Good. I'm glad you're offended because it was meant to be offensive. Believe me though, you aren't a tenth as offended as I am when I see otherwise intelligent people trade their Rights and Freedoms for the DELUSION of security.

As a historian who studied dictatorships, it takes two to tango. During a mass hysteria (in this case, the irrational fear of Muslims), you see people trading in their liberties for protection and that creates a power vacuum and all it takes is one guy with a lot of charisma and suddenly, people like me are getting knocks on the door late at night and are never seen again.

So there's no possible way I can offend you more than you offend me. Not even close.

By the way, a good slave never questions his master's intention. A good slave knows his master will take care of him. A good slave doesn't complain when his master touches him in an inappropriate fashion. A good slave will also turn in his fellow slave when his fellow slave has bad thoughts about his master.

Now back to topic, read this quote carefully:


So we got a guy who knows way more about terrorism than any stupid American saying these things don't work. Yet, you're still for wasting MY tax money on them?

http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf 

FYI - Know quite a few cancer survivors now. I wouldn't wish cancer on my worst enemy.

While we're at it, please provide a list of terrorists the TSA has caught. The shoe bomber?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe_bomb 

TSA Fail. The truth is the TSA has yet to catch anyone. The FAA has regularly had teams that have snuck past the TSA, proving that the only thing the TSA is good at is annoying travelers.

Wade explained in great detail how you were BORN with Rights and the burden of proof to take away Rights falls on the State, not the citizen. The citizen is innocent until proven guilty. Always. Always, or else we're not in the Land of the Free any more.

This "the state knows best" mentality scares me.

Another point to consider - the TSA is bad for business. I care because for one, I don't like to see high unemployment rates. I actually care about my fellow Americans. For another, I'm heavily invested in American stocks. So I have personal interest in markets flowing, not people being stuck for hours being fondled by TSA perverts.

Another point about business - neither the airlines nor the airport hired these goons. The TSA is bad for business by making it unpleasant to fly. If airports are locally owned, they should have the authority to hire their own people. They are not. They get Feds instead, and they have no choice whatsoever in this matter. Bad for business, folks.

And lastly, seriously consider this. The USA was NEVER made to be a Safe country. It was designed to be a Free country. Please ponder the difference. This will be the difference between us headed to a freer nation in the future or a dictatorship. You've seen the Benjamin Franklin quote about trading freedom for security before so I'm not even going to bother posting it again.

---

Don't worry, I was going to say the same. Not that I agree with the rules as they are now, but if you're going to enforce them, enforce them evenly.

First point, I happen to agree that these scanners are overboard, costly and more than likely a waste of money. Dont disagree.

Second, as I have stated numerous times before, I really dont fear terrorists themselves. The next time they carry out a plot, it will be aimed at another facet of America to garner attention and strike a different fear into this country. If they just wanted to destroy America.. they would be executing people daily in this country, with media attention and constant pace. They want attention to their cause.. self serving Anti America in other areas of the world.

Third, if you are going to have a security measure, should they not be independent of the airport, airlines and local control. Yes, in most circumstances a neutral non biased view is more likely to provide an agenda list and non-conforming entity; hence why they are independent in structure.

However, I do believe we should have a measure of security in place for such forms of mass transportation, especially a method as delicate as air travel.

So, this is really where we disagree. You believe we should have planes loaded down with knives, guns, dynamite, c4, or whatever else you want to carry aboard. Theory being if they know I have them, they will be less apt to use them. Ask yourself this, what is there agenda? I think their value of their own life is rather low.. but the attention they will garner is what they strive for. The reason for the need of attention may differ, but they really want one thing.

A terrorist is going to want to bring the plane down, and cares less about his life. A nutjob is looking for fame, more than likely isn't going to want to bring the plane down.. arming the other passengers is more than likely going to escalate an issue.. not solve it. Again.. if they want to bring the plane down.. there isn't much anyone is going to do.. armed or not.

The root difference is what is accomplished by allowing the passengers to carry or not carry, I think allowing them to carry poses an unnecessary risk to overall well being of the aircraft. If we are talking about people with makeshift weapons with limited damage.. well then, personally I feel good about my chances against the bastard.

My opinion is that there should be a layer of security in place before you agree to board a plane to travel from point A to point B. It isnt because of fear; it is because honestly I expect them to do their due diligence to make my travel as safe as they can realistically can. Measures include: The competence of the pilots, the maintenance of the plane, runway and terminal, and the basic screening of the other passengers boarding the plane. Accidents happen, people with ill intentions accomplish goals some of the time, but reasonable measures should be taken to at least prevent them within reason.

So if I expect some layer of passenger screening, it begs the question of where logistically to set up the security checkpoints.

I think the gates are an awful place to place the security for four fundamental reasons.

1. Most people are so damn antsy to board the plane and impatient, that it would be mass chaos.

2. The logistics of it, would mean that planes would have to be at the gate longer, turnaround would be longer, and the number of flights would have to be reduced. Meaning, less choices for me in my travels via a reduced numbers of flights, thus creating less flexibility in my personal scheduling.

3. The level of security measures would be different airport to airport, gate to gate and would make my baggage packing more of a headache. One agency, one consistent set of guidelines for me to at least try to plan around.

4. On connection flights I would be subjected to multiple security checkpoints leading to even more frustration in my travel.

Another answer segmenting terminal into airline specific entities, however for travelers going to the smaller hubs.. they not only would have to rush to their flight on the other end of the complex, they would now be subjected to another search and more missed connections. Sorry that would only create more frustration.

So I think it makes a ton of sense to have a centralized check in starting my travels, and then really be free of the hassle again until my next trek to the airport.

I am all for a relaxed measures being enforced, as we all know if one wants to get non detectable multiple part explosives in, we probably are not going to stop that with some X-ray scan, but even your guns, knives and other weapons arent going to stop that. With that stated, I believe they owe me at least a reasonable amount of measure to prevent most cases.

Now for the governmental control leading to a dictatorship, sorry I dont buy into the notion that we are becoming a police state nor that a security checkpoint in air travel is drawing us closer to it.

We are born free in this country via the Bill of Rights, but even the constitution provided for levels of government to regulate the promotion of freedom and equality in this country. Every time we pay respect to the flag of this nation we are reinforcing those beliefs.

Part of the duties of this government is being enacted via the FAA and their regulations of air travel to ensure that it is free of monopolies; which promotes competition and value to us the customer. They also ensure that companies are maintaining a level of expectations for the safety of the travelers. In its purity, these are functions that the government should be providing in my tax dollar. An entity which should be free of persuasion from the companies that are leasing parts of the runways and traffic controller wage; and for the most part it has been very effective in maintaining an efficient and safe means of travel.

http://www.faa.gov/about/history/historical_perspective/media/historical_perspective_ch1.pdf 

So if we dont take offense to this function of the government, why such an outcry for them, in a separate agency of the government, regulating the security measures of those that enters these same means of travel via the airport itself?

The TSA isnt restricting your rights to go anywhere you wish to travel; they are not prohibiting you to get a seat on an airline. They are simply another layer of the reasonable means of protection for your travels.

Again, provide a better means of a reasonable measure of screening those that board the planes, an method of travel that cant just stop and adjust to situations in the air.

---

I think I know where you might be going with this question. :)

Roads to me are one of the toughest cases for an anarcholibertarian type like me. I have a hard time arguing with the value of the interstate highway system. And many highways are, indeed, owned by the government, and I have no good argument against that. (I've heard the libertarian argument, but it doesnt convince me.)

Though I would argue that the "airways" are more like the land "off the highway" than they are like the highways....since a flight need not (and probably doesnt) fly over the same pieces of land every time).

And I have no problem with a roadblock per se, if e.g. there has been a recent max sec prison escape in the area.

But I do would have problems with systematic roadblacks, with an officer searching my car every time I wanted to take I90/94 through Wisconsin.

But I think I'm digressing again. (what else is new?) I await your response.

---

I will try my best to put forth an argument of equal validity Wade.. I may fall short but I will give it a whirl. This is at least from my viewpoint and understanding from those that have taught me or what I have absorbed over time.

Quoting the constitution of the United States as put forth by our fathers set out on six core fundamentals of the government .. per excerpt of the constitution.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".


For the purpose I will focus upon the Promote General Welfare, in summary the understood intent is that a role of the government to provide the American people with services and regulations that are for the public good. Regulations that would include Food, Drug, Public Education, Business standard aimed at equal opportunity, consumer protection and regulation of services. The intention was to leave the services themselves private to promote competition so consumers can receive the best possible service and value.

The tie in with the roadways that I will use is that the roadways, like air travel, promote commerce, provide a regulated safe means of transportation of the common citizen. The government, of various levels, maintain and enforce a set of standards for the roadways themselves and those that utilize them, by means of vehicle registration, roadway rules and driver licensing. They utilize our tax dollar to create, maintain and regulate them to ensure all have access to them and they are reasonably safe.

This concept has been in place more than a century already; and the roots of the FAA formed in the same manner. In the 1920s as air travel began to explode and the airline business booming, President Coolidge signed the Air Commerce Act in 1926. This landmark legislation charged the Secretary of Commerce with fostering air commerce, issuing and enforcing air traffic rules, licensing pilots, certifying aircraft, establishing airways, and operating and maintaining aids to air navigation.

In such, a direct comparison could and should be made of the airways, regulating traffic upon them in an organized and uniform manner to promote the good of the passengers, employees and interests of all the companies equally to uphold the competition desire of the constitution.

Based right here in from the roots of the founding fathers, the living document of the constitution adapted to flight providing one of the core six fundamentals of the our constitution.

If we allow this branch of government to regulate and maintain the air travel of the United States, and I am add that it has thrived and prospered, how is it such a leap for them to enforce a level of reasonable security upon those that utilize the airways?

The argument in my opinion is; what is reasonable means to regulate the security of the passengers, which are a vital cog of the system for the good of the people, all people that utilize the system.

---

TL:DR

>=)

---

Good post, Shawn.

Now I'm the one who needs to do some thinking before my response. :)

In the meantime, +1

---

The TSA should hire Hooter's girls to conduct all "Opt-out" screenings, and you get to pick which one performs the pat-down. Instead of bitching, we'd all be asking one another how much to tip 'em.

Then you would have to explain to the wife why you opted out of the other screen... lol.. Might be wise to walk through the scanner. 😉

---

Scanner emits unsafe levels of radiation, as per my link in my earlier comment. For those of us who choose not to risk getting cancer, we'll take the Hooters girls. The rest of you can risk radiation exposure if you're more scared of your wife than getting cancer.

---