Constitution 101

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by Cartoon Peril, Aug 14, 2011.

  1. Bart

    Bart Original Member

    Don't get your panties in a wad. I'm not ignoring you. I just don't know any more about the BDO program than what you probably know. I can't really offer you a good opinion about the TSA program. I can, however, share my own personal experiences when I used similar techniques in my previous career. Either way, I'm admitting upfront to you that my opinion about the TSA program is already biased against it.

    Is that a fair response?
     
  2. RB

    RB Founding Member

    I didn't ask about the BDO program.

    I asked how does an Administrative Search for WEI square with interrogation of travelers by TSA.

    edit to add:

    Anyone, did the question get answered?

    If the sentence I highlighted above is the answer then I have to ask how anyone who thinks the interrogation program exceeds the Administrative Search doctrine can accept a paycheck from TSA if they are a person of honor and integrity?

    Bueller....Bueller.....Bueller....????
     
    AngryMiller likes this.
  3. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    hmm. This doesn't seem so extreme. I thought we were already inside the mosques. We have tons of mosque informers that hang out with various groups. That is the case in mosques in our area. We recently had a near-by case of a Pakistani ice cream vendor sent up the river based on the testimony of an informant at the Lodi mosque. I'm not sure there is a problem with this. As long as the g-man wasn't the i-mam and entrapping people. If I was at a church and attended meetings where we discussed blowing up Bart's house, I would have no valid reason for supposing my participation in such a group was in any way protected from government surveillance. Planning insurrections and attacks aren't really protected forms of politics. Now, if you spied on the 10th Amendment folks who simply want to use the political process to change back to a more constitutional government, then that surveillance would be dirty pool.

    I don't think we need to be or can be like the Israeli's. Their existence hangs by a thread, ours doesn't. We're our own worst enemy. And, we're simply not that smart, the recent BDO trial questionings at Boston making that painfully clear. I agree that the focus should be on foreign intelligence and on locuses of domestic activity where violence could reasonably be expected to originate. But that is probably the limits. We're simply too big a country and too free to accept a broad and inclusive surveillance state, just as we rejected the recent attempt at strip searches and the groping. Although those airport games are somewhat still in play, it is clear that these are on the wane. The political rejection of them has reached even the ivory towers where those idiots Napolitano and Pistole live.
     
    KrazyKat and AngryMiller like this.
  4. Cartoon Peril

    Cartoon Peril Original Member

    I think I saw that one. It was not just the technical instrument, the chronometer, that made it possible, but also the development of a very high level of knowledge of astronomy and mathematics.
     
  5. Bart

    Bart Original Member

    Constitutional restrictions are a good thing, and I would never go along with the notion of looking the other way "for the greater good." The Constitution IS the greater good. The point of my discussion was that the effectiveness of airport security is limited. I won't say that it's set up to fail; however, it isn't exactly the recipe for success. For those who say that intelligence and law enforcement alone would be effective enough to stop terrorist attacks against aviation, they are being naive. Or they've seen too many movies. If we were to fully unleash our intelligence and counterintelligence capabilities, I believe we would end up sacrificing our collective souls in the process. There's no doubt in my mind we would have some pretty impressive results, and we would pat ourselves on the back with these initial successes. Problem is that long-term operations tend to decay, slide down that slippery slope, how ever you want to put it, and we would become that what we hate.

    By the way, the Israelis aren't perfect. I do have respect for their apparatus, but they're not supermen. Sometimes, the mistakes they make are pretty amateurish. Same can be said for the US.

    I enjoyed the chat. Seems that we've drained this one dry.
     
  6. RB

    RB Founding Member

    Bart said in part:
    Anyone, did the question I asked get answered?

    If the sentence I highlighted above is the answer then I have to ask how anyone who thinks the interrogation program exceeds the Administrative Search doctrine can accept a paycheck from TSA if they are a person of honor and integrity?

    Bueller....Bueller.....Bueller....????
     
    AngryMiller likes this.
  7. AngryMiller

    AngryMiller Original Member

    Nope, it went ignored.
     
  8. Bart

    Bart Original Member

    Ok, you can play Barbies without me. I thought I answered the question but apparently didn't understand it.
     
  9. AngryMiller

    AngryMiller Original Member

    That's the question that got dodged. Whether you like the BDO program or not, is really immaterial to this question. Answering a question that wasn't asked and going into pretty good detail with that answer is a diversionary tactic. He said something so we must be really stupid for not having picked up on what he said and not quite figured out that what he said didn't apply.
     
  10. RB

    RB Founding Member

    I'll restate the question so it is easier to understand.

    Does TSA passenger interrogation conform to the boundaries of an Administrative Search for WEI?
     
    AngryMiller likes this.
  11. RB

    RB Founding Member

    I'm hoping I have the language down to pizza box level.
     
  12. Bart

    Bart Original Member

    Absolutely.
     
  13. AngryMiller

    AngryMiller Original Member

    Sorry, but must disagree with you over that one. A TSA shaman comes up to me and strikes up a conversation to 'interrorgate' me and quite frankly I have little or no desire to talk with the shaman. Now is that shaman going to shake his pile of chicken bones and determine that suddenly I am a threat to aviation and deny me the right to travel? How does what the shaman do determine my motives? This in no way determines if I have WEI in my possession. Your agency had that shot at it when I went through the checkpoint and searched both carry ons and my person.

    Quite frankly all I am at an airport for is to go from point A to point B with as little hassle as possible from anyone. Expect rude answers.
     
  14. Bart

    Bart Original Member

    ........and we're back to playing Barbies. Straight question: is interrogation a legitimate part of the screening process? Yes, it is. There has to be communication between passenger and screener. Can't pantomime your way through.

    If your question is aimed at the BDO program, which you denied it was but clearly is, then I can't really give you a good answer because I have nothing to do with the BDO program. My opinions about it are strictly personal opinions and they are already biased against the program because I would do things differently.

    But I'd still do them.
     
  15. AngryMiller

    AngryMiller Original Member

    Playing Barbies? Get real.

    Different going through TSA's checkpoint Charlie than it is a BDO deciding to flag you down for questioning/interrogation when you are on the sterile side of the airport. Nice dance steps you've got their twinkletoes, but dancing around avoiding the question doesn't reflect good on you.
     
  16. Bart

    Bart Original Member

    Ask me a goddamn question, and I'll answer it. I'm trying to do that but you're playing these stupid games with your hidden agenda.

    I don't like the way TSA is conducting the BDO program. I would do it differently, but I would still keep it as part of regular screening because it does add value. No, I wouldn't bother you once you got past the checkpoint. If you're clear, you're clear; no need to bother you again.

    Should I have said Transformers rather than Barbies? Just trying to fit in, pilgrim.
     
  17. AngryMiller

    AngryMiller Original Member

    Hidden agenda, Bart? What is that? Oh, perhaps getting TSA to follow the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and leave people with both their dignity and property intact is what you consider a 'hidden agenda' (cue in spooky music here)?

    Playing twenty questions with a BDO, that you say is ineffective to begin with, on the sterile side of the checkpoint how does that mesh with the administrative search the passenger already went through to get to the sterile side? Does the BDO interrogating a passenger after the checkpoint exceed the authority of TSA's adminstrative search?
     
  18. Bart

    Bart Original Member

    1. Learn the law and the Constitution. You and others are perpetuating myths rather than facts. TSA does follow the Constitution. I will agree that current screening procedures need to be scaled back, but I disagree that TSA is violating the Constitution.

    2. What part of "No, I wouldn't bother you once you got past the checkpoint. If you're clear, you're clear; no need to bother you again." is difficult to comprehend? Seems that you and I are in violent agreement on this point.
     
  19. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    I believe Bart answered my question about the sterile area in another thread: To leave well enough alone once you're through the checkpoint. Maybe I'm wrong, since I was just asking about pat-downs not interrogation.
    I don't think there is any "hidden agenda," Bart. As Angry writes, people don't want their Constitutional rights+ trampled.
     
    AngryMiller likes this.
  20. Cartoon Peril

    Cartoon Peril Original Member

    I don't think the Constitution permits searches of people who are exiting a train.
     
    KrazyKat and AngryMiller like this.

Share This Page