Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Help put an end to the TSA madness

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Below is the text of an email I am sending today to everyone in my personal database.

John Link

Dear ???,

In case you have not already learned, the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) has instituted the practice of requiring all air travelers to either submit to a full-body scan or be subject to a pat-down that includes the genitals and breasts. In response to this violation of our rights, the outraged citizens of the United States will hold a National Opt-Out Day this Wednesday, November 24th, in which travelers will opt-out of the full-body scan and instead submit to the pat-down in order to show the absurdity of the TSA's most recent madness. http://www.optoutday.com/

I ask you to do whatever you can to put an end to the TSA madness. Here are a few suggestions:

1) On Wednesday, November 24th:

a) If you are flying on that day, opt out of the full-body scan and submit to the grope (i.e., pat-down). Be sure to have someone with you to record the incident with either video or still photography.

B) If you are not flying on that day, go to an airport and get as near as you can to a security checkpoint so that you can be an observer of the violation of rights by the TSA. Record what you see with either video or still photography.

2) Write to your congressman and urge them to support H.R. 6416, The American Traveler Dignity Act.

Here is a link to the text of the act: http://shar.es/X1Quf

Here is a link to a video of Ron Paul introducing the act:

Here's a link to a page where you can find contact information for your congressmen: http://www.contactingthecongress.org

3) Tell President Obama that you object to the TSA's violation of our rights: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

4) Sign this petition to stop "enhanced" airport screening techniques now: http://www.wnd.com/airportscreening

5) Forward this email to your friends and family.

Please do whatever you can to help put an end to this madness.

John Link

P.S. Here is a link to a video that contains an interview with Isaac Yeffet, the former director of El Al security, in which he says that the TSA's policies are completely ineffective in keeping us safe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQum39C8K9Y

Edited by John Link
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure where I stand on the matter. So far the arguments I've heard opposing full body scanners haven't been convincing, and that includes the 2 clips posted by the OP. Ron Paul's speech seemed very emotional to me. He addressed that the pilots are being exempt. It seems pretty obvious to me that they would be (and if they weren't originally meant to be exempt, I completely agree they should be exempt). He called scanning minors as 'child pornography', which I think is absurd. He mentioned the constitution forbidding unnecessary searches, but the whole issue at hand here is whether or not these searches necessary, which he didn't address. Just because 400,000 people died from car accidents, and much less died from terrorist activities involving airplanes, doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can to try and make air planes safer. Aerial terrorism can be a very major thing, and a country is right to do it's best to avoid it.

As for the second video, that guy was even worse. I expected a lot upon hearing he's in charge of security in El Al, but I don't think there's a single thing I learned by listening to his ramblings. Maybe El Al is doing an excellent job at securing their flights, but does he really expect us to believe that simply talking with each passenger is enough to determine whether he's a terrorist or not? What if the passenger doesn't fit their 'profile'? What if an educated western guy does it? Can a security member identify him by a 1-3 minute casual conversation, when he's interviewing dozens if not hundreds of people each day?

How is the TSA supposed to find out whether a passenger is carrying a weapon in his underwear that isn't triggering the metal detectors? And assuming the x-ray scanners don't emit dangerous radiation, why is it so bad for a security guard to view an outline of your naked body on his screen to ensure you aren't smuggling weapons on board the plane?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because 400,000 people died from car accidents, and much less died from terrorist activities involving airplanes, doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can to try and make air planes safer. Aerial terrorism can be a very major thing, and a country is right to do it's best to avoid it.

And a million other petty tyrannies could make a million other things safer as well by that logic.

This whole "free will" and "liberty" thing is dangerous indeed.

Living like chattel might be safer for some... but does the quality of life that such would enjoy merit the sacrifice of liberty and personal dignity the rest of us who chose to live as men would have to make for them to do so?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Soth

While Ron Paul is helping by trying to provide supportive legislation, his argument, as a whole, was not that great and could be greatly improved.

First, see my post here: (#4)

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=20728&st=0&p=266111&#entry266111

Second:

The terrorists are likely going to decrease the use of aircraft as a means to their ends. Just because they are in the 3rd world for the most part does not mean they are stupid. The point of this form of suicide terrorism is to inflict max casualties while sending some kind of message. Security in airlines is getting to the point where the risk of failure for the terrorist is outweighing any sensible reason to commit the act when there are many other methods, and targets, available that can have similar casualty rates, etc.

Placing a 'barrier' security model at the airport is an amateur hour attempt at providing a sense of security- security theater, they call it. TSA now employs 67,000 who serve mostly as actors playing the part of security professional at airports.

This is, quite simply, a totalitarian-esque measure imposed due to institutional bureaucracy, corporatism, and ignorance of the issue at hand and how to deal with it. If we really wanted to fix the security issue at airports we would adopt was Israel is doing, which has been proven to be much more effective. We are not doing this. Israeli behavioral analysts speak to each passenger and evaluate the manner of their responses. TSA behavioral analysts watch people from a distance and try to guess what they are thinking about from their expressions. They might as well deploy phrenologists to feel the bumps on passenger's heads. Physical analysis is, in tge big picture, useless unless applied rigorously to every passenger. Behavorial analysis is what we need to start employing. Unfortunately, the only way to employ these tactics would be to fire all the barely-trained workers and hire/train highly qualified workers. So that'll never happen.

see next post for Israeli security links, I maxed out on media links for this post

Israel's Top 10 Airport Security Technologies:

http://www.israel21c.org/201003157781/technology/sraels-top-10-airport-security-technologies

Israel has what security experts say is perhaps the world's most effective system of screening air passengers. Despite constant threats from Palestinian terrorist groups, no flight from Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion airport has ever been blown up or hijacked, and the airport has not been attacked since the early 1970s. This success is due to a sophisticated system that combines intelligence reporting, profiling, and state-of-the-art technology for detecting weapons and explosives. VOA correspondent Luis Ramirez reports from Tel Aviv.

*Note that the Israeli system profiles but it does not profile Muslims specifically. Doing the latter has, according to security experts and recovered Al-Qaeda documents, been detrimental as Al-Qaeda has determined that they should expand their recruitment program to focus on Anti-US/European bombers that do not fit the normal Muslim terrorist demographic, meaning less security scrutiny at the airline. With the Israeli profiling system, this issue is avoided. One source: http://washingtonindependent.com/73704/experts-question-efficacy-of-profiling

Some other relevant links:

Bruce Schneier, security expert: (LOTS of good info in his post)

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/11/tsa_backscatter.html

Straightdope has done some looking into the claimed health risks:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2966/is-radiation-from-the-new-airport-security-scanners-endangering-my-health

While we cannot completely adapt the system to our own (that is mentioned in one of those links I believe, if not let me know and I can find it and repost it), we certainly can take some queues from it. They are (Israel) also in the process of developing a machine much like the new ones here, except it is even better at detecting unwanted items and does not reveal the rest of the human being in the manner that these do. At least this is what I keep hearing, I haven't looked into that myself yet since its not really important at this moment. Especially since the U.S. evidently does not care to have the most effective methods for security that are already available.

As far as worrying about hijackers, again, the United States does not truly care about the most effective means of security. Airline cockpits have for some time now had reinforced doors/hatches and at least one gun in the cockpit in case. They didn't mess this part up because it is an obvious part of the solution, thank god. However, these things differ depending on the airline. Planes nowadays have the ability to autoland. Why is this not implemented?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ossK4xTMBSM

The three buzzers you hear immediately before touchdown is the pilot disconnecting the autopilot and even that isn't necessary. You would think they would implement an override switch that would make the plane land at the closest airport (that can handle the plane), large field, or 4lane open highway.

So people are worried about people blowing themselves up with bombs? Any of us could do it if we realistically wanted to, and no one could stop us. You can look up relatively simple guides on how to make a homemade explosive online. You can get everything you need from Walmart and a Home Depot. You can make a 15 ft wide crater for about $20-$30. Do we need security? Of course. There is a line however between what is effective and what is not, what is beneficial and what is not. These new security measures are neither effective nor beneficial in any real way compared to the unnecessary negatives imposed necessarily by their existence. However, the focus, properly, is focusing on terrorism imposed by foreigners, as domestic terrorism is less likely for a variety of reasons and this has been reinforced by various studies.

But if a nutjob wants to wreak havoc by destroying a bus, a train, a school, a mall, an airport, a museum, an apartment building, a bank, etc., they will, and they have in the past. So them blowing up at check in is just as likely as them blowing up on the bus to the terminal, or in the mall, or in the hardware store they bought the materials from. So obviously, the main goal, is to keep the foreign terrorists from achieving the most important aspect of their mission: arriving at the intended physical location. This requires security #1 at transportation locales and #2 in border security, and #3 in making it harder to forge/fake identification etc.

Often, when it comes to security, things can be counter-intuitive. For instance, early in the decade after the September 11 attacks we had a policy of giving higher scrutiny to people that tended to match the terrorist demographic, usually in their 20's or 30's, Arab, Muslim, and so on.

What studies have found is that this is actually detrimental because the terrorists have released documents to various individuals within their organizations, which we have discovered (I think in 2006 or 2007?), that had suggested plans on expanding programs to get people that are not within this demographic to commit to these attacks. This is also covered in that earlier link on profiling by one of the people being quoted. White or Black individuals in their 30's for instance. These people are not scrutinized nearly as well. In fact, in 2008 we discovered documents about AQ-Yemen plans to expand their program of Britons to send back over to Britain. The Israeli's (comprehensive) system of security, and how it deals with profiling, deal properly with this very critical issue without actually lowering security.

Either way, there are many individuals that say they are affiliated with Al-Qaeda that are not. What we have discovered, based on things we have found, is that Al-Qaeda changed their tactics against the U.S. after some more of the minor attacks against the U.S. failed.

They stated that it would be much more effective to hurt U.S. power by not focusing on the U.S. but its allies. The objective was to get our allies to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq which would put a lot more pressure on the U.S. They have been successful with this tactic. The British and...I can't remember the other country off the top of my head... I'd have to check... pulled out or made a noteworthy decline in troop support after organized bombings by Al Qaeda. This seems to have changed to some extent. It seems that the different regional HQ's are focusing on different objectives. AQ-Yemen for instance was recently discovered trying to implement those printer bombs this month. Main point here is, that while the main objective of Al-Qaeda seems to be to not attack the U.S. directly, there are still real threats that we need to be concerned about.

That is why every attack we have had since 2001 has been pretty pathetic for the most part. The borders are not secure in the slightest, the 9/11 hijackers got in with fraudulent forms. We had a new Al Qaeda leader live here for 15 years and get a college education before he left, and we just found this out last year. They have expanded their efforts the last year or two to incorporate domestic terrorism (i.e. by actual citizens) but this seems to be focused more on European countries, particularly Britain and I think it was Spain. If they wanted to attack us, they could likely do it and do it successfully, even if it took a few attempts, 9/11 was an unprecedented suicide attack and speaks of why Al Qaeda is the primary threat and not these other groups.

This is why we need to rework how we are dealing with this security issue as well as the terrorism issue. We have not been serious about it, we have ignored what the people with the most knowledge on these subjects have been saying, and we are losing this fight badly. In the end, I really don't care if this is constitution violating or not. The fact of the matter is I am an American citizen, the American government serves me, and I paid for those machines, and the TSA salary. I will not be impeded by security measures that are quite clearly redundant, unnecessary, and ineffective. This is not about safety, this is an act of Corporatism and nothing more. And is thus an invasion of privacy in effect. Relevant:

http://publicintelligence.net/body-scanner-manufacturer-accompanies-obama-on-trip-to-india/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-11-22-scanner-lobby_N.htm

I will not fly on a plane where I must go through these measures unless I am required to for distance or business purposes. When that is the case, I will make it as much of a chore for them as possible while keeping in mind that there are others waiting behind me. The interesting thing about this is all of this dissent causes a security issue, although in most cases its extremely minor it has potential.

If I were a terrorist....FBI can start their keyloggers now. (and then proceed to not do much of anything, because they seem to have very poor communication with the CIA) ..I would personally get 10-11 terrorist buddies together on the day after Christmas, have them go into lines about 10 minutes ahead of me, and start being non-compliant....just really dragging out the process. "No I will not be scanned, don't touch me there, don't taze me bro." Just ass up the whole process. The whole time, I'm just patiently waiting in line, becoming embedded deep within the folds of a thickly packed crowd of American Imperialist pigs. Then I would detonate the explosives I was wearing, killing dozens if not hundreds, 50 feet from the scanner and the first semblance of security in any major airport.

We are being obscenely obtuse about our security practices, and actually making ourself MORE unsafe. It's like their whole concept of security seems to center around making a very open and public show of "making us safer" rather than any actual intellectual and proven exercise to do so.

How many were caught by the TSA or the federal behavior analysis people (0) and how many were caught by fellow passengers?

Exactly, how well did that underwear bombing work out?

Oh what's that? TSA didn't do anything, but the guy was jumped by the passangers on the plane? Huh. Go figure. Why? Because NOW passengers know better than to let hijackers do whatever they want. They realize, that if they let the hijacker do what they want, odds are pretty good they will have zero chance of survival.

Oh yeah, forgot to mention. Our multi-billion dollar intelligence network was forewarned of the guy, too. And didn't stop him either.

We need to start giving people those toenail clippers we've been confiscating as they're boarding planes. a well-armed plane is a safe plane. I find it interesting that the current invasive TSA procedures, and punitive response to criticizing them, were not instituted after the underwear bomber (etc.) but after the election.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am making a second post with the relevant Israeli security links because it stated that I had the max media links for that one post:

Relevant to my references to Israeli security measures:

http://www.huliq.com/10061/john-tyner-might-israels-airport-security-better-us

http://www.marketwatch.com/video/asset/how-israel-screens-for-terrorists-2009-12-28/987D025A-145D-42F5-9756-7B43CC7613CE#!987D025A-145D-42F5-9756-7B43CC7613CE

Also, if you would like a chuckle, the TSA made an announcement to the people that are refusing to undergo these procedures without making a ruckus:

TSA asking Americans not to boycott body scans because it would cause delays. Umm...I think that's kind of the point! (news.yahoo.com)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101122/ap_on_bi_ge/us_airport_security

Orlando Airport is Opting Out, rejecting the TSA in favor of a private company (wdbo.com)

http://wdbo.com/localnews/2010/11/sanford-airport-to-opt-out-of.html

Airline pilot on refusing TSA body scan: "Better people than I have sacrificed more than their careers, their livelihood, for the cause of freedom. Americans need to wake up and stand up." (baltimoresun.com)

http://www.baltimoresun.com/wreg-pilot-protest,0,3912420.story

TSA Has Met the Enemy - and They Are Us - "I think at some point Americans said to themselves, maybe in their collective subconscious...there's a line here where it's not just worth it anymore. There's a growing sense that that line has been crossed." (nytimes.com)

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/11/21/us/AP-US-Travel-Airport-Security-Backlash.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&hp

A flight attendants union with 2,000 members is upset over what it calls "invasive pat-downs" recently implemented by the TSA (abc15.com)

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/lifestyle/travel/flight-attendants-union-upset-over-new-pat-down-procedures

While you're getting groped by the TSA, here's a reminder of how it's done in Israel: High security, little bother (thestar.com)

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-bother

Meanwhile, in Europe, there have been terrorist attacks on buses, subways and trains. Guess what has changed there as far a travelers are concerned: zero.

And security for air travel after 9/11 is mostly just a somewhat more intensively executed version of what has always been in place. The restriction on liquids, is scheduled to be lifted.

The great irony: nobody I know here is in anyway worried about terrorists, but everybody dreads flying to the US because of the TSA...

According to Bloomberg News El Al's security bill is $100 million a year, which amounts to $76.92 per trip by its 1.3 million passengers. Half is paid by the Israeli government.

By contrast, the TSA spent $4.58 billion on aviation security, or just $6.21 per trip by 737 million passengers, in fiscal 2005.

So you want Israeli style security. We need to pony up the money. According to this, the US currently spends about $14.2 billion.

Airports Can Legally Opt-Out, Kick TSA Program to the Curb, and Instead Hire Private Security Screeners

http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/68647

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to post
Share on other sites

I fail to see how passing through a scanning machine negates anyone's free will or liberty. You already go through metal detectors, do you have any less liberty and/or free will if you go through an x-ray scanner?

Is the whole uproar about the machines taking "naked" photographs? Maybe I'm just not bothered at the thought of a security officer seeing an outline of my naked body in order to ensure I'm not carrying weapons in my underwear.

Is there something I'm missing here, or is this basically it? There may be better ways of keeping terrorists off airplanes, that can be debated. But surely keeping air planes safe deserves some consideration when opposed with people's desires to hide their body from view.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Safety is our main concern." ~TSA

"They're just doing their jobs, protecting us. How else is the TSA supposed to find out if someone has a bomb in their underwear/rectum/cavity?" ~useful idiot

The argument is: getting sexually assaulted by the government should not be a condition of my purchasing a ticket to ride in someone else's airplane. If the government wants to protect us from terrorists, they can declare war on the terrorist countries and kill them. One of the unjust results of altruist foreign policy is that instead of defending yourself against the actual aggressors, you attack your own citizens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so I am clear on most people's position here:

Presumably you all advocate airlines and airports having their own private security. I am in full agreement.

If a private agency decided that they wanted to use similar or the same methods as TSA, then that would be acceptable even if you thought they were doing the wrong thing. (Acceptable in the sense that it would no longer be a legal, constitutional violation). Right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so I am clear on most people's position here:

Presumably you all advocate airlines and airports having their own private security. I am in full agreement.

If a private agency decided that they wanted to use similar or the same methods as TSA, then that would be acceptable even if you thought they were doing the wrong thing. (Acceptable in the sense that it would no longer be a legal, constitutional violation). Right?

Right. Then it would no longer be sexual assault, but a voluntary action between consenting adults. It would be no different than if you asked me to fondle you or take nude photographs of you and the private agency would be treated no differently than any other situation involving such exchanges.

It is highly unlikely that the Chertoff scanners or aggressive groping would be used for security measures on the free market however.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so I am clear on most people's position here:

Presumably you all advocate airlines and airports having their own private security. I am in full agreement.

If a private agency decided that they wanted to use similar or the same methods as TSA, then that would be acceptable even if you thought they were doing the wrong thing. (Acceptable in the sense that it would no longer be a legal, constitutional violation). Right?

Actually, even the privatised companies would have to follow TSA guidelines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Soth wondered what the big deal is of seeing a naked outline on a body scanner, or getting groped by some stranger. For some people it's debilitating. I wrote an article about such a person: myself.

The link: My Current Flying Situation

Why should I be punished for doing nothing wrong? Why should everyone be degraded for a false sense of security? You can do ANYTHING in the name of safety. Safety alone is not a good argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
they can declare war on the terrorist countries

No such thing as a "terrorist" country, by and large terrorist organizations are not state-funded, nor is such action likely to eliminate the terrorists, insurgents yes, not terrorists, which would increase, but this is a nitpick and not related to the thread.

The point is that this isn't really a debate regarding the security issue. This is a bad security upgrade. It just doesn't make much sense and it does not deal with the problems we are having with the terrorists at all. One of the security guys in one of those links I provided stated that the last 2 terrorists that tried to attack us would likely not have been stopped by this new system of ours, yet they would have if we had used an adapted form of the Israeli system. There may be debate as to which system to adopt, but there is very little debate that this one that we have adopted is not very good in comparison to several other options, given the technology available. (I point to the top 10 tech for Israeli security as an example)

This is a total F-up. There are people that were raped/sexually assaulted that are going through this scenario. (Don't say they could have gone through the scanner, a choice between those two options is not acceptable, knowing what we know about these scanners and some of the TSA using them) One thing that is very important to survivors is having control over their body again. Being forced to be viewed naked by a stranger or being groped by a stranger only brings back those feelings where control was lost. And for what? To give little shits like George & Pamela Johnson in good old crime-less American suburbia a false sense of security? All I have to say to that is bend over George & Pamela, cause some guy already stuck a small IED up his rectum (which these machines won't see, nor will a patdown). But you'd do anything for safety, right? If you want to feel safer, let's just turn our whole country into a police state.

As for security, I regularly bring water bottles in my carry-on because I find the liquid policy stupid and inconvenient, and guess what? I get to keep it most of the time. I have friends that have inadvertently left knives in their carry-ons - and guess what - it gets through. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that people need to re-live a terrible experience and give up their 4th Amendment so we can pretend it makes us safer.

And no, not all people who've been molested in someway will jump & overreact when you touch their shoulder, but seriously, this is too much.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so I am clear on most people's position here:

Presumably you all advocate airlines and airports having their own private security. I am in full agreement.

If a private agency decided that they wanted to use similar or the same methods as TSA, then that would be acceptable even if you thought they were doing the wrong thing. (Acceptable in the sense that it would no longer be a legal, constitutional violation). Right?

Right. I would have no problem if an airline, or any other business or individual, required its customers to submit to naked pictures or a grope, since I could take my business elsewhere if I were not willing to satisfy the requirements. But when the government requires me to submit to naked pictures or a grope in order to do business with an airline, or any other business or individual, that is a violation of my rights.

John Link

Link to post
Share on other sites

I made my second post in response to a post which seems to have been deleted. I posted it minutes after CapitalistSwine's post, so I haven't seen it at the time, nor is my post in response to his. I thank CapitalistSwine and the others who have posted responses, and I'll read them and the links in details as I continue pondering the matter. Just wanted to say this before I get started.

Edited by Soth
Link to post
Share on other sites

..and they are now already eyeing trains, ships, metro transport, subways...

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/130549-next-step-for-body-scanners-could-be-trains-boats-and-the-metro-

As to the question of whether a private company could legally and morally do what TSA is doing (under the argument that it is only unconstitutional and tyrranical because it is the government doing so) some of you are saying yes and I believe you are incorrect.

They are doing this to children. While they are saying that the naked photos of passengers are not stored that has already proved false. Hundreds of photos have already leaked that the TSA stored and passed along. Children. Naked pictures. Child pornography. Strange men insisting on groping your childrens' genitals. Sexual molestation.

This is a very important moment for us as a nation.

To believe this is about security is laughable. Remember when the Obama admin was ranting about how it is unconstitutional to (with reasonable cause for suspicion) ask to see someone's ID in Arizona? And now this very admin wants to sexually molest innocent travellers. Women, the elderly, children, and as CS mentioned- the tricky issue of survivors of sexual assault.

If this were about national security they'd get our borders under control- which would be fairly easy relatively. There'd be profiling. There would be something in place much more like what Israel is doing (modified of course for the specific concerns of the US).

This is 100% about the government taking control. You can't even decide not to fly once you're there rather than face the screenings- $10k fine awaits you. There are endless reports of the TSA's drunk on power antics. Now they are claiming that if you joke about the process that is "interfering" and you can face a $10k fine. It is subjective and unreasonable.

Parents have been teaching their children for years that no one can touch them in certain places. Now that's not true. The government can and does. This is indoctrination. This is about raising a generation of the population that will submit to anything. This is about raising a generation of the population that is told they have a "right" to government provided food, healthcare, training>>I mean "teaching"....but that their bodies and minds belong to the regime.

The government is creating a generation of cattle.

And those who would allow this to happen for safety, because they fear for their lives don't realise that the kind of life they are accepting isn't worth saving.

Those that deserve to live, that deserve freedom understand that there are things worse than death.

Edited by SapereAude
Link to post
Share on other sites

The government is creating a generation of cattle.

A very smart move to go after the American sense of life in this way. Not something expected from a disintegrated or pragmatic leftist, or anyone caring about their own political popularity (as in contrast to possible long term gain for the "movement").

Link to post
Share on other sites

A very smart move to go after the American sense of life in this way. Not something expected from a disintegrated or pragmatic leftist, or anyone caring about their own political popularity (as in contrast to possible long term gain for the "movement").

I will be flying next month. I refuse to go through the scanners. Guess that means I'm going to be groped. I am really, REALLY wishing I was not about to fly, because I get freaked out by strangers touching me. On the other hand, I have to be damn careful not to get myself on a no-fly list somehow which basically gives government the arbitrary power to destroy certain types of careers which depend on travel by air.

This completely sucks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be flying next month. I refuse to go through the scanners. Guess that means I'm going to be groped. I am really, REALLY wishing I was not about to fly, because I get freaked out by strangers touching me. On the other hand, I have to be damn careful not to get myself on a no-fly list somehow which basically gives government the arbitrary power to destroy certain types of careers which depend on travel by air.

This completely sucks.

One man claims to have fought back and won:

http://www.infowars.com/man-proves-tsa-policies-are-unconstitutional/

Link to post
Share on other sites

One man claims to have fought back and won:

http://www.infowars.com/man-proves-tsa-policies-are-unconstitutional/

Hm...I am glad to see that story, but he already flew and already went through security in his country of origin. I don't know if one could get away with doing that if it was BEFORE the flight.

But yes, this whole thing is a blatant violation of the fourth amendment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...