Traveler Detained for Anti-TSA Message 1082
scifience writes "A traveler frustrated with recent changes to airport security procedures found himself detained in Milwaukee after writing a message critical of the TSA's leader on a plastic bag presented for screening. The message, which read "Kip Hawley is an Idiot," resulted in a confrontation with law enforcement, the traveler being told that his right to freedom of speech applied only "out there (pointing past the id checkers) not while in here [the checkpoint]." The story, which is detailed in a rapidly-growing thread on a discussion forum catering to frequent flyers, has attracted the interest of the ACLU, an AP reporter, and many others. The incident raises a number of interesting questions and concerns regarding just where our rights end."
It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
passing through to other countries.
Makes you wonder how many people have decided that and how many airlines will go bust as a
result.
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:5, Interesting)
I turned down two jobs for the sole reason that they advertised "frequent travel to US headquarters" as an advantage. No thanks, that is not an advantage. It is a first degree disadvantage.
You think it's bad now?! JUST WAIT. (Score:5, Informative)
http://news.google.com/news?q=torture+bill+senate
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?Secti
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?Sto
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
Habeas corpus is one of the oldest tenets of western civilization, predating the U.S. Constitution and even the Magna Carta, and it says, simply, that if someone is to be held in custody by the state, there must be a demonstrable reason for their imprisonment. It is the basis of "probable cause," "warrants" of arrest, and your right to a trail to establish your guilt or innocence.
This bill not only legalizes torture acts against enemy combatants by the U.S. government, it also gives the president and the secretary of defense the authority to unilaterally decide who is an enemy combatant, without review, oversight, process, or documentation of any kind, and to act on that decision, without trial, documentation, or any means of appeal. The standard for being an enemy combatant is essentially that you don't "support" America in some way or another, not according to some objective standard of evidence, but again according to the personal impression of either the president or the secretary of defense. This includes American citizens.
Once they decide you are an enemy combatant, you can be picked up, with no warrant or probable cause, no evidence, and no process other than "the feds said you don't support America." They no longer need evidence. Under this statute no right to trail or judicial review will exist (because you are now like those at Gitmo, rather than a citizen), and you can be tortured at will.
This is what the senate is working on YESTERDAY AND TODAY. It's likely already too late to affect the outcome, but if you haven't yet it might be a good day to call your senator and say that you OPPOSE the bill that legalizes arbitrary indefinite detention at the whim of the president and the legalization of torture.
And? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have nothing to hide, they wouldn't pick you up, would they?
The terrorists have won by allowing a regime that wants to do things the same as the countries we accuse of "not being free & democratic". The fear of this irrational thing called terrorism is pathetic. More people die from lung cancer every year in the US. More people have died (or will soon) fighting a stupid war with no real goal, direction or possible positive outcome.
This country is slowly moving down the road of fascism or some other "new" form of dictatorship. When a government keeps it's society in check by fear and hatred, only bad things come of it. How long until we get our Hitler? Stalin? Moussolini?
We are not impervious to failure. The almighty dollar seems to be the only concern in the U$A. Pathetic when a country can spend billions on war and nothing to help the poor and sick.
Jesus wouldn't have voted for Bush that is for certain. War is not the solution to the current problems in the world. Our external policies over the last 50 years or so has assisted in creating this monster. When will people wake up and realize we (the country and our representatives) are not infallible? Hopefully not before it's too late.
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
OFFICER: You are an enemy combatant. You're under arrest.
PERSON: Why?
OFFICER: There is a very good reason, but it's classified.
PERSON: What evidence do you have?
OFFICER: Oh, we have lots of evidence, but it's classified.
PERSON: Who accused me of these crimes?
OFFICER: Sorry sir, we can't tell you that. It's classified.
PERSON: When can I go home to my family?
OFFICER: When you've been tried and found innocent.
PERSON: How long will that take?
OFFICER: When the war is over.
PERSON: Can I at least call my wife and tell her I'm OK?
OFFICER: I'm sorry sir, you aren't allowed to contact anyone.
This could happen to you. Maybe you did something awful, but maybe you didn't. Maybe you just said something in a forum that was critical of the person in charge. You don't know. Nobody does. You could be in jail for years, and not know any more than this. No lawyer. Your family doesn't know where you are. You don't know why you're being detained. And they don't have to tell you anything.
This new law would make the above scenario perfectly legal.
Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)
Giving the "President the tools he needs for this war," are only necessary when they have no evidence. If the government has evidence, they can follow habeus corpus. When they have NO CASE AT ALL, they can "use the special tools" and you are in much worse shape.
Notice the number of trials that we've seen? Must be a lot of need for "special tools to fight this war," going on.
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
And as long as the Geneva Conventions apply (as they did in WWII) I have no problem with that. Treating these prisoners the same way we treated German POWs would be a step forward from current dangerous policies.
Re:And? (Score:4, Informative)
This has nothing to do with battlefields. This is the goverment appropriating the right to lock you up and torture you "because we said so", and you having no way to appeal.
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You think it's bad now?! JUST WAIT. (Score:5, Interesting)
The US can never hold a moral highground anymore over anything. Land of the free? No you can't even walk through airport security without risking getting detained because they don't like what you're wearing or a slogan on your bag.
Setting a good example to others? No way. Threats to nuke Iran if they continue their nuclear programme seem very hypocritical. Their actions in Iraq and Afghanistan were so badly organised the US probably killed more innocent citizens than the terrorists did in 11/09/2001 and 7/7/2005 combined.
Also governments need to move religion out of politics, currently Bush loves bringing God into everything he can, this makes him as much of a religious extremist as the muslim extremists he's fighting.
I'm fed up with the UK too, but perhaps when Blair quits his replacement may not be such a Bush puppet - but I doubt we'll be as lucky. The UK in recent history have always had the special relationship with the US.
Re:You think it's bad now?! JUST WAIT. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't blame Iran for pursuing nukes if the information on the matter isn't lie.
A nuclear arsenal is the ticket to respect and an insurance policy against invasion ala Iraq. Look at North Korea; a wild-eyed dictator brags that he can hit Palo Alto with a nuclear missle. His country doesn't get invaded, he gets nuclear talks and diplomacy. Pakistan is a dictatorship set up after a military coup and said to be a hiding place for OBL. Since they have the bomb and play ball with the US, they're allies and can sit at the big kids table with the rest of the nuclear-armed nations.
Re:You think it's bad now?! JUST WAIT. (Score:4, Insightful)
i would think that their copies of the books seem to be missing some pages.
Re:You think it's bad now?! JUST WAIT. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You think it's bad now?! JUST WAIT. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are millions of Americans out there who are distressed at what's going on, but think we're still ok, because no one has come to take them away for speaking their mind. They overlook the fact that dictatorship is not defined by whether or not they have come to take you away, but whether or not they have the legal authority to come take you away.
Once they have the legal authority when they finally come to take you away you will have no defense; and it is your ability to defend yourself under law that defines a free society.
But don't worry, they aren't likely to slap chains on you, what they do is slap chains on a few select people to make you afraid and get you to slap chains on yourself, like a "good little boy."
And your children will accept without question that you have no rights of speech, because they do not even understand the concept. Be afraid of . . . your children.
Yes, I'm being "alarmist." That's the frickin' point.
KFG
Pick up the phone (Score:4, Insightful)
Use the "Find your Senator" box at the upper right. Sorry, Javascript required. If you already know who your Senators are you can skip this step.
Dial the phone numbers given.
Politely (the staff member is not to blame) and concisely (s/he is busy) explain your values about trials and torture.
Re:You think it's bad now?! JUST WAIT. (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a lot in the UK that don't seem to care what their allies in the US are doing (so I can imagine a lot of people in the US don't care either). They don't care because it's not directly affecting them. If that weird looking foreign guy that gets on the bus every morning with them suddenly disappears then they don't care what happens to him, it's all the price to pay for their safety. Once these laws start affecting more people then we may see more complaints.
Yes I know the UK regularly has largish anti-war demonstrations but that's still a very small portion of the population. Most people over here seem to think Bush is an idiot and are glad Blair is standing down but most people here don't care enough to make a difference.
I suspect it's the same in the US.
Re:You think it's bad now?! JUST WAIT. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, I'm quite certain that it's nothing more than this, really.
But did it ever occur to you that Bush et.al. and the GOP have "political needs", too? Everyone (except you, maybe) rightly decries the fact that Bush can now legally point to anyone he wants and make them disappear without a trace. In practice he won't have to do this much because the mere threat of it will be enough to coerce just about anybody to do what he wants. The more immediate importance of this bill, however, is that it makes him unaccountable to anybody, for anything he does. He'll be able to tell us that he's scoring victory after victory in the War on Terror, locking up scores of Bad Guys for the mainstream media, but we'll have no way of knowing whether he's catching real terrorists or just random hapless people off the streets of Kabul. He gets the same credit either way.
The Bush and Cheney families - as well as others in the administration - have big-time business interests in the Middle East. With the powers that they will soon have, I can tell you that I wouldn't want to be a business rival of theirs in that part of the world!
That is precisely why he can't tolerate judicial oversight, and why even conservatives hostile to the Bill of Rights should consider their positions carefully. You are being led down a path you'll regret taking some day.
Unfortunately, not the case. :-( (Score:4, Insightful)
Basically, some of the Senate said "Woah, that house version goes too far!" and they tried to tone it down. But once it got out of committee, the Senate as a whole smashed it and has gone on to procedure regarding the full-strength House version of the bill.
You can read both at senate.gov (see the right-hand column).
As I quoted to another poster, this is the most important bit:
"SEC. 6. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS.
(a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (e) (as added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742)) and by striking subsection (e) (as added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477)); and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
`(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who--
`(A) is currently in United States custody; and
`(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.
`(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien detained by the United States who--
`(A) is currently in United States custody; and
`(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.'.
(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001."
You'll notice that the bill claims to apply to aliens. But once you're picked up as an alien, no court has jurisdiction to review your status. So if they come by your house to pick you as a citizen up, there is no way for you to say "No way, dude, I'm a citizen!" because the moment you're picked up, the courts lose jurisdiction.
If they decide you're an alien, not a citizen, that's it under the law. And who is they? At the top of the bill it spells out clearly: the Secretary of Defense or anyone he designates. So, basically: party members.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I avoid the US as well, although that's not really a problem for me. I only worked abroad once, not in the US, and for holidays there's enough to see for me in the rest of the world. Since the Bush administration my esteem of the US has declined in a rapid tempo, and it's still going down. I wonder how the next administration will do, but I doubt whether they will be able or willing to turn this trend around (even the democrats).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:5, Insightful)
The organisers of any movement that has the intention of altering the government will be treated as terrorists. Organisers of a large protests are already photographed and followed and have their names and organisations put on 'watch lists'.
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:4, Insightful)
You need to read up on the Red Scare [wikipedia.org]. A large number of socialists were jail or deportated. The 1918 Sedition Act made it illegal to speak out against the government. The Post Office was allowed to deny mail to those labeled dissenters. Socialist Party presidental candidate Eugene Debs ran from prison in 1920, jailed for making an anti-war speech.
Don't think it can't happen here. It already has. These actions decades ago pretty much destroyed the Left in the U.S., leaving us with the two right-wing parties we have today.
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:5, Insightful)
The time is coming, if not now, that the people of the USA must take their government to task for the abridgement of the expression of our rights.
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No - the UK is not a good place to compare
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:4, Insightful)
I live and work in London, and even here you cannot describe the surveillance as "pervasive". Most of the CCTV cameras you see are privately owned by the managers/owners of the buildings they're attached to, and are purely for keeping watch on their own premises. There are actually very few "public" CCTV cameras in London, unless you count those on public transport (which is increasinly privately-owned). No, the situation is not ideal, but rest assured that The Man is not watching our every move (at least, not yet - and think of the manpower required to watch the entire population...)
they also have a nasty habit of prosecuting anyone who attempts to defend himself from a criminal attack
Do you have any sources to back that up? I can think of only one case in the last decade or so that made the press - Tony Martin, who shot a fleeing burglar in the back with a shotgun. Believe me, the British press would be all over that sort of story, they've been whipping up a frenzy about the "crumbling, outdated legal system failing victims while being soft on criminals" on and off for years.
Just as Muslims are being tainted in the eyes of many people around the world by the fact that a pack of head-chopping misogynists claim to be Muslims, the anti-war movement in the US suffers from the fact that it's the commie traitors who get the most press.
Similarly, you seem to have decided that we have no right to self defense based on one case that was very poorly reported by the press at the time. We most certainly do have a right to use reasonable force to defend not only ourselves, but anyone who we have reason to believe is in danger of harm.
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:5, Informative)
I live in Cambridge. There is extensive centrally-controlled CCTV coverage throughout the city centre, and in fact the city council have started a poster campaign encouraging people to report potentially criminal behaviour within a CCTV-covered area, by sending a text message to the control centre.
Actually, this isn't entirely accurate. Suppose someone threatens you with a knife, and you point a shotgun at them. They then lunge at you anyway, and you pull the trigger and kill them. IANAL, but people who are have suggested that this falls under the remit of 'reasonable force.'
One of the reasons that the farmer who I think the GP was referring to was sent down for such a long time was that he shot the fellow in the back, and thus he could not claim that pulling the trigger was immediate self-defence. I suspect he would have got away with it if he had just emptied a barrel into the burglar's chest without threatening him or giving any warning.
I can't say I'm itching to put these theories to the test, though...
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:4, Interesting)
And apparently John Kerry "looks french". I'm sure nothing can be read into that.
The trouble is people actually ingest that kind of poisonous filth day after day until it becomes truth. If you stack Fox up against the BBC the difference is quite frankly, chilling. I dont know what the other american networks are like, but if they are even 50% as biased and agenda-based as Fox, then I would be really scared.
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:5, Insightful)
That post is so wrong that I don't even know where to begin. First of all, where do you get the idea that the airport in question is privately-owned? It's not. Why would you make a statement like that without spending 5 seconds on a google search?
Secondly even if it had been, he wasn't denied access by the owners of the airport, but by agents of the federal government. Since TSA agents are required there by law and answer to the federal government, they're not agents of any theoretical owner of the airport and are not the owner's agents. They have no right to make decisions like that.
Thirdly, even if it had been a privately-owned airport and he was denied access by the owners of the airport, airports are places of public accomodation where your first amendment rights receive some protection.
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:4, Interesting)
I thought not.
Muslims (and Jews) happen to take the whole "You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above," thing very seriously.
Christianity as a whole seems to have forgotten the lesson of the Golden Calf.
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing new here is the technology - police abuse of power has been around since there were police (and before that it was other people in positions of authority abusing their power.)
Whenever I see these threads about the US going to hell in a handbag I always ask, and how is this different? Sure there are somethings to be concerned about (e.g. domestic wiretapping.) But when people go on about how america isn't what it used to be, they loose at least some credibility in my eyes. Sure america might not be what it was idealized to be - but then again it never has been. (alien and sedition acts, jim crow, japenese internment camps, and the red scare.)
Not that I'm defending any abuses of liberty, but it isn't like it is something new, or to put it away America hasn't changed as much as some want us to think.
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:5, Insightful)
---
William O. Douglas, Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
When I start ranting about this kind crap 20 years ago, everyone thoguht I was insanely paranoid.
Well, I guess now the shackle is on the other foot. Arbeit Mach Frie.
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:4, Insightful)
If it was 20 years ago then you were way too early and indeed paranoid at the time; however it's nice you can say you told us so regardless. I really like the quote.
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:5, Interesting)
It was after Nixon's political demise that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others who came to be called Neo-cons stared to look for ways to increase the power of the presidency. Remember, it was Nixon who said that anything the president does it legal, because it is the president who is doing it [landmarkcases.org]. In other words, the president is above the law. Since then, they have slowly been setting the stage for this very day.
We had Reagan, who destroyed the unions and set up the boogeyman of the welfare queen, to destroy the social safety net and job security of the middle class. Look where we are now -- Productivity is the highest its been in fifty years, yet people are making less money, working more hours, with less benefits. Prices are up, savings is at an all-time low, and credit card debt at a high. People can't worry about politics -- they are too busy working. Have a problem with this? Shut up with your class warfare and get back to work.
Then came Bush Sr., who was somewhat stymied by a democratic congress and a single term. Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts were hampered by Republicans charging about gays in the military and Lewinsky. I assume I don't need to tell you about Bush.
So if you look at who the major players are behind the scenes in the Regan and both Bush presidencies, you will find Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and assorted other Neo-cons who wanted to strengthen the presidency after Nixon's impeachment. Scary.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
State's Secrets (Score:5, Insightful)
Then your lawsuit (usually) disappears.
Re:RTFA (Read The Fucking Amendment) (Score:5, Insightful)
Depressing, but true (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said, this is inexcusable. My wife and I aren't going to travel to a cousin's wedding this winter because it has become an exhausting, aggravating, and sometimes demeaning struggle to fly from place to place within the US.
If we (the people of the United States) don't use our right to vote this year and in 2008 to shake up those who imposed these draconian "solutions" to terrorism, well, shame on us all.
Re:RTFA (Read The Fucking Amendment) (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress, and by extension, the government. Most airports are federal government property and the TSA is a government agency. Because of that, the first (and the rest) amendment applies to them.
By your interpretation, someone only has those rights when they are in the congress.
HUGE problem with your logic (Score:3, Informative)
HUGE difference betweent he TSA saying that and someone at a party.
Our rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't you mean "... when our rights ended"?
Re:Our rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that in each of those cases, we're talking about the highest levels of federal government taking overt acts to revoke our First Amendment rights. Compare that with this particular case of some local TSA moron doing something stupid.
Yes, I'm aware of the "free speech zones" at debates and conventions in recent elections, and I think they're a horrible idea, but at least in those cases it's motivated by the inability of police to guarantee the safety of the people both inside and outside the building when a terror target is that high-profile. On the other hand, those events are infrequent compared with the hindrances on free speech rights that take place at our public educational institutions [thefire.org] every day, this time motivated by left-leaning political correctness advocates rather than by right-leaning Patriot Act advocates.
Re:Our rights (Score:5, Insightful)
"Yes, I'm aware of the "free speech zones" at debates and conventions in recent elections, and I think they're a horrible idea, but at least in those cases it's motivated by the inability of police to guarantee the safety of the people both inside and outside the building when a terror target is that high-profile."
In other words, the threat of terrorism (which, if you look up the statistics is on par with your chances of being struck by lightning) means we have to restrict free speech?
So why don't we have laws restricting people from congregating out in the open when the weather's looking a bit sketchy?
And why should people be allowed into rallies or photo-ops if they look like supporters, but herded into free speech zones if they look like protesters? If anyone was going to bomb the Republican Party Convention do you really think they'd be stupid enough to wander up wearing a "Fuck Bush" T-shirt over their homemade dynamite vest?
This entire rationale is so pathetically flimsy it's completely see-through. There is only one reason to herd peaceful protesters into designated (almost always well-hidden) areas but still allow supporters through, and that's because you don't want people to see the protest.
Unfortunately that's rather the whole point of your right to free assembly, so they have to come up with a pathetic pretext to allow them to needlessly violate your basic rights.
"On the other hand, those events are infrequent compared with the hindrances on free speech rights that take place at our public educational institutions every day, this time motivated by left-leaning political correctness advocates rather than by right-leaning Patriot Act advocates."
I read the article. A religious group thinks it should continue to receive funding from a state school, but should be allowed to only admit individuals who share that faith. The state school thinks that this violates Separation of Church and State, which sounds pretty correct to me.
The school has offered to either stop funding all the religious groups in the school, or continue to fund the Knights of Columbus if it admits non-believers. The group has refused this.
Nobody's denying anyone free speech, and it's shockingly intellectually dishonest to claim they are.
All the school is saying is that if the group's going to exclude people on religious lines, then they (as a state entity) shouldn't be paying them to do it.
As (presumably) a religious person, how would you feel about your kid's school funding a science club that refused to allow membership to Christians?
They end right there... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, they end right there at the point where people happily exchange freedom for that so called "security".
-------
Born stupid? Try again.
Constitution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Constitution? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope, because the constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper [masklinnscans.free.fr] ©King George the First, Nov. 2005 [capitolhillblue.com]
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Constitution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, but so do Cuba, China, and Libya.
Here's a short excerpt from the constitution of the People's Republic of China.
"Article 35. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.
Article 36. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief..."
Constitutions only work when the people in charge feel constrained by their content
Re:Constitution? (Score:4, Funny)
"Article 35. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.
Article 36. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief..."
Constitutions only work when the people in charge feel constrained by their content"
-- Actually I think their constitution is completely accurate - I'm sure most of their citizens WOULD enjoy freedom of religion, association, procession, and of demonstration. Of course the government would have to give it to them to find out for sure....
Hang on... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hang on... (Score:5, Funny)
where our rights end (Score:5, Insightful)
Your rights ended on the morning of September 11th 2001 - apparantly the morning of a successful coup of the US government by Al-Queda.
Re:where our rights end (Score:5, Insightful)
Liberalism (Score:5, Insightful)
In Civilization IV's Civilopedia there is a Benjamin Franklin quotation on article about Liberalism.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both"
In this context the society is not the State but the airport. Do people feel more secure on security control when a person before them is pointed out because of critisim about the system or are they going to be looking around for the lion in the bushes.
Re:Liberalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Are Rights Cyclic? (Score:5, Interesting)
You wonder? (Score:3, Informative)
And the reversal was only partial.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
WWII *had* an end (Score:5, Insightful)
How will we know when the War On Terror is over? George W. Bush said, on 9/20/2001, that it "will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated". How the hell are we going to determine that? Who can possibly predict how long that'll take?
Similar problems present themselves in Iraq. "Major combat operations" officially ended over three years ago, when that banner was unfurled on the aircraft carrier. But we're still there. We've been hearing phrases like "as the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down" and "the next six months will be critical" for years now, with no end in sight.
We have no definition of victory. You can't compare this current erosion of rights, done in the name of perpetual war, with any erosion of rights that might've occurred during the well-defined WWII, because no one has any idea when we'll even know that it's time to expect our rights back.
Re:WWII *had* an end (Score:5, Insightful)
It's slated to finish shortly after the War On Drugs.
Well, Duhh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Kip Hawley and the entire TSA are rice-bowlers, collecting paychecks from a spectacularly moronic WPA that spends money as fast as the real WPA ever did but doesn't produce a damned thing.
This guy knows it, and said it in a particularly insulting way. To the people collecting those paychecks, who also know it in their hearts, and are ashamed.
So, yeah, they got angry. The twaddle about 1st Amendment rights applying ~out there, not in here~ was just angry-stupid horking, not worth getting in a flap about.
Re:Well, Duhh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, Duhh. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the term you are looking for is "Salami Tactics". I believe that Sir Humphrey Appleby had something to say on the subject. Into the Wayback Machine, Sherman!
So where is the real danger? When your first amendment rights disappear? ("He shouldn't have said that. It's unpatriotic.") Third? ("Support our troops! And have breakfast waiting for them in the morning, please.") Fourth? ("If he wasn't a terrorist, he would have nothing to hide.") Sixth, Seventh and Eighth? ("They're enemy combatants, not people.") Or should you wait until they're all gone to start worrying?
Hey, as long as you have the twenty-first then things are all A-OK, right?
Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
But what I'm wondering is why people think it's a good idea to go out of your way to be rude or insulting. If you shout "pig" at every cop you pass in the street, pretty soon you will find somone who takes it to heart and will give you a bad time. Maybe this is a violation of your freedom of speech. But why do it in the first place?
It's The Pettiness (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's say you're a frequent flyer, for reasons of business. If your local TSA supervisor gropes you or someone you know at a bar or on the street, what are you going to do? What if they get in a property dispute with you? What if their child is tormenting your child at school? What if they don't like the clubs or places you want to frequent? What if you want to campaign for a political party they don't really like?
What will you do? Exercise your rights? Do something that might displease the officials? Perturb or them in some small way? You will on your fuck! You will drop everything and anything the moment you smell that this petty prick might make flying more difficult for you. Only fools and people with the right kind of friends will do otherwise.
As the TSA officials and persons like them grow in number and influence, expect such situations to arise. You think it won't happen? The people who set up the TSA, the people in the TSA, they all believe that such a state of affairs would be right and proper. They have a world view, and it does not involve tolerance for yours. If they can find a way to make life miserable for people who don't follow them, they will.
T-shirts (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:T-shirts (Score:5, Informative)
Who are these people? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like Doctors - they are expected to be arrogant, aloof and possessing of a certain air of infallibility. But they're not infalable, we know that and they know that.
Same thing with security people, customs, immigration etc etc. We expect them to be rude and aggressive - but in point of fact they have absolutely no right to be.
When planes blow up etc - the individual security people aren't berated for this. The system maybe - but not the individuals. Also, their lives are not a risk - it is we who travel on the planes that are at risk - and if we can be light-hearted about it, why can't these idiots be? (Gotta love the guy with cocaine).
I think it goes back to the same old thing - give a small man a little power and he will abuse it.
I would like to say that a number of these people are actually very nice and endowed with a decent sense of humour. And you know what - they get the job done just as well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe it's just you. All those people are generally very polite and friendly to me - maybe because it's because I'm polite and friendly back?
Re:Who are these people? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They certainly are not.
For example, the airport security people in Singapore are totally different from their counterparts in the UK.
In Singapore, they exude an air of being happy in their jobs. They are friendly, courteous, efficient and well organised.
Those in the UK are the opposite in every way that matters.
Re:Who are these people? (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, are you seriously suggesting that we shouldn't worry when our government detains an individual who has not only committed no crime, but has shown no evidence whatsoever of having committed any crime?
We have an absolute constitutional right to peacefully express any opinion we like, whether or not it is productive or mature to do so. This was an egregious violation of that right and that is not something that can be tolerated.
Okay, so the TSA guys... (Score:4, Insightful)
Punishing those responsible isn't going to solve this problem in the general case.
Can anyone suggest a more proactive solution?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You've just described every Systems Admin I've ever worked with.
Can anyone suggest a more proactive solution?
A lot less emotion and a little common sense goes a long way. Recognize when you are in "their" world, and tread softly. Feign respect if you cannot muster up the genuine article. Derive solace from the fact that, at the end of the day, you'll be relaxing at home or in your comfortable hotel room
Nothing new (Score:3, Insightful)
The TSA is basically a hall monitor in the heirarchy of law enforcement. So they're even more sensitive to taunts, and more likely to elevate an insult to the level of national emergency.
Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Insightful)
This was hardly that personal. Hawley is the director of the TSA, and these were grunts at an airport. This was akin to telling the average private in Iraq that "Donald Rumsfeld is an idiot".
Rights and wrongs (Score:3, Insightful)
That was regular cops and they seem to have come around since then. These TSA wonks are more like renta-cops - got shot at by one of them, back then as well, and the regular cops that came out said they would have been 'ok' with me shooting back.
Amazing what a little taste of authority will do for an otherwise flimsy backbone.
where our rights end? (Score:4, Insightful)
Here in the usa, what rights we had left pretty much ended on 9.11.01, when the government seized the opportunity to grab the rest of them after a tragic event.
This reminds me of an old saying (Score:5, Insightful)
Evidently philosophical acumen apprently isn't high on the list of qualifications for being a TSA screener.
That said, I fly a great deal, and TSA personnel seem to be fairly representative of the rest of the human race; some are automatically grouchy and unpleasant, some are tempermentally helpful and friendly, and the majority are like most people, they give you back what you bring them. When you're snide or difficult, the grouchy ones return with interest; when you are pleasant and courteous, the friendly ones return that with interest.
Speaking of philosophy, in Plato's ideal state there were three classes of people, rulers, who required the virtue of wisdom (sophia); soldiers, who required the virtue of courage (andreia); and the rest of the people who required the virtue of sophrosune, which is translated often as moderation, but is perhaps better thought of as temperance. The Greeks thought of this as a kind of self-control over pleasure seaking, but it applies to the negative emotions like anger and suspicion as well. In a modern democratic republic, people (even soliders -- possibly especially them) are called on to excerise the virtues of all three Platonic classes of people, although in different measure.
TSA is above all a civilian agency, although security is its function. And the civilian virtue of temperance is critical to the efficient execution of its duties. Consider the grouchy, aggressive and irritable inspector, on one hand, and the overly friendly one on the other. These are both bad, not because the travelling population is comprised mostly of decent people (it is) on one hand, nor because the travelling population contains dangerous bad people (it does). The reason these characteristics are bad in a screener is that they are both forms of distraction from the actual job.
TSA was cobbled together pretty much overnight, so its a mixed bag. But consider the benefits of moderation. If you're too suspicious, you jump to conclusions and you dwell on irrelevant details. If I were a terrorist, I'd want to be a couple of people behind the guy with the Kip Hawley bag, so I could pass through while everyone was dealing with the First Amendment brouhahah. Likewise, you want the inspectors to be pleasant, but not too friendly. Pleasant behavior is a social lubricant; it makes things run faster. That means more people inspected in a given number of time, or the same number scrutinized in more detail. But you don't want pleasantness to rise to outright friendliness. Chatting and making small talk would get in the way of business.
Of course, you need a wide selection of people if you want to consistently pick the ones from the middle of the deck. For better or worse, security is just one of those things we think anybody is able to do; we don't see it as a job with high professional or personal qualifications. By paying accordingly, we don't a work force which is consistently fitted to do the job with excellence. We end up with a workforce that is representative of the population, and have to accept the natural variations in performance that involves. Perhaps that's good enough. Freedom isn't going to fall apart because of some hot-headed TSA employee taking it upon himself to impose loyalty on the citizenry. Society isn't going to unravel if the occasional airplane is hijacked. We don't like to think of it this way, but we really treat these things as part of the cost of doing the business of society. If we didn't, we'd do what was necessary to have a more consistenly professional TSA.
The harrass pilots as well (Score:5, Interesting)
The pilots have to pass through security just like the rest of us, and from what I hear they are getting increasingly fed up with the security screening staff. The general opinion is, that these are the same personality types that under different circumstances would become executioners.
Some of the pilots fought back though. One guy I heard of, attempted to pass through the detector gate, carefully making sure to step over an imaginary 1 foot high obstruction.
The screening crew apparently didn't have a sense of humor and made the pilot walk through the gate again, warning him to do it "normal" this time around.
At first the pilot prcoeeded normally through the gate, but stopped in the middle of the gate, spinning around in a Michael Jackson-esqe manouvre and exited the gate walking backwards. The screening crew went ballistic and forced him through a third time before he was let through.
Another pilot presented his ID card to the security screening crew, was let through and pocketed his card again, hurrying towards his assigned aircraft. He was running late.
Airpot security guidelines clearly states that ID cards should be carried visible at all times and a female security offcial noticed that the pilot did not carry a visible ID-card, took offence and ran after him. The pilot made it all the way to the cockpit and was sitting down and preparing for the flight, when the security offical came bursting into the cockpit, throwing a hissy fit and telling the pilot off for not wearing the ID card visible. The pilots in the cockpit were running late and were getting increasingly annoyed by the security official, when they noticed that the official was not carrying an ID card herself.
"So who are you?", they asked her, demanding to see her ID card. Fumbling around her pockets, she realised that she had left her own ID card behind, when running after the pilot.
The pilots resolutely locked the cockpit security doors and radioed the airport advising them that an unknown person that could not identify herself was locked in the cockpit with them.
The security official was then escorted off the plane by two armed police officers.
The Real Problem (Score:5, Funny)
He's lucky he didn't get arrested for revealing a state secret.
Re:The Real Problem (Score:4, Funny)
Airport security or social engineering? (Score:5, Interesting)
Al quaeda seems not willing to embarass the US by using the arms they got from them, in the meantime western citizens are being trained to be questioned, searched, put in custody for merely losing patience. Here the 500-1500 stingers given to Bin Laden [wikipedia.org]... all lost? If so, can't they buy anything second hand in Kosovo? Strange.
Liquid Explosive Fake (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, the guys who didn't have passports and tickets yet and who haven't been charged with anything yet.
Well, they planned to use some strange "liquid explosives", I personally have at least some knowlegde in chemistry and don't believe this.
But let's hear what others say (taken from http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Sources_August_
---
"The idea that these people could sit in the plane toilet and simply mix together these normal household fluids to create a high explosive capable of blowing up the entire aircraft is untenable," said Lt. Col. Wylde, who was trained as an ammunition technical officer responsible for terrorist bomb disposal at the Royal Army Ordnance Corps in Sandhurst.
---
However, science doesn't matter anymore and this story sounds very made up by Bliar's and Bush's regimes.
And I might add - most of the TV-Specials on German TV were even less accurate on the chemistry of explosives as they usually are on IT related stuff.
k2r
this sort of thing always reminds me of a quote: (Score:4, Insightful)
Meanwhile, in 'enlightened' Europe... (Score:5, Interesting)
That is the day from when I and others like me are effectively excluded from air travel.
See, I have really bad eyesight, and wearing expensive contact lenses is the only practical remedy to my disability. As you may or may not know, proper maintenance and desinfection with specific hypoallergic products is critical. The sterile products I need come in 120ml and 300ml bottles, so I cannot take them with me any more. Transferring them to smaller bottles is a big no-no. I don't want any unsterile or mislabeled product in my eyes.
Delayed flights, lost luggage... How the hell am I going to cope with them ? Ever tried to get to correct product in an airport, or in the middle of the night in an unfamiliar city ?
If this is not addressed, my next flight in a few weeks may very well be the last.
The end point does not change (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no interesting question about where our rights end. Our rights themselves continue to be what they were. The interesting question is where our rights begin to be oppressed.
If you fail to grasp this important distinction, you are granting others power over your inalienable rights.
TSA people are lower-range intelligent people (Score:4, Interesting)
But you can be sure that when someone in the TSA doesn't know quite what to do, they'll most likely screw it up just like this guy did. One thing about the story that surprises me is that the policeman didn't just send the joker on his way. The police ARE trained in law and should have recognized the risk involved. I have serious doubts as to the accuracy of the original story.
Re:The Right to Bear Arms (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)