Elwin Ransom wrote:So you will perhaps forgive me if I'm galactically pissed off right this second.
No I won't. If you're so weak of spirit that you break down and bawl because some asshole calls you a name and puts his own shoes on the conveyor belt, you shouldn't be working for the TSA, much less any regular old retail job at all. Secondly, I hope the old lady was being treated well -- But not profiled, because that would be bad. After all, the terrorists might start using Aunt Bea to plant their bombs.
you yourself say you intend to walk through the metal detector and push your way through our officers because you don't think our procedures are legal.
I can't speak for the others, but I never at any point said I intended to any particular thing, much less that. YOU are the one who said that you could do so, and I simply followed up with my own questions about that; since the TSA is generally shrouded in secrecy, this seemed to be a good time to ask. So you're not being terribly accurate, here, and it makes me doubt how well you're representing the viewpoints of others, though I do tend to agree with The Cid that the best course of action is to set reasonable standards, conforming to the Constitution, and not changing them out of a knee-jerk reaction to being terrified, the explicit purpose of terrorists. It's in the name, see?
Don't you dare tell me that conviction on my level doesn't exist in the real world just because I disagree with you, especially with four other people making their own strong convictions known right here. Disagree if you want; that's what this forum is for, but don't tell me that my point of view is pie-in-the-sky so that you don't have to engage it on an authentic level. That's just intellectual cowardice.
Well, I feel much better.
Do you? What do you call that
, then? It's weird that you would take such a non-insulting comment (I tried to keep it from being complimentary, as it would otherwise sound, because it wasn't supposed to be praise, just an observation) as such a poke in the eye. FFS.
As to the guerrilla marketing comment, I really don't see Real Life Comics as a prime target for the US Government to try to subvert people to their New World Order Agenda. I am indeed who I say I am and I do indeed believe what I say I do. I am also not the only one who believes what I do, even at my own airport. If you can't accept that someone could think this way, then I can't really do anything for you.
Once you've wrung out your panties you can go back and notice that I specifically said I didn't think you were any such thing, but that--in response to your question--that's what you sound like.
As to TSA operating outside normal legal and constitutional restrictions, we don't. Most government law enforcement agencies have the authority to do so in the case of terrorism, and we can debate the merit of that in another thread. However, as I have previously stated, TSA is not a law-enforcement agency.
You can say you don't in the same way that Cheney can say that various things done in Gitmo aren't torture. The matter remains to be decided in the proper courts, so that regardless of our own feelings on the various matters, it can be decided legally once and for all.
As to having your rights infringed upon if you have a choice of "go through TSA's procedures or don't fly," you don't have a constitutional right to fly. When you purchase a plane ticket, you acquire a right that is more of a license or a permission to board the airline's aircraft. That right is subject to following rules and procedures required by the airline for their passengers. You are required by the airline to go through screening. I am not going to try to explain this again.
Horseshit. I have a constitutional right to travel freely, the TSA is a governmental agency, NOT a part of any airline, and I have to go through the TSA no matter which airline I fly. Period. I will not argue against such silly, rationalizing horseshit as you have presented, no matter how many times you declare imperiously that you will no longer explain it to the plebs who just don't yet complete grasp the tortured logic by which they've given up all rights by traveling. And to say that it's the airline's policy rather than the federal government's, to say that they're not law enforcement but they can detain you and have you arrested if you don't do exactly as they say, it's just the worst sort of half-hearted attempt at a shell game. Who does that kind of talk even work on? What feeble minds can be convinced that way?
I did some looking and yes, especially if you want to go overseas, general aviation is more expensive. Deal with it. Standing up for your convictions has a cost
You realize you're not helping your case, right? "Subjugate or don't fly at all" can't be replaced by "Subjugate or if you're super rich get yourself a private jet."
we rarely press charges because it's just not worth the hassle- especially considering how the press feels about us to start with.
You do realize it's not the press, right? That it's the people? If the press is doing anything other than defending the TSA's increased government control by intimidation, it's because the mood of the people is finally hitting that tipping point, and principles be damned, even CNN wants to make money.
TSA policy does not allow touching without consent, but TSOs don't have to ask for your direct consent before screening you
Interesting. Have you noticed how such a standard doesn't apply to, well, ANYTHING ELSE EVER? It's like saying the cops can rummage through my car and feel up my groin if they pull me over on the highway because I "implied" that they could when I got behind the wheel. It's ridiculous, and you simply cannot continue going on with that argument. It only makes it worse
when you say the TSA isn't law enforcement.
I like your generalizations of us. I looked around the screening checkpoint today when we had some extra people up and took stock. We had three ex-military (one retirement age), a former cop from Oakland, CA, a former cop from Rhode Island, a former corrections officer, and three people without prior government employment experience. Everyone on the checkpoint but myself had a college degree. The two besides myself without previous gov't experience were immigrants (one from Colombia and one from El Salvador) who busted their asses to get to this country, get their degrees, and get jobs that (as they both have put it to me) let them serve the country that gave them a better life.
Yeah, you can tell just how bad the economy's gotten.
As to the charges, circumventing airport security is a criminal charge in and of itself, both in commercial and general aviation, and the fines are pretty stiff.
So then you were being incredibly literal when you said I "can" go through security and ignore the TSA staffers, simply guessing as to my physical size and power and the likelihood I'll run into your shrinking violet of a little old lady manning the machine that takes pictures of you through your clothes?
Depending on what you were carrying (gun, knife, etc), you would be charged with either attempting to carry a prohibited item onto a plane or attempted assault, depending on what you did after you got through. Depending on how you got through (whether you punched or shoved some people, for example), you would be charged with assault. There would also likely be a trespassing charge. Then there would be civil suits from any airline that had a flight delayed because of the checkpoint being shut down, if you were considered enough of a threat to warrant such a thing. Those suits could be for any amount; it just depends on how long it takes to find you and re-secure the area. I'm not sure which of the aforementioned charges would be state, local, and federal, but there would likely be a mix of them. And the LEOs are there to protect you from assault. If you are assaulted, call them.
So basically you have no idea what charges I could be held for, especially if I weren't actually carrying any sort of weapon or brushed past anyone. Tresspassing? Good lord.
However, that same logic could apply to a police officer, or a doctor, or anyone else who might come into contact with her.
None of those people get to grope her just so she can see grandma! The doctor you get to check out way ahead of time, and the police officer has to have a warrant if he wants to start feeling inside her daughter's underpants. The TSA staffer has no such restriction!
the people screening her are looking for bad guys, and that those bad guys could look like any one of us
That's true only officially. I'm willing to take my chances with the 3 year old daughter with her overweight mom from the midwest.
I'm of the opinion that any bastard who molests a child should rot in jail, but someone abusing a position of public trust to do it... that's even worse.
I agree (except I'm not sure why rotting in jail is the end-all, there), but you seem to be confusing TSA staffers with people who are in a position of public trust rather than artificially imposed and mystified authority.
I'd bet that both of the above mentioned officers will lose their jobs.
Oh, well, that makes me feel better. Their worst
case scenario is they'll lose their government job, their steady paycheck. Not that they'll face a criminal trial, that they'll be brought up on ethics violations or the violations of the rights of free people, but that they'll be moved to a position that doesn't involve direct contact with the public, or maybe even "lose their jobs." Gasp! The horror!
I finally found the court case I looked up shortly after taking the job. This case and its associated references clarify to me the constitutionality of TSA's procedures. http://openjurist.org/410/f3d/612/unite ... -v-marquez
The initial case in the references (United States vs. Davis, from 1973), establishes the precedent for implied consent concerning airport searches.
So the Ninth Circus decides, once again, that free people in this country have no rights if the government wills it so, so that's the end of it for you, eh?
Eric (the Deacon remix)
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922