This is America?

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: bizmark

Originally posted by: skyking

The problem we face is a society of spineless baby boomers (Non Partisan!), who fear everything, and wish to legislate "SAFETY from all possible harm". Something terrible happens, and there is a cry and hue to try to prevent it from happening again.
This attitude drives the government to seek methods to wrap a protective cocoon around our people, without regard to rights and dignity.
Freedom is not free. There was a heck of a price paid for it along the way, and it is an ongoing lease. It will never be paid up.
Until our society gets a backbone, and accepts that things like Sept. 11 are not only possible, but likely, and don't amount to a blip on the scoreboard of suffering by americans throughout our history, we will be running and cowering, all too happy to give up our freedoms.
Once we give up a freedom, for any excuse, it does not return in full. There are always clever "caveats" that are thought to be acceptable "good ideas" , in light of the prior state of affairs.

You just got a 10. Can I excerpt that for my sig?

Thank you both for trivializing the largest attack on US soil on one occasion ever. I am so sick of all this right wing libertarian rhetoric talking about the price of freedom when you yourself isn't willing to sacrifice anything. We're trying to fight a war to defend this country, everyone's called upon to make sacrifices and all you can do is b!tch about getting searched at the airport and how thats violating your rights and freedoms.

All things considered we have the most freedom of any country in the world and the best kind - we're prosperous enough to be able to do something with it; and some of you are crying that we're on a slippery slope toward a police state.

Freedom is a precious thing and I appreciate mine very much, but in the grand context of things, and in any historical context, we have nothing to complain about in terms of losing freedoms. The time period between the end of the cold war till prior to 9/11 may have been the greatest and safest peacetime we've ever had in memory, and I still haven't heard from Amused as to why he didn't feel safe, despite allegedly relinquishing all his freedoms for it.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Thank you both for trivializing the largest attack on US soil on one occasion ever. I am so sick of all this right wing libertarian rhetoric talking about the price of freedom when you yourself isn't willing to sacrifice anything. We're trying to fight a war to defend this country, everyone's called upon to make sacrifices and all you can do is b!tch about getting searched at the airport and how thats violating your rights and freedoms.

All things considered we have the most freedom of any country in the world and the best kind - we're prosperous enough to be able to do something with it; and some of you are crying that we're on a slippery slope toward a police state.

Freedom is a precious thing and I appreciate mine very much, but in the grand context of things, and in any historical context, we have nothing to complain about in terms of losing freedoms. The time period between the end of the cold war till prior to 9/11 may have been the greatest and safest peacetime we've ever had in memory, and I still haven't heard from Amused as to why he didn't feel safe, despite allegedly relinquishing all his freedoms for it.

Very well put. I have already been deployed to the middle east on two days' notice in support of Operation Enduring Freedom (in Sept of last year), and it looks like I may be sent again this fall, missing the holidays twice in a row. In that context, I really take issue with boneheads blathering about how "royally pissed" they are at the idea of taking their shoes off at the airport.

 

[Cattlegod]

personally if this saves 3000 people than i'm all for it.

hell, i think they should have people go through that nude xray machine before they board the plan and have 100% searches, not random, but everybody.

i was searched in kansas city this summer, got the whole shoe/belt/everything else treatment (i'm was a white guy traveling on business, first time i've flown since sept 11). the only thing they needed was a little more personability skills, they were too mean. they should search everyone, but be nice about it. if they don't want to be searched, fine, they don't ride the plane.

 

[F117NightHawk]

Cattlegod wrote:

if they don't want to be searched, fine, they don't ride the plane.

That's exactly what many libertarian types are doing now. We're voting with our wallets. We will take the train, the bus, or drive. I believe that if everyone does this, we can end these invasive searches. If the airlines don't resist the govt policy, they will fall one by one, like the dead flies they are. USA Airlines is the latest casualty. And who will be to blame, the customers, the airlines? No, the blame will fall squarley on the fed govt and FAA's shoulders.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

That's exactly what many libertarian types are doing now. We're voting with our wallets. We will take the train, the bus, or drive. I believe that if everyone does this, we can end these invasive searches. If the airlines don't resist the govt policy, they will fall one by one, like the dead flies they are. USA Airlines is the latest casualty. And who will be to blame, the customers, the airlines? No, the blame will fall squarley on the fed govt and FAA's shoulders.

This is absurd. First of all, the airlines have zero authority to "resist" FAA policy. Second, and more importantly, you are nuts if you believe that random searches are the reason airline travel has waned in popularity - that is a function of travellers' fear that they will be victims of hijack, bombing, and murder.

See, e.g., these polls, taken by CBS news:

WHEN CHECKING PASSENGERS, AIRPORT SECURITY PERSONNEL ARE:
Going too far 4%
Doing the right thing 54
Not doing enough 36

IN NEW AIRLINE SECURITY PROCEDURES, AIRLINES HAVE...
Gone too far 10%
Done the right thing 55
Not done enough 31

LONGER DELAYS, MORE INTRUSIVE SEARCHES FOR SAFE FLIGHT
Willing 89%
Not willing 8

Don't assume that everyone feels the way you do about random searching.

 

[F117NightHawk]

I never said everyone feels the same way I do. But freedom-loving Spirit of 76 Americans who understand what this nation is really all about, do.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: F117NightHawk
I never said everyone feels the same way I do. But freedom-loving Spirit of 76 Americans who understand what this nation is really all about, do.

Are you saying that I am not a "freedom-loving" American? I think I understand what this nation is all about, and I have made personal sacrifices to serve my country that go far beyond taking off shoes and a "biker wallet" at the airport. My time in the middle east was a cakewalk compared to the hundreds of thousands of proud Americans who have served in combat.

As I have said above, I truly appreciate the fact that zealots like you are free to speak their minds, but I find your position internally inconsistent and premised on selfishness rather than any coherent ethos. The fact that you have adopted an Air Force plane as your handle does chafe me a bit, since by all appearances you are deeply distrustful of the government who built it and deploy it (and pay my salary).

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito

Originally posted by: F117NightHawk
I never said everyone feels the same way I do. But freedom-loving Spirit of 76 Americans who understand what this nation is really all about, do.

Are you saying that I am not a "freedom-loving" American? I think I understand what this nation is all about, and I have made personal sacrifices to serve my country that go far beyond taking off shoes and a "biker wallet" at the airport. My time in the middle east was a cakewalk compared to the hundreds of thousands of proud Americans who have served in combat.

As I have said above, I truly appreciate the fact that zealots like you are free to speak their minds, but I find your position internally inconsistent and premised on selfishness rather than any coherent ethos. The fact that you have adopted an Air Force plane as your handle does chafe me a bit, since by all appearances you are deeply distrustful of the government who built it and deploy it (and pay my salary).

Well I find it funny that you say our position is internally inconsistent but when Amused breaks your argument down completely that you exit the discussion only to enter when you think we have forgotten. Amused has consistently showed his side of the argument with the constitution. All you have done is say that you don't think it is unreasonable.

I find you to be internally inconsistent. I think it is great that you served our country but just because you serve our country doesn't mean you understand it. I know plenty of people I went to high school with that have served that don't know squat about the constitution.

 

[F117NightHawk]

That's because high schools don't teach about the Constitution. God forbid teenagers should believe that they are citizens of value and have rights. The schools' function is to turn out mindless drones who have just enough of a brain to be able to work and respond to simple commands. If a person comes out of school believing in freedom and being able to think for themselves, I consider it a miracle.

 

[Moonbeam]

When I see 50% of full Libertarian Airline unsearched flights comming out of the sky as fireballs and the planes stay full day after day, I'm going to start taking these people really seriously.

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
When I see 50% of full Libertarian Airline unsearched flights comming out of the sky as fireballs and the planes stay full day after day, I'm going to start taking these people really seriously.

Moonbeam, not that it matters but I have respected your arguments since you try to make valid arguments even though I disagree.

The problem with your statement is that you are probably right if we stopped all searches and did NOTHING ELSE. BUT if we stopped unreasonable searches and concentrated on finding other way to get rid of terrorists then we would be fine. How many terrorists have these searches stop? I don't know but it isn't that many. We have been screening people for years and look how many planes have been blown up or hijacked. That shows it just doesn't work. Adding random complete searches doesn't change anything to it. If we searched people that were most probable to hijack a plane then it would probably be useful but not in its current form.

EDIT: The reason the government wants more searches is because it is something that can be seen. It makes the appearance that the government is trying to fix the problem eventhough it isn't. Normal citizens can't find out what the CIA or FBI is doing so it doesn't look good for the government to handle the situation with agencies. It won't get officials re-elected.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Well I find it funny that you say our position is internally inconsistent but when Amused breaks your argument down completely that you exit the discussion only to enter when you think we have forgotten. Amused has consistently showed his side of the argument with the constitution. All you have done is say that you don't think it is unreasonable.

I find you to be internally inconsistent. I think it is great that you served our country but just because you serve our country doesn't mean you understand it. I know plenty of people I went to high school with that have served that don't know squat about the constitution.

Huh? I don't concede any of what you have said, and I did not mean to "exit" this discussion in the least. Don't assume because I stopped banging my head into a philosophical brick wall that I feel I was wrong.

I feel that after four years of college, three years of law school, and four years of working as a federal prosecutor, I have a reasonable grasp of the Constitution. The wonder of it is that it is and will always be a work in progress. Obviously the founding fathers could not have predicted a modern world, including commercial aviation, interstate highways, the Internet, broadcast media, etc., and so the Constitution must be continually reinterpreted and adapted to fit different situations. Obviously you and I differ on that interpretation.

When I said F117 was inconsistent, it was in light of the fact that he agreed X-ray and metal-detector exams were OK, but objected to those that would require him to take off his "biker wallet" and jewelry. That, to me, is an objection based not on a philosophy of personal freedom and autonomy, but one based on personal convenience. I do not feel I have said anything inconsistent, and in this instance I agree with the relevant case law, including Supreme Court precedent.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The problem with your statement is that you are probably right if we stopped all searches and did NOTHING ELSE. BUT if we stopped unreasonable searches and concentrated on finding other way to get rid of terrorists then we would be fine. How many terrorists have these searches stop? I don't know but it isn't that many. We have been screening people for years and look how many planes have been blown up or hijacked. That shows it just doesn't work. Adding random complete searches doesn't change anything to it. If we searched people that were most probable to hijack a plane then it would probably be useful but not in its current form.

EDIT: The reason the government wants more searches is because it is something that can be seen. It makes the appearance that the government is trying to fix the problem eventhough it isn't. Normal citizens can't find out what the CIA or FBI is doing so it doesn't look good for the government to handle the situation with agencies. It won't get officials re-elected.

The problem with your arguments here is that you've painted yourselves into a corner where you have to be especially vague. What are these "other ways"? Amused had only said to "strengthen the CIA" and let them cat proactively outside of the US only. Doing what? What about the freedoms of those who don't live in the US? (I know most freedom hugging right wing libertarians don't give a crap about any foreigners but just in case you don't fit that category)

And just how do you know the searches haven't worked? Prove to me or show me some evidence that can somehow prove that attacks haven't been prevented, thwarted or discouraged in this fashion.

 

[F117NightHawk]

X-rays are the lesser of the 2 evils. If they insist on having these screenings, they should be the least invasive possible.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: F117NightHawk
X-rays are the lesser of the 2 evils. If they insist on having these screenings, they should be the least invasive possible.

How on earth are they less invasive? This makes ZERO sense to me. Obviously they are, as I have said several times, more convenient, but I totally fail to understand how they are less troubling from a privacy standpoint. It seems to me that if you feel random bag searches are wrong, then X-rays are just as clearly wrong.

 

[Imaginer]

I also say he does make a valid (and maybe hidden) point. I feel that in this world today, many of us are starting to lose plain and simple common sense and thinking. I don't disagree with the searching my bags if they wanted to because it is now part of the plane ride and i don't mind at all. But, if they do search it, then like what that articles example with the book-weight strengthens my belief that we are lacking in sense.

But the way he wrote that article really stretched it out to a level. To compare with Nazis? I think he is being to rash. This is also a guy who carries a Constitution with him to show he does not want to be searched. (Maybe he doesnt like it?) And if so, why can't he consider other transportation measures?

 

[UltraQuiet]

Just to address a couple of points and then I'll let Don get back to schooling you children.

1. The airline industry is not depressed because people don't like to be searched. It is because the economy is down, there is a lot less business travelers, a lot less people are vacationing (because of less income) and a very small percentage of "afraid to fly". There is also a small percentage of people taking alternate transportation. Not because they think there privacy is being invaded but because of convenience.

2. Random searches are an integral part of good security. Yes Grandma might get caught up in it but when you set up specific guidelines to do searches you are also telling someone how to avoid it. It is necessary to couple this with good law enforcement, good intelligence and modern equipment. Truly random searches prevent people from figuring a way around the system. Any "exempt" list tells me exactly who the next person is that will carry a weapon or bomb onto a plane. They might not even know they are doing it but that is exactly where it will come from.

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The problem with your statement is that you are probably right if we stopped all searches and did NOTHING ELSE. BUT if we stopped unreasonable searches and concentrated on finding other way to get rid of terrorists then we would be fine. How many terrorists have these searches stop? I don't know but it isn't that many. We have been screening people for years and look how many planes have been blown up or hijacked. That shows it just doesn't work. Adding random complete searches doesn't change anything to it. If we searched people that were most probable to hijack a plane then it would probably be useful but not in its current form.

EDIT: The reason the government wants more searches is because it is something that can be seen. It makes the appearance that the government is trying to fix the problem eventhough it isn't. Normal citizens can't find out what the CIA or FBI is doing so it doesn't look good for the government to handle the situation with agencies. It won't get officials re-elected.

The problem with your arguments here is that you've painted yourselves into a corner where you have to be especially vague. What are these "other ways"? Amused had only said to "strengthen the CIA" and let them cat proactively outside of the US only. Doing what? What about the freedoms of those who don't live in the US? (I know most freedom hugging right wing libertarians don't give a crap about any foreigners but just in case you don't fit that category)

And just how do you know the searches haven't worked? Prove to me or show me some evidence that can somehow prove that attacks haven't been prevented, thwarted or discouraged in this fashion.

Ok here we go. I wasn't going to list every idea I had. There are MANY ways to combat terrorists.

Here are my ideas. No terrorists on a plane is going to be allowed to fly a plane into a building. That is unless half the plane is full of terrorists. People will not allow that to happen again. Simple metal detectors should be enough to eliminated most all weapons that could change the balance.

Since plane missles shouldn't happen again then the other thing bad thing that could happen is a bomb on the plane. Do these random searches eliminate the bombs? No. I personally don't think that xraying everyones luggage is unreasonable. As long as the screeners do not know who's luggaging they are xraying at any one time. That way nothing is associated with someone until something is found. I also personally don't mind xraying of carry on luggage but do not think that hand searches are effective except to embarass people. This comes from a person who's parent works for an airline. She doesn't have a damn clue what to look for and most of the people at her airport are clueless about what explosives could be molded into.

Well now that takes care of all the threats of the plane. No plane missles and no planes blowing up.

Now we need to hit the groups where they hurt. CIA is definately a good idea especially since someone mentioned that only 6 people spoke arabic in the CIA. That is horrid since that is the most common language of our terrorist enemies.

Ever heard the saying, "Know your enemy" and "Hold your friends close but hold your enemies closer"

We can also make things harder on foreign travellers. I know that when I travelled to Europe I was searched pretty well over there. I don't see the samething happening here. Italy was especially rough. I don't mind being harder on foreign travellers.

I think that these measures would be more than sufficient.

 

[Moonbeam]

Codewiz, I'm afraid I have to agree with much of what you say. The story presented by Hayabusarider about the child taken from its parents to be searched is outrageous. The manner and methods seem to need looking at. People use authority as a weapon to screw others because they can. I think there's a lot of work that needs doing in this whole area. I was trying to confine myself to the philosophical issues, not those dealing with application. It is a fact, is it not, that we can never be totally safe, never totally secure. I admit that. Close one door and another opens. A huge part of this whole homeland security crap is politicians wanting to appear that they are doing something so they can get reelected.

We know one thing for sure. If we could absolutely make sure that no plane left the ground with a bomb or weapon on board, we wouldn't have planes sabatoged in the air. Part of the effectiveness of airline security has to to with economics. People aren't going to fly if there is no searching. Searching is a balance between what we can afford and what will give flyers a sufficient sense of security to fly. Airlines are concidered economically vital to our way of life. If they become truly unprofitable, perhaps they will have to be nationalized. Support your country, fly somewhere. So what searching does, for all its faults is send a message. We are watching for you. It is a message as much to the passangers as to the terrorists. So in a sense it doesn't really matter is we are any safer. It matters alot, however, if we feel safe enough to fly.

So if you truly object to protecting our economic interests, maybe we should bring down the whole economy. We can close the bridges. Blow um up, we don't care. Move people and blow the dams, shut down the reactors, turn off TV, you get the idea.

What this country is truly about, unless I'm greatly mistakened, is the economy. Don't the say, it's the economy, stupid?

Ive got my gripes about the economy, but I don't want to go back to the Dark Ages because somebody doesn't want to get search at the airport. People just aren't going to let that happen without a fight. We're working our way through some tough times. Let's be a bit patient and try and do things smart. I don't see searches becomming a permanent part of the landscape if and when more secure times return. They are very inconvenient and they cost a lot of money. We wouldn't do them if they weren't making us more than they cost. When you walk a tight roap, sometimes your poll leans one way, sometimes the other.

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Codewiz, I'm afraid I have to agree with much of what you say. The story presented by Hayabusarider about the child taken from its parents to be searched is outrageous. The manner and methods seem to need looking at. People use authority as a weapon to screw others because they can. I think there's a lot of work that needs doing in this whole area. I was trying to confine myself to the philosophical issues, not those dealing with application. It is a fact, is it not, that we can never be totally safe, never totally secure. I admit that. Close one door and another opens. A huge part of this whole homeland security crap is politicians wanting to appear that they are doing something so they can get reelected.

We know one thing for sure. If we could absolutely make sure that no plane left the ground with a bomb or weapon on board, we wouldn't have planes sabatoged in the air. Part of the effectiveness of airline security has to to with economics. People aren't going to fly if there is no searching. Searching is a balance between what we can afford and what will give flyers a sufficient sense of security to fly. Airlines are concidered economically vital to our way of life. If they become truly unprofitable, perhaps they will have to be nationalized. Support your country, fly somewhere. So what searching does, for all its faults is send a message. We are watching for you. It is a message as much to the passangers as to the terrorists. So in a sense it doesn't really matter is we are any safer. It matters alot, however, if we feel safe enough to fly.

So if you truly object to protecting our economic interests, maybe we should bring down the whole economy. We can close the bridges. Blow um up, we don't care. Move people and blow the dams, shut down the reactors, turn off TV, you get the idea.

What this country is truly about, unless I'm greatly mistakened, is the economy. Don't the say, it's the economy, stupid?

Ive got my gripes about the economy, but I don't want to go back to the Dark Ages because somebody doesn't want to get search at the airport. People just aren't going to let that happen without a fight. We're working our way through some tough times. Let's be a bit patient and try and do things smart. I don't see searches becomming a permanent part of the landscape if and when more secure times return. They are very inconvenient and they cost a lot of money. We wouldn't do them if they weren't making us more than they cost. When you walk a tight roap, sometimes your poll leans one way, sometimes the other.

My mom works for one of the few airlines that is profitable right now. She also worked for Braniff back in the day before they went bankrupt. She has seen a lot in the airline industry. She used to be a flight attendant and she is now a ticket agent. She was actually flying on Sept 11 to go to Las Vegas. I was in a f*cking panic attack that day. I was getting ready to go to class when I saw it mentioned on Anandtech about the plane hitting the WTC.

Anyways, I don't think that the airlines going belly up has a lot to do with the attacks. Yes it hurt them badly but a lot of the airlines were practicing bad business methods. They were not prepared for the slow down of the economy. Sept 11 just hit them quicker.

Our economy has always had ups and downs. I don't think that increasing security will really help the economy. Although since a lot of people like to think the government is fixing the problem it might help.

The economy is based on how people feel our country is doing. If they think that security measures make flying safer then they fly and help the economy. That doesn't mean the searching actually does anything. The problem is that people don't think about that. They just feel more secure with the national guards man at the security checkpoint. The airports have ALWAYS had police officers posted so it is really retarded. I understand it can effect the economy because people feel more secure even if they are not.

This makes things hard BUT i personally think that the economy will return even if the security measures are not implemented. It might take longer though. I just see how the government handles things. Once the government gets their hand in something then they never release it.

At times of war, then I can deal with short term violations of my rights IF they can be shown to be effective. I don't think the searches are. Most poeple my mom talks to think they are bogas also. These are the people performing the searches. That doesn't make me feel better.

Joe blow might feel better but I don't. I just know I am outnumbered. I can deal with that but I am still going to voice my opinion.

Moonbeam, I appreciate your understanding and not just saying we are wrong. You have proved to be very open-minded.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Codewiz
Ok here we go. I wasn't going to list every idea I had. There are MANY ways to combat terrorists.

Here are my ideas. No terrorists on a plane is going to be allowed to fly a plane into a building. That is unless half the plane is full of terrorists. People will not allow that to happen again. Simple metal detectors should be enough to eliminated most all weapons that could change the balance.

Since plane missles shouldn't happen again then the other thing bad thing that could happen is a bomb on the plane. Do these random searches eliminate the bombs? No. I personally don't think that xraying everyones luggage is unreasonable. As long as the screeners do not know who's luggaging they are xraying at any one time. That way nothing is associated with someone until something is found. I also personally don't mind xraying of carry on luggage but do not think that hand searches are effective except to embarass people. This comes from a person who's parent works for an airline. She doesn't have a damn clue what to look for and most of the people at her airport are clueless about what explosives could be molded into.

Well now that takes care of all the threats of the plane. No plane missles and no planes blowing up.

Now we need to hit the groups where they hurt. CIA is definately a good idea especially since someone mentioned that only 6 people spoke arabic in the CIA. That is horrid since that is the most common language of our terrorist enemies.

Ever heard the saying, "Know your enemy" and "Hold your friends close but hold your enemies closer"

We can also make things harder on foreign travellers. I know that when I travelled to Europe I was searched pretty well over there. I don't see the samething happening here. Italy was especially rough. I don't mind being harder on foreign travellers.

I think that these measures would be more than sufficient.

These all seem so intuitive and fundamental to me - of course I agree with them. Whether they're enough in either terms of actual protection and also perceived protection, I doubt it.

I also haven't seen any evidence that suggests screening doesn't work. We haven't seen THAT many bombs on planes, that sort of thing; how do we know there wouldn't have been more. Obviously it works for EL AL.

 

[Moonbeam]

I also agree that the economic woes of the airlines are not all 9/11 related or that security checks are the sole answer to them.

Thanks for the compliment. I am profoundly concerned about the sacrifice of freedom for security, more so even in other area as for example the stuff that's been hapening to US citizen prisoners from the Afghan situation, it's just not my only concern.

 

[Stark]

Try flying El Al, where you are required to show up 3 hrs before your flight for check-in AND PROFILING, and tell me you dont feel safe. Ask me how re-assuring it was, when I was flying El Al on a teen trip and was randomly asked to carry-on someone's third bag, to see this person pulled aside and questioned/searched. this person was NOT an arab, but, let me tell you, El Al takes security seriously, and, key point here, their passengers know and accept the fact that they are serious about it.

And El Al has never had a hijacked plane. If they are going to search, there needs to be profiling and competent employees. If anyone remembers the gunman who attacked the El Al counter at LAX, the guy was shot dead by El Al security.

I agree 100% with the writer. Here's why:

A few months ago I visited Boston and saw the USS Constitution. To even approach the ship (launched in 1797) you had to stand in line, place anything magnetic in a box, and go through a metal detector. All bags and backpacks were searched. Anyone with a pocket knife (even a keychain swiss army knife) had to either give the "weapon" over to the sailors for later destruction or not visit the ship. I saw multiple families from across the country either leave or have one member (usually the father) stay behind while the rest of his family viewed the ship.

Later that day I was reading "Don't Know Much About History," a fairly good book on the American history. I was reading about the Revolutionary period to put the things I had seen on the Freedom Trail in historical perspective and came upon the following:

Amendment IV

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.

Then it hit me: the terrorists have won. We have given up fundamental rights to the federal government in a misguided attempt to feel "secure" after the terrorist attack on New York.

I was in New York a few days before Boston and saw first hand the crater that was once the World Trade Center towers. The destruction was remarkable. But New York still survived. Life on Manhattan went on... people were working, walking through Central Park, riding the subway, and standing in line for shows. The terrorists did not win by physically destroying the WTC.

They won by scaring America into giving up part of what makes it great. The terrorists terrorized a nation based on freedom and justice into being less free and less just.

Airport security is an oxymoron. 9/11 will never happen again. If a terrorist (otherwise known as a young Arab male) were somehow able to get a box-cutter, knife, or even a gun on board a plane, he would never be able to do what the terrorists on 9/11 did. Flight 93 was evidence that passengers will never again allow a plane to be taken over and used as a weapon.

So instead of focusing on suspicious individuals who give reason for being searched (much like El Al), we make security screeners federal employees and randomly search anyone who wishes to fly a plane. Women are forced to drink their own breast milk to prove it?s not a hazardous liquid. Elderly women and families traveling with children are searched. Reason has no part in the process.

Everything that the fourth amendment was written to protect is thrown out in order to provide some misguided sense of comfort to Americans. When that happened, the terrorists scored a larger victory than they could have ever hoped to achieve. They erased part of the document that says what the United States is and what it stands for.

Until we truly realize how we have been attacked and what damage has been done, no amount of dead ?terrorists? in Afghanistan or Iraq will turn the tide in this new war.

 

[Zwingle]

Read this story and tell me where the common sense is:

Picture of toy here

Story below

Tighter airport security targets toys

By David Paulsen
Gannett Wisconsin Newspapers

There are few who would seriously suspect 9-year-old Ryan Scott of Plover is a terrorist or worry that he might hijack an airplane, certainly not with a 4-inch G.I. Joe rifle or the other tiny toy pistols he packed in his carry-on.

Yet earlier this month, security screeners at Central Wisconsin Airport in Mosinee, sticking to the letter of the law, confiscated the boy's toys as federally prohibited items.

Ryan's mother, Amy Scott, said when she and her fiancé questioned the measure, she was searched, even though she only intended to walk her two children to the gate. The screeners threatened to destroy the toys.

"I'm all for increased security because those are my babies on that plane," said Scott, who sends Ryan and Kaitlyn, 7, on escorted flights to visit their father in Idaho twice a year. "But what can you do with a 2-inch, rubber, bendable G.I. Joe toy?"
On Monday, she learned from an airport official that the toys were being held for her at the airport. Still, the incident raises questions about when common sense should prevail over strict interpretations of security restrictions put in place after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.

The Transportation Security Administration, a federal agency established after the attacks to handle airport security, prohibits a long list of items from passing through security checkpoints and onto planes.

The items range from golf clubs to crowbars and from pocketknives to portable power saws. Cattle prods also are unacceptable.

The last item on the list is toy weapons, but the TSA does not specify which toy weapons are prohibited.

"It says toy gun and that's a toy gun," said Millie Swatloski of Global Security, the company that provides security at CWA under a contract with TSA. Swatloski would not comment further.

A spokesman for TSA said that although he was unaware of the specific incident, "it may be that we had an overzealous screener that wanted to follow the letter of the rule."
An employee in the TSA's Milwaukee office said discretion is left up to the screeners and the police, but he could not say if the TSA has any further guidelines for confiscating items.

Options range from simply holding minor items until the traveler returns or arresting the person if he or she attempts to take an illegal weapon on board, said airport manager James Hansford. He, too, was unable to say exactly which items fall into which categories.

"The airport doesn't control any of this anymore. It's totally controlled by the TSA," Hansford said.

Tony Yaron, the airport's director of operations, tracked down Ryan Scott's G.I. Joe guns and held them for the family after Tim Haferman, Amy Scott's fiancé, called to complain.

Yaron was just as puzzled by the confiscation as Scott and Haferman. The screeners receive a directive saying no toy weapons and they take that to mean any toy weapon, he said, not just those that could be mistaken for actual weapons.

"I personally think it's foolish, but that's how it's being interpreted," Yaron said. "It seems to me ... a small, plastic, pliable toy gun is no more dangerous than a nail clipper, which is being allowed on now."
Since they left, Ryan has asked about the toys every time he has talked with his mother. He and Kaitlyn will return on Aug. 21 and Amy Scott said she will pick up the items before then to give to him when he arrives.

 

[Gaard]

Am I correct in assuming that those against searches deem them either unimportant or ineffective? Surely if you thought they would help in preventing another 9/11 you wouldn't be objecting to trading your right to not be searched at airports for preventing another attack, right?