who's still flying?

[done]

I'm As I see it, the negativity has more to with the trend as of late with " too much government", personally I don't feel that way, but everyone has a right to their opinion.

Really? So everyone who is uncomfortable with getting these new "enhanced" pat downs is simply jumping on the "too much government" bandwagon? No, they aren't and to say so is simply being dismissive without looking into the issue. It's blatantly false. Hillary Clinton has stated that she would do what she could to NOT go through a pat down. That's pretty telling to me. (I'm making no political statement, just using her as an example as she has been quoted on the record)

tyrius, I see where yo are going with this. Yes planes are private property (they are owned by the airlines), and as such they can make the rules as to security to get on them.

They however, do not make the rules, the government does. TSA is a government agency. They are completely reactive (which is better than never doing anything) but also ineffective. A body cavity bomb will be coming. Their scanners will not detect them. Their pat downs will not find them. I have no problem with security itself, but I think we need to balance the tactics, the impact to the 99.999999% of travelers who have no ill intent. and their overall effectiveness. How about alcohol on the plane? There are more incidents of planes being forced back because of some unruly drunk than anything else. Yet we have not banned it.

The TSA has a real dilemma. In order to be successful they have to be perfect. The terrorists only have to be lucky once. TSA is being told to stop every single instance of some psycho coming onto a plane. One guy gets on a plane with explosives and heads will roll at TSA. So they really have an impossible job.

What we need to understand is there is and always will be a remote chance that someone will blow up the plane you are on. There is nothing the government can do about it. There is little we can do about it. We will however go bankrupt as a nation and so will our airlines if we continue this security insanity.

Either way, a line of reason needs to be drawn with these pat downs. Stripping down 5 year olds, I think that is nonsense. Yea a kid could carry a bomb but how far to we take that? Someone could force an explosive device down an infants throat (and there are sick folks who would do that). Do we cavity search infants too? Cause if we don't know the bad guys will see that hole and exploit it.

[bigfruits]

i will still fly.

if it saves even one life, i dont mind. our personal rights/freedoms are being violated harder on other things. to me this is a non-issue. sorry about the kids.

[tyrius.]

I have no problem with security itself, but I think we need to balance the tactics, the impact to the 99.999999% of travelers who have no ill intent. and their overall effectiveness.

I agree 100%.  I don't really have a big problem with the body scanners, with a few small changes then I wouldn't have any problem with them at all.  I, for one, see no reason why we should x-ray radiation technology when radio wave technology exists.  Using x-ray radiation the chance of a machine malfunction is introduced and that malfunction may significantly affect the health of a large number of people who use that machine.  Also, there really is no reason why the body image needs to be shown.  The only things that need to be shown are items that are carried on the body and their relative location.

I do however have a HUGE problem with the current enhanced pat down procedures and the fact that TSA officials (Pistole) lie about their use.  When they specially state that children under 12 will not be subject to the pat downs, then one would expect that to be the case.  Actual facts put the lie to that statement though. 

The TSA has a real dilemma. In order to be successful they have to be perfect. The terrorists only have to be lucky once. TSA is being told to stop every single instance of some psycho coming onto a plane. One guy gets on a plane with explosives and heads will roll at TSA. So they really have an impossible job.

Well, two guys carrying explosives have boarded a plane of two seperate occassions and no heads have rolled yet, so I don't think I agree with your statement. 

What we need to understand is there is and always will be a remote chance that someone will blow up the plane you are on. There is nothing the government can do about it. There is little we can do about it. We will however go bankrupt as a nation and so will our airlines if we continue this security insanity.

Agreed 100%.

[tyrius.]

if it saves even one life, i dont mind.

Does this apply to only thinng that you don't care about?  What happens if people decide that saving lives are more important than anyone owning a gun?  Would you "not mind" that?  What if people decide that saving lives are more important than your personal privacy and any government official should be allowed access to your home whenever they see fit to search whatever they would like?  What if the government decides that boating is too risky and decides to ban all outboards larger than 10 hp?  The list can continue forever.

All of those would also save lives.  Shall we start writing our Congresspeople?

[piscicidal]

They however, do not make the rules, the government does. TSA is a government agency. They are completely reactive (which is better than never doing anything) but also ineffective. A body cavity bomb will be coming. Their scanners will not detect them. Their pat downs will not find them. I have no problem with security itself, but I think we need to balance the tactics, the impact to the 99.999999% of travelers who have no ill intent.

BINGO.

No one is saying stop checking travelers. My main problem is that what they are doing is reactive and completely ineffective.

Yes, we all know we forfeit some of our personal freedoms when we travel... But it is repulsive to me to give up SO MUCH of our personal liberties and dignity to support a program which is ineffective. The TSA has not thwarted one attack.

[bigfruits]

if it saves even one life, i dont mind.

Does this apply to only thinng that you don't care about? What happens if people decide that saving lives are more important than anyone owning a gun? Would you "not mind" that? What if people decide that saving lives are more important than your personal privacy and any government official should be allowed access to your home whenever they see fit to search whatever they would like? What if the government decides that boating is too risky and decides to ban all outboards larger than 10 hp? The list can continue forever.

All of those would also save lives. Shall we start writing our Congresspeople?

only to things i dont care about. you are 100% correct on that.

but what i meant to say is that there are quite a few things that i believe to be a bigger threat to personal freedoms/privacy than screening at the airport.

from your home search example:

if im having the president over to fix my plumbing, id expect a full house search to ensure his safety. a random house search would be unacceptable.

i would be furious if i were screened walking down the street for no reason. if im boarding an aircraft i fully understand, and appreciate it.

just my opinion.

[Stringjam]

I feel so much safer knowing that THIS is going on. Lord knows that little kid is just the kind of threat we have to be on the lookout for!

[FishingBuds]

wow! 

[Dan:]

So, the police have the authority to randomly pull you over, order you out of your car, and pat you down (including every inch of your body)? No probable cause is needed to pull you over or to order the search? The truth is they don't have that authority so your analogy is false.

Warrantless searches have been categorized into the "unreasonable" part of "unreasonable search and seizures" within the 4th amendment yet automobile searches do not require warrants. In some cases ie: drunk driver check points, police are allowed to stop drivers without even probable cause, all in the name of safety.

[tyrius.]

So, the police have the authority to randomly pull you over, order you out of your car, and pat you down (including every inch of your body)? No probable cause is needed to pull you over or to order the search? The truth is they don't have that authority so your analogy is false.

Warrantless searches have been categorized into the "unreasonable" part of "unreasonable search and seizures" within the 4th amendment yet automobile searches do not require warrants. In some cases ie: drunk driver check points, police are allowed to stop drivers without even probable cause, all in the name of safety.

And yet, I see nothing in your post that includes the police being able to randomly search people without PROBABLE CAUSE.  I never said anything about warrants and you only answered one SMALL part of my questions.  Why not answer the rest?  It's really a simple question and a simple statement.  Are police officers allowed to randomly search you (physically search your body) for no other reason than you chose to drive on a public roadway?

[Bassn Blvd]

So, the police have the authority to randomly pull you over, order you out of your car, and pat you down (including every inch of your body)? No probable cause is needed to pull you over or to order the search? The truth is they don't have that authority so your analogy is false.

Warrantless searches have been categorized into the "unreasonable" part of "unreasonable search and seizures" within the 4th amendment yet automobile searches do not require warrants. In some cases ie: drunk driver check points, police are allowed to stop drivers without even probable cause, all in the name of safety.

Really?  What cracker jack school of law did you go to?

You might want to read Delaware V. Prouse before you make false statements.

[Bassn Blvd]

Tyrius, You said the following

"And so are the attempts. There have been what 3 attempts since 9/11?"

How do you know that? Because it was advertised in the news. All I'm saying is that attempts are not always advertised to the public, therefore there could be more than three.

I'll somewhat concede and agree with you that the odds are in the passengers favor of not being blown up on any given flight, but I'll wager my ham sandwich that those odds are dropping.

[Bassn Blvd]

Has anyone watched the documentary "Obsession?" I suggest watching it.

Here's a clip.

http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/

\

Pay attention to .35 - 45.

[Bassn Blvd]

I'm trying to figure out what "rights" are violated by these searches. We don't have a "right" to fly. It is a service provided by private companies that can be restricted or revoked at will...it's just regulated by the federal government.

It doesn't matter if you're flying on a private plane or a gov't plane the passenger has to pass through security and that security is mandated by the federal gov't. As such, it is a gov't action.

If you want to enjoy the privilege of flying, you gotta follow the rules, just like if you want to drive on public roads you have less privacy when it comes to police searches, etc...

So, the police have the authority to randomly pull you over, order you out of your car, and pat you down (including every inch of your body)? No probable cause is needed to pull you over or to order the search? The truth is they don't have that authority so your analogy is false.

Not completely true.  There are several airports in my county that you can drive up to the runway, park your car and get into an airplane, jet.  ZERO security check.  Granted there are no commercial flights.

[tyrius.]

Not completely true. There are several airports in my county that you can drive up to the runway, park your car and get into an airplane, jet. ZERO security check. Granted there are no commercial flights.

That was poor word choice on my part.  Instead of private I should have written commerical passenger jet.  Even at major airports you can fly on a private plane or executive jet with much more lenient security checks. 

[tyrius.]

How do you know that? Because it was advertised in the news. All I'm saying is that attempts are not always advertised to the public, therefore there could be more than three.

There could be, but when airports are evacuated and planes are diverted news agencies pick that up and report it.  I vaguely remember a few airport evactuations - Newark for leaving a secure door open, another one where a "non-passenger" entered through the exit, a couple for mysterious packages.  Even if all of these are included the risks are still incredibly small.  29,000 passenger flights per day is a lot of flights!!!

If the plot is stopped prior to the airport then the airport security did not enter into that instance and it is not counted.

[Root beer]

If I ever have to fly, I might pop a blue pill beforehand. It could get interesting. ;D ;D

[Dan:]

So, the police have the authority to randomly pull you over, order you out of your car, and pat you down (including every inch of your body)? No probable cause is needed to pull you over or to order the search? The truth is they don't have that authority so your analogy is false.

Warrantless searches have been categorized into the "unreasonable" part of "unreasonable search and seizures" within the 4th amendment yet automobile searches do not require warrants. In some cases ie: drunk driver check points, police are allowed to stop drivers without even probable cause, all in the name of safety.

Really? What cracker jack school of law did you go to?

You might want to read Delaware V. Prouse before you make false statements.

No law school, just a semester of Criminal Procedures class.

What about Carroll vs. United States, then? And how do you defend the legality of DUI check points? Carroll allows searches based on probable cause instead of having to get a warrant. DUI check points don't require either last time I checked. Both are exceptions to the 4th Amendment, are they not?

[Bassn Blvd]

So, the police have the authority to randomly pull you over, order you out of your car, and pat you down (including every inch of your body)? No probable cause is needed to pull you over or to order the search? The truth is they don't have that authority so your analogy is false.

Warrantless searches have been categorized into the "unreasonable" part of "unreasonable search and seizures" within the 4th amendment yet automobile searches do not require warrants. In some cases ie: drunk driver check points, police are allowed to stop drivers without even probable cause, all in the name of safety.

Really? What cracker jack school of law did you go to?

You might want to read Delaware V. Prouse before you make false statements.

No law school, just a semester of Criminal Procedures class.

What about Carroll vs. United States, then? And how do you defend the legality of DUI check points? Carroll allows searches based on probable cause instead of having to get a warrant. DUI check points don't require either last time I checked. Both are exceptions to the 4th Amendment, are they not?

You said you do not need a search warrant to search an automobile.

The Carroll Doctrine allows the search of an automobile based on probable cause that the officer believes to contain a particular item. This, however, does not allow for an entire search of the car. You have to look at United States v. Ross. Ross defines the permissible scope of the search.

In other words, if the police have probable cause to believe you are transporting illegal aliens, then they may search the vehicle where the aliens could be concealed, thus eliminating the glove box or a suitcase from being searched. If contraband was found in the glove box during the search for illegal aliens then the case would without a doubt be thrown out.

The reason why the law is more relaxed with automobiles is because automobiles have a lesser expectation of privacy than a residence.

A warrantless search of a motor vehicle is permissible in some cases, but not without probable cause. Additionally, there are times you cannot search a motor vehicle without a warrant, even if you have probable cause.

As far as DUI checkoints go, The courts have set aside four factors that must be present in order to establish DUI checkpoints. Police cannot randomly pull you over and say they are stopping you to see if you're drunk. The police have to follow certain guidelines set forth by that states supreme court in order to conduct a DUI checkpoint. And yes, police need probable cause to search your car at a DUI checkpoint. 

[Bassn Blvd]

How do you know that? Because it was advertised in the news. All I'm saying is that attempts are not always advertised to the public, therefore there could be more than three.

There could be, but when airports are evacuated and planes are diverted news agencies pick that up and report it. I vaguely remember a few airport evactuations - Newark for leaving a secure door open, another one where a "non-passenger" entered through the exit, a couple for mysterious packages. Even if all of these are included the risks are still incredibly small. 29,000 passenger flights per day is a lot of flights!!!

If the plot is stopped prior to the airport then the airport security did not enter into that instance and it is not counted.

BINGO!  That is what I was trying to say about the public not always being informed of a threat.  Simply because the threat was stopped prior to reaching the airport.  Thanks for finding a simple way to say what I was trying to say but wasn't able to say what I wanted to say ;D ;D ;D

[Dan:]

So, the police have the authority to randomly pull you over, order you out of your car, and pat you down (including every inch of your body)? No probable cause is needed to pull you over or to order the search? The truth is they don't have that authority so your analogy is false.

Warrantless searches have been categorized into the "unreasonable" part of "unreasonable search and seizures" within the 4th amendment yet automobile searches do not require warrants. In some cases ie: drunk driver check points, police are allowed to stop drivers without even probable cause, all in the name of safety.

Really? What cracker jack school of law did you go to?

You might want to read Delaware V. Prouse before you make false statements.

No law school, just a semester of Criminal Procedures class.

What about Carroll vs. United States, then? And how do you defend the legality of DUI check points? Carroll allows searches based on probable cause instead of having to get a warrant. DUI check points don't require either last time I checked. Both are exceptions to the 4th Amendment, are they not?

You said you do not need a search warrant to search an automobile.

The Carroll Doctrine allows the search of an automobile based on probable cause that the officer believes to contain a particular item. This, however, does not allow for an entire search of the car. You have to look at United States v. Ross. Ross defines the permissible scope of the search.

In other words, if the police have probable cause to believe you are transporting illegal aliens, then they may search the vehicle where the aliens could be concealed, thus eliminating the glove box or a suitcase from being searched. If contraband was found in the glove box during the search for illegal aliens then the case would without a doubt be thrown out.

The reason why the law is more relaxed with automobiles is because automobiles have a lesser expectation of privacy than a residence.

A warrantless search of a motor vehicle is permissible in some cases, but not without probable cause. Additionally, there are times you cannot search a motor vehicle without a warrant, even if you have probable cause.

As far as DUI checkoints go, The courts have set aside four factors that must be present in order to establish DUI checkpoints. Police cannot randomly pull you over and say they are stopping you to see if you're drunk. The police have to follow certain guidelines set forth by that states supreme court in order to conduct a DUI checkpoint. And yes, police need probable cause to search your car at a DUI checkpoint.

That is the point I was trying to make. There are instances where a citizen has less of an expectation of privacy and there are exceptions to the 4th amendment's protection against warrant-less search and seizures. I am saying that boarding a plane seems to have become one of those instances and I think that's OK with me.

[Bassn Blvd]

Dan,

I hear ya, but they have the right to refuse the search.

I wouldn't care about the screening.

Hey, here's an idea.

Do you ever go to the mall and people watch?  Sometimes I'll sit in the corridor and people watch while the wife shops.  You see some STRANGE people.

How fun would it be to go to the airport and people watch while they get scanned and prodded?  I bet you'll pee your pants from laughing at some of the people pitching a fit. ;D ;D

[SirSnookalot]

I have been paying attention to several sources, some would have you believe that almost everyone gets scanned or patted down.  Other sources report less than 2% of people being scanned or patted, your choice as what to believe.  The polls I have seen are pretty close to a split on how people feel about this issue.

As far as interviewing goes the Israels know how to do it, using simple questions that require simple answers, but they know how to read into it.  If we interviewed here we would need a better trained staff.  In Israel it is not unusual to see dark skinned people at the airport, many are not moslem but are Separhdic, there is always staff available that speak Ladino for Separdic Jews, Yiddush for eastern European Jews, Hebrew for native Sabres, and of course English and Arabic.

[FishingBuds]

I have been paying attention to several sources, some would have you believe that almost everyone gets scanned or patted down. Other sources report less than 2% of people being scanned or patted, your choice as what to believe. The polls I have seen are pretty close to a split on how people feel about this issue.

As far as interviewing goes the Israels know how to do it, using simple questions that require simple answers, but they know how to read into it.  If we interviewed here we would need a better trained staff. In Israel it is not unusual to see dark skinned people at the airport, many are not moslem but are Separhdic, there is always staff available that speak Ladino for Separdic Jews, Yiddush for eastern European Jews, Hebrew for native Sabres, and of course English and Arabic.

I believe Israel are using EX-military as employees, this is why they are already trained to identify.

[tyrius.]

That is the point I was trying to make. There are instances where a citizen has less of an expectation of privacy and there are exceptions to the 4th amendment's protection against warrant-less search and seizures. I am saying that boarding a plane seems to have become one of those instances and I think that's OK with me.

There are currently NO instances, except the new airport security policy, where gov't authorities have the authority to touch you wherever they want without, at the VERY LEAST, probable cause.  It simply doesn't exist.  This new policy is a drastic change in what the gov't is allowed to do to random law abiding citizens.