Baltimore Sun's Michael Dresser TSA Apologist - Again

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by Lisa Simeone, Aug 13, 2011.

  1. Bart

    Bart Original Member

    Defensive? I'm just posting comments like I've always done. You're the one who's getting all sensitive on me. Here, have a cyber hankie and wipe your cheek, will ya! :cupcake:
  2. CelticWhisper

    CelticWhisper Founding Member

    History has shown time and again what "true oppression" is and, more importantly, how it comes about. Seldom if ever does an oppressive regime sprout overnight; rather, it takes hold with baby steps, one encroachment at a time.

    We respond with outrage and "extreme" measures at the smallest slights because, perhaps paradoxically, those small slights are the big slights and the real oppression. It's like cancer - it's treatable and even curable in its early stages but if you let it progress too far, you lose. So we're curing this cancer by cutting the tumor (TSA) out of its local growth site (the airport) before it metastasizes to train stations, bus terminals and highways.

    TSA has already shown this to very likely be their MO. Shoe carnival was introduced by itself after Richard Reid. However, after a reasonable amount of time passed with no attempted shoe bombings, it didn't go away. Same thing with the kippie bag. Introduced but never revoked, and was piled on top of the shoe carnival. Then with the "optional" AIT where you're encouraged to go through but can take an old-fashioned patdown. Then they introduced scope-and-grope with the "enhanced" probedowns. All of these were introduced by themselves "out of an abundance of caution" but none were removed after an absence of the threat they were designed to detect (or after they proved to be miserable failures like AIT).

    This is not the same as a patient needing to remain on drugs "even when s/he feels fine" because it's the drugs making him/her feel fine. The drugs don't violate the patient's constitutional rights. Scope-and-grope does. That means that, in the US at least, it is categorically unjustifiable no matter what boon to safety it has to offer.

    If we apply a conservative response and do too little in an effort to avoid...what, looking silly? Then we run the risk of failing and retrospectively saying "I wish I had done more." If we drop political H-bomb after political H-bomb, scorch and salt the earth, and make sure TSA is put down for good then maybe we'll look back and say "Was all that really necessary?" But at least we'll be looking back on it from airplane seats that we got to without getting our dangly bits diddled because, hey, maybe someone has a magical exploding wang.
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  3. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    your courage inspires me. but, since you think it reasonable to feel our crotches, breasts, and butts, and look at us naked, I think you're pretty safe from ever having to carry out your promise. If you'll do those things, I 'm sure you can find ways to rationalize just about anything you're asked to do. It is clear that you haven't understood the first thing about limitations imposed against these type of governmental intrusions on the federal power. You're avoiding the plain prohibitions of the 4th, resorting to things not found in that amendment.

    I'm not intending to entertain. I'm hoping there is a spark of conscience in you. So far, I'm not having any luck finding one.
    You have no idea of what my personal history and experience are. I don't wrap myself in the flag as you do to excuse my own behavior against my fellow citizens.

    this says it all. you have become so desensitized about what your doing you have no way to empathize with how people react to those gloved hands over their breasts, genitals, and buttocks, by force and duress. This lack of empathy is what typifies sociopaths. I guess we should be grateful that you aren't performing virginity checks yet.

    if you feel strongly about it, why don't you do something to effect change there? Something as courageous as you say you'd do if there were Constitutional violations.

    Fair enough, Pilgrim?
  4. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    One problem, Bart, is that you are confusing two distinct situations. Serving in the military in combat activities is very different from providing security at a domestic airport.

    In combat what matters are international law (which actually supercedes the U.S. Constitution) and the rules of engagement laid down by your commanders. The Bill of Rights generally does not apply except when U.S. citizens are involved, and even then it can be nebulous.

    When you are operating domestically, you have no choice but to comply with each and every element of the Bill of Rights and all its nuances, including the 4th amendment. The best example here is the "requirement" for ID at the checkpoint (which historically was required by the airlines for the purposes of revenue protection, not security). TSA has a avoided lawsuits which it would surely lose by begrudgingly allowing passengers w/o ID to pass through after putting them through some ritualistic harassment.

    Personally, I hope the 4th amendment violations continue unchecked for a while. A year ago I had little hope of reforming or scrapping the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Today the TSA's press coverage is almost universally negative and getting worse. I never dreamed that we would reach this point where we might actually be able to turn things around, but we have, and it's entirely due to your organization's arrogance and blatant disregard of the U.S. Constitution.

    Herr Riechskommissar John Pistole has been a total disaster for TSA. I only hope that he (and all who work for him) just keep blindly doing what they're doing for a while.
  5. Bart

    Bart Original Member

    No, the Constitution doesn't get trumped in my book. I'm not one of those world community, Kumbaya-singing hand-holders who believes that we're all one big happy global family. I'm an American. I'm parochial that way.

    Administrative searches are clearly legal under the Constitution.

    I think these types of discussions are good. I think legal challenges to TSA procedures are great. If the process cannot withstand legal scrutiny, then it needs to be changed. I like checks and balances.

    I think John Pistole is the best thing that ever happened to TSA. Kip Hawley was too touchy-feely for me. David Stone turned out to be just another bureaucrat. James Loy gets a pass because he was the one with the burden of getting the agency rolling even though it was John Magaw who was the first administrator. I think Pistole's vision is the right one and is finally oriented towards risk management rather than risk avoidance. He certainly has his hands full. I wish him luck.
  6. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    He's going to need it when all the rape victims and disabled people come after him for forcible abuse and injury as a condition of air travel.
  7. Bart

    Bart Original Member

    I agree with you that officers need more flexibility when it comes to rape victims or (and I can't recall the medical term) people who react to being touched. I think there's room for a reasonable compromise.

    Many years ago, when I was a private contract screening supervisor, I came across a lady who alarmed the WTMD who became extremely agitated when she had to be hand-wanded. So, in direct violation of SOP (this was when you had only one chance to clear the WTMD), I told her husband to try it again and advised him how to help her clear the WTMD (she would not talk to me, that's how angry and agitated she was). When she came through the second time, she cleared the WTMD without any issues and actually thanked me for being so helpful. So I know there's room for more reasonable procedures.
  8. RB

    RB Founding Member

    Please point out the passage in the United States Constitution allowing Administrative Searches. Thanks.
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  9. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Of course administrative searches are legal. Nobody has said otherwise here, so your lead-in is a bit a red herring.

    Jamming your hands repeatedly into people's crotches exceeds the boundaries of administrative searches, as does inspecting diapers and sanitary pads and other violations that seem to be reported now on a daily basis. It is TSA's insistence on doing those things, and in blindly continuing to do those things, that will be its undoing. Just keep it up, please! :D

    Herr Reichskommissar John Pistole, the Gauleiter who smiles as he acknowledges that his screeners are getting away with things that he could never do as a law enforcement officer, who indicates on camera that he'll only deal with misbehavior when it gets "too bad" -- definitely the best thing that ever happened to TSA!!!! We have a bozo at top who seems representative of most of the agency.
  10. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Still waiting for the answer about why we haven't all been blown out of the sky by now, since we didn't have scanners or gropefests for all these years, until just recently. How come planes haven't been blowing up left and right? Think of all those anomalies and scary bras that were never "resolved" in the past.
  11. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    "legal" in the sense that a majority of the monkeys on the Supreme Court in the 1960's made it up out of whole cloth. No such exception was acknowledged before that. It was originally concocted to allow inspections of apartment buildings and expanded now to this ridiculous pass by the TSA to allow inspections of your sexual organs because they "need to see and feel", otherwise you might be carry WEI in them. So according to TSA, the right to be secure in your person and effects from unwarranted search and seizure is limited only by the government's desire to do so. Just like they use the commerce clause to justify absolutely every Congressional law, they use the administrative search doctrine to justify any search whatsoever.

    boggie dog is correct: no such exemption is in the 4th.

    but because Bart served 20 years in the military, in really badddddd countries, where really horrrible things were done to people, we ought to just shut up about his hands roaming over our sex organs. We're just such wussies to object to his intrusions. But he does have a soft spot in his heart for rape victims. The rest of us can go hang, as long as he gets to inspect the dangle.
  12. barbell

    barbell Coach Coach

    Well, in order to protect Freedom, one must destroy it.
  13. RB

    RB Founding Member

    I served 23 years and I object!
    Elizabeth Conley and KrazyKat like this.
  14. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    that was *not* directed at the military. Every male on both sides of my family was in the military until it came to my generation. I suspect Bart's views do NOT reflect what most people in the military think is reasonable. I'm sure none of them appreciate having their genitals touched by some clown in a blue shirt at an airport. Used to be, honor was a core value in the military, and what folks like Bart are doing is dishonorable.
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  15. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    You're confusing two different things -- administrative searches and administrative search warrants.

    Housing inspectors cannot simply enter your property for inspections without your permission. If you refuse them entry and inspections of income property are required by state or local ordinance, then the local housing authorities can petition a judge to issue an administrative search warrant to allow the inspection. In MN (can't speak for other states) this generally applies only to income property. Your 4th amendment protections still apply for your residence(s).

    At airports they conduct administrative searches -- the scope of these must be limited to what is reasonable necessary to accomplish a legitimate objective, e.g. preventing people from boarding aircraft with guns and bombs. Anyone who lived through the 60's with all the unscheduled diversions to Havana will understand the need for that. With the gropes & pokes and examinations of diapers, etc., TSA is clearly exceeding the bondaries that courts have set for administrative searches. They will get whacked for this, eventually. Meanwhile, every grope helps.

    Off topice, but I'm still amazed that nobody seems to have grasped the meaning of your handle. :D
  16. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Well, that speaks volumes.
  17. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    my apologies. I was garbling this most excellent article in the columbia law rewiew take look. encouraging and maddening at the same time. goes into the bastardization of this doctrine and the danger that it poses.

    I'm sure exbayern gets it ;)
  18. Cartoon Peril

    Cartoon Peril Original Member

    "Nacht und Nebel Verlass" -- Night and Fog Decree -- a Nazi directive to kidnap suspected resistance leaders in occupied western Europe and secretly transport them to Germany, where they would be murdered.
    KrazyKat likes this.
  19. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    I'm sure she does! :D

    Bingo! With all the derision given to legitimate Nazi parallels, especially in that "other place", I'm surprised they've missed this one.
    Doober and Cartoon Peril like this.
  20. Cartoon Peril

    Cartoon Peril Original Member

    It's widely known, I learned of when I was 15 (and I was an even greater fool then, if that's possible). Oh, and that's Erlass (not Verlass) -- I blame the German language for having too many words that sound alike!

Share This Page