Jesse Ventura sues the TSA for violating the Constitution

Well as long as you can convince everyone in this country to believe like you do, not to sue the government or the airlines if something happens, and to simply sign a waver upon entering an airport, I'll go along with your belief, I'm never afraid, what happens, happens.

 

Someone here blithely suggested that if you don't like airport TSA Theater, just don't fly. You'd be very surprised by how many of us have done just that. In retirement, I just accepted another consulting gig that I need not travel for. Between them, I have time to take road trips to anywhere that it makes any sense for me to visit now.

 

This gets back to the discussion of public risk verses personal freedom. Kicking down someone's door at 3:00 a.m. is a pretty serious intrusion into someone's personal freedom. Generally a house isn't too dangerous. I suppose if it explodes with a big enough bang it could take out the neighbors, but a house is not usually a big threat, and it's not likely to move away on its own. This is why a warrant is required for a no-knock search. We tend to give people a lot of leeway for how they use their own house.

Public spaces are a different story. When you go out into public, you put yourself into the public view, and in doing so, give up much of your right to privacy. Police still need probable cause to stop and search you, but not a warrant. The threshold is significantly lower.

Controlled spaces often subject people to even higher security, and therefor greater loss of personal freedom. If you go into the White House or a federal court room, you have to pass through a metal detector at the very least. While some might object, I don't think they would have much luck challenging that in court.

So once again this discussion comes down to the appropriateness of considering aircraft a controlled space. There is no question that it is legal to require screening to enter a controlled space. The only question is whether air travel should be considered this sort of controlled space.

Tom

 

I was not being blithe, I was dead serious, I really used to love to fly. I have logged 10s of thousands of hours as part of my job and many more personal miles. I just don't enjoy flying anymore.
I do enjoy driving however, when the wife and I do vacation, it's just a drive away!
I just try not to fly!

 

Same here. I used to take three or four trips a year. This past fall I took my first trip in a couple of years and remembered why I stopped flying.

This TSA foolishness is just the crap frosting on the crap cake, though. Airlines have for years been in a war to see who can make flying the most uncomfortable and annoying. Currently, it's a tie for all of them. Now, if it's not a few hours drive at most, I just won't go there.

 

There is an old quip that an elephant is a mouse built to government specifications. TSA security is now so focused on just one method of terrorism, that they have made it too painful to travel to begin with for quite a few. Once the airlines realize how much this is costing them, expect a quiet rebellion between the FAA/Airlines against the TSA to "balance" the TSA responsibilities.

Overlooked is that the airport itself has more targets than any plane. Yet the car inspections after 9-11 have disappeared. Why?

 

At some point a few years back was a news item indicating that some al-Qaeda chatter was showing considerable pride that their 9/11 attack had achieved a rate of return of over 1 million to 1. For every dollar they 'invested' in that attack, they inflicted more than $1 million in damages, security costs and economic losses to our society.

It seems that we keep working very hard to make sure their 'investment return' remains very high.

 

But where does it stop? First, they get incredibly invasive if you want to get in the terminal. Now they're going to get invasive just for walking through the front doors of the airport. In 2006, [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Madrid_Barajas_International_Airport_bombing"]a car bomb was set off in the parking garage at the Madrid airport[/ame]. I should know... I was flying through that airport a few days later and saw the aftermath. Should we start searching all cars when they enter airport property? What if some terrorist sets off a car bomb on a busy freeway - should we start searching cars at every entrance ramp? Where do you stop with this sort of paranoia? Where do you draw the line between personal liberty and ensuring public safety?

 

I don't buy the "I chose to fly" argument. If I walk down the street, can I be searched for no reason, because after all "I chose to walk down the street."

If I drive my car to work, can anyone pull me over and search my car because "I chose to head out on the roads?"

It'll hinge on what is reasonable, and he'll lose.

 

In August, 2010 I was given a hard time regarding a tube of Tom's Of Maine toothpaste I bought while working in Maine. As I was attempting to navigate through the Providence, RI TSA security queue my luggage scan was flagged and my toothpaste was taken out and examined. Mind you, it was still in the unopened box and unopened tube. I was told it was .5oz too much to be carried on and I need to throw it away or check my bag. That being said, I took the toothpaste and opened it and squirted it all over the inside of a garbage can (in my passive aggressive way) beside the line and thew half-empty tube in while people in line were upset that they held everyone else up for toothpaste. They then asked me if I wanted a private scan, AFTER I already went through the security "gate" to wait for my luggage... seemingly meant to be a threat. I told them I didn't but my toothpaste did. I then reminded them they have no law enforcement capabilities and the only reason they wear a badge is that it is part of their uniform and is attached only with a purpose of crowd control. I then took my luggage and went to the gate.

I just don't understand these guys... especially what they have become over the last couple years.

 

Most streets are not considered high risk areas, therefor you can walk without consenting to be searched. If you choose to walk through the White House you must first consent to a search. Most places you can drive without consenting to a search, but not all. Some places you can't drive at all, such as in front of the White House. It all depends on the amount of damage you can do and how likely an area is to be the target of violence.

The Fourth Amendment calls for a "reasonable expectation of privacy". The key here is "reasonable". Furthermore, no warrant is required if a party gives consent to a search, even if the party is unaware of their right to refuse. In the case of boarding a commercial aircraft, you give your consent by purchasing a ticket and arriving at the gate. You can refuse consent, but then the airline has the right to deny service.

Tom

 

What's being completely overlooked in all this is the very same dynamic that wields so much clout in affairs of finance: leverage.

Leverage is exerting influence out of proportion to the force applied, like putting up $10 of collateral to be able to maneuver $1000 of securities and collect the full proceeds of whatever that $1000 produces. If the $1000 yields 10% you get the entire $100 with only a real investment of $10, a profit of 1000% whereas the $10 alone would only have gotten you a dollar. In broad terms, mind; this isn't a how-to of market finance, just a metaphor.

Terrorists use the leverage of irrational fear. A tiny cadre of a few individuals with an investment of inexpensive materials from K-Mart and Home Depot exploit our tendency to be affected by the spectacular to scare a population of hundreds of millions into significantly increasing its degree of misery.

The only cure is to remove their reason for scaring us by refusing to be scared.

How do you that in practical terms?

Well, first of all you maintain your sense of proportion. The same day that a terrorist bomb kills 10 people and wrecks $1M worth of real estate and property, 10 kids die as a result of parental child abuse, 100 people die murdered, 1,000 people die in preventable accidents and 10,000 people die of disease that could have been prevented. And the entire national infrastructure and inventory of personal property deteriorates or is destroyed by fire or flood or accident by $100M.

Why should 10 people killed by a bomb attract our attention more than 11,110 other equally "unfair" deaths? Leverage. Leverage of our enthrallment with the spectacular.

To be blunt we need to be a little more cold-blooded. To refuse under any circumstances to give terrorism any attention at all. To not validate terrorism's demand for attention by acknowledging that the 10 people killed by it affect us more than 11,110 other deaths.

Am I saying that the next time a terrorist kidnaps a schoolbus full of kids we should ignore it?

Yes. In the press, yes. As a police matter, of course not. But in the press, we can't give the impression that such acts mean more to us than all the truly significant calamities that mow us down by the tens of thousands every day.

And not be scared.

And thereby keep our dignity.

 

You're talking about the chickens in the barnyard who are frightened by the shadow of the hawk, when the farmer is their real enemy.

But most days the farmer feeds them, keeps the foxes away, and so forth.

The hawk wants to kill them NOW.

I like the Beech 17 avatar.

 

The Israelis are good about this. A bomb goes off, emergency services swoop in, the debris is cleared, and life goes on. They refuse to be intimidated, and they refuse to give free press to their enemies.

Tom

 

I would argue that the trump card is the Constitution, a trump card that the government SHOULD be holding but doesn't always seem to play.

 

I wouldn't mind being groped. Too bad TSA folks cringe at the thought

 

Today's Dilbert cartoon explains the problem better than 10,000 words.

 

Are we omitting FHoPol and posting all political threads in Pancakes now? Since there is way more members in Pancakes the nastiessness from the left is going to multiply to the point that we're going to need more syrup, please.

:focus:

The issue with the TSA just speaks to the abilities of the prior administration which kept us safe for almost eight years after 9/11 without these draconian measures and the inabilities of the present.

Couldn't agree with you more if by farmer you mean the present TOTUS.

Yep, when the government and it's supporters sees anyone with a different POV as the 'enemy' then this is indeed worrisome.

Behind ENEMY lines! Good grief you're in America you dimwits!

:usa2: