TSA's VIPR Bites Rail, Bus, and Ferry Passengers 658
OverTheGeicoE writes "TSA's VIPR program may be expanding. According to the Washington Times, 'TSA has always intended to expand beyond the confines of airport terminals. Its agents have been conducting more and more surprise groping sessions for women, children and the elderly in locations that have nothing to do with aviation.' In Tennessee earlier this month, bus passengers in Nashville and Knoxville were searched in addition to the truck searches discussed here previously. Earlier this year in Savannah, Georgia, TSA forced a group of train travelers, including young children, to be patted down. (They were getting off the train, not on.) Ferry passengers have also been targeted. According to TSA Administrator John Pistole's testimony before the Senate last June, 'TSA conducted more than 8,000 VIPR operations in the [previous] 12 months, including more than 3,700 operations in mass-transit and passenger-railroad venues.' He wants a 50% budget increase for VIPR for 2012. Imagine what TSA would do with the extra funding."
Well, so much for... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Take the train you unpatriotic, small-dicked paranoid liberal!"
Yeah, we all saw this coming. Papers, please.
Re:Well, so much for... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to sound like I'm channeling Ronulus Prime, but I really think we'd all be better off if congress just defunded the TSA and closed the agency. At least it would be cheaper.
Re:Well, so much for... (Score:5, Insightful)
-Me
Re:Well, so much for... (Score:4, Funny)
"The reaction of every government throughout history to radical or violent external threats, real or perceved, has been to prey upon its own people. Always."
-Me
"Arrogant douchebags who quote themselves are destined never to be quoted by others."
-Anonymous
You just quoted him.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
CELEBRATE ENDLESS GODWIN (Score:5, Insightful)
The Nazi's didn't go this far.
The threat to buses and trains can be effected from miles/hours away. Case? Stick a large, crooked wedge of metal on a train track to derail the engine. Cost? Almost zero. Effectiveness of the TSA wiping their asses on the Bill of Rights? Less than zero.
Someday, they will tar and feather those who preferred a job with TSA, over panhandling.
Re:CELEBRATE ENDLESS GODWIN (Score:4, Insightful)
The irony is not in the resistance to unjust authority - but in the imposition of that authority through the means and rhetoric of a nominal republic.
There is a difference between, on one-hand, the officially sanctioned actions of the state, in violation of the social-contract as established by adherence to rule-of-law and - on the other, the wrath of a plundered and terrorized population.
There is the root of your"irony".
When law serves only the interest of the powerful, and leverages the language of justice to pervert that which is actually just, then expect these people to be treated as were the tax-collectors for George III, in Philadelphia, Williamsburg and Boston.
Tom Paine and Patrick Henry were ignited over lesser abrogations.
Re:Well, so much for... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who said anything about privatizing? Just terminate TSA and any program it currently supports.
Re:Don't terminate: Fix (Score:4, Insightful)
Given that TSA hasn't caught a single terrorist (but did let two through), I see no reason to keep paying for their idiocy at all.
Security theater is for Europeans, too! (Score:5, Interesting)
How about just getting your government to make the TSA behave like most other western country's airport security? I've yet to see Canadian and European airport security turn up in a railway station and start frisking passengers.
I agree that the German security krewe that screwed with me aren't likely to show up at the Bahnhof by mistake, but this is an international show, Mr. Moore; you can buy your tickets with Euros, too!
On my last trip to Germany (last year), I made the mistake of bringing my reading light. The trip before that one, I had gotten an airplane seat with a broken light, and I wasn't going to suffer through another 10 hours of boredom if I could help it. Unfortunately, this is a somewhat modded LED headlamp: I had one headlamp that had an OK headband and mount, and another one with really neat optics and a broken mount. So I combined them. Unfortunately, aesthetics are not usually my prime concern when I make gadgets for myself—the thing has a largish lump of black epoxy on top where the wires come out. Yeah, it occurred to me that it might confuse people if I stuck this into my pocket, but I couldn't find anything else, and hey, it's obviously a flashlight. How much trouble can that cause?
And in fact, I got through the Dallas-Fort Worth airport just fine. None of the National Security Goons said a thing about it, even though I had my usual snarling match with the dumb f*cks. Ah, but on the way back through the Frankfurt airport, the guy running the carry-on X ray machine literally danced on his tippy-toes, holding my ugly duckling light up high in the air for all to see, calling for a "Sonderuntersuchung". Yep, special handling for the Doctor.
They took me to the Room For Bad Boys (at this point, a certain amount of Reality Skew had already set in, and I was getting junior high school flashbacks). What I thought was really weird is that none of these people understood why I would want a reading light. I tried to explain to them that reading was fun, but was met by looks of blank incomprehension. This was not some sort of language problem, as the Doctor's native language is German. (Well, OK, with a heavy Bavarian accent, but I think even these damn Prussians could understand me just fine!) They kept shining my light on the ceiling (after I showed them how to turn it on); I remember apologizing several times about how dim it was, and offering to change out the nearly dead batteries. Maybe this wasn't a smart thing to say to people who probably can't tell a flashlight from a Klingon phaser. But eventually, they gave me back my reading light, and let me go.
I had taken no more than three steps when I felt a hand on my arm. I was notified (in English) that I had been selected for a "special security check". It was like the scene you've seen in 50 movies where the prisoner is released, thinks the ordeal is over—and is instantly re-arrested by hard-faced guys wearing the 20th century's most snazzy uniforms with those jagged lightning bolt runes. There were at least five of these guys, and two of them were women. Evidently, this somewhat confused paunchy 60+ year old guy with the fuzzy white beard sent the danger meter into the red zone. The woman who was seated behind a desk said, "Empty your pockets please." Further Reality Seepage followed.
I can explain why I lost control. You see, I was wearing my Vest of Many Pockets, and every pocket was filled with things I considered interesting or useful (like reading lights, books, interesting rocks, you know, the usual stuff). I had a mental image of myself emptying out a nearly infinite multitude of pockets, drawing forth who knew what (I certainly had very little memory of what I had collected in the past weeks), a process that, with the accompanying explanations, would clearly consume months. I started laughing. I couldn't help it, I was bent over in paroxysms of laughter, holding on to Frau Schnipperschnapps' desk for support, for what seemed like a
Re:Well, so much for... (Score:5, Insightful)
There standards might be higher but the real issue is we object to the activity, not to its poor implementation. I don't want to have to get a pat down before I board a plane, if its done professionally or poorly is not really the issue.
The level of safety screening baggage affords is enough for me. I don't want someone to be able to take down a plane by throwing a box onto a conveyor; I'll pay for baggage screening in my ticket price. I am willing to accept, rather than try and control the risk someone is willing to commit suicide to take down a plan by boarding with their bomb, at least if the only available controls are as invasive as pat downs and naked pictures.
Federal baggage screens might be better than private, I doubt it but do some trials or cite some existing evidence and if solid I'll accept it. I don't need my right to be secure in my person completely trampled in the name of safety; no matter if its effective of not; thanks.
Re:Well, so much for... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a better idea. Let's segregate security. Split it up so that there are two types of airplanes and terminals you can enter. You can enter the terminal where you get a government sponsored freedom fondle and/or pr0n scan, or you can go into the one that has whatever security the airport feels is actually needed (probably a basic bag x-ray and metal scan). The only stipulation is that you must pay, out of pocket, at the security, the cost of the security. So, if you are getting a pr0n scan in the TSA run line, you see the price, swipe your credit card, and than get molested for freedom. No tax subsidies, you must collect the fee in a clear and unambiguous way, and only collect it from people who are actually using the security.
Let market competition sort it out.
Are people fucking cowards who piss themselves over a one in a few million chance of a terrorist blowing up their airplane and so are happy to pay for security theater? Or, once people see the price, can they control their coward's bladder and save a few bucks for the privilege of not being molested.
I think what pisses me off about this entire thing is the cowardly way that Americans have responded to the "threat" of airline terrorism. Here is a threat of death that ranks well below slipping and dying by falling in the shower, and several orders of magnitude below eating yourself to death. Apparently, Americans being complete fucking cowards, decided to throw a few hundred billion dollars at this absurdly small threat, burned the fourth and fifth amendments, and voted in politicians who sooth their cowards fears with empty security theater.
It pisses me off that I have to watch my tax money burned so that I can be molested to sooth fears of mewling un-American cowards. If you are a coward, do rest of the country a favor and stop voting, stop traveling, and be a coward quietly and privately. Far braver people than you have gotten their faces smashed in during civil rights protests by cops or gunned down for storming beachheads defending your liberty. The least you can do for these brave people that were not total fucking cowards is to either fuck off and stop traveling, or get a handle on your cowards bladder long enough accept the paltry and trivial risk that a terrorist might blow up the airplane instead of blowing their own dick off like the last one did.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree. Every single thing we have done in response to 9/11 has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are cowards.
Re:Well, so much for... (Score:4)
I don't ever recall a public outcry for the new security scanners or pat-downs. As far as I can tell, this has merely been a long, downhill slope of politician after politician throwing money and rationality out the window to look like they are doing something in the face of 9/11. Now, you have security personnel in the top brass at the DHS and TSA clamoring for more power and money by concocting a constant stream of new and more invasive security procedures to justify and solidify their positions.
I don't fault the American public for starting it all. I fault them for not doing anything to stop it.
Re:Well, so much for... (Score:4, Interesting)
Example: According to the TSA site [tsa.gov], rules prohibit a passenger from carrying more than 100ml of liquid through a security checkpoint. I have no idea how much explosive liquid it would take to cause a serious problem aboard a plane, but I would assume a liter of something would achieve a terrorist's goal. This could easily be accomplished under current rules by having ten terrorists each bring a 100ml bottle of explosive fluid through the security checkpoint, then combining the volume once inside the plane. Even easier would be for one terrorist to simply make ten trips through security, each time bringing in another 100ml bottle of explosive fluid and stashing them somewhere within the gates area to then be combined into a 1-liter explosive bomb.
Re:Well, so much for... (Score:4, Insightful)
Umm...the other option is that the TSA is defunded and *not* replaced with private services.
The US functioned for a long time without the TSA. I was around and remember what it was like.
9/11 was a horrible tragedy but the whole concept of the TSA as a response was grossly fucking inappropriate. Remember when it was assumed this was the role of the FBI and CIA? Why do we need another agency?
As far as I'm concerned, the premise of the TSA's operations is fundamentally unconstitutional. E.g., if you are searched there has to be a specific reason why you in particular are being searched. Not "we're groping around because someone somewhere might be doing something illegal."
This is getting way, way, way out of hand. I don't *want* things to get worse, but between this, Oakland, all of the ridiculous IP crap going on (oh yeah--I forgot about how DHS is involved in felonizing what should be civil legal issues), I don't see how this could get better before it gets way worse.
Re:Well, so much for... (Score:4)
Fuck the entire security thing, I shouldn't need to submit to papers and a patdown for traveling inside the country.
Re: (Score:3)
> "Take the train you unpatriotic, small-dicked paranoid liberal!"
Opposition to TSA isn't just a liberal thing.
Re:Well, so much for... (Score:4, Informative)
Not by a long shot. In fact, I don't know a single person who doesn't despise them, and I am a conservative. Come to think of it, I don't remember ever seeing anyone on the Internet saying anything but negatives about the TSA.
Why the hell it still exists is a mystery to me.
Re:Well, so much for... (Score:4, Funny)
So.... she was ok with getting groped by strangers? That must have made for a fun relationship.
Re: (Score:3)
He probably wasn't strange enough for her.
Re: (Score:3)
I was thinking more like, how does that work when they're out together, in a crowd?
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree. There were reasons why Bush's approval rating was low even amongst conservatives in his second term. That was a big one.
Re:Well, so much for... (Score:4, Insightful)
I call BS. If you said ANYTHING against the administration you got shouted at for being a traitor, for opposing the government in wartime. NOW, 'everyone' was against everything that happened in the Bush years (except nobody is supposed to remember the past unless its to complain about Clinton or Carter, of course).
I'm old, but my memory isn't that bad.
"There were reasons why Bush's approval rating was low even amongst conservatives in his second term. That was a big one."
Yup that's why he got 51% of the vote in 2004.
TSA was established after 9/11 and transferred to the Department of Homeland Security in 2003.
So yeah. BS.
Re:Well, so much for... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure you did get a lot of crap for opposing the TSA, much of it from conservatives, but there were some conservatives who were very opposed to it. They just weren't the talking heads of the movement.
Re:Well, so much for... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, first of all, I'm registered Democrat and voted for Hillary in the last primary. I then voted third party in the General as a protest vote because I couldn't in good conscience vote for either of the big party clowns. Ok?
It's true that in the wake of the 9/11 hysteria the TSA had an entirely unearned amount of support, but it didn't take more than a couple years for that to dissipate. Towards the end of Bush's second term the TSA had grown to be generally despised by people of all political stripes. What's even more concerning is that with a liberal administration in charge, the TSA continues to grow in power and intrusiveness. This is not a conservative/liberal issue. This is an issue about government overstepping their boundaries. I have an idea -- let's stop yelling at each other and work together to fix this. If you could just get over your party polarity for a minute, you'd see that you had allies in what might be unexpected places. Or we could keep on blaming each other, but that's just what they want us to do.
Re: (Score:3)
No, he brings up a good point and it was worth discussing. If there's a perception that you have to be Liberal to oppose the TSA, then people need to start talking to each other more.
Re:Well, so much for... (Score:5, Funny)
Or smashes a Ferry into Mt. Rushmore.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm suddenly envisioning a terrorist spending millions of dollars and enduring decades of political hearings to get permission to lay a rail line leading up to the White House, and the government being dumb enough to let them.
It would be funny if it weren't so damn plausible.
Re:Well, so much for... (Score:4, Insightful)
If there was ONE thwarted terrorist attack by the TSA, you can be sure it would be ALL the fuck over the airwaves on how the wonderful beacon of security saved all our lives.
The simple fact that there have been no such announcements in the wake of such intense public hatred of the TSA only solidifies that they've done fuck and all.
Re: (Score:3)
The TSA was an invention of the Right. Not to say the Left isn't perfectly thrilled with it. This isn't a Left vs Right issue, it's a bipartisan clusterfuck.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure L3 gives a lot of money to both parties.
Re:Well, so much for... (Score:5, Insightful)
Leftists want to test the public's submissiveness to government intrusion
ROFL! Which leftist was that who first proposed TSA? It was that famous lefty George Bush.
Using terms like that make you sound like some mid-60's Fox News watcher who tunes into Glenn Beck's radio show on the way to Branson, MO.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Obama is leftist? Only in the USA.
Re: (Score:3)
Obama is about as left wing as Regan.
Re: (Score:3)
If you can have them touch people as they go through every door way, starting with people's front doors...
This is out of control (Score:5, Interesting)
We have become consumed by the fear of a mosquito bite, are we going to continue to give up our freedom for what amounts to a non-issue?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The irony is that the DHS labelled that same demographic a potential terrorist
Re:This is out of control (Score:5, Interesting)
It should be noted that that part of thing isn't going to plan: A number of returning US Marines have volunteered to help protect Occupy protesters from the police.
Re:This is out of control (Score:5, Interesting)
Personal theory follows, ignore, comment, whatever. This is just a musing on general trends.
I've known a handful of cops. Their reasons for becoming one are varied, but the one constant is a rules-based view of the world. There are rules, and if you break the rules, you must be punished. The soldiers I've known tend to be more focused on harm: if you broke the rules, but nobody got hurt, then let it slide; conversely, if you followed the letter of the law but ended up fucking people over, they'd as soon kill you as look at you.
Cops can't really be any other way, because we can't let law enforcement be completely whimsical and subjective. But I know which group of people I'd rather hang out with.
Re: (Score:3)
Now THAT would be fun to watch.
Yes. (Score:3)
It's for the children. And by that I mean it's for the purpose of groping and taking naked pictures of the children.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't feel any safer, I just feel completely annoyed. Annoyed that just because the Blue Angels are in the air, I can't be processed through security; annoyed that the TSA agent telling me to take my ID out of my wallet ("I forgot, ever forget? Happened to me" ~Ron White) can't say please, or at least not have an attitude, not slouch etc.; annoyed that security gates are too often, although not always, understaffed for the amount of traffic passing through them. Honestly I think I felt safer when you co
And? (Score:4, Insightful)
Look, honestly, what are you going to do about it? Complaining doesn't matter. The TSA will be here forever, and, as much as we hate to admit it, there is nothing that can be done about it. There is too much money involved, and contractors have vast amounts of power, much more so than any collection of outraged stories and messages on the internet does.
Seriously, I hope the TSA is abolished tomorrow, or hell even five years from now. But honestly without fundamental, almost revolutionary changes to the way the US government works this simply will not happen. Money talks, national security lobbyists have TONS of money, and that's pretty much the end of it.
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
easy answer: refuse the search. need as many people as possible bringing this to court as possible.
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Supreme Court has no shame. Expect them to roll over on every significant expansion of government power, and to throw us a bone or two on a few insignificant onces so they don't get called on it.
Re: (Score:3)
Plus, previously the argument has been "if you don't want to be searched, then don't travel by a private airline where you know you'll be searched."
That doesn't hold water in the case of the people who traveled by train, not knowing they would be searched, and then were not searched until they got OFF the train, where they could not refuse the search by declining the travel. Whole new ballgame there.
Don't like it? Get involved. (Score:4, Insightful)
Write PAPER letters to your state and national Representatives and Senators (and mayors and governors). Tell them that you want them to OPPOSE this.
Get your friends to write the same kind of PAPER letters to the same people.
If the politicians do not fight this on your behalf, then replace them in the next election cycle.
Get educated. Get motivated. Get involved.
A cynic who stays at home will never change anything.
Re:Don't like it? Get involved. (Score:4, Insightful)
Write PAPER letters to your state and national Representatives and Senators (and mayors and governors). Tell them that you want them to OPPOSE this.
That's not going to work, unless your paper letters include large campaign checks. That's the problem: Your elected representatives don't give a damn what you think, because they know that the opposing party's candidate won't attack them for supporting counter-terrorism efforts.
If you really want to do something, find your local Occupy protest and see what kind of help they need to make it through the winter.
Why not do BOTH? (Score:3)
Why not do BOTH?
How much does some stationery, envelopes and stamps cost? In time and in money?
The thing is that a PAPER letter has a LOT more weight with elected officials because of what it represents. And it represents someone who is willing to GET OFF HIS ASS and get involved. And that kind of person influences his friends. That is something that you cannot buy.
The same wi
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that Americans are taught from day 1 to fear collective action. "The individual is everything, all-powerful. You are the captain of your destiny. The collective is for pinko subversive socialist countries like Britain, who we pretend to be allies with but secretly regard as no better than Stalinist Russia."
The IT industry is a classic example. Know of any major IT unions? No? Why? Because "collective rights" are somehow mysteriously "bad". Individual rights are ok, but the notion that two individuals might have the same rights and therefore speak collectively isn't exactly kosher. (That individuals can't protect said rights against corporations, patent trolls, government departments or anything much more substantial than a hamster, well, that's apparently immaterial.)
Re:And? (Score:5, Interesting)
That is an assumption that holds true of a few pseudo-unions (things which are called "unions" but aren't, the same way that many dictatorships have "democratic" in the name) but which simply doesn't hold true of unionism in the historical context. Historical unions don't depend on membership and historically it was unions that fought to keep incompetents OUT of jobs, forcing employers to hire people who were skilled at the job.
True, historic unionism is highly progressive and helped boost profits for the businesses (it turns out that cheap labour produces poorer-quality products and has higher accident/disability rates, inflating net costs in the long-term) and boost the members (since members weren't so subject to office politics and therefore were more likely to be promoted according to merit).
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
You are the problem. Last time it came up for a vote, the Democrats were split roughly 50-50 on keeping the Patriot Act. The Republicans were in favor of it by an 80-20 margin. You have been tricked into supporting the very people who are hurting you.
How can you ever expect politicians' behavior to change when you reward them for harming you?
Re:And? (Score:4, Interesting)
Note that Fienstien and heckle, jeckle, and Chuck of New York figured prominantly in this legislation.
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
"...the federal government is touted as the answer to all our other problems. Bad economy? Spend a shitload of tax money to 'stimulate' the economy (ignore the shell game aspect of taxing the same economy you're trying to stimulate). Problems with health care? Why, the government can fix this (ignore the death panels / health care rationing please)! Drugs a problem? No problem, the 'war on drugs' is surely going to fix everything! Some people are making more money than you? Why, that's not fair! We'll tax the rich buggers and spread the wealth around."
I'm not sure if you're serious, or just trolling on a high-level. But, given the liquidity trap the economy is in, where no matter how low the Fed sets interest rates, banks still won't lend, the only feasible way out of the economic slump is government spending. After all, GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports - imports).
As you may or may not know, the first and second parts of GDP are way down. People are not spending money, and businesses are not investing. Moreover, businesses are sitting on trillions of dollars in cash. In such an instance more tax cuts or deregulation (which, incidentally, is what put us in this mess) will not spur the economy. So that, yes, let's tax the rich buggers and spread the wealth around.
Furthermore, we already have government run healthcare: the VA and Medicare--for vets and old people. Not only are these services popular, their more efficiently run than private insurance companies, with less administrative costs. Which lead to the absurd statement: "get your government hands off my medicare."
Excuse me when I say that I think you've been brain-washed by Fox News.
Re: (Score:3)
Illegal Search (Score:5, Interesting)
Every TSA pat-down, especially those outside an air terminal, are illegal searches. There is no probable cause for agents of the government to initiate a search, even in air terminals, hence is a violation of 4th Amendment Rights. Every time Pistole is questioned about this by Congress, he insists that Air Travelers (and all travelers, by VIPR assumptions) are guilty until proven innocent, and that American children are all bomb carrying agents of Terrorism, because terrorists have used children and women in other parts of the world.
Re:Illegal Search (Score:5, Interesting)
The TSA just needs to go away. I am a firm believer that it has outlived its usefulness and now is just a money sink for federal taxes. Not to mention the fact that their entire existence is just Washington wiping their ass's with the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
An attack like 9/11 will not occur again, plain and simple. The people on the airplane will do what they can to keep some random jack asses from doing anything stupid that would keep them from landing safely since the passengers now know that death is a possibility for them if they allow the hijacker/terrorist to have control of the airplane or execute their plans.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Every TSA pat-down, especially those outside an air terminal, are illegal searches.
Yes. Unfortunately, and I need to search this, but I think whenever this is mentioned to the court they come back with some argument about the interests of the public are larger then any individual and his/her Bill of Rights guarantee. Which is an, in my opinion, subtle, and astonishing, erosion of those guarantees. How any American can look at that statement and not weep for the country is beyond me.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
But if you're being patted down while leaving a train in order to enter public property...
Re:Illegal Search (Score:5, Interesting)
I know rules can be bend, and even dodge, etc, so what kind of strategy is being used to keep on doing something illegal to the people of the USA without receiving any consequences?
It's very simple, really: Although there have been rumblings about this sort of thing going back at least as far as Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon, the various top political elites have an unwritten but very real agreement to never prosecute each other no matter how heinous the crime. They've also generally had agreement to protect their top financial contributors, which is why practically no executives are in jail for fraud regarding worthless mortgage-backed securities.
Here's where the flaws appear to be:
1. The politically appointed (or in some cases elected) prosecutors can choose whether or not to zealously prosecute a defendant regardless of the strength of the evidence against that defendant. So when Lloyd Blankfein commits fraud on a massive scale, but contributes to the president's campaign, the president tells the AG to tell the US attorneys to ignore any evidence of his crimes.
2. In states with elected judges, it's not uncommon for judges to trade favorable decisions for campaign contributions.
3. And of course, if all else fails and somebody is convicted of a crime, elected leaders can override court decisions with pardons and commutation (e.g. Scooter Libbey).
The trouble is, there's no obvious solution to any of these. Forcing prosecutors to do their jobs won't work because they're the ones responsible for enforcing the rule that says they have to do their job. Appointing judges won't completely work because you'll just get the governor's or the president's cronies. And there's really no way to stop a president from letting somebody go even if they've been convicted of a crime.
Re:Illegal Search (Score:4, Informative)
It's not illegal if you consent to the search. If a policeman pulls you over for speeding, it's illegal for him to search your car. But if he asks if he can search your car and you say "yes", then it's ok for him to search. You have voluntarily given up your 4th Amendment right for your car to be searched without a warrant. (And before anyone brings it up, the law is different for pursuit in the commission of a crime. But if all you did was speed, the cop cannot search your car without either a warrant or your permission.)
The problem is too many people just agree with these searches like sheep. Unfortunately, airports and Amtrak are government-owned, so if you refuse the search the TSA can refuse to let you board. But buses and ferries are private, and the TSA has no authority to prevent you from boarding if you refuse the search. (Though the bus or ferry company could refuse on the advice of the TSA if the ticket contract allows it.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is too many people just agree with these searches like sheep. Unfortunately, airports and Amtrak are government-owned, so if you refuse the search the TSA can refuse to let you board. But buses and ferries are private, and the TSA has no authority to prevent you from boarding if you refuse the search. (Though the bus or ferry company could refuse on the advice of the TSA if the ticket contract allows it.)
Most major commercial airports are owned and administrated by a port authority, which is controlled by municipalities and/or states. The states could try to remove the TSA but it probably wouldn't get far because of the commerce clause.
Appropriate Quote (Score:3)
I'm at a loss for words. (Score:5, Funny)
Tyranny... (Score:3)
As long as we, the people, are not heard in regards to our wishes - this kind of thing will continue. I, for one, have stopped flying because of the security theater; and I will not be forced to drive or walk to avoid being sexually assaulted in my own country - and PAY for the privileged of being mistreated.
Considering... (Score:3)
The first nuke, that get's detonated on U.S. soil is far more likely to get here by UPS or FedX than missile, the TSA should start groping delivery guys in shorts and leave the rest of us the hell alone.
FedX, when it absolutely, positively has to blow up there over night.
Ron Paul 2012! (Score:4, Informative)
He is the only candidate that is against this sh*t...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ron Paul 2012! (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate to admit it, but his crazy ideas start looking a little less crazy every day. I do respect him for sticking to his ideals but he takes a sledge hammer to things that really need a little more precision.
My impression is that he is well aware that he will not be elected president or even vice-president. Given that reality, when he runs for president what he is really doing is using the race as a way to inform the public about libertarianism in the hope that some of it will make its way into the general american consensus. If he were to take less of an absolutist position all it would do is dilute the end result even further.
As support for this belief consider his position on the Federal Reserve - that it should be abolished. He's now the chair of the Federal Reserve Oversight Committee and yet he hasn't killed the Federal Reserve because he realizes that doing so would be impractical, if not impossible, at this point in time. However he has been trying to reel it in, proposing bills to publicly audit it and make it more accountable - which sounds like the kind of precision versus sledge-hammer approach you are advocating.
Re: (Score:3)
This time Ron Paul is in it to win it. Last time sure, Ron Paul was standing on his ideals and trying to bring the conversation to things that matter. This time he isn't running for re-election in congress. He's all in.
As to abolishing the Fed, the congressional oversight can't even get a full audit. Not even in private documents not to be shared with the public. Hard to have oversight when you don't even have the facts. He isn't for just killing the Fed, he has stated it should be first be curtailed back,
I wish they would... (Score:5, Interesting)
..try to search me before I get off the train.
If I refuse? are they going to prevent me from getting off the train?
isn't that kidnapping? I mean they can search me before I get on with the threat that if I'm not searched, I can't board, but can they really keep me from getting off at a domestic stop?
If they touch me with out my permission isn't that assault?
I know that my response to it will be classified as assault.
It's bad enough that they have made air travel unbearable, do we need to let them mess up this too?
I'm sure that it will help create jobs by discouraging americans from traveling at all.
Re: (Score:3)
But I hope you realize that it's not up to you to bring suit against the cops, amtrak and whoever owns union station in order to defend the rights of EVERYONE in the country.
Don't let them buy you off midway through the process either. They will continue to do this to everyone if people like you don't stand against them. We'll back you up.
The Drumhead (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, there are some words I've known since I was a schoolboy: "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.
That's it. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a Canadian sysadmin. I love -- LOVE -- the LISA conference (http://www.usenix.org/lisa11/ [usenix.org]). It's wonderful, informative, and fun; I've made great friends there, learned an incredible amount and generally enjoyed myself enormously.
Last year was the third time I went. The conference was in San Jose. I took a bus and a train -- which took over 24 hours -- from Vancouver to San Jose, rather than fly and go through a naked body scanner. I figured if I'm going to talk the talk, I should walk the walk.
I'd already decided to skip this year's conference; it's in Boston, which is a long way to go by train or bus. I didn't want to be away from my family for that long. But I had been thinking about going next year, when it's going to be in San Diego.
I'm not going now. Not if this crap keeps up. I'll watch the video on my workstation, I'll listen to the MP3s on the bus, and I'll stay here in Canada. We have problems of our own -- but random searches and "papers, please" for the crime of taking the goddamned train are not one of them.
I'll miss y'all.
Re: (Score:3)
That's nothing: I took the train from Cleveland to San Diego (2.5 days) for much the same reason. I had the time and the money to stand up for civil liberties, so I decided to walk the walk.
The next step, of course, is to set up similar random checkpoints on highways to try to prevent people from getting around the searches by driving themselves. And then to set up checkpoints on smaller roads because the terrorists could use them to get around the highway checkpoints. Yes, I realize it's a slippery slope a
Avoiding the USA (Score:4, Informative)
Is it any wonder why many people simply avoid the USA? I know I avoid it whenever I travel. I go so far as to pay extra to stayover within Canada rather than Newark when I travel to the Caribbean. I lay over in Toronto not Newark because I know I'll have way fewer issues. I know there is a TSA in Canada but as my flight will not enter into the USA, it's so much simpler to deal with rather than on a flight that terminates in the USA. Whole different set of rules it seems.
Keep up this Neo-Nazi crazy shit guys! You're only killing your tourism industry.
Re: (Score:3)
You're only killing your tourism industry.
Hey, some people pay good money for that kind of holiday.
What do they do if they find guns? (Score:3)
Also, for trains and ferries, they could refuse to let someone who ignores them board, but what if you refuse a search on the freeway? I used to drive through the border patrol checkpoints in AZ and CA (but not on the border) dozens of times per year. They'd ask if I was a citizen, I'd ask if they had a warrant to compel that information. They'd tell me to answer the question. I'd ask if I was being detained. And after a minute of back and forth, they'd tell me to go. They had no authority to compel me to answer, and they knew it. The TSA should be in the same situation. Without a warrant, they shouldn't be able to do anything but request to question or search a person or vehicle.
I guess one benefit of all of this is that being so blatant about their invasive searches will push popular opinion over the tipping point, and Ron Paul won't be alone calling for the TSA's dissolution in Congress.
I've said it a hundred times... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Godwin time! (Score:5, Funny)
Yes I do. Their suits aren't as snazzy.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If we have to have a totalitarian state, why don't we at least get the cool parts too?
Re:Godwin time! (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see, the TSA authorization bill was sponsored by an R in the house a D in the senate signed into law by an R, became Federal employees due to a D advanced to choice of digital strip search or being felt-up session under a D administration.
The pattern is clear, both major parties care little about personal liberty. Like you, I am surprised to see anyone thinks that either major party cares about the constitution anymore. The R's give more lip service to some parts of the constitution, may actually care about other parts of the constitution. The D's, not so much those parts, but they have other parts they like more than the R's.
If I want to repeal the 16th amendment (the income tax), that does not mean I don't respect the constitution, I just means I want to alter it as provided by the constitution. If I decide that a don't like the 16th and refuse to pay income taxes, then it is truth that I don't really care about the constitution either, just the parts I like. It would be nice if people understand the difference.
Re: (Score:3)
The pattern is clear, both major parties care little about personal liberty.
No, it's simpler than that. Most people, of either party, are concerned about looking like they don't care about the safety of the public so they "do something", even if it is a bad something. The "experts" say "do this, it will keep people safe", so they do.
The desire not to be viewed as the cause or reason for another aircraft full of people rammed into a major office building, or another Lockerbie, is a strong motive, and it really has nothing to do with caring about personal liberty. It has a lot to d
Re:Patting down people on Trains?? WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
But checking the tracks is hard and expensive and doesn't give anyone a chance to grope someone else against their will.
Re: (Score:3)
"It's like the war on drugs"
No, it IS the war on drugs. Under a fraudulent name.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course the terrorists lost, you don't see them attacking our freedom anymore!
Now spread your legs and put your hands against the wall.
Re:This makes my skin crawl (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Pledge change to "With freedom and pat-downs for all" in 3... 2... :)
Re:This makes my skin crawl (Score:5, Interesting)
This is pretty far removed from the Land of the Brave I pledged allegiance to in gradeschool
You pledged allegiance to a flag, actually. What most people do not know is that the original solute during the pledge was to extend your right hand, like these children (note that this was taken in 1941):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Students_pledging_allegiance_to_the_American_flag_with_the_Bellamy_salute.jpg [wikimedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands, one nation...
So yes he did pledge to the flag but also to the nation, if you are going to get technical on us do it correctly.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly.
Congress controls the purse strings, so the selection for President doesn't ultimately matter with regards to the TSA. I'm sure it would be feasible for a President to sign an executive order dismissing it, but I imagine that would be challenged on numerous fronts and the President called a terrorist-loving anti-American.
I'm feeling pessimistic today. There'
Re: (Score:3)