Ron Paul calls for the end to TSA

And Paul's solution to airport security is what?

And your solution to bus security, library security, subway security, sidewalk security, train security, restaurant security, nightclub security, etc. is what?

Airports are not federal property. They can provider their own security as needed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the TSA formed as a response to the failures/shortcomings/budget shortfalls of private airport security firms?

Airports are not federal property. They can provider their own security as needed.

Apparently, they couldn't. That's kind of the point.

they were never given an opportunity to respond...

Ummm, the whole point of "security" is to be prepared -- not respond after the fact.

I'm just sayin...you don't buy a new safe after all you stuff has been stolen. What good would that do?

This is funny 'cause I've call for the end Ron Paul's career, over and over.

Oh I see, replace the TSA with private security guards, so *they* can pat down little old ladies instead. Because after all minimum wage guards working for a for-profit company have so much incentive to protect America.

Exactly

I'm so sick of hearing people whine about pat downs. If you don't want to be patted down buy your own plane, drive, walk or stay home. I don't really care, but we can never allow airplanes to be used as a weapon ever again.

hey since you support tyranny and slavery...there is really no discussing this with you.

Tyranny and slavery? Really?

Credibility goes *poof*

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the TSA formed as a response to the failures/shortcomings/budget shortfalls of private airport security firms?

No doug, you're not wrong, which is exactly the point.

james-1416766

hey since you support tyranny and slavery...there is really no discussing this with you.

you believe in giving up rights for security...exactly what our founding fathers warned us against.

the end does not justify the means sir.

only tyrants and dictators believe in that.

Replacing government "tyranny" with corporate "tyranny" isn't my cup of tea. With Government tyranny I at least have the possibility of voting the suckers out of office if they don't perform the way I want. What recourse do I have against a corporation?

Either way, they *will be* airport security, the question is it going to be done by a government agency or a private company. Paul isn't calling for the end of intrusive government airport security, the only question is *who* gets to be the tyrants.

Replacing government "tyranny" with corporate "tyranny" isn't my cup of tea. With Government tyranny I at least have the possibility of voting the suckers out of office if they don't perform the way I want. What recourse do I have against a corporation?

EXACTLY!

James,

So you're saying that if a specific corporation is given a contract to provide airport security you won't fly because you don't like that corporation? It's not like you can shop for your brand of security when you fly. At that point, you don't have a choice. With government, you do have a choice and a voice - your vote. I think if you ask those soldiers in Iraq who lived in Halliburton-built barracks, including electrified showers, etc. you may have a different point of view. There are some things that government can do.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the TSA formed as a response to the failures/shortcomings/budget shortfalls of private airport security firms?

That was the given reason. Since then we've had the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber. So TSA hasn't worked, so they should be replaced, right?

Some airports have been able to keep private security.

http://reason.org/news/show/1007035.html#feature2

You can read about the results here.

It found that “SPP airports’ overall performance results are equal to or better than those delivered by non-SPP airports.”

Historically, when government has given things over to the private sector, it costs taxpayers more. Do I want to spend more for airport security? No.

you seem to think that prior to 911 there were no precautions inacted at all.

there were policies in place.

Were they adequate precautions? I realize hindsight is 20/20, but given what we know now, were pre-9/11 airline security measures adequate?

Were they adequate precautions?

Yes. They were cost effective precautions. I am deeply sad that 3,000 people died on that one day. But 40,000 people die on the roads every year. And we don't have armies of goons ensuring we act safe there, when it is much much more likely to save lives if we did that.

TSA precautions were not adequate for multiple terrorist attempts since 9/11. Faulty equipment and pure blind luck has stopped the terrorism, not the TSA policies.

guards working for a for-profit company have so much incentive to protect America.

TSA guards I have seen would run the other way if something went south. Not so sure I would want to put my family safety in their hands or whether they have the sense to even know what a true terrorist is.

here's the million dollar question, even if TSA disappeared today why does anyone think that the airlines would want to reduce security checks and thereby increase their exposure to multi billion dollar suits?

It's not the gov't or TSA that has the largest financial exposure, it's the airlines. Even if private contractors come back they will still work under TSA regulation.

Brian White has an excellent point here:

And your solution to bus security, library security, subway security, sidewalk security, train security, restaurant security, nightclub security, etc. is what?

To this I would add shopping malls. In the 3500-some odd days since 9/11, there was ample opportunity at thousands of malls and stores, most with zero security. A target-rich bonanza ripe for the taking, to show the Capitalist Infidels exactly what was up.

Not so much as even a smoke bomb did they muster? How can this be?

There are only two explanations:

1. There are only about 4 terrorists and we have them under control.

2. There is no terrorist threat.

I'm going with number 2. In no way can you have 4 airliners take down two skyscrapers, hit the Pentagon, and crash into a field - and then virtually nothing in all the 10 years hence?

I could go with a couple of months after 9/11, but 10 years and no shopping malls? Something is amiss.

Here the answer:

Buses, libraries, subways, sidewalks, trains, restaurants, nightclubs don't fly.

The largest conventional munition in the US arsenal is the MOAB (Massive Ordinance Air Burst) it weighs 22,000lbs. Most of the tactical munitions used on the battlefield today range from 500lbs to 2000lbs.

A hijacked airliner weighs;

737 (800/900) - 150,000lbs

757 (200/300) - 250,000lbs

777 (200/300) - 650,000lbs

747 (400) - 900,000lbs

Add fuel and kinetic energy (300-500 MPH) and an airplane, used as a weapon, dwarfs any of our conventional weapons on the battlefield today.

If you can show how buses, libraries, subways, sidewalks, trains, restaurants and nightclubs poses a threat equal to or greater than an aircraft used as a weapon, I will agree with you.

If you can show how buses, libraries, subways, sidewalks, trains, restaurants and nightclubs can be flown into a nuclear reactor, fuel/oil storage or LNG storage, I will agree with you.

If you can show how buses, libraries, subways, sidewalks, trains, restaurants and nightclubs can be flown into a nuclear reactor, fuel/oil storage or LNG storage, I will agree with you.

I understand that flying a plane into a high-value target would be spectacular, and cause widespread local damage.

However, terrorism isn't about destroying a country, it's about 'terror', the fear of going outside or going about one's daily business. For this to occur, you don't have to kill anybody. A small bomb in a shopping mall, bus or train, followed by another and then another, and general fear would set in. People would avoid those things.

It seems quite easy to do this, and the fact it hasn't happened in 10 years is quite thought-provoking.

Rickeroo
It seems quite easy to do this, and the fact it hasn't happened in 10 years is quite thought-provoking.

That is one of the things that has bothered me about the whole al-Queada Terrorist thing. Now I am not a "truther" by any stretch of the imagination but it seems to me that the terrorists are either really stupid in their approach or we have really good security that no one in the Government is taking credit for.

The purpose of terrorist is to provoke terror, the 9-11 attacks were supposed to have the aim of spreading economic terror in the US (the twin towers being *economic* targets, not religious, or political).

So where are the follow up attacks? The "Shoe Bomber"? The Times Square taxi driver? These seem amateurish and lame. The US has literally thousands of undefended targets for terrorists.

Look at the target sites in the Middle East that are bombed *daily*, markets, police stations, checkpoints, guard barracks. Now translate those targets into America. Malls, Police Stations, Airport Security lines, National Guard Armories. Most of these might as well be undefended against a suicide bomber. This doesn't even count attacks against our infrastructure.

You want to sow economic terror in the US? Walk into the Mall of America during "Black Friday" and set off a bomb. It can be as simple as the Atlanta Olympic trash can bomb. You don't even have to kill a lot of people (or even yourself). If you are truly dedicated to "killing yourself for Allah" use guns (like Columbine). Now coordinate that with similar attacks at a dozen more malls across the American Heartland. You will grind the economy to a halt and truly "terrorize" America. Want to cause destruction? Derail a freight train carrying chemicals. Derail an Amtrack train. Blow up a dam anywhere in the US. Hell, just start wildfires if you want to cause problems.

Does anyone think that Terrorists *can't* enter the US if they want to? Or that that they can't manage access to explosives or guns in America? Hell, any gangbanger in any major city neighborhood can score weapons and ammo. We have High School kids shooting up schools (Columbine), disgruntled taxpayers flying planes in IRS buildings, drive-by shootings in urban streets of our major cities. Are dedicated terrorists unable to plan something similar?

So back to Rickeroo's question. Why *hasn't* anything else happened in the last 10 years? I doubt it's anything that the Government (meaning Homeland Security) has done.

The purpose of terrorist is to provoke terror, the 9-11 attacks were supposed to have the aim of spreading economic terror in the US (the twin towers being *economic* targets, not religious, or political).

Our national response to the 9/11 attacks (unfunded wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) certainly contributed to the economic terror many of us now struggle against. And while we were waving flags (and sticking yellow ribbon stickers on our gas-guzzling SUVs and monster trucks) and beefing up security theatre, the banksters and other profiteers sure did bring some serious economic terror upon Americans.

I'm also not a "truther" by any stretch of the imagination, but when looking at the economic winners and losers since the 9/11 attacks, it's easy to understand why some are.

Buses, libraries, subways, sidewalks, trains, restaurants, nightclubs don't fly.

Who cares? Terrorists have had high profile successful attacks on buses and subways (UK), trains (Spain), and nightclubs (Indonesia) since 9/11. Why is there no stepped up government security of buses, subways, trains, and nightclubs?

If you want to blow up a gas depot or something, I'm sure that shoulder mounted rocket propelled grenades would do the job just fine without the need for an aircraft.

Brian White

If you want to blow up a gas depot or something, I'm sure that shoulder mounted rocket propelled grenades would do the job just fine without the need for an aircraft.

That's true, but just as we provide more security for nuclear weapons than we do for hand grenades or conventional weapons, it's all about potential destructive capability.

No conventional weapon can match an aircraft in its destructive capability and no President could survive, politically, if another 911 happens on their watch. If they weren't impeached they would not win reelection.

So complaining about airport security is futile, it's not going to change.

My thought on the TSA is that they were created to take the heat off the airlines. If people are angry at the government (who has no financial interest in air travel) then the airlines won't be seen as the bad guy.

Somebody is going to provide security and regardless who that is they will still continue to pat down and scan, that is not going to change.

james-1416766

I guess you do not remember united 93??

They were 75% successful on 911, any commander would take that success ratio

Rickeroo

However, terrorism isn't about destroying a country, it's about 'terror', the fear of going

outside or going about one's daily business.

But airport security is micro security, not macro. The nation as a whole is responsible for fighting the ideology of terrorism, airports are fighting against an "incident" of terror.

Who cares? Terrorists have had high profile successful attacks on buses and subways (UK), trains (Spain), and nightclubs (Indonesia) since 9/11. Why is there no stepped up government security of buses, subways, trains, and nightclubs?

The vicitms and their famlies care.

Neither Spain or the UK had causalty anywhere near the totals of 911 which is the point.

BTW - Never have terror attacks on the US been preceded or followed up by attacks on soft targets. 911 and the first Trade Center attacks were both single attack events.

...and please explain how someone is going to sneak a bomb the size of a jetliner onto a bus or train.

Leave security to the pros, we have enough armchairs security experts floating around

As far as the effectiveness of the TSA's policies are concerned, RP had this to say:

Many Americans continue to fool themselves into accepting TSA abuse by saying ‘I don’t mind giving up my freedoms for security'. In fact though, they are giving up their liberties and NOT receiving security in return.

Last week, for example, just days after an elderly cancer victim was forced to submit to a cruel and pointless TSA search, including removal of an adult diaper, a Nigerian immigrant somehow managed to stroll through TSA security checks and board a flight from New York to LA with a stolen expired boarding pass and an out of date student ID as his sole identification. He was detained and questioned, only to be released and do it again five days later.

From the same speech on which the news article reported, the transcript of which can be found here.

The TSA wasn't formed as a response to the failures/shortcomings/budget shortfalls of private airport security firms, that was just an excuse. It was formed because "no serious crisis should go to waste", whether that "crisis" is organic or manufactured. Rahm Emanuel wasn't the first to realize it.

Please tell me "WHAT LIBERTY"? They are not your airplanes, they belong to the airline and if you think the airlines are siding with the people that are complaining then you are fooling yourself.

If private security were to take over, they will take their orders from the airlines and security will be even tighter.

Why, because the airlines have a financial liability to guard against a hi-jacking.

People act as though the TSA is operating in a vacuum. Do you really think the airlines don't have a say in security protocols? Have you heard a single airline executive side with people complaining about security? Wonder why the airlines are not complaining?

Ron Paul is an idiot, always has been and always will be

Definition of LIBERTY

-the quality or state of being free
-the power to do as one pleases
-freedom from physical restraint
-freedom from arbitrary or despotic control

Please explain how any of those defintions of liberty applies to flying on an airplane that is not own by you?

Flying is not a right, never has been and never will be. The airlines don't really care about the whiners, they have an fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders and they can't uphold that responsibility by paying out gigantic awards from lawsuit for poor security.

It's amazing, America now has 300 million security experts, where were all these experts on 9/10/2001?

Neither Spain or the UK had causalty anywhere near the totals of 911 which is the point.

And 9/11 caused less than 8% of the yearly death toll from car accidents. Terrorist activity just doesn't cause huge numbers of fatalities like conventional military activity does and should be treated accordingly. If we didn't need to give up our ability to travel freely to fight Communists or Nazis, I fail to see why al-Qaeda warrants it.

.and please explain how someone is going to sneak a bomb the size of a jetliner onto a bus or train.

Why would you have to? If you wanted maximum damage you'd just blow up a freight train carrying toxic chemicals through a city.

If private security were to take over, they will take their orders from the airlines and security will be even tighter.

You seem to be unaware that several airports do use private security.

You seem to be unaware that several airports do use private security.

Under TSA supervision, using TSA guidelines AND the program has been all but halted and no new airports have been allow to opt out until they can show how privatizing will be of greater benefit than having TSA agents providing the security.

Why would you have to? If you wanted maximum damage you'd just blow up a freight train carrying toxic chemicals through a city.

That's still not an airplane and it would not bring the nation to it's knees since the vast majority of trains are freight. When the air traffic system shuts down the entire economy of the US is at stake not to mention confidence in air travel.

And 9/11 caused less than 8% of the yearly death toll from car accidents.

Car accidents are just that, accidents...try to keep up OK.

It's amazing, America now has 300 million security experts, where were all these experts on 9/10/2001?

That's still not an airplane and it would not bring the nation to it's knees since the vast majority of trains are freight.

Well if you blew the train up in DC it would bring the federal government to a halt. DC city government actually wanted to route those trains around the city due to the threat, and the federal government told them they weren't allowed to.

Car accidents are just that, accidents...try to keep up OK.

Dead is dead. You are most likely to be killed by heart disease (600,000) or cancer (550,000). If you do die violently it will most like be in a car accident (40,000), followed by falling (17,000). Terrorists are just so far down the line it's not even worth thinking about. Is it wrong to think that money spent on preventing avoidable death should be spent where each dollar will protect the most lives? And that would be on public health, or failing that, car safety.

...or if they blew up a LNG tanker in Baltimore, NY, Philly, Houston or LA, or if they ever got their hands on control of a nuclear reactor, or if the manage to blow up a chlorine facility, or maybe they sneak in and detonate a storage or ammonium perchlorate...none of it flies, none of it can travel at 300-500mph and none of it can drop off the radar and become invisible flying bomb.

There is few non nuclear threats as great as a jumbo jet, period.

Car accidents are just that, accidents...try to keep up OK. When TSA is charged with pat downs before you get in your car, let me know, then I'll be glad to discuss it.

Car accidents are just that, accidents...try to keep up OK.

Preventable death is just that, preventable death.

Well, let's look at it this way.

We have four main options as far as airport security:

1) None.

2) Private companies that are unregulated and adhere to no federally dictated standard (meaning the standards could be strict in one airport but lax in another -- defeating the purpose) and deliver a lowest bidder level of service. Whether or not they violate your rights is up to the individual security companies.

3) Private companies that are regulated and adhere to a federal standard but are profit driven and deliver a lowest bidder level of service. I'm not sure how that would differ from the TSA.

4) The TSA currently in place.

It's a big problem with no easy solution no matter how you look at it.

How is it simple?

Which of those four options would you see implemented?

No security?

Unregulated private?

Regulated private?

Or the status quo?

well liberals like it because it puts the government more in control of our lives.

Once again you pull out your wide brush, dipped in talking points rather than reality, so once again let me give you ONE liberal's perspective. (I speak for no one else - liberal or otherwise.)

Government agencies are accountable to tax-payers. Private companies are accountable to share-holders. On issues of national security, THIS liberal prefers an agency which is accountable to me, not to the highest bidder.

I don't want "more government in control" of anything - I just want the people responsible for keeping us safe - and free - to be our own, accountable to us. Have you forgotten how private, for-profit military (Blackwater/Xe) agents have made life hell for our military while NOT providing more security for the money?

its [sic] a bastard system we have now.....corporatism......and liberals love it...REGULATION=corruption and slavery and the poor are abused and taken advantage of.

You seem to think you know a lot about what liberals like and love. Too bad you don't.

Talking points. Not worth my time. Moving on.

It's a big problem with no easy solution no matter how you look at it.

I agree totally, DouglasQ.

liberals dont want people to have choice...they want a government that makes decisions for people for their own good....they HATE freedom and their records prove that.

Really? I could have sworn liberals were "pro-choice." Sorry, different debate.

But seriously, liberals do not HATE freedom. However, they realize that some things (such as corporations) don't regulate themselves the way they ideally should. The government has to draw the line sometimes.

And you never answered my question, james.

No security, private non-regulated security, private regulated security or TSA as is?

BTW, if Blackwater is a government subsidized private company, why the @!$%# are we subsidizing them? So they can overbill us like they did?

answered it above..

unregulated private.

Ok, so one security company in one airport can implement full cavity searches on anyone or everyone and another in a connecting city can just wave everyone through. No standards will be in place to determine how invasive their screening procedures will or will not be. If a particular company lets a Hezbullah cell armed with rocket launchers to the gate, as long as they have a boarding pass, they're golden and the only thing the airport can do is switch security companies in the event of a @!$%#-up (but only after the expiration of whatever multi-year service contract they've signed with that company expires).

That kind of unregulated private?

a corporation cannot do that alone.

A monopolistic corporation can.

Government agencies are accountable to tax-payers

Than why do they seem to be ignoring us?

Ron Paul's return to unregulated markets is to step back in time to robber barons and the oppression of the middle class. His bid to eliminate is all social safety nets is appalling and to vote vote him is to vote for your own oppression.

What market is there for airport security? What social security net is airport security providing?

Because you have to leave as some crazy hour and it takes far longer to get to your destination. Just sayin...

By the way, TSA is now starting random searches of trains. Sometimes even after the passengers have exited.

U.S. Warns Terrorists Considering Surgically Implanting Bombs In Humans

A new worry for air travelers in the heart of the summer vacation season: The government is warning airlines that terrorists are considering surgically hiding bombs inside humans to evade airport security. And as a result, travelers may find themselves subjected to more scrutiny when flying, especially to the U.S. from abroad.

Bombs-in-the body is not a brand new idea, but recent intelligence indicates a fresh interest in using this method, as people-scanning machines in airports aren't able to detect explosives hidden inside humans. Still, there is no current information that points to a specific plot involving surgically implanted explosives, a U.S. security official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss such sensitive matters.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/06/tsa-terrorism-warning-t_n_891206.html

What the hell, let 'em on the plane for Christ sake, it's just a little PETN, not like it's dangerous.

What did Ron Paul say, "any Americans continue to fool themselves into accepting TSA abuse by saying ‘I don’t mind giving up my freedoms for security'. In fact though, they are giving up their liberties and NOT receiving security in return."

Damn right Ron, don't give an inch, hang on to those phantom liberties...hang on to them all the to the ground. Just remember, most passengers survive the explosion so they get to hang onto those liberties through the entire 30,000 foot fall.

Again, what can blowing up a bomb on a plane (rather than hijacking it) do that a shot from a shoulder mounted rocket not do as the plane takes off or lands? A terrorist could drive into Gravelly Point park by National Airport and shoot down a plane, and nothing TSA is doing would have any effect.

Go look at the hole at Ground Zero and say that again.

Private security companies were simply not adequate to meet that threat.

#8 is offensive and no value

Private security companies were simply not adequate to meet that threat.

What can TSA do that private security can't do?

douglas q:

Go look at the hole at Ground Zero and say that again.

There is no hard evidence supporting any account of how that hole got there.

Private security companies were simply not adequate to meet that threat.

Neither, apparently, was the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, the White House, Congress ...

Should we replace all of those bodies, too?

Since we have no idea of the causes of the events of 9/11, we also have no idea of what part private or other security forces played in those events.

Kate in Greensboro:

#8 is offensive and no value

On the contrary.

The TSA has engaged in acts of fascistic oppression of travellers and of pedophile acts, both of which are ugly.

If that reality is too offensive for you to want to see in writing, then you should do something to stop it, not complain about the identification and discussion of it.

The TSA has engaged in acts of fascistic oppression of travellers and of pedophile acts

Pedophile acts? Really? Perhaps you should read a dictionary.

At least 2 TSA agents have been arrested for pedophilia--in one case his computer was loaded with kitty porn. NOW do you really want a TSA agent to grope your child or your grandchildren? TSA cannot even do criminal background checks correctly--do you really think their methods will stop a determined suicidal terrorist? AMTRAK--and if TSA ruins that means of transportation--I will have to drive.

Kate in Greensboro:

Perhaps you should read a dictionary.

I'll read a dictionary if you'll stop condoning pedophilia and excusing pedophiles.

Deal?

At least 2 TSA agents have been arrested for pedophilia--in one case his computer was loaded with kitty porn. NOW do you really want a TSA agent to grope your child or your grandchildren?

He must have been a Catholic priest on his day job...

Profile of a Pedophile

Pedophiles can be anyone -- old or young, rich or poor, educated or uneducated, non-professional or professional, and of any race. However, pedophiles often demonstrate similar characteristics, but these are merely indicators and it should not be assumed that individuals with these characteristics are pedophiles. But knowledge of these characteristics coupled with questionable behavior can be used as an alert that someone may be a pedophile.

http://crime.about.com/od/sex/p/pedophile.htm

@upswing

There is no hard evidence supporting any account of how that hole got there.

If you are going to come at this from the perspective of a 9/11 "truther," then we cannot continue as you are arguing "apples" and I'm countering with "oranges."

douglasq:

If you are going to come at this from the perspective of a 9/11 "truther,"

It is not a matter of perspectve that there absolutely no hard evidence has ever been offered to support any signifcant part of the offical account of the events of 9/11.

That is an objective fact. You can not offer any, even though you likely assume that an enormous amount of evidence exists. But that won't deter you from supporting the offical account of the events of 9/11. I've seen it so many times before.

So, what you're really saying is that you don't want a discussion based on evidence. Rather, you want a discussion based on assumption and demagoguery.

And, yes, I agree that such a discussion -- me coming at this from a hard evidence "perspective," and you coming at it from a non-evidence "perspective" -- would not be fruitful and thus would be pointless.

Thanks.

ROTFLMAO...

Sure thing, why don't we all run out and play on the freeway too...

Sure thing, why don't we all run out and play on the freeway too...

And let's run with scissors when we do it.

Sure thing, why don't we all run out and play on the freeway too...

Because defending our rights and committing suicide is the same idea? You make no sense. The TSA must be eliminated. It is anti-freedom and it is wrong for the government to get involved in the security of the private airlines.

And let's run with scissors when we do it.

...with a blindfold on :)

Because defending our rights and committing suicide is the same idea? You make no sense

What makes no sense is calling TSA security procedures, Fascism, Slavery, Tyranny and other names to stupid to mention.

The TSA must be eliminated. It is anti-freedom and it is wrong for the government to get involved in the security of the private airlines.

Now THAT makes no sense and clearly indicates you have little to no knowledge of interstate commerce laws or FAA rules and regulations.

Please, do us a favor...nevermind [bangs head against wall]

Rodney - save your head and your energy.

LOL...OK, I see this is a lost cause...

You what I wonder Kate, how many of these people even fly at all?

Most complaints are not coming from frequent flyers, they are coming from people who may have flown once or twice or maybe not at all since 911 and they are seeing news reports and they fire off post after post about the mean 'ole TSA man, maybe that's why they just do get it.

correction

maybe that's why they just don't get it.

What makes no sense is calling TSA security procedures, Fascism, Slavery, Tyranny and other names to stupid to mention.

It is fascism. We have a right to not be searched without our consent. TSA fascist scanners and patdowns are illegal and should end. All business with the airlines should not involve government interference.

interstate commerce laws or FAA rules and regulations.

Interstate business shouldn't allow the government to involve itself in private business and in the rights and freedoms of private citizens. It shouldn't be regulated in any way.

Interstate business shouldn't allow the government to involve itself in private business and in the rights and freedoms of private citizens. It shouldn't be regulated in any way.

Well, you'd have to take that up with the founding fathers since they saw fit to give that authority to the Federal Gov't when they wrote the United States Constitution

It is fascism. We have a right to not be searched without our consent.

You're absolutely right, you just can't fly...which you don't have a right to do...unless your the copy of the constitution you have says something different from mine or you have your own plane.

See, this is where the poor educational system of this country comes into play.

Your ticket is a contract and on the back of that contract it states, very clearly, the security policy. It also says that "by using this ticket, you consent to all security policies and procedures".

It's called the Contract of Carriage (note the word "contract"). Now, I'm not legal scholar, but that word contract usually means "legally binding".

So no, you don't have to be searched and you don't HAVE to fly either.

Since I know you won't believe me, here a excerpt of Continental's COC

Note Rule 21(d)

RULE 20

SCREENING OF PASSENGERS AND BAGGAGE

Passengers and/or their baggage are subject to security screening, including but not limited to, security profiling, physical pat-downs and inspections, x-ray screening, manual bag searches, questioning of Passengers, and use of electronic or other detectors or screening or security devices, in the sole discretion of the government, airport or CO, and with or without the Passenger’s presence, consent or knowledge. Neither CO nor its employees or agents is liable for any damage, loss, delay (including refusal to transport), confiscation of property, injury or other harm relating to or arising out of security screening or Passenger's failure to submit to or comply with such security screening.

RULE 21

REFUSAL TO TRANSPORT

CO shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:

A) Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.

B) Government Request or Regulations – Whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulation, security directive, or any governmental request for emergency transportation in connection with the national defense.

C) Force Majeure and Other Conditions – Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond CO’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported.

D) Search of Passenger or Property – Whenever a Passenger refuses to submit to electronic surveillance or to permit search of his/her person or property.

E) Proof of Identity – Whenever a Passenger refuses on request to produce identification satisfactory to CO or who presents a Ticket to board and whose identification does not match the name on the Ticket. CO will require identification of persons purchasing Tickets and/or presenting a Ticket(s) for the purpose of boarding the aircraft.

F) Failure to Pay – Whenever a Passenger has not paid the appropriate fare for a Ticket, Baggage, or applicable service charges for services required for travel.

http://www.continental.com/web/en-US/content/co_contract_of_carriage.20110615.pdf

Kinda having a tough time with that constitution thing huh?

Ah, I almost forgot, this very important passage for those of you that think removing TSA is the end all be all.

Note this line

in the sole discretion of the government, airport or CO

So, for those of you that think a "private" company provides relief from tyranny...not.

The Gov't (federal), The Airport (State, County, City), or CO (The Airline).

I think that's what they call Game, Set and Match....

Kate and Rodney:

Sure thing, why don't we all run out and play on the freeway too...

And let's run with scissors when we do it.

...with a blindfold on :)

You don't think it's at least a little ... embarrassing that you both seem to think that it is the government's responsibility to stop us al lfrom playing on the freeway and running with scissors?

Are you THAT convinced that the government is there to run every part of your existence on the assumption that the world is so scary that only the government can protect us all?

In my opinion, the government should be soing what we tell it to do, not the other way around.

Rodney:

Your ticket is a contract and on the back of that contract it states, very clearly, the security policy. It also says that "by using this ticket, you consent to all security policies and procedures".

Unconscionable contracts are not enforceable, particularly those that are underpinned by an inherent abuse of great power of onw of the conracting parties. In this case, that would be the wirline indusrtry, which offers most of us the only way to travel long distances domestically and inernationally.

As for you interstate commerce claim -- are you then stating that it's okkay if TSA does not molest children boarding purely intra-state flights?

Kinda having a tough time with that constitution thing huh?

The question per search and seizure is "reasonableness."

Only someone compeltely unveresed in the miniscule likelihood of getting blown up by a terrorist (pre-TSA) would consider molesting children as a "reasonable" invasion of their privacy in order to prevent them from gettng blown up or blowing up others.

Rodney, the basic flaw in your Constitutional "argument" is that you are convinced that it exists to give the government powers over its people.

It doesn't.

It exists to protect us from the excesses of a dictatorial and tyrranical form of government.

Citing the Constitution as a justification of government excess is both illogical and profoundly ignorant, in Constitutional terms.

Because defending our rights and committing suicide is the same idea? You make no sense. The TSA must be eliminated. It is anti-freedom and it is wrong for the government to get involved in the security of the private airlines.

Ron Paul has the right idea. Get rid of the fascist TSA. End violations of the fourth Amendment and let airlines fund and utilize their own security. Maybe if government is removed from the process the public could then opt out of security itself.

It is fascism. We have a right to not be searched without our consent. TSA fascist scanners and patdowns are illegal and should end. All business with the airlines should not involve government interference.

On all that, we are in total agreement, Polka.

My wife works for a major airline. We have the ability to fly free, but I refuse. I will not step into one of those infernal backscatter machines, and the first fascist, TSA puke that tries to touch me will get beat down.

I have been in law enforcement since 1986. I am also a military veteran, who is sworn to support and defend the Constitution.

The RIGHT of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What part of SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED do these pukes fail to understand?

No warrant... No probable cause = NO SEARCH!

Our rights are NOT negotiable! I will never support tyranny, or the existence of a police state!

Wake up America! You need to stand up for your rights, and stop letting big government strip you of your freedom, one piece at a time.

Rodney:

I think that's what they call Game, Set and Match....

Uh!?

LOL!

YOu have yet to support asingle substantive claim you have made.

Your "support," such as it is, emanates from a misreading of the US Constitution and serious lack of knowledge of rudimentary contract law.

Or ... Maybe you honestly believe that what you're saying constitutes a dispositive argument?

That would truly be sad.

Don't go the through machines, we don't care...you just won't get on the airplane, which is more than fine with me. I'll have more room in the overheads and I will always get a window seat.

You seem to think that we want to make you do something you don't want to do. I have no problem with ANYONE that won't summit to a security checks because I KNOW they won't be getting in the same plane with me.

Unconscionable contracts are not enforceable, particularly those that are underpinned by an inherent abuse of great power of onw of the conracting parties.

OK, sure they are, fine.

Rodney, the basic flaw in your Constitutional "argument" is that you are convinced that it exists to give the government powers over its people.

Sure, no powers whatsoever, only power over things...like airplanes.

What part of SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED do these pukes fail to understand?

No warrant... No probable cause = NO SEARCH!

You bet, I don't think they will search you before you get back into the cab for the ride back home.

Even though the quote below is talking about cyberspace, it's the exact reason why all the nonsense discussed here is just that...nonsense. The first sentence says it all.

Your fourth amendment privacy rights wouldn't apply here, as you would consent to give them up upon entry; as when walking onto a military base or into an airport, users would have to show detailed identification and credentials to get in. Those who want to remain anonymous on the Web can still frolic about in the world of dot-com, but in the dot-secure realm you would have to prove you are you.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/07/07/former-cia-chief-separate-internet-could-curb-cyber-threats/#ixzz1Rhx2uplT

One more time:

Your fourth amendment privacy rights wouldn't apply here, as you would consent to give them up upon entry; as when walking onto a military base or into an airport

Ron Paul is an idiot, always has been and always will be.

Rodney:

Don't go the through machines, we don't care...you just won't get on the airplane

Again, you're missing the point.

The question isn't whether or not I should or should not go through carcinogenic machines.

The Constitutional question whether or not the US government has the right to use those machines and the alternate sexual assault on its citizens.

Your argument that those who don't like the measures should simply not fly is absurd, since, if the tSA measures are considered unconstitutional, then that decision not to fly because of the searches, will, by definition, be the result of government tryanny.

You might as well be arguing that the government should be allowed to stick probes into our bodies, draw our blood, DNA test us, put electronic collars on us and drug us before boarding.

Your argument here would be, if you don't like it, don't fly.

Do you see how you are approaching this entire matter ass-backwards?

The default Constitutional position here is that the government does NOT have the right to search us unless it can show a Constitutional or other right that is oreferred over the protection of the 4th Amendment.

Insofar as searching us before we board a plane, the government certainly has a good case.

But tyranny also involves the DEGREE of use of government power.

This means that, even though the government has a good case for searching us before boarding, it must restrict itself to searches that are reasonable.

i.e. Even though there are safety issues inherent in the government search act, the government is not allowed to leverage those searches into tyrannical acts, such as pedophilia and sexual assault.

Similarly, the government has a good case for disallowing pasengers from standing up and yelling "I have a bomb" on a plane.

But it should not be allowed to leverage that right to abridge speech into preventing discussion that, for instance, criticizes the government.

Let me ask you this: Where would YOU draw the line at a TSA search?

Sure, no powers whatsoever, only power over things...like airplanes.

I don't understand what you mean here...

Rodney:

Your fourth amendment privacy rights wouldn't apply here, as you would consent to give them up upon entry; as when walking onto a military base or into an airport

The questio isn't what this says or doesn't say.

What if the government said you had to give up your Constituional rights to ride a bus or a train?

What if it said you had to give up your Constitutional rights to sit in a restaurant?

Is the simple fact that they say you have to give up your Constitutional rights sufficient to make that decree itself Constiutional?

The central questionhere is the Constutionality of unreasonably forcing people to "give up" their constitutional rights to do anything.

Whay can't you understand this simple point?

they are coming from people who may have flown once or twice or maybe not at all since 911

The last time I flew they selected my pregnant wife for a random search. She asked if the scanner was safe, the TSA guy said he wouldn't want his pregnant daughter to go through one. So she opted for the pat down, where the TSA agent doing the pat down berated her for not going through the scanner. It was ridiculous.

OMG there is no constitutional question, none, it doesn't exist. It's ghost, a phantom and mirage. There isn't any.

I don't know what is wrong with very intelligent people that they can't understand this point.

Your fourth amendment privacy rights wouldn't apply here, as you would consent to give them up upon entry; as when walking onto a military base or into an airport

con·sent

1. to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often followed by to or an infinitive): He consented to the proposal. We asked her permission, and she consented.

You say, "I want to fly to XYZ"

The Airline, "OK give us X dollars and we will fly you"

You say, "OK here is X dollars"

The Airline, "Thank you, but I need your CONSENT to submit to a search before boarding, IF YOU SHOW UP AND USE THIS TICKET THAT MEANS YOU CONSENT TO BEING SEARCHED OR I CAN REFUSE TO ALLOW YOU TO TRAVEL"

You show up - YOU HAVE JUST CONSENTED TO THE SEARCH PROCEDURES.

It's such an ironclad element of the law, that they can even search you if you decide to get a refund and not fly...

How very smart people are going completely stupid over this is mind boggling.

The question isn't whether or not I should or should not go through carcinogenic machines.

No it's not, you can opt for a pat down or drive, train, walk, bike, ship, swim or jog.

The Constitutional question whether or not the US government has the right to use those machines and the alternate sexual assault on its citizens.

More Ron Paul babble

Your argument that those who don't like the measures should simply not fly is absurd, since, if the tSA measures are considered unconstitutional, then that decision not to fly because of the searches, will, by definition, be the result of government tryanny.

[eyes crossed]

You might as well be arguing that the government should be allowed to stick probes into our bodies, draw our blood, DNA test us, put electronic collars on us and drug us before boarding.

Nonsensical babble

Your argument here would be, if you don't like it, don't fly.

Exactly, you have no right to air travel

Do you see how you are approaching this entire matter ass-backwards?

No you are,

Make the airplane your car and I pay you to drive me across town. I paid you last night but your neighbor says he saw me with some drugs right before I got in your car.

Do you have the right to tell me to get out, search me or do you HAVE TO DRIVE ME IN YOUR CAR?

The default Constitutional position here is that the government does NOT have the right to search us unless it can show a Constitutional or other right that is oreferred over the protection of the 4th Amendment.

...and this is where I get off.

Bottom line is you will not get on that airplane, not today, not tomorrow, not next year. No politician is going to risk their reputation by getting the security protocols lessened only to have another 911 because those rules were exploited.

People like Ron Paul will huff and puff about because they know the TSA will not be disbanded, it's safe issue that they can scream about without having to do anything about it.

If he was serious he would introduce a bill, get a bunch of co-sponsors and get it passed.

The TSA has been around since 911 and not a single politician has introduced any serious legislation. Why? Because they are not stupid.

So she opted for the pat down, where the TSA agent doing the pat down berated her for not going through the scanner. It was ridiculous.

I wouldn't go through that, I would drive next time.

What do you do? Did you file a complaint, I would if it were my wife.

I would have asked for a supervisor and a complaint form.

You know they have a contact form on the website.

You did get some witness names right?

You show up - YOU HAVE JUST CONSENTED TO THE SEARCH PROCEDURES.

Except that there is actually a law mandating this. When it was private security what you are saying was correct. When government passes a law saying that you must be searched when there is no suspicion of you, that raises the constitutional question.

and what if someone sets a bomb off in a crowded mall killing thousands?

don't know you have to ask mall security about that.

when does this madness end??

Never, I've accepted that, you people seem to be the ones having the problem with it.

oh and by the way. it is not reasonable search...not everyone is a suspect..

Then don't consent to be searched, what's wrong with that, I agree you shouldn't have to be searched, you just can't fly.

the airlines should be put in charge of their own security.

How does that change the anything, the security procedure won't change and you can refuse the to be searched by the airline just like you can refuse now, you still won't fly.

oh and Ron Paul is the smartest man in politics today.

Ron Paul is an idiot, always has been and always will be.

we change our policies and the liklihood of an attack would decrease...even though we have only had one major attack.

...and why haven't we had an attack since the last one?

You would think they would do it now before the TSA is disbanded and security gets really tough.

You can stand up all you want, but if you want to sit down and fly you have to follow the security procedures.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact

if we would of just listened to him here...

Hell, republicans don't even listen to him

How do you expect to be taken seriously when discussing rights and tyranny (and all of that stuff) when you haven't even read the constitution...or if you have read it, fail to comprehend it?

Power to Regulate

The Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate commerce in order to ensure that the flow of interstate commerce is free from local restraints imposed by various states. When Congress deems an aspect of interstate commerce to be in need of supervision, it will enact legislation that must have some real and rational relation to the subject of regulation. Congress may constitutionally provide for the point at which subjects of interstate commerce become subjects of state law and, therefore, state regulation.

Although the U.S. Constitution places some limits on state power, the states enjoy guaranteed rights by virtue of their reserved powers pursuant to the Tenth Amendment. A state has the inherent and reserved right to regulate its domestic commerce. However, that right must be exercised in a manner that does not interfere with, or place a burden on, interstate commerce, or else Congress may regulate that area of domestic commerce in order to protect interstate commerce from the unreasonable burden. Although a state may not directly regulate, prohibit, or burden interstate or foreign commerce, it may incidentally and indirectly affect it by a bona fide, legitimate, and reasonable exercise of its police powers. States are powerless to regulate commerce with Indian tribes.

Although Congress has the exclusive power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce, the presence or absence of congressional action determines whether a state may act in a particular field. The nature of the subject of commerce must be examined in order to decide whether Congress has exclusive control over it. If the subject is national in character and importance, thereby requiring uniform regulation, the power of Congress to regulate it is plenary, or exclusive.

It is for the courts to decide the national or local character of the subject of regulation, by Balancing the national interest against the State Interest in the subject. If the state interest is slight compared with the national interest, the courts will declare the state statute unconstitutional as an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 U.S. 761, 65 S. Ct. 1515, 89 L. Ed. 1915 (1945), held that an Arizona statute that prohibited railroads within the state from having more than 70 cars in a freight train, or 14 cars in a passenger train, was unconstitutional. The purpose of the legislation, deemed a safety measure, was to minimize accidents by reducing the lengths of trains passing through the state. Practically speaking, however, the statute created an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce, as trains entering and leaving the state had to stop at the borders to break up a 100-car freight train into two trains and to put on additional crews, thus increasing their operating costs. The Court held that the means used to achieve safety was unrealistic and that the increase in the number of trains and train operators actually enhanced the likelihood of accidents. It balanced the national interest in the free flow of interstate commerce by a national railway system, against the state interest of a dubious safety measure. It decided that the value of the operation of a uniform, efficient railway system significantly outweighed that of a state law that has minimal effect.

However, where there is an obvious compelling state interest to protect, state regulations are constitutional. Restrictions on the width and weight of trucks passing through a state on its highways are valid, because the state, pursuant to its police power, has a legitimate interest in protecting its roads.

Where the subject is one in which Congress or the state may act, a state may legislate unless Congress does so. Thereafter, a valid federal regulation of the subject supersedes conflicting state legislative enactments and decisions and actions of state judicial or administrative bodies.

If Congress has clearly demonstrated its intent to regulate the entire field, then the state is powerless to enact subsequent legislation even if no conflict exists between state and federal law. This type of congressional action is known as federal Preemption of the field. Extensive federal regulation in a particular area does not necessarily result in federal preemption of the field. In determining whether a state may regulate a given field, a court evaluates the purpose of the federal regulations and the obligations imposed, the history of state regulation in the field, and the Legislative History of the state statute. If Congress has not preempted the field, then state law is valid, provided that it is consistent with, or supplements, the federal law.

State health, sanitary, and quarantine laws that interfere with foreign and interstate commerce no more than is necessary in the proper exercise of the state's police power are also valid as long as they do not conflict with federal regulations on the subject. Such laws must have some real relation to the objects named in them, in order to be upheld as valid exercises of the police power of the state. A state may not go beyond what is essential for self-protection by interfering with interstate transportation into or through its territory.

A state may not burden interstate commerce by discriminating against it or persons engaged in it or the citizens or property originating in another state. However, the regulation of interstate commerce need not be uniform throughout the United States. Congress may devise a national policy with due regard for varying and fluctuating interests of different regions.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Commerce+Clause+of+the+United+States+Constitution

Congress has the exclusive power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce

Note the word EXCLUSIVE!!!!

Now, if you can get to founding fathers to change the 10th amend or get an amendment ratified, I'm sure Congress would be glad to relinquish their authority of the air transport system

you obviously are lacking in the ability in regards to understanding it...as others have already pointed out...so its useless to carry this on any further.

Sure thing, if that makes you feel better, whatever...I've read AND understand it as does the TSA.

I understand that once I consent to a search the 4th amend doesn't protect me

I understand that if I refuse to be screened I can't fly

I'm not the one pissed off because I think I have extraordinary rights.

I understand the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution

I understand the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution

I believe that I should rule my life

You can, you just can't fly without being screened

You couldn't be more free, you just have to be free on the ground...unless of course, you decide that you want to be screened, then you can be free as a bird.

Hey, you can always buy your own airplane. Free markets right?

and since most people cannot afford their own jetliner that can cross the pacific

Drive to a port and take a ship...that's how people did it for centuries, were they not free? Was Columbus not free because he sailed to America instead of flying on a 747?

When did we get the right to life, liberty and a jetliner? I guess I slept through that class in college.

I understand that if I refuse to be screened I can't fly

It should be possible to decline government security and opt for airlines to search you. Government has no right to regulate private businesses. The TSA only exists to undermine our rights.

Drive to a port and take a ship...that's how people did it for centuries, were they not free?

If the TSA is allowed to violate our rights at airports then they will eventually be allowed to do that everywhere from trains to public buses in cities. Government should have no authority to conduct security for private organizations for any reason. Never. It will lead to the end of our right to privacy in this nation and our right to not be searched without our consent.

when the government controls the air....no its not a free market.

The government does control the air and does tell people who can and can't fly.

Except that there is actually a law mandating this. When it was private security what you are saying was correct. When government passes a law saying that you must be searched when there is no suspicion of you, that raises the constitutional question.

Wow, really Brian, I guess a National Special Security Event is unconstitutional then.

A National Special Security Event (NSSE) is an event deemed by the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to be an attractive target for terrorists, due to the event's visibility or political connection. An NSSE designation puts the United States Secret Service in charge of event security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation in charge of law enforcement activity, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency in charge of recovery management.

NSSE procedures were established by PresidentBill Clinton in a portion of Presidential Decision Directive62 in May 1998, which set out the security roles for federal agencies at major events.^[1] The Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000 (Pub.L. 106-544, signed into law on 2000-12-19) added special events explicitly to the powers of the United States Secret Service in 18 U.S.C.§ 3056.

A number of factors are taken into consideration when designating an event as a National Special Security Event. Department of Homeland Securitypress releases usually cite the following factors:^[2]

• Anticipated attendance by dignitaries. Events attended by officials of the United States government or foreign dignitaries may create an independent federal interest to ensure that the event transpires without incident and that sufficient resources are brought to bear in the event of an incident.
• Size of the event. A large number of attendees and participants generally increases security requirements. In addition, larger events are more likely to draw the attention of terrorists or other criminals, particularly those interested in employing weapons of mass destruction.
• Significance of the event. Some events have historical, political, cultural, or symbolic significance that may heighten concern about possible terrorist acts or other criminal activity.

When an NSSE is declared, the Secret Service becomes the lead agency for the security planning for the event; the FBI takes lead responsibility for counterterrorism, counterintelligence, criminal investigations; and FEMA takes lead responsibility for crisis management. Like the FBI and FEMA, the Secret Service brings in local law enforcement, public safety, and military experts to assist with developing the plan, and give them the special guidance and training to operate within the security plan.^[2]

Typical NSSE security measures include:

• Heavy police (days off and leaves may be canceled) and military presence^[3][4]
• Police dogs^[2]
• Surveillance
• Sharpshooters
• Flight restrictions around the area^[4]
• United States Coast Guard patrols^[4]
• Increased railroad security^[4]
• Extensive road closures^[2][4

Let me get on the phone and call the White House, I need to make sure they cancel the Super Bowl, World Series, Indy 500, Daytona 500, Final Four, BSC Bowl games, NBA Playoff, NHL Playoff...damn laws, I knew that was going to be a problem when Clinton sign that damn thing.

Thanks for telling me, I'm sure the President didn't know about this.

Whew, you're a lifesaver.

It should be possible to decline government security and opt for airlines to search you. Government has no right to regulate private businesses. The TSA only exists to undermine our rights.

Hmmm, I keep hearing that, you're wrong but persistent.

Well, I'm out of here, you crazy kids stay out of the deep end unless their is a lifeguard on duty OK...cya

Rodney:

Make the airplane your car and I pay you to drive me across town. I paid you last night but your neighbor says he saw me with some drugs right before I got in your car.

Do you have the right to tell me to get out, search me or do you HAVE TO DRIVE ME IN YOUR CAR?

This kinda sums up your basic lack of understanding per what the Constitution is and isn't, and what it exists to do.

i.e. You STILL seem unable to understand that the US Constitution exists to protect us from excessive and abusive government power.

Where is the government in your driving/drugs example? How can your example even begin to apply to a Constitutional question? Obviosuly, it can not.

As for taking trains, subways and buses as an option to flying, they are now being occupied by VIPER teams, which are travelling TSA/Homeland Security officers committing exactly the same pedophilia and sexual abuse that the TSA commits in airports.

You don't seem to understand that allowing our government to so thoroughly impair our ability to travel freely and without the government's permission, is a form of tyranny.

Rodney, with respect, it is impossible to usefully continue this exchange with you until you take a little time to educate yourself regarding the point and purpose of the US Constitution, and until after you have reflected for a little while on what you will have learned.

Rodney, with respect, it is impossible to usefully continue this exchange with you until you take a little time to educate yourself regarding the point and purpose of the US Constitution, and until after you have reflected for a little while on what you will have learned.

You're right, it is impossible, because there isn't any abuse of power when you consent to be searched. It's like talking to a brick wall.

My analogy IS NOT ABOUT the gov't rights, it's about a private company's right to do the exact same thing TSA is doing or a private citizen's right. You people seem to think that because the gov't is doing the security check that makes this unconstitutional but the constitution gives the gov't exclusive authority TO DO IT. You scream about portions of the constitution that support your position but want to completely ignore others because it blows a hole in your theory.

You relinquish your 4th amend protection by consent, but congress does not relinquish its right to regulate interstate commerce, that's what you can't/won't understand. So even if it was unlawful and/or unconstitutional, once you consent your constitutional protections do not apply at all.

If this is so unconstitutional where are the multi million dollar lawsuits? Where is the court order forcing TSA to stop security checks? 9 years and no court ruling supporting your position?

I'm with the overwhelming majority of the country supports airport security check in it's present form because if we tell the world that we do not check anyone under the age of 6 then terrorists will strap bombs to 5 year olds. A majority have no problem with the scanners and a majority DO NOT want private security company's doing this.

If you had a constitutional right to fly, I might be closer to your position but you don't, there are alternatives which is exactly how a court would rule. I security checks do not place an undue burden on passengers and the are not unreasonable.

You have choices, the fact that you don't like the choices don't mean there aren't any. Buy your own airplane if you don't want to searched or find an alternate means of transportation because you have no constitutional right to air travel.

.

and if someone smuggles a bomb up their ass I assume we should all be subjected to anal probes too??

That's why they're running stories about people sewing bombs inside themselves now, so that they can demand you have surgery to get your organs checked before you fly. Don't like it? Then hey, don't fly.

Wow, really Brian, I guess a National Special Security Event is unconstitutional then.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. Do these words mean anything to you at all?

The constitutions is not a suicide pact...

The constitutions is not a suicide pact...

It is not and the Constitution is not a safety pact. It is a document that exists to protect our rights. Government should cease working with the airline industry and let them run their own security. The government has no right to search anyone without permission or a search warrant.

The Consent Exception
The final applicable exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement involves searches conducted with the consent of the person being searched. Fourth Amendment rights can be waived by consent so long as the consent is freely and voluntarily given and not the result of fraud duress or coercion.71 The determination of consent must be made from a totality of the circumstances.72 The Davis court, while addressing administrative searches, recognized that consent is also a factor in determining whether the passenger's right to privacy has been violated. The court recognized that in the airport screening area, the passenger has a choice of submitting to the search or leaving; individuals who choose to proceed, relinquish their Fourth Amendment rights.73 The Fifth Circuit has also acknowledged the importance of the passenger's consent to be searched. Justifying the "critical zone" approach in Skipwith, the court grounded its opinion on the fact that "the person to be searched must voluntarily come to and enter the search area [and] has every opportunity to avoid the procedure by not entering the boarding area."74 That distinction mitigates some of the offensiveness the screening process might incur.75
The Ninth Circuit addressed the consent exception more directly in United States v. Miner.76 Relying on Davis, the court held that Miner's approaching the counter with the obvious intention of boarding the airplane constituted an implied "consent" within the meaning of Davis.77 In so holding, the court appeared to be particularly influenced with two key facts. First, the search occurred when "concern over the problem of airplane hijackings was at its peak"78 and "three months after the FAA had ordered the airlines to screen all potential passengers."79 Second, Miner admitted that he had flown several times before and had seen "signs warning all passengers and their baggage were subject to search,"80 and knew what the warnings meant. Despite the prior notification, Miner still attempted to board the airplane. There was some conflicting evidence concerning Miner's attempt to withdraw his "consent" and the Ninth Circuit remanded for clarification on those issues.81 However, the court noted that requesting to search Miner's baggage "could be justified only if he continued to manifest an intention to board the plane, or if he otherwise consented to the search."82 "At that point, the airline employees would have been justified in refusing to permit him to fly, but they could not compel him to submit to further search."83 The Miner decision is best understood as holding that a defendant who approaches an airport check-in counter with the intention of boarding the plane impliedly consents to a search by airport security personnel. If the passenger then withdraws that consent by refusing to be subject to the search and refusing to board the plane, the search must be terminated.

http://www.dcbabrief.org/vol140202art5.html

Courts have generally allowed wide leeway for airport screening under the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, according to Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor who specializes in American constitutional law.

"The courts generally say that there's not much of an expectation of privacy when you're getting on an airplane. That people get searched, that there's a serious risk, starting with hijacking and now terrorism, such that the expectation of privacy is pretty minimal," Winkler said.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/09/bodyscan.patdown.reactions/index.html

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Once you enter the secure portion of the airport you CANNOT refuse NOR REVOKE consent to be searched, BUT the search does have limits.

The ruling, from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, says that 'requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world.

'Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by "electing not to fly" on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found.'

'...all that is required [for a search of the passenger] is the passenger's election to attempt entry into the secured area of an airport. See Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315; 49 C.F.R. § 1540.107.'

The 9th Circuit says that the 4th Amendment is not applicable because the airport search is "an administrative search in a highly regulated industry" - "...the constitutionality of airport screening searches is not dependent on consent..." [US v Aukai]

The court recognized that in the airport screening area, the passenger has a choice of submitting to the search or leaving;

the person to be searched must voluntarily come to and enter the search area [and] has every opportunity to avoid the procedure by not entering the boarding area.

But, the TSA will not allow you to leave the area without being "completely" screened.

If you are "randomly selected" but choose to opt out of the backscatter machine, they make a big stink about it, belittle you, then try to grope you. If you do not wish to be groped, they treat you like a criminal, try to detain you, and charge you with an $11K "civil penalty" because you had the unmitigated gall to stand up for your rights and say no.

All of this is happening in the screening area. If you opt out and wish to leave, you should be able to leave without being penalized, because you are not entering the boarding area of the airport.

'Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by "electing not to fly" on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found.'

I don't buy the argument of a terrorist opting out every time until they get to a gate that will let them pass. Heck, people have gotten through TSA screenings with guns. The TSA is a joke.

IF I were a terrorist with a death wish, I'd walk right into the screening area, on one of the busiest travel days of the year, and make a big, smoldering hole where the screening area used to be, taking the fascist TSA pukes, their infernal scanners, and as many of the little shoeless sheeple (who think they are safe) as I could with me.

If I were the leader of a well funded terrorist organization, I'd attack in 3 waves.

Wave 1. I'd have my "jihadists, fanatics, nutjobs, etc." simultaneously hitting multiple screening areas at multiple airports across the country for maximum terror effect.

Wave 2 would consist of those who would wait until after the initial blast, then rush into the "secure area" during the confusion, head for the nearest gates they could find and blow a few of the planes on the ground.

Wave 3 would consist of those not selected to die "for the cause" on that particular day, to sit in the glide path of the same airports, and/or other randomly selected airports, and at the appropriate time, pick off airplanes as they take off or land with shoulder fired missiles... Thus rendering the entire screening process moot, and stopping air travel completely. Not to mention tying up law enforcement resources nationwide for weeks, months, or years, searching for phantoms.

If you think traveling is a pain in the ass now, what do you think the public fear factor would be like if groups of 10 suicide bombers each, struck at every major airport at the same time, while others were picking off airplanes randomly?

It would make 9-11 look like a dress rehearsal for a high school play.

(Good thing I'm not a terrorist.)

I have no problem placing my bags in an x-ray scanner, and walking through a metal detector, those are passive measures. However, I refuse to enter a backscatter device to be electronically strip searched, and I refuse to be physically touched by them. These methods are too invasive, and they violate our rights and dignity as free citizens.

I refuse to be treated like a criminal, just because I wish to exercise my right to travel freely, in what is supposed to be a free society.

Also... What do you think will happen when (not if, but when) the terrorists get their hands on nukes? No amount of security will matter, and no city will be safe.

If I were so inclined (which I'm not) I could cripple this entire country, and send a wave of panic throughout the rest of the industrialized world, and perhaps, collapse the already feeble global economy, with a single strategically placed, high-yield nuclear device.

Depending upon weather conditions, I could potentially expose around 70% of the US, parts of Canada and Mexico with radioactive material, tainting all food and water supplies in the process. I will not say where, or how, because I wouldn't want to give anyone else the opportunity to exploit it. And, just the thought of it scares the crap out of me! (Again, good thing I'm not a terrorist!)

My point is, none of us know what will happen tomorrow, or next week, or next year. Stop living in perpetual fear of the big, bad, bogeyman, and stop allowing our own government to violate our rights and treat us like @!$%# in the name of a false sense of security. Nothing they do will ever be 100% effective against someone who is willing to die for whatever twisted cause they believe in. Stop being afraid of life and start living your life!

If you don't buy it then don't fly, you have choices you just don't like them.

As stated, there is little "expectation of privacy", you know you will be searched so you can decided well before you enter the airport whether you want to be searched.

That is not the point Rodney and you know it.

That is not the point Rodney and you know it.

The point should be more simple; the government should not be functioning as private security for private airlines regardless if their fascist methods are legal or not. Government should stay out of the affairs of the private airline corporations and they should be forced to conduct their own security.

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/481/884/292419/

Because the search was conducted without a warrant, the government is required to show that it was justified by exceptional circumstances. It attempts to meet this burden by contending, first, that the defendant consented to the search and, second, that it was a reasonable search for weapons or explosives.

I. Consent.

The burden is upon the government to prove that "consent was, in fact, freely and voluntarily given." Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 548, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 1792, 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968). To sustain its burden, the government points out that warnings were posted at the airport advising passengers that they were subject to being searched prior to boarding aircrafts. It reasons that:

"* * * [W]here a person is clearly warned in advance that he will be searched and he still has time to withdraw as defendant did here, his conduct in seeking to board the plane must be inferred to include a free, voluntary and intelligent consent to be searched."

The District Court found that this did not constitute consent "in any meaningful sense." We agree. Compelling the defendant to choose between exercising Fourth Amendment rights and his right to travel constitutes coercion; the government cannot be said to have established that the defendant freely and voluntarily consent to the search when to do otherwise would have meant foregoing the constitutional right to travel.² United States v. Meulener, 351 F.Supp. 1284, 1288 (C.D.Cal.1972); United States v. Lopez, 328 F.Supp. 1077, 1093 (E.D.N.Y.1971).

Isn't it amazing how the Constitution hasn't changed, but court opinion has?

If the constitution hadn't changed I would still be 3/5 of a human being.

LOL...I thought it was one of the girls on Living Single.

9 years and no court ruling supporting your position?

Gilmore challenged this as soon as it happened. The case wound through the courts for years, and then there was a really strange decision.

http://identitycrisis.name/category/travel-id/

http://identitycrisis.name/2006/06/09/some-things-wrong-with-the-gilmore-decision/

1153 Claims a verbal instruction by government agent is as good as a
published law, for vagueness and secret law purposes, even
when various government agents give directly contradictory
statements about the law. And even when government agents are instructed to lie about the law to the public.

1153 Permits non-penal statutes to be secret laws and vague.

1153 Permits non-statutes (e.g. regulations) to be secret laws and vague.

1153-4 Allows unbridled discretion in enforcement of rules, if the
rule articulates “clear standards”, even if the public, the
judges, and the opposing counsel can’t see or evaluate the
standards (or how they are applied). And even if the government
lies to the public about the standards, and even if it
enforces the standards in widely varying ways.

1154 (footnote 11).
Allows the government to exercise prior restraint
on the constitutional right to travel.

1155 Allows arbitrary restraints on single “modes” of travel. Claims
without factual support that Gilmore is free to use a different
mode of travel (e.g. a train).

1155 Ignores the fact of direct denial of travel without offering an
alternative search, though the ruling’s constitutional reasoning
relies on there always being an alternative of physical search.

1154 Const does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular
form of transportation. Contrast to speech, assembly, religion.

1155 Devolves constitutional right to travel to a “reasonableness”
test, undermining existing precedents that require higher
standards.

1156 Misstates facts of Davis case, claiming it included an ID check.

1157 Confuses an ID request by a cop on the street — where the
citizen is free to decline and to leave IN ANY DIRECTION AND
BY ANY MEANS, with an ID demand in an airport, where the
citizen is not free to leave on an airplane. Says there are
no Fourth Amendment implications.

1158 Claimed search of non-ID’s passengers was “reasonable” though
it made no inquiry into the administrative need that justified
it, the level of intrusiveness and extensiveness of the search,
nor whether it was confined in good faith to weapons and
explosives. There are no facts or plaintiff allegations
in evidence about these searches. Yet the court assumed that
all of the above tests were met, validating a policy providing
for warrantless physical search of citizens.

1160 Distinguishes this case from Thomas v. Collins via a label,
rather than by any true distinction.

1148 Claims a secret TSA order is final and enforceable even though
the reviewable administrative record is not reviewable by the
public, the plaintiff, or plaintiff’s counsel.

1149 Claims Ct. of Appeals is the proper place for original review
of constitutional claims against government policies implemented
by secret orders, even if the public is not aware of these
secret orders and sues in the District Court.

Given the tone so far though, I'm sure Rodney has no problem with secret laws and even more restrictions on other constitutional rights.

.

Thank you, the majority people are rational about this.

http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/11/new-tsa-pat-down-procedures.html

Anonymous said...

I'm a woman and I was patted down by a male TSA. Don't bother telling me it doesn't happen; it does.

Opting out of the Nude-o-scope does bring severe punitive measures, delays and harassment.

TSA agents are the angriest bunch I've ever come across. They scream, they berate, they harass and they're incredibly unprofessional.

I wish I could make a complaint that would be heard, but last time I tried, I got a stupid form letter that had NO connection to my complaints.

The TSA has to be dismantled. It's turned into a rights-destroying monster.

Rose Thornton

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anonymous said...

I declined the scanner and was given the "enhanced" pat down. It was completely humiliating. However, as my ordeal was progressing I watched passengers being routed through the metal detector (as I had been) and then subjected to no additional screening. When I asked the agent why, he said they had not refused the scanner.

And here you are saying this is NOT punitive?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The actual procedures and standards are secret, and nobody ever seems to be held accountable for "unprofessional" treatment of passengers. So what's to stop TSOs from making pat downs as unpleasant an experience as possible, all in the interest of "efficiency" and making the TSO's job easier? Bob can insist that this should never happen because the (secret) rules prohibit it. But one of the defining characteristics of the TSA is the maddening inconsistency that's visible to anyone who travels. There's too often a disconnect between what should happen and what does happen.

Regardless of the actual policies and procedures for the pat down (which of course must remain secret), the fact is that an increasing number of people perceive the pat down as a punitive sexual assault. This is a serious public relations problem for an agency that was already despised by much of the public. Their attempts to address the problem through their usual approach of denying and lying only make it worse. But I don't think their leaders are capable of anything else.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RB said...

Bob you ask Rose for some information about her screening.

I have never seen a lane number at any TSA checkpoint so how would we know that?

Also you ask for names, and it is known that TSA employees often refuse to identify themselves and supervisors will not provide that information.

How do you suggest we obtain this type of information when TSA does not make doing so possible?

November 12, 2010 1:17 PM

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anonymous said...

This is misleading: "Pat-downs are also given to passengers who opt out of screening by AIT or walk-through metal detectors."

I was subject to a pat down because I opted out of an AIT machine, but I was quite willing to walk through a metal detector, and, in fact, did so. The "enhanced" pat down which followed turned out to be one of the most degrading experiences of my life.

November 12, 2010 3:32 PM

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AJ said...

The new procedure weren't vital last year, or 5 years ago, or 10, or 20, or in the history of flight. Every year you react to some new threat with a new procedure that slows down lines or strips people of their dignity and rights. People who want to bring harm to a plane will find ways to do so. Stop stripping us and start educating us so the passengers can be the security. I quit my job because I had to fly too much and I was fed up with the procedures. WE ARE CUSTOMERS NOT CRIMINALS.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anonymous said...

THe new "Enhanced Pat-down Proceduce" is the most humiliating and intrusive process I have ever experienced. I am the highest level frequent flyer, and recently went through the "virtual strip search" machine. I complained to the TSA agent about the machine, and my reward was to be subjected to the "Enhanced Pat-down" on suspicion of "groin" objects. It was clear retribution. THe Pat-down was very thorough, touching every part of my body, as if I was a criminal for flying. If this procedure becomes standard, I will avoid flying, This is no way to treat citizens of this country who are paying for the privilege of flying. Even in dictatorships where I have flown, the procedures are not as intrusive. Stop this nonsense before you destroy the airline industry.

November 13, 2010 7:22 AM

You're right Rodney. This obviously doesn't bother anybody.

I couldn't careless about people whining about being patted...and when I say don't care, I mean it doesn't even register with me.

People have a choice to fly or not to fly.

You could post a hundred more stories about the whiners being patted down and it wouldn't change my opinion in the slightest

I was addressing your unsupported assertion that "the majority people are rational about this." From what I can tell, the majority of Americans do not like it.

Brian White:

I was addressing your unsupported assertion that "the majority people are rational about this." From what I can tell, the majority of Americans do not like it.

LOL!

Nicely said.

I think you just hoisted Rodney by his own petard.

CBS, ABC/WAPO, ZOGBY POLL RESULTS FOLLOW

CBS (before pat-downs introduced)
(Nov 7-10, 1,137 adults, ± 3)

Support body scans?
Yes 71
No 15

Washington Post/ABC
(Nov 21, 514 adults, ±5)

How often do you fly?
Every few months 15
Once-twice/year 32
Less 37
Never 16

Support full body scans?
Yes 64 (Strongly 64 – Some 27)
No 32 (Strongly 18 – Some 14)

Concerned they a health risk? (They aren’t)
Yes 35
Not 52

Change your traveling habits?
More Likely 10
Less Likely 20
No Difference 71

Support TSA using available into to determine who gets selected?
Yes 70
No 25

Enhanced pat-downs justified?
Yes 48
No 50

-

USA TODAY/GALLUP
(Nov 19-21)

Security measures worth it?
Yes 71
No 27

http://citizensagainstproobamamediabias.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/cbs-abcwapo-zogby-gallup-polls-re-tsa-airline-screening/

A new poll released on Wednesday shows that most adults in the U.S. support the TSA's new electronic screening procedures, but a slight majority thinks the alternative pat-down procedures go too far.

The ABC News and Washington Post poll found that 64% supported the use of body-scanning machines while 32% were opposed. However, 50% of respondents said that the hand searches for those who do not want to be searched electronically or those selected for additional screening go too far in invading personal privacy, whereas 48% said that they were justified to prevent terrorism. That number is well within the poll's 5% margin of error.

The new poll was conducted Nov. 21 among 514 adults.

The poll is the first to ask a national sample about the new procedures since they were widely implemented and criticized, but an earlier CBS News poll just after TSA began using the new procedures in some airports found that 81% of respondents said that the agency should use the machines and 15% said they should not.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/poll-public-says-ok-to-ts_n_787523.html

...just after TSA began using the new procedures in some airports found that 81% of respondents said that the agency should use the machines and 15% said they should not.

...you were saying?

a slight majority thinks the alternative pat-down procedures go too far.

You were saying?

Here, let's put an end to this nonsense.

You win Brian, thank god for your divine wisdom.

There, feel safer now.

Did we defend ourselves from the japanese before or after Pearl? Did we defend ourselves from the germans before or after the Lusitania (sp)? Did we ban DDT before or after we discovered the harmful effect? What of other things banned (never before having been proven to be (potentially) harmful - always after). Fuses/circuit breakers went in AFTER people died. Seat belts went in WHEN? Not with the first vehicle, nor how many years later? Lead plumbing/jewelry went out when?

One learns from the attacks as to how to build defenses. Otherwise we would have had radar/sonar/kevlar long before they were needed. How many died from radiation poisoning before we discovered the cause and the protections?

Ball of PlayDough (sp), C4, lipstick - kind look the same.

Hairspray and a lighter in a flight cabin is not a good idea. But you have to think of it first.

Airbags - NOT the first thing put in an automobile.

I have a goat - ALWAYS trying to second guess that critter. I have a bachelors and an IQ (tested) of 135 - took a week to figure out how she was getting from the pasture to the front yard. took two days to figure out how the dog (14 year old deaf, blind in one eye arthritic collie) was getting from a one acre pen with wire mesh fence AND electric backup fencing out to the rest of the property.

Critters are creative - people more so.

Create a "perfect system" - people will create a way around it.

My friend has a vial of carbon - very safe.

My other friend has a vial of sulfur - pretty benign.

I have a vial of potassium nitrate - pretty useless.

Together we have gun powder. HHHHmmm.

Rockwater,

They won't understand your post, it's too logical and makes sense.

Your excessive paranoia is showing. Stop paying the half wits at the airports and spend that money to get the bad guys. HHHHHmmmmm.

Spoken like someone that hasn't secured anything more important than their front door.

Here's a question, do you lock your car doors? If yes, why? Couldn't a determined thief simply break the window?

Maybe I should demand the government place TSO around my car to prevent terrorists from placing lipstick within the glovebox.

The idiocy of your comments come to light today...

A U.S. soldier was caught attempting to board a flight to Los Angeles on Wednesday with high-velocity explosives in his bag.

Army Private First Class Christopher Eric Wey, 19, was arrested after he tried to board a United flight, the U.S. Attorney's office for Arizona told Reuters.

Reuters reports that TSA officials at the Yuma International Airport detected a half-ounce of C4 explosives hidden in a tobacco can inside one of Wey's bags. In a conflicting report, the Associated Press reportsthat it was a quarter-ounce.

Wey was detained and interviewed by FBI agents, who in turn discovered that Wey had stolen the C4 while attending an explosive training course.

http://news.travel.aol.com/2011/07/15/christopher-eric-wey-u-s-soldier-tries-to-board-flight-with-e/

I assume you know what C4 is, but just in case

C4 is made up of explosives, plastic binder, plasticizer and, usually, marker or odorizing taggant chemicals such as 2,3-dimethyl-2,3-dinitrobutane (DMDNB) to help detect the explosive and identify its source.^[1]

As with many plastic explosives, the explosive in C4 is RDX (cyclonite or cyclotrimethylene trinitramine), which makes up around 91% of C4 by mass.^[1] The plasticizer is diethylhexyl (5.3%)^[1] or dioctyl sebacate and the binder is usually polyisobutylene(2.1%).^[1]

Another plasticizer used is dioctyl adipate (DOA). A small amount of SAE 10 non-detergent motor oil (1.6%) is also added.^[1]

C4 is manufactured by combining the noted ingredients with binder dissolved in a solvent. The solvent is then evaporated and the mixture dried and filtered. The final material is an off-white solid with a texture similar to modelling clay.

You're afraid of our soldiers Rodney?

You're afraid of our soldiers Rodney?

Getting on a commercial flight to LAX with a brick of C4? Only a complete moron with near total brain damage could think that ANYONE getting on that plane wouldn't be a problem.

Please tell me you are not a total complete @!$%#ing moron.

Rodney, if I may,

Folks the point I see is that something labeled "Play Dough", or "Modeling Clay" may not in fact be "clay" but something quite different. Same with "lip stick". Any half way decent mathematician can calculate the (near) precise GPS coordinates at which to "remove" the tail of a plane at a given speed and vector to send the fuel laden wings into a major city, neighborhood, industrial/military complex.

Afraid of our soldiers? http://urbangrounds.com/2009/11/nidal-malik-hasan/

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan: Muslim Soldier Kills 13 at Ft. Hood While Screaming “allahu akbar”

We should be. Who is to say this PFC didn't plan on taking out a city? Ask MAJOR HASAN!
If he had thought of it and could have, he would have.

Rockwater,

Well, Larry and Curly couldn't understand security if they were locked up in Leavenworth, I wouldn't spend much time to educate them, it's like talking to a loaf of bread (no offense to the bread).

If you would take the time to read the story, you would see that the story is about a mis-guided 19 year old American soldier, not a terrorist, who had no intention nor means of detonating C4. There was no "Brick of C4" involved. Calling that securing the airplane is fear mongering and ridiculous. No one was in danger, there was no threat. If you believe that is security, you need to get educated.

You should take a few moments and read the article before you type.

You don't seem to get my point, so let me clarify...

You're not worth responding to, I hope that's clear enough.

But you responded anyway. Hope that is clear enough.