LW/HB
So Larry, am I now to assume that you no longer wish to debate me? I accepted your apology, and offered mine.
Perhaps you are more sensitive than warranted.
@retire05: Life is too short for personal feuds. I don’t spend my time here because I want to fight with people; I spend my time because I want to discuss my points of view on matters which interest me, particularly with people who have opposing points of view, but who can carry on a civil discussion in an atmosphere of mutual respect. As I wrote, however, I’m fine with sarcasm and other forms of criticism directed at arguments, points of view, and citations. But I don’t like talking to people who get into personal name calling.
We apologized to each other. Or, rather, I apologized for my words and your apologized for my “sensibilities.” But that’s OK. Let’s move on. – Larry W/HB
Larry, I have to admit that I am a bit baffled why someone like you, a physician, would have as much time to spend here as you do. I have a couple of friends who are also physicians (although not general practioners) and I doubt they have the time to post on blogs as you seem to do.
That said (above was just musings on my part), respect is something that is earned. It is also something that is not important in a forum such as this. Your lack of respect for me has no bearing on my life in any fashion. I am not one of those who seek approval from everyone I encounter.
But……..perhaps I felt that you could be reasoned with. Risk is not something you can totally negate from your life. You, of all people, should understand that. But to give the government the authority over our private lives is to negate the very ideal of freedom that was paid for with such great blood and treasure.
I am glad that you have decided to eliminate your name, and town, from your posts. It was a dangerous practice, not one that simply showed you are proud of who you are. And a little surprising coming from one who seems so concerned about their own personal safety that they are willing to abdicate their 4th Amendment rights.
I sure hope that everyone doesn’t get too conforteble in a AIRPLANE, AS TO FORGET that if somone get up suddenly, and yelle ALL AT THE BAR, THE PEOPLE CAN JUMP AT THE BARTENDER, AND
THROW HIM OUT OF THE PLANE.
@retire05: I’ve been debating on the Internet since the pre-web browser days of CompuServe, circa 1992, continuing on into UseNet (now Google Groups), beginning in 1995, and then more into political blogs since 2005. Between Google Groups and Google, I can still locate close to 20,000 of my posts, virtually all signed with my own name and city, despite thousands of comments having disappeared when the “owners” of the blogs discontinued them and retired the web sites (e.g. as the Orange County Register did, several years back). Virtually all of my posts are signed with my own name and city. I only neglect to do this when I’m in a hurry and/or when it’s simply a short reply. I’ve engaged in all sorts of vigorous debates, with all sorts of passionate people. When I debate with Europeans, I’m the conservative. Same thing with certain issues, e.g. same gender marriage. Not once have I ever been threatened in any way, other than a grand total of two crank phone calls in nearly 20 years. No one ever slashed my tires or showed up at my door with a chain saw.
I believe in the First Amendment. I believe that it isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit, if we have to hide in our spider holes, behind pseudonyms, emerging only to scrawl graffiti, before crawling back down into our holes. It’s just a personal opinion, like all of my other personal opinions.
P.S. Regarding the time I devote to this stuff: I’m self-employed and spend most of my days at a microscope, scoring drug effects on human cancer cells in hundreds of slides. It is very challenging work, and I constantly take 5 minute or so breaks to refresh and recharge. I do tend to get overly engaged and have this stuff take over entirely too much of my day, to my wife’s entirely justifiable consternation. Here’s a photo of me at work. My keyboard is just off to the lower left.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Well, good for you Larry, you support your First Amendment rights and refuse to live in fear of harm that could befall you from modern technology and a nutcase’s ability to cause you that harm. Good on you. But wait,
you are willing to give up your 4th Amendment rights to be secure in your person and have someone physically search you, sans an arrest warrent, to pander to your fear of being blown up in a plane by a terrorist.
In some circles, that could be labeled “hypocracy”.
@retire05: What it all comes down to is whether the TSA screens are reasonable or unreasonable.
I’d like to give an analogy. You know the story of George Bernard Shaw allegedly asking a woman if she’ll sleep with him for 50,000 pounds (or whatever). Woman says “yes.” Then Shaw asks: “would you sleep with me for 5 pounds?” Woman says, what on earth do you take me for? Shaw replies, we’ve already established who you are; now we are simply haggling over the price.
You haven’t professed any moral indignation over the TSA screening your luggage, including opening it up and taking everything out of it to inspect what’s inside. You are OK with metal detectors, I presume. You aren’t even voicing an objection to the body scanners. So, in principle, you’ve already surrendered what you profess to be your inalienable 4th Amendment rights.
What’s bugging you are the pat downs. You have an inaccurate concept of what actually goes on, as I have tried to explain. It does not involve “groping,” “fondling,” or “humiliating” (all words you’ve used to describe your concept of what goes on). I personally wouldn’t put up with being groped, fondled, or humiliated. I do put up with a discreet and totally professional and completely unobtrusive pat down, the way it is actually done by highly trained and professional TSA agents.
I’ve been touched and violated — in a far worse fashion– riding crowded rental car shuttles, to and from the terminal. Don’t even get me started on the New York and Tokyo subways.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
My, my, a quote from George Bernard Shaw, a Fabian socialist and someone who believed in eugenics and thought that people should only be allowed to live based on their contribution to society. Ummm, I ususally don’t quote people that I have no respect for. But hey, that’s just the way I roll.
I told you; I no longer fly. I have chosen to stand my ground, unlike you, on the 4th Amendment. It is not anyone’s business what is in my luggage, my purse. I understand risk so that is not the reason I ceased to fly. You are unwilling to take risk on a plane but are willing to take risk on the internet. Again, in some circles that would be labeled “hypocracy.”
What you obviously have not seen through the lens of your microscope:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmADZpqhKhQ
@retire05: The Shaw quote was entirely non-political. And I take a much bigger risk in flying, even with all the safeguards, than I do standing tall under my own name on the Internet. I’m enlightened to learn that the term hypocracy (sic X 2) can be applied to risks which one voluntarily chooses to take. By the same token, I’m a hypocrite because I continue to swim with the Pacific Ocean sharks but no longer risk riding my bicycle on Pacific Coast Highway.
Learn something new every day, it would seem.
- Larry W/HB
openid.aol.com/runnswim
BET YOU HAVE A DOUBLE PERSONALITY, THAT YOU SWICH AT YOUR CONVENIENCE,
NOT EVERYONE IS SO LUCKY. for such a gift,
@bees: When did I ever say a single unkind word to you? What on earth did I do to deserve that last comment?
- Larry W/HB
openid.aol.com/runnswim,
why is that bad for you, I meant it as a compliment, because you do so many diffrent things that
are not related, and like retire said, to you, how do you find the time to blog,
and I learned that you do swim, like you said yourself, and travel much,
so that is sound like a lot for one person to find the time for all those things,
not many do so much in life,
so that was my way of expressing the many facets of your life,
no bad intent beleive me, on the contrary.
Dear Bees: I’m sorry. I misunderstood. Thanks. – Larry W
Larry, since you think that the risk reduction is greater because the TSA conducts enhanced searches, I am really interested in knowing how you reduce your risk when traveling on roadways/highways in a vehicle, which holds great risk than flying?
@retire05:
How do I keep myself as safe as possible while driving? (1) don’t drink. (2). Don’t talk on my mobile phone (not even hands free), which is worse than drinking. (3) always buckle up (quite possibly saved my life twice, and surely saved me from serious injury both times). (4) pull off the road and take a nap if I get sleepy. (5) keep my tires properly inflated and my car properly serviced. (6) stay alert to roadway dangers, including other drivers. (7) Try to avoid speeding, although this is, by far, the most difficult safety protocol for me to observe.
With regard to air travel, you are incorrectly assuming that I think that each and everything that the TSA does is essential for passenger safety. I don’t think that. They do have a tough job, however (much greater than the challenge for Israeli security, as I discussed) and they are doing a very fine job of keeping the air transportation system up and running.
The pat downs are a microscopic portion of the whole security process and, in the real world (as opposed to the fantasy world of the imaginings of civil libertarians who have never actually gone through the process) it’s a trivial inconvenience, and nothing more.
There is no reason why anyone who is opposed to a pat down need ever have one. Just pay attention to what you pack in your luggage and don’t set off the metal detector when you walk through it. If you’ve got a prosthetic hip, then bring along medical documentation. It’s as simple as that. But rest assured that, should you end up going through the pat down for whatever reason, it will almost certainly involve no “humiliation,” and it is almost certain to involve no groping or fondling, and the procedure will be done by a highly trained professional.
Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
OK, so you are a safe driver. That does nothing to reduce your risk of being killed by a drunk driver. So your practices are moot. You are not the only one on the highway. So much for that. You really didn’t have an answer.
I guess you think Miss U.S.A. was NOT humiliated? Or could it be that you never bothered to watch the video?
I saw at CNN a clIp of a company that from 5 years could eliminate the TSA or give the ALTERNATIVE with their coming with a concept very futuristic for their customer they call it traveling with DIGNITY; the journalist was trying the prototype In SINGAPORE if I heard right, already built to show how it operate, he, the journalist had to put his pasport into a open space then accepted he walk along a wide space where some scanning box light each for a specific item, nothing touch him, the scanners are like scisor and liquids others so he arrive at the end and re deposit his passport for the last check in a same slit box as the beginning and he is in the waitting space for his flight to arrive, wow, you check it IT’S COMING ,
I THINK the name of the airline not quite sure if I PICKED IT RIGHT IS HYATT, BUT CHECK IT TO MAKE SURE.
@retire05: You’ve got a system wherein millions of passengers are being screened — of course their will be rare screw ups, just as in any other human endeavor. I’ve read stories of cops molesting women drivers of vehicles pulled over for alleged traffic violations. There was one of these cases here in Orange County CA, not too long ago.
You profess to be brave and tough. Yet you are terrified at the thought of the minuscule possibility that, through your own negligence and stupidity, you might put yourself in the position of needing a pat down AND you might win the pervert lottery.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
BTW, Larry… off topic, but I just had to address this comment of yours:
That’s really interesting. If I’m not fiddling with my phone, and can simply hit a button on my bluetooth to answer (and hang up) to converse, why is conversing while driving such a dangerous thing? Or would you also like to see that conversation with passengers… which would also have to be construed as a distraction for the same reasons… also outlawed?
Bizarre….
Larry, you also have millions of people on the open highway, and I would suggest, their numbers are greater than the number of people flying every day. Yet, you are still open to harm, harm that you can do nothing to prevent. So other than you own safe driving habits, you offer no risk management policies that would reduce traffic fatalities.
I might win the pervert lottery? How so? I am not a pervert. And no, I don’t profess to be “brave and tough”. (don’t think I didn’t notice your cloaked attempt to insult me) I am just a person that believes in our Constitution, as written, and understand that the perverts have been the ones in Congress who have perverted that very document because of progressive like you who like to quote Fabian socialist who was never a-political one day in his life. I am also a person who undertstands that the federal government is not my mommie, protecting me from harm and I expect risk in life and can only pray that I handle that risk as an adult.
@retire05 352:
Yeah, and you’re probably 100 x more likely to drown in a swimming pool accident than you are at the hands of someone brandishing a gun. Don’t quite get the comparison, though.
Is al Qaeda attempting to hijack cars, load them with explosives, then ram them into buildings here in the U.S.? The chances of being killed on the road than from a plane flight are greater; but what are the chances of terrorists endangering those in motor vehicles vs. those flying on commercial airliners? Have they made zero attempts since 9/11 to hijack planes?
Isn’t TSA a part of Homeland Security? So shouldn’t their focus on transportation security be in regards to intentional acts of harm and sabotage as opposed to the accidental?
@retire05 #56:
and also:
Do you think it’s from a lack of trying? al Qaeda most certainly would have liked to use hijacked planes again. Because it’s been more difficult to hijack airliners since 9/11, because they’ve been largely unsuccessful and their centralized network in disarray since 9/11, they are looking at other possible ways to hurt us including smaller scale terror attacks rather than the dramatic and spectacular. Nidal Hassan wasn’t part of any organized terror network.
Statistically, the chances of being involved in a hijacked plane are not very great at all, admittedly. You might even have better luck getting struck by lightning. Yet how many of us found our lives still affected by the events of 9/11 even even though none of us were aboard any of those flights? How did it affect our economy? Our way of life? Should we have not upped security measures at airports and aboard airliners at all and just continued to “go shopping”, pretend that our way of life- our freedoms- weren’t affected at all? Is the threat from Islamic terrorists exaggerated?
I do think a number of measures we took have been an overreaction response (profiling has my support). No tweezers aboard aircrafts after 9/11 (I can still ram my ballpoint pen into your carotid or subclavian artery, or eye socket).
Because the 19 who hijacked American airliners weren’t hiding explosives in their jihadi under00s.
Since the shoe bomber, we now find ourselves taking off our belts and shoes for examination; after the British foiled a terror plot involving liquids back in 2006, we were no longer allowed to carry shampoo and other liquids and gels on board flights for a while; would a “pat down” have stopped the underwear bomber? Do all these enhanced security measures act as a deterrent? Do bag inspections prevent and deter? The vast majority of flyers probably aren’t thinking of hijacking any flights, after all. They aren’t hiding anything in their shoes or belts to harm travelers; they aren’t smuggling ingredients aboard flights to concoct chemical explosives. So are we just paranoid? Have we sacrificed too many personal liberties for security? One of bin Laden’s goals was to bleed the U.S. economy dry. Certainly we can’t protect ourselves from every conceivable forms of attack at all times. Yet we’ve not had another major terror attack since 9/11; is it from lack of trying on the part of jihadis?
No doubt terrorists are still trying to come up with new and ingenious ways to still circumvent each new security measure and create another spectacular involving hijacked planes.
You might not like TSA patdowns and that’s fine. There’s a lot of inconveniences we put up with or don’t put up with (you have the freedom to fly or not to fly; x-ray or patdown; and you’ve exercised your freedom not to fly). But I agree with Larry that it’s hyperbole to use emotionally-charged words and say TSA agents who are trained for the patdown are doing so because they are sexual perverts wanting to cop a feel of you. They’re doing a job just like the doctor that tells you to turn your head and cough. Is he groping, molesting you? Do you really think the doctor who has to give you an Army medical exam is having the time of his life when he asks you to bend over and spread your cheeks?
@retire05 #121:
What Larry means is that your chances of being patted down by a perv TSA agent who gets a thrill up his leg for having to pat every Tom, Dick, and Harry, is as slim as playing the lottery.
Of course, you are characterizing every TSA agent who has that job to do as being a perv, basically.
Wordsmith, that’s eazy to say, but you don’t impose that kind of communist rules for all AMERICANS,
WHO DID NOT BLOW ANY OF THE PLANES AS THE TERRORISTS DID,
SO, THE AMERICAN WHO WOULD HAVE AN EXEMPTION TO BE SCREENED HAVING A PROOF OF BEEING WITHOUT A DOUPT REAL AMERICAN WHO LOVE THEIR COUNTRY, AND ARE OR WHERE READY TO SPILL THEIR BLOOD FOR IT, THOSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN COUNTED AS THEY PUT THOSE
RESTRICTING MEASURES INTO LAW, WHY?
BECAUSE THIS IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!! NOT ANY MIDDLE EAST COUNTRY HATING AMERICA, and GLOUTING OVER THIS SITE OF A CROWD WAITING FOR THAT HUMILIATING ACTION THEY DON’T DESERVE.
DOES IN IT MAKE YOU THINK OF THE WAR WWII PICTURES ON THE GATHERING OF THE JEWS?
PEACEFULLY AWAITING THEIR FAITH, AND IF ONE PROTEST WOULD BE PUNISH, BRUTALYSE ARRESTED OR KILL,
NEVER AGAIN FOR NO EXCUSE SHOULD THAT GATHERING OF MASSES OF CROWD SHOULD BE IMPOSE TO A PEACEFULL PEOPLE SO TOLERANT TO ACCEPT IT TO THE LIMIT OF TOLERANCE
JUST BEING THERE IN THE WAITING CROWD IS AN AGGRESSION ITSELF,
and don’t anyone contredict this fact, in AMERICA NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE TO GOOD AND TOLERANTS AMERICANS
Wordsmith, of course you missed the entire point: that your chances of being killed in a moter vehicle accident are much greater than being blown out of the sky by a terrorist. Now, to bring it home for you, consider this: when 9-11 happened, we lost almost 3,000 citizens. The horror was not just the loss of so many Americans, but the violence of that day watching the two tallest buildings in America fall and the fact that we are no longer a nation protected by oceans, and that 19 people could create so much carnage and destruction. That same year, 2001, we had 42,196 people die in traffic fatalities. (according to the NTSA). My point is that the risk of getting on America’s highways is ten times greater than being blown up in an airplane by terrorists.
Is Al Qaeda using cars to blow up buildings? You tell me. There are claims that Timothy McVeigh was involved with a Muslim terrorist group, but even if he wasn’t, what is to prevent someone fom Al Qaeda using the same tactics McVeigh used? Nothing. Or have you forgotten how the Marine barracks in Beirut were blown up? And why would Al Qaeda (not the only terrorist group out there ) use the same tactic they did on 9-11 when they understand that our government is reactive to each event?
Let me ask you this: what do you think public reaction would be if the headline read:
Over 4,000 Americans Killed By Illegal Immigrants
for that is the estimated death rate, PER YEAR, yet the entire nation is not up in a national uproar to seal our borders, deport those who should not be here, and demand that the laws be enforced.
You say that Nidal Hassan was not connected to any terrorist organization, but ignore his connection to Anwar Al Awlaki, the American born terrorist who is talked about as taking over for UBL. You also ignore reports done by a number of national security groups that say that Al Qaeda’s newest tactic is “lone wolf” terrorists who will continue to terrorize Americans by killing in fewer numbers each incident.
I also never said that TSA agents are sexual perverts. I did say they are un/under trained. And they are. I also said that the TSA, under Janet (our borders are safer than ever) Napolitano, is reactive, not proactive. The TSA admitted that even using the procedures they currently use would not have caught the Hanes bomber. And there is absolutely no comparison to being checked by a TSA agent to being examined by your personal physician who you give permission to for the purpose of an examination. And that physical by your physician is not done in full view of other patients, is it? So you are trying to compare apples to oranges.
My point, that you miss, is that my chances of being killed in an traffic accident is 10 times greater than being blown out of the sky. That the TSA is reactive, not proactive. That there is risk involvement in everything we do, including driving to the grocery store, or the doctor’s office. That the federal government cannot eliminate risk by eliminating 4th Amendment rights. And that there is no hard data that the enchanced search procedures recently put into place by the DHS has made us any safer than we were even prior to 9-11, and there is no hard data that any terrorist has been thwarted by the TSA, EVER.
FURTHERMORE, OBAMA APPOLOGYSE TO THEM FOR THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA, AND HE SUCCEEDED TO PUNISH THE AMERICAN FOR BEING A SUPERPOWER OVER THE WORLD TO PROTECT FREEDOM FOR ALL THE OPRESS.
HUMILIATE AMERICA THAT WAY, IS THE TOP OF THE ABUSE
@retire05:
and
Actually, I got this point. My issue is with the comparison, which I look at as apples and oranges. Please reread my response where I acknowledge how miniscule the chances of being a victim of terrorism is as compared to being a traffic fatality.
I agree that the TSA measures have been reactive- an overreaction response when you ban tweezers from being carried aboard flights; rather than discriminating through profiling the lazy way out is a “one-size-fits-all” solution.
And yet all your comments are about characterizing them as “groping”, “sexually molesting”? Can you see where a reader may get that impression from you? I spent the last day going through this thread’s comments and that’s the impression your comments gave me.
I understood that when I wrote it; but you missed exactly what I was comparing: The fact that someone has a job to do, whether it’s a TSA agent (who you don’t welcome patting you down) or a personal physician who you willingly go to for medical attention. And that person isn’t there to sexually molest you but to do his professional job (unless in fact he is a proven pervert).
wordsmith, there is hard data that proves that an individual who undergoes a physical examination, in a very private setting, by their personal physican has a better chance at remaining healthy. This is the reason that Medicare pays for an initial physical exam when you go on Medicare. There is NO hard data that the TSA policy of physical patdowns, that have proven embarrassing to a number of people who were actually groped (Miss U.S.A. being the most recent case I can think of) has thwarted any would be terrorist. Also, being physically examined by your physician is an action you voluntarily requested, being patted down by an undertrained TSO is not. Do you not understand the difference between voluntarily being examined by your personal physician and being subjected to an enchanced search because the federal bureaucrats have ordered it?
And yes, TSA screeners are undertrained. It is simple economics. The starting salary, according to the TSA itself, is from salary Bands D & E. The starting salaries are between $12.24/hr to $14.08/hr. depending on educational/experience background as is standard in any Civil Service job. The turn over in TSA screeners is around 30%. So how much expense in training do you think the federal government is willing to invest in a TSA screener who can probably make that much working at Home Depot (Lowe’s starting salary is over $11.50/hr, more in some states) and there is a 30% chance that screen won’t make it a year in the job?
If you use the excuse that the TSA screeners are “only doing their job”. They are only doing their job because they have been ordered to (which btw, was the same excuse the German soldiers stationed at concentration camps used). If the police were ordered to conduct a extremely personal patdown if you were stopped for having a headlight/tail light out, were you accept it because they were “only doing their job”? How about if the TSA wanted to physically pat you down everytime you entered a federal building, placing their hands on your crotch and/or breasts, because Timothy McVeigh blew up the Muir Building, or that you have to go through that process if you wanted to park your vehicle in the federal building parking lot?
If you want to use the excuse that the federal government has taken these actions in order to prevent 200 people from being blown out of the sky, then it stands to reason that the federal government should become more proactive in regards to illegal immigration since every year we are seeing over 4,000 people murdered by illegal immigrants. There is NO difference. If it is the responsibility of the federal government to protect you from possible harm, they need to apply that standard to ALL possibility of harm, not just the one that controls our freedom of movement from one area to another.
RETIRE05, YOU HAVE A POINT THERE.
how come they didn’t start by number one danger!!! that is closing the BORDERS. THE TSA closing the borders, that would be quite a good job for them.
ilovebeeswarzone, 5 of the last 7 Houston police officers murdered have been murdered by illegal aliens. I have never known anyone who died in a plane blown up by a terrorist (although I have friends that lost family on 9-11) but I have been to the funeral of three people murdered by an illegal alien. Did those people not have a legitimate expantancy to be kept safe by their government?
retire05, this is quite high figures for officers of the law being killed, and I heard they where ban from shooting them, that should be the reverse number, yes they should be protected for sure and allowed to shoot on site,
that would send a message, that in AMERICA THE LAW SHOULD BE APPLYED FOR WHO EVER WANT TO LIVE IN HERE,
the TSA ARE MORE PROTECTED BY THEIR UNIONS, THEN THE ARIZONA SHERIF AND POLICE,
@mata (#120): Regarding hands free mobile phones.
This is an interesting topic — hopefully not at all political.
The data (and they are pretty robust) indicate that hands free mobile phones are no safer than handsets. I was surprised to learn this (I think I first heard the story on NPR’s “Science Friday,” or some such extended radio program).
Anyway, the data are clear, but the explanation is a bit more speculative. They have done studies in simulators. Talking to a passenger in a car isn’t unduly dangerous, but hands free mobile talking is dangerous (more dangerous than driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08). It seems to be related to the fact that passengers are aware of both what’s happening on the road and what the driver is doing. With an in person conversation, the passenger is cued in to the surroundings and less likely to demand attention during moments when the driver’s attention is particularly required to be focused on driving.
Notice what happens to your attention when you are sitting in your office and someone walks in and starts talking to you. In my case, I’m still completely aware of my surroundings — what’s going on in the office. But when the phone rings, more of my attention is required to be focused on listening to the caller — my surroundings just fade into the background.
I’m sure it’s different for different people. Women are supposed to be better at multitasking, for example.
What’s really gone up are bicycle fatalities — not only in the USA but also in the UK and Japan. I’m pretty sure that this is owing to mobile phone usage. The cyclist is sharing the road with traffic; it’s very easy for a distracted driver to veer to the shoulder side of the road and clip the cyclist. What I really notice, when I ride my bike, are the number of people who are obviously speaking on a phone while making left turns in front of me from the oncoming traffic after I’ve already entered the intersection to cross. They seem totally oblivious to me and it’s up to me to take the required evasive actions. I don’t ride my bike nearly so much anymore, as a result.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
openid.aol.com/runnswim
what if they listen to a radio exchange or music words that some songs are hard to
hear the words, if they allow that, then they should not ban the other one
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Motorcyclists have the same kind of issues as bicyclists. I don’t discount the use of cell phones, whether up to the ear, or hands free, as contributing to the accidents, but it really isn’t so much about that as it is people who have little regard for others, including those within other autos, when they are out driving.
I use my cell phone in my vehicle, but never in heavy traffic, or within urban areas. For those times, I’ll either let it ring, or stop off somewhere to answer it. On the highway, or out in rural areas with little traffic, however, I will answer it, and even dial on it. It’s all about having mutual concern for other people on the road, and cell phones are just one instrument of distraction that take away from that mutual concern of others. Books, eating, application of makeup(not me, so no jokes about it), and even shaving are other distractions that take away from that mutual concern of others.
johngalt, as you seem to know, It’s not a joke to put makeup while driving,
even harder to eat a book with hands on the wheel
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Ms. Bees, I thank you, sincerely, for the laugh your comment gave me. I think I needed that. Well done!
johngalt, what did it for me was the[ no joke,]
it was too hard to resist bye
@retire05:
I thought I was clear on this, but I guess not. Please read again what I wrote:
It doesn’t matter whether the former is a government employee doing his job, to whom you are not willingly subjecting yourself or if it is the latter who may or may not be in the private sector but to whom you are willingly subjecting yourself to. The point I am making is in the characterization that TSA agents are “groping, fondling, molesting” passengers whereas a doctor conducting an exam isn’t, in a sense, doing the same (the doctor exam, if we’re to be specific, most likely being more invasive than the TSA pat down). Both are conducting themselves professionally, unless proven otherwise. It’s your choice of language which I question, which is emotionally-based- calling TSA doing their job as “molestation”.
That’s quite possible, although just because someone is a low-salaried worker, does not mean he can’t conduct himself professionally and competently. I don’t think he needs a doctorate degree in order to perform a pat down. Wasn’t it a “lowly” U.S. immigration agent who was alert enough to foil al-Qahtani, from entering as the 20th hijacker?
I’m not even arguing or disputing you on a number of these side issues that you are bringing to the table. I think you are reading more into my comments than is meant, or bringing other peeves into it (border issue, for instance).
Ok, so how did you make the jump from TSA agents to a Nazi comparison?!
If it were the case that terrorists were plotting to enter or carbomb federal buildings, then it might stand to reason. As it is, you have to go through a certain level of security check anyway. The question is, to what degree? Where are you willing to draw the line? Larry pointed this out earlier, I believe, when he brought up the issue of being inconvenienced by such things as baggage check, luggage inspections, personal items, wanding, etc. You draw the line at pat downs. Fine. Why not go through the x-ray screening then?
Is the whole war on terror an overblown exaggeration, then? Are GWoT critics right, then, that this should have remained a law enforcement issue? After all, the likelihood of you being a victim of a terror attack whether by plane, train, or automobile are negligibly slim. Was the underwear bomber a one-time phenomena? Is the upgrade in AIT units or pat-downs unjustified? Reactive rather than proactively preemptive?
I’m simply asking questions here. I think you’re missing my original points, still, when I fully acknowledged in my first comment that you stand a greater chance of being struck by lightning than having your plane hijacked (even if there was only pre-9/11 type screening rather than what we have today). That the shoe bomber changed our way of life. That the underwear bomber changed it further. I’ve told you that we’re prone to an overreaction response (such as banning all passengers from carrying aboard tweezers when a person with the right mindset can improvise anything at hand to kill you with as a weapon).
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Okay, great. So now we’ve jumped to borders issue.
Yes, secure the borders. However, you do realize that the 19 9/11 terrorists came in through legal means?
Off-topic…
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: I’m GREAT at multi-tasking. There are some people who aren’t, don’t have the wherewithal to understand or acknowledge their own limitations, or exercise poor judgment.
I’ve seen other studies that also show how many things can constitute a “distraction”, aside from cell-phone use: Putting on make-up, yelling at kids in the back seat, putting ketchup on your drive-thru fries, fiddling with the radio dial or cd changer, outside distractions like billboard signs and an attractive woman walking down the street….
A portion of brain function is diverted even by simply thinking/day dreaming in your head about other things (try recalling exact buildings, street names, and specific details of the road that you’ve passed by without full 100% alertness).
Wordsmith, multitasking ability, that you posess should be a requirement very important for being elected in a COUNTRY SO FULL OF TASKS NEEDED LIKE AMERICA,
IF THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MULTI TASK, WHEN THEY DECIDE TO PUNISH THE AMERICANS FOR HAVING THE TERRORIST ENTER THE COUNTRY, like AMERICA HATER FROM
ALL SOURCES OF ENTRY INCLUDING THE BORDERS.
THE MULTITASK ABILITY WOULD HAVE MADE THEM FOCUS ON NOT ONE EXIT AND ENTRY BUT ALSO THE BORDERS WHICH HAVE BROUGHT KILLERS OF OUR OWN OFFICERS OF THE LAW
RENDERING THEM POWERLESS OVER THE GIGANTIC TASK THEY ARE TRYING TO DO WITHOUT NO BODY EVEN BLINKING TO HELP, THEY EVEN TRY TO SILENCE THE GOVERNER WHO WAS TRYING TO DO HER OWN JOB.
NO, THEY HAVE NOT AN ONCE OF MULTITASK SKILL .
BUT THEY DO MULTITASK AGAINST AMERICANS INTEREST
@word (#138): I think a good test of whether or not it’s a particularly good idea to avoid mobile phones while driving is whether or not you miss freeway exits or turns while talking on them (or while talking to passengers). If you miss freeway exits or turns, that’s a pretty good indication that you are readily distractable. – Larry W/HB
wordsmith, the whole point of my debate is that Larry supports what I consider a violation of my 4th Amendment rights (by subjecting myself to a patdown if so ordered) in order to give him some protection against a possible terrorist while flying, yet he assumes the risk of driving on highways without the same demanded security. Also, yes, I have the option of going through a full body scan, but if you read one of Larry’s posts above, he refuses the full body scan. Now, why would that be? Perhaps because he is in the “cancer” business?
You think I am comparing apples to oranges with flight security and the border. No, the point I was trying to make is that if the federal government has the responsibility to protect us from harm in one area of national security, then it stands to reason it has the same responsibility to protect us from harm in ALL areas of national security. Those people who died on 9-11 were no more terrorized that day than was rancher Robert Krantz when he was shot by an illegal alien in a border county, again, a national security area addressed IN OUR CONSITUTION. National security doesn’t just emcompass one section of our nation, it also includes the borders of our nation and this administration is failing miserably in that area. So yes, there is comparison between areas of national security just as your fingers are part of your hand.
You see, 3.000 deaths in one day is sensational, and tragic. 4,000 deaths in one year is ignored because it is not sensational, although tragic and has become all to common place, unlike what happened on 9-11. People react to the sensational, not the common place.
Mani think TSA is useless… they can’t do anything to out peoples, all they to is harm ours american!