Saudi Man Arrested at New York Airport With Bag Full of Weapons

[J.T]

TSA Agent Ann Marie McLewd initially spotted the outline of weapons inside a black bag that Hefni had checked -- and a peek inside the luggage by TSA Agent Phillip Desnyo revealed a fully operable battery-powered electric stun gun.

Desnyo also found three “electric stun batons,” an “electric stun pen” and a large can of pepper spray in the bag authorities said.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/24/saudi-man-arrested-at-new-york-airport-with-bag-full-weapons/

I'm actually surprised everyone's not panicking and calling for increased surveillance.

[ConHog]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/24/saudi-man-arrested-at-new-york-airport-with-bag-full-weapons/

I'm actually surprised everyone's not panicking and calling for increased surveillance.

Why would we need increased surveillance because of this? They caught the guy.

[J.T]

Why would we need increased surveillance because of this?

Because that's the usual course of action when they scare people with something like this. Interesting timing, us getting close to the election cycle and all. Guess this'll silence the Ron Paul crowd when it comes to the USA PATRIOT act and the TSA.

I suspect this won't be the last time we see this. It didn't get the reaction they need. They'll have to do more.

It would boost the administration's ratings, it would silence the cries for a balanced budget and justify not only a continuation but further ramping-up of military spending, and provide another nationalist rallying cry to unify the American population against an outside threat (a vacuum left with the dismantling of the Taliban and of Al-Quada as an organized force and the death of bin Laden) and settle (even temporarily) the infighting among the constituency and redirect the people's rage from the government to [insert terrorist group here]. Oh, and it would justify the TSA, DHS, the next USA PATRIOT extension (certain provisions are set to expire in May 2015, IIRC, so expect them to create a reason for that to not happen)

[SassyLady]

I had a stun gun in my carryon bag recently .... they took it away and I got a citation. Was at a concert the night before and was flying out early next morning and forgot to move it to my checked luggage.

It happens.

The cops who came to talk to me said that I should carry pepper spray instead.

[Gunny]

Because that's the usual course of action when they scare people with something like this. Interesting timing, us getting close to the election cycle and all. Guess this'll silence the Ron Paul crowd when it comes to the USA PATRIOT act and the TSA.

I suspect this won't be the last time we see this. It didn't get the reaction they need. They'll have to do more.

Who got scared and posted the thread? Oh yeah ...

[NightTrain]

Because that's the usual course of action when they scare people with something like this. Interesting timing, us getting close to the election cycle and all. Guess this'll silence the Ron Paul crowd when it comes to the USA PATRIOT act and the TSA.

So, you clearly suspect that this entire scenario was a setup by the TSA to reinforce to the general public that they need to vote for a strong security-minded candidate? How much do you suppose they paid Achmed to be their stool pigeon?


I suspect this won't be the last time we see this. It didn't get the reaction they need. They'll have to do more.

I told this story in another thread, but I'll repeat it here. This kind of stuff does happen innocently, as both SassyLady and I can both attest to.

Hmmmmm.... I can't find that post. Jim, the search engine is broken again! SL and I were talking about it about 6 or 8 months ago when she got caught with her Taser in her bags.

Anyway, I had been up at my cabin and was letting my son shoot my .375 for the first time. It began raining, so I told him to put away my rifle and I picked up the extra sticks of ammo and put them into my laptop bag & put them away.

And promptly forgot about doing so.

A few days later, I was flying out of Anchorage International and put my laptop through the screening machine.

I noticed that the conveyor belt was stopped, and the TSA guy was staring at the screen intently, along with a few other TSA agents. I called over, "Hey, you guys can open my bag, I don't care." I was getting close to missing my flight.

The lead TSA guy came over and said, "Sir, do you have ammunition in your laptop?"

I immediately began shaking my head and then stopped : I remembered the cabin and stuffing .375 rounds in my side pouch on my laptop bag.

I said, "Yeah.... there's some .375 Ammo in there. I forgot to take it back out..."

So they pulled out the sticks of ammo and by this time there were about 6 or 8 extra TSA agents on the scene. I was starting to get nervous.

They called the Anchorage Police detachment that was on duty at the airport, and he came over to get the scoop. They explained; and then I explained.

TSA wandered away, and the cop, without saying so, said don't worry about it.... you'll lose your ammo but all is well. Don't do it again, but all is well.

I told the TSA agents they could keep it or throw it away, but I was about to miss my plane.

They told me it was possible that I could be summoned to Federal Court over it, I signed a release and got on my plane.

One of the TSA agents demanded to know why I had .375 ammo in my laptop bag. I explained that I had a .375 at home. He wanted to know why I would need a .375, I told him to shoot bears with it, of course. He didn't like that answer, but I told him the rifle was at home - where the ammo would be if I hadn't forgotten about it.


Anyway, shit happens. Achmed could have been taking home defense related gear.

Your theory of it being a TSA setup for political reasons is rather laughable.

Lay off the pot, kid.

[ConHog]

So, you clearly suspect that this entire scenario was a setup by the TSA to reinforce to the general public that they need to vote for a strong security-minded candidate? How much do you suppose they paid Achmed to be their stool pigeon?



I told this story in another thread, but I'll repeat it here. This kind of stuff does happen innocently, as both SassyLady and I can both attest to.

Hmmmmm.... I can't find that post. Jim, the search engine is broken again! SL and I were talking about it about 6 or 8 months ago when she got caught with her Taser in her bags.

Anyway, I had been up at my cabin and was letting my son shoot my .375 for the first time. It began raining, so I told him to put away my rifle and I picked up the extra sticks of ammo and put them into my laptop bag & put them away.

And promptly forgot about doing so.

A few days later, I was flying out of Anchorage International and put my laptop through the screening machine.

I noticed that the conveyor belt was stopped, and the TSA guy was staring at the screen intently, along with a few other TSA agents. I called over, "Hey, you guys can open my bag, I don't care." I was getting close to missing my flight.

The lead TSA guy came over and said, "Sir, do you have ammunition in your laptop?"

I immediately began shaking my head and then stopped : I remembered the cabin and stuffing .375 rounds in my side pouch on my laptop bag.

I said, "Yeah.... there's some .375 Ammo in there. I forgot to take it back out..."

So they pulled out the sticks of ammo and by this time there were about 6 or 8 extra TSA agents on the scene. I was starting to get nervous.

They called the Anchorage Police detachment that was on duty at the airport, and he came over to get the scoop. They explained; and then I explained.

TSA wandered away, and the cop, without saying so, said don't worry about it.... you'll lose your ammo but all is well. Don't do it again, but all is well.

I told the TSA agents they could keep it or throw it away, but I was about to miss my plane.

They told me it was possible that I could be summoned to Federal Court over it, I signed a release and got on my plane.

One of the TSA agents demanded to know why I had .375 ammo in my laptop bag. I explained that I had a .375 at home. He wanted to know why I would need a .375, I told him to shoot bears with it, of course. He didn't like that answer, but I told him the rifle was at home - where the ammo would be if I hadn't forgotten about it.


Anyway, shit happens. Achmed could have been taking home defense related gear.

Your theory of it being a TSA setup for political reasons is rather laughable.

Lay off the pot, kid.


Single best advice JT will ever receive.

[revelarts]

the TSA was set up for political reasons.
That's just a fact. Safety was not the issue. Over hyped fear drove political opportunism Plus the ongoing drive by political/corporate elites for a more tatalitatian federal gov't is the real reason. That what appears if you look past the hype and PR at the details of our situation. TSA is BS security theater that's it. And totalitarian training wheels for the U.S. population.
JT's not smoking anything here. but i think there maybe smoke in some peoples eye on this issue.

[ConHog]

the TSA was set up for political reasons.
That's just a fact. Safety was not the issue. Over hyped fear drove political opportunism Plus the ongoing drive by political/corporate elites for a more tatalitatian federal gov't is the real reason. That what appears if you look past the hype and PR at the details of our situation. TSA is BS security theater that's it. And totalitarian training wheels for the U.S. population.
JT's not smoking anything here. but i think there maybe smoke in some peoples eye on this issue.

You know, I remember right after 9/11 when we the National Guard were posted in airports, and just about everywhere else to. Was that political to, or was the government actually trying to keep people safe? Now if you're arguing simply that the TSA has became an overbloated , porkulas style government agency that has lost its focus. We can agree, but what government agency hasn't? However if you are suggesting that there is NO need for ANY security at airports, which JT strongly supports , then you are as high as he is.

[revelarts]

bloated is an understatement

...A news report by ABC Action News in Tampa showed passengers being given the signature pat downs Americans are used to watching the Transportation Security Administration screeners perform at our airports. Canine teams sniffed their bags and the buses they rode. Immigration officials hunted for large sums of cash as part of an anti-smuggling initiative.

The TSA clearly intends for these out-of-nowhere swarms by its officers at community transit centers, bus stops and public events to become a routine and accepted part of American life.

The TSA has conducted 8,000 of these security sweeps across the country in the past year alone, TSA chief John Pistole told a Senate committee June 14. They are part of its VIPR (Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response) program, which targets public transit related places.

All of which is enough to make you wonder if we are watching the formation of the “civilian national security force” President Obama called for on the campaign trail “that is just as powerful, just as strong and just as well funded” as the military.

The VIPR swarm on Wednesday, the TSA’s largest so far, was such a shocking display of the agency’s power that it set the blogosphere abuzz.

In a massive flex of muscle most people didn’t know the TSA had, the agency led dozens of federal and state law enforcement agencies in a VIPR exercise that covered three states and 5,000 square miles. According to the Marietta Times, the sweep used reconnaissance aircraft and “multiple airborne assets, including Blackhawk helicopters and fixed wing aircraft as well as waterborne and surface teams.”

When did the TSA get this powerful? Last year, Pistole told USA Today he wanted to “take the TSA to the next level,” building it into a “national-security, counterterrorism organization, fully integrated into U.S. government efforts.”...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/tsa_now_storming_public_places_8000_times_a_tear.h tml

When I a kid old guys in the military and hippie liberal school teachers taught me that communist totalitarian countries do the crap mentioned above, random searches on the street etc.. not free countries like AMERICA. well here we are, and now guys in the military want to tell me it's necessary?!!?! BS---!


But to answer your question

If Hijacking is really the HIGHEST Concern. then 2 things
As mentioned elsewhere
1. Sky Marshalls, and if Security' is that Urgent then 4 on every fight is not too expensive a price for the airlines to pay. Subsidize it via the Gov't.
I'd buy that.
2. Locked reinforced Pilot cabins from take off to landing. No terrorist in the cockpit, no planes into Buildings, stadiums, power plants etc..
PERIOD
Those 2 items ALONE would solve the problem.
But Add to that 6 month security reviews of all Pilots. To make sure that they haven't gone Isalmo Fascist.
Check the Fight attendants every 3 months too, to make sure they having married or boyfriended some known Isalmo Fascist.
Heavy Screening of Baggage handlers and other airport employees.

Now you have a level of security focused where it makes the most Sense IMO.

then we only have to be concerned about someone boarding with a necessarily small bomb. that would only effect the aircraft and persons on board.

which is a much less dramatic target from a terrorist POV. Now IF the intel community is doing it's job we know who the main bad players are. If they even make to the airport anyway. Normal security screening Should pick them up. A real Profile list. of less than 1 million people would be good. If they get on the plane. the Sky Marshalls have a chance to get them before they blow. In the case of the underpants bomber the passengers pointed him out. (same for the car bomber inNYC). in both cases the bomb was crap anyway.

Despite the Hype about Terrorist right now planning the next attack and the imminent color coded terror threat, we've all got a little better chance of being struck by lighting as a being killed in terrorist Attack.

Plus there is no Foolproof safety system. peoplesmuggle weapons and drugs into prisons evem solitatry confinment, making the airport prison tight isnot an answer either. the world not ever going to SAFE. the gov't sure isnt going to make it so.

the naked body scanners just came online recently after 911 we got along without them for years. and Scanners not even good for what they claim to be for.


https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/1...-body-scanners (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/common-sense-and-security-body-scanners)
...Indeed, TSA Administrator John Pistole told Congress last week that body scanners (which TSA calls Advanced Imaging Technology, or AIT) are "the most effective technology for detecting small threat items concealed on passengers, such as explosives used by Abdulmutallab."

Yet there’s no publicly available evidence that body scanners counter the threat from explosive powders. What we do know makes us extremely skeptical.

* A TSA document, which EPIC obtained via the Freedom of Information Act, shows that the scanners were intended to detect weapons, traditional explosives (C4, plastique, etc.), and liquids — but not powder (page 10).
* The Government Accountability Office (GAO) says that "it remains unclear whether the AIT would have detected the weapon used in the December 2009 incident based on the preliminary information the GAO has received."
* Ben Wallace, a member of Parliament who was formerly involved in a project to develop the scanners for airport use, said trials had shown that materials such as powder, liquid or thin plastic — as well as the passenger's clothing — went undetected. According to Wallace, the millimeter waves pass through low-density materials. High-density material such as metal knives, guns and dense plastic such as C4 explosive reflect the millimeter waves and leave an image of the object. He added that X-ray scanners were also unlikely to have detected the Christmas Day bomb.
* German border police recently reported folds in clothing were confusing the body scanners used at Hamburg Airport (the L-3 ProVision Automatic Threat Detection system). "NDR radio said the devices, introduced in September, had repeatedly given warnings about innocent passengers, mainly because of folds in clothes. It quoted guards saying the devices were unreliable in scanning through many layers of clothing too."



Isreali expert says that there are several ways to get explosives pass the scanners.

The body scanners are BS security.
TSA is BS security.
The threat is HYPED or we'd have had a lot more bombing already.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oTXq3JnXwoU?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oTXq3JnXwoU?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nVUXOSOtSoo?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nVUXOSOtSoo?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/H220lytXV8E?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/H220lytXV8E?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>
the last video goes to my poit way earlier. Baggage claims areas and employees could put a nuke bomb on a plane. but it hasn't happend. not becuase of security but becuase no one's trying. Plenty of drugs get on that way. fbi in newyork have complained about that before at the NY airports.



anyway that's my answer to security concerns. part 1. the other has to do with bad players in our gov't but that's another story.

[Gunny]

You know, I remember right after 9/11 when we the National Guard were posted in airports, and just about everywhere else to. Was that political to, or was the government actually trying to keep people safe? Now if you're arguing simply that the TSA has became an overbloated , porkulas style government agency that has lost its focus. We can agree, but what government agency hasn't? However if you are suggesting that there is NO need for ANY security at airports, which JT strongly supports , then you are as high as he is.

As I recall, right after 9/11 the left was so terrified and demanding action it was pathetic.

There's a difference between security at airports and the TSA. We HAD security at airports. We also had a lack of information gathering and sharing at the federal level which was the REAL weakness on our part that resulted in 9/11.

I will submit however that old Sahib wouldn't have been allowed to board with the weapons he had BEFORE 9/11 and/or the creation of the TSA; which, renders J.T's non-point moot.

[DragonStryk72]

You know, I remember right after 9/11 when we the National Guard were posted in airports, and just about everywhere else to. Was that political to, or was the government actually trying to keep people safe? Now if you're arguing simply that the TSA has became an overbloated , porkulas style government agency that has lost its focus. We can agree, but what government agency hasn't? However if you are suggesting that there is NO need for ANY security at airports, which JT strongly supports , then you are as high as he is.

You're assuming the reasons are the same. Time and again reports are coming from liberal, conservative, and independent sources about the fact that our security policies in airports are largely ineffective. No one's really advocating for NO security at airports, but our prior security was fine. The only we needed to do was put Marshals back on the planes, and we did that. We even went so far as to make them random and in civilian clothes so nobody could figure out who was the fed. Problem is, it wasn't a showy enough move, and thus the ramp up of the TSA

[ConHog]

You're assuming the reasons are the same. Time and again reports are coming from liberal, conservative, and independent sources about the fact that our security policies in airports are largely ineffective. No one's really advocating for NO security at airports, but our prior security was fine. The only we needed to do was put Marshals back on the planes, and we did that. We even went so far as to make them random and in civilian clothes so nobody could figure out who was the fed. Problem is, it wasn't a showy enough move, and thus the ramp up of the TSA

I disagree completely. I think that screening of passengers by TSA is absolutely prudent and necessary. The PROBLEM isn't the screening. It is the BS way the TSA has to be politically correct about it. Require every passenger to walk through an X ray and a metal detector, fine. But hire actual professionals and let them profile to determine who is going to get extra scrutiny. But oh Lord the outrage from the left if the TSA started profiling would be unbearable.

[DragonStryk72]

I disagree completely. I think that screening of passengers by TSA is absolutely prudent and necessary. The PROBLEM isn't the screening. It is the BS way the TSA has to be politically correct about it. Require every passenger to walk through an X ray and a metal detector, fine. But hire actual professionals and let them profile to determine who is going to get extra scrutiny. But oh Lord the outrage from the left if the TSA started profiling would be unbearable.

The problem is we already had good security before the TSA, so why do we need them now? I remember when I could go with my dad to the gate to see him off, and watch his plane taxi out and take off. I could be waiting at the gate for him when he got back. I could buy a pepsi on one side of the security gate in the airport, and still be allowed to drink it on the other side of the security gate. Explain the usefulness of that "security" precaution. No one seemed to think they need a sign saying not to say the word bomb, or make bomb jokes in the airport.

The TSA has almost no oversight, which is just such a great recipe for success there. It's completely unnecessary horseshit built on paranoia that has proved not only untrue, but part of AQ's long-term strategy. TSA is pretty much their greatest weapon against us.

[Gunny]

The problem is we already had good security before the TSA, so why do we need them now? I remember when I could go with my dad to the gate to see him off, and watch his plane taxi out and take off. I could be waiting at the gate for him when he got back. I could buy a pepsi on one side of the security gate in the airport, and still be allowed to drink it on the other side of the security gate. Explain the usefulness of that "security" precaution. No one seemed to think they need a sign saying not to say the word bomb, or make bomb jokes in the airport.

The TSA has almost no oversight, which is just such a great recipe for success there. It's completely unnecessary horseshit built on paranoia that has proved not only untrue, but part of AQ's long-term strategy. TSA is pretty much their greatest weapon against us.

While I see your point, I'm not sure I agree. The truism "for every bit of security you gain, you lose that much personal liberty" applies. AQ's greatest weapon against us is fear. The TSA is a result of that fear. Unfortunately, the vast majority of us have our lives controlled daily by a minority that lives in fear, but has a loud voice and apparently, lots of time to get it heard while the rest of us are too busy working to rebut their every whine. Those are the people AQ controls.

[ConHog]

The problem is we already had good security before the TSA, so why do we need them now? I remember when I could go with my dad to the gate to see him off, and watch his plane taxi out and take off. I could be waiting at the gate for him when he got back. I could buy a pepsi on one side of the security gate in the airport, and still be allowed to drink it on the other side of the security gate. Explain the usefulness of that "security" precaution. No one seemed to think they need a sign saying not to say the word bomb, or make bomb jokes in the airport.

The TSA has almost no oversight, which is just such a great recipe for success there. It's completely unnecessary horseshit built on paranoia that has proved not only untrue, but part of AQ's long-term strategy. TSA is pretty much their greatest weapon against us.

If you can't see why it is a good idea to limit who is allowed in the waiting area and what people are allowed to bring on planes. Well, there really is no help for you.

I remember a day when a person didn't even have to show ID to get on a plane, but obviously things had to change in reaction to events.

Now if you want to argue that existing agencies could have handled the job that TSA now does. I would agree.

[DragonStryk72]

While I see your point, I'm not sure I agree. The truism "for every bit of security you gain, you lose that much personal liberty" applies. AQ's greatest weapon against us is fear. The TSA is a result of that fear. Unfortunately, the vast majority of us have our lives controlled daily by a minority that lives in fear, but has a loud voice and apparently, lots of time to get it heard while the rest of us are too busy working to rebut their every whine. Those are the people AQ controls.

But the TSA preys on those fears to increase its own power and funding.

[DragonStryk72]

If you can't see why it is a good idea to limit who is allowed in the waiting area and what people are allowed to bring on planes. Well, there really is no help for you.

I remember a day when a person didn't even have to show ID to get on a plane, but obviously things had to change in reaction to events.

Now if you want to argue that existing agencies could have handled the job that TSA now does. I would agree.

Wait, wait, wait. So because AQ got off a lucky hit 10 years ago, we have to abandon personal liberty? Dear God, what would your opinion be of what we should have after Pearl Harbor, which was a much greater, and more purposeful attack? And why the hell should any of the former confederate states have their rights back? I mean, they launched a full scale insurrection, and had a death toll higher than AQ ever has.

People, innocent people are getting unreasonable searched, and having their property seized at the airports by a group that has no oversight or checks to their power. Explain to me how that follows the 4th Amendment? Remember, you don't have the right to even protest and leave the airport, because you can be detained on federal charges for that. That's already been shown in several other threads.

He who would abandon essential liberty for temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security -Benjamin Franklin

I think I'll stick with the Founders on this one, who were under attack by forces greater than themselves, outmanned and outgunned by The Empire on Which the Sun Never Set. You can abandon the ideals and spinal necessary for them if you want, but fuck that, I fought for those rights, and there is absolutely no reason to abandon them in the face of the weakest enemy we've ever faced.

[ConHog]

Wait, wait, wait. So because AQ got off a lucky hit 10 years ago, we have to abandon personal liberty? Dear God, what would your opinion be of what we should have after Pearl Harbor, which was a much greater, and more purposeful attack? And why the hell should any of the former confederate states have their rights back? I mean, they launched a full scale insurrection, and had a death toll higher than AQ ever has.

People, innocent people are getting unreasonable searched, and having their property seized at the airports by a group that has no oversight or checks to their power. Explain to me how that follows the 4th Amendment? Remember, you don't have the right to even protest and leave the airport, because you can be detained on federal charges for that. That's already been shown in several other threads.

He who would abandon essential liberty for temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security -Benjamin Franklin

I think I'll stick with the Founders on this one, who were under attack by forces greater than themselves, outmanned and outgunned by The Empire on Which the Sun Never Set. You can abandon the ideals and spinal necessary for them if you want, but fuck that, I fought for those rights, and there is absolutely no reason to abandon them in the face of the weakest enemy we've ever faced.



Who's encroached on your freedoms my brother? You are free to choose NOT to fly.

[Thunderknuckles]

He who would abandon essential liberty for temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security -Benjamin Franklin

I think I'll stick with the Founders on this one, who were under attack by forces greater than themselves, outmanned and outgunned by The Empire on Which the Sun Never Set. You can abandon the ideals and spinal necessary for them if you want, but fuck that, I fought for those rights, and there is absolutely no reason to abandon them in the face of the weakest enemy we've ever faced.
:clap:

[ConHog]

:clap:

Flying in an airplane without being properly screened is NOT an essential liberty, and not at all what Ben Franklin had in mind when he uttered that quote.

But nice try to pervert history.

[Thunderknuckles]

Flying in an airplane without being properly screened is NOT an essential liberty, and not at all what Ben Franklin had in mind when he uttered that quote.

But nice try to pervert history.
I am not trying to pervert anything. I'm not even getting in on the argument over the TSA.
I am showing my general support for Dragon's views on Liberty vs. Security.

[fj1200]

Who's encroached on your freedoms my brother? You are free to choose NOT to fly.

The government has imposed unnecessary rules that hinder you contracting with a private enterprise. Why must I be searched (unreasonably) to engage in commerce?

[DragonStryk72]

Flying in an airplane without being properly screened is NOT an essential liberty, and not at all what Ben Franklin had in mind when he uttered that quote.

But nice try to pervert history.

Wait, being free to legally move about the country isn't essential liberty. When does it get to be too much? When they're searching your car for no good reason? You're free not to drive. When they search your home? You're free not to live there.

You can't even really take the bus anymore as a work around, because now they're moving into the bus stations. How many avenues of legal transit have to require pat-downs before it becomes unreasonable to you? Protection from unreasonable search isn't an essential liberty? Since when? The Founders seemed to believe it was pretty important, given it's the 4th Amendement, behind Free Speech, Right to Bear Arms, and soldiers not having the right to quarter in your house without your permission.

How is the right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure not an essential liberty?

[ConHog]

The government has imposed unnecessary rules that hinder you contracting with a private enterprise. Why must I be searched (unreasonably) to engage in commerce?

Actually, those private enterprises have agreed to allow their customers to be screened. I can not find a SINGLE instance of an airline saying no we don't want our customers being screened.

[ConHog]

Wait, being free to legally move about the country isn't essential liberty. When does it get to be too much? When they're searching your car for no good reason? You're free not to drive. When they search your home? You're free not to live there.

You can't even really take the bus anymore as a work around, because now they're moving into the bus stations. How many avenues of legal transit have to require pat-downs before it becomes unreasonable to you? Protection from unreasonable search isn't an essential liberty? Since when? The Founders seemed to believe it was pretty important, given it's the 4th Amendement, behind Free Speech, Right to Bear Arms, and soldiers not having the right to quarter in your house without your permission.

How is the right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure not an essential liberty?

Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures is of course a right. Unfortunately for you it has been ruled that being screened before boarding an airplane is REASONABLE, the same logic that allows LEOs to use sobriety checkpoints. They are not UNREASONABLE.

What's unreasonable is bitching about having to walk through a goddamned scanner to get on a fucking airplane. What's unreasonable is bitching about having to buy a soda from inside the security checkpoint instead of being able to bring one from one outside. What's unreasonable is pretending that with the sheer number of attempts that have been made to circumvent the existing security policies that we don't need ANY security screenings or rules. What's unreasonable is whining like a little bitch that just because a few hourly employees are improperly trained and so a few passengers are unnecessarily inconvenienced means the whole system is stupid in not needed. What's unreasonable is trying to equate you can't fly without being screened with you don't have the freedom to move around the country at your leisure. What a crock of shit.

Your base argument that the TSA has went too far would certainly have some merit if you wouldn't try to stretch it into the insane argument that we don't need ANY screening. And don't try to pretend that that isn't exactly what you are saying, because it is.

[Missileman]

Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures is of course a right. Unfortunately for you it has been ruled that being screened before boarding an airplane is REASONABLE, the same logic that allows LEOs to use sobriety checkpoints. They are not UNREASONABLE.

What's unreasonable is bitching about having to walk through a goddamned scanner to get on a fucking airplane. What's unreasonable is bitching about having to buy a soda from inside the security checkpoint instead of being able to bring one from one outside. What's unreasonable is pretending that with the sheer number of attempts that have been made to circumvent the existing security policies that we don't need ANY security screenings or rules. What's unreasonable is whining like a little bitch that just because a few hourly employees are improperly trained and so a few passengers are unnecessarily inconvenienced means the whole system is stupid in not needed. What's unreasonable is trying to equate you can't fly without being screened with you don't have the freedom to move around the country at your leisure. What a crock of shit.

Your base argument that the TSA has went too far would certainly have some merit if you wouldn't try to stretch it into the insane argument that we don't need ANY screening. And don't try to pretend that that isn't exactly what you are saying, because it is.

I find it unreasonable that they aren't profiling.

[revelarts]

Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures is of course a right. Unfortunately for you it has been ruled that being screened before boarding an airplane is REASONABLE, the same logic that allows LEOs to use sobriety checkpoints. They are not UNREASONABLE...


Um, yes they are.

[ConHog]

I find it unreasonable that they aren't profiling.

I absolutely 100% agree with you.

[Missileman]

Um, yes they are.

How so?

[ConHog]

Um, yes they are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz

No they are not.

[fj1200]

Actually, those private enterprises have agreed to allow their customers to be screened. I can not find a SINGLE instance of an airline saying no we don't want our customers being screened.

Did I say otherwise?

[logroller]

Actually, those private enterprises have agreed to allow their customers to be screened. I can not find a SINGLE instance of an airline saying no we don't want our customers being screened.


Did I say otherwise?

It wasn't as though they had a choice; other than [Comply-or-lose your commercial license.]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz

No they are not.

Rev is arguing under the premise that driving is a right, rather than a privilege.

[revelarts]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz

No they are not.

And the supreme court is Wrong again. The 1990 case was another stop on the road to totalitarianism Con, you just don't see it. You know the story of the how to boil a frog right?

[logroller]

And the supreme court is Wrong again. The 1990 case was another stop on the road to totalitarianism Con, you just don't see it. You know the story of the how to boil a frog right?

Assuming boiling a frog is a "substantial government interest", you would be correct-- though I haven't seen that law...yet. While DWI laws, which resulted from innocent people dying, are good laws-- enforcement isn't that unreasonable rev. Besides, the presence of sobriety checkpoints serves to reduce drunk driving without even searching people-- its mostly the announcement of checkpoints that thwarts the activity, not the search itself.

[revelarts]

Assuming boiling a frog is a "substantial government interest", you would be correct-- though I haven't seen that law...yet. While DWI laws, which resulted from innocent people dying, are good laws-- enforcement isn't that unreasonable rev. Besides, the presence of sobriety checkpoints serves to reduce drunk driving without even searching people-- its mostly the announcement of checkpoints that thwarts the activity, not the search itself.



It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents." James Madison




<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5OydW39DZzc?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5OydW39DZzc?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gOz6kWBQvqw?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gOz6kWBQvqw?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2dFnriB0pXE?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2dFnriB0pXE?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Gewp3aVWku4?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Gewp3aVWku4?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ftgb357gynE?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ftgb357gynE?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

nothing unreasonable here log, nooo problem.

[red states rule]

Why am I NOT surprised the same guy who opposes killing terrorists on the battlefield now has no problem with drunks being allowed to roam free behind the wheel on our roads

[logroller]

It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents." James Madison



nothing unreasonable here log, nooo problem.

I've been stopped at four DUI checkpoints. They went something like this.

"You been drinking tonight?"

"No"

"OK. Drive safe and have good night."

--hardly an unreasonable search, or usurpation of power or an encroachment on my liberties.

[Gunny]

But the TSA preys on those fears to increase its own power and funding.

Of course it does. No different than any other self-serving bureaucracy in the Federal government. No different than any political organization in this country either. Everything in this nation is designed around preying on fear.

[red states rule]

I've been stopped at four DUI checkpoints. They went something like this.

"You been drinking tonight?"

"No"

"OK. Drive safe and have good night."

--hardly an unreasonable search, or usurpation of power or an encroachment on my liberties.

and the Police arrest alot of drunks before they can injure or kill someone. How anyone can be opposed to this is amazing

[Gunny]

and the Police arrest alot of drunks before they can injure or kill someone. How anyone can be opposed to this is amazing

I think what is lost here is that flying, just like driving, is a privilege, not a right. Don't like TSA? DUI checkpoints? Don't fly/drive. Walk.

[red states rule]

I think what is lost here is that flying, just like driving, is a privilege, not a right. Don't like TSA? DUI checkpoints? Don't fly/drive. Walk.

BINGO

Just like voting is a privilege ad you that when you commit a felony. Some people just lack common sense Gunny

[revelarts]

I think what is lost here is that flying, just like driving, is a privilege, not a right. Don't like TSA? DUI checkpoints? Don't fly/drive. Walk.

Privilege granted by whom?
Just how did it become a privilege to move about the country, in a vehicle? Is riding a horse a privilege, a bike?

early boil setting the "privilege" idea.

[logroller]

I think what is lost here is that flying, just like driving, is a privilege, not a right. Don't like TSA? DUI checkpoints? Don't fly/drive. Walk.

Actually I've been stopped walking. They say b/c the guy I was with fit a description of a burglar suspect. Didn't stop them from running all my info and patting me down though. I was released after I asked them if I was being detained-- which they had no cause to. But I don't think they had reason to question me in the beginning. I'll see if I can't find the story.. its on of the bill of rights thread.

[Gunny]

Privilege granted by whom?
Just how did it become a privilege to move about the country, in a vehicle? Is riding a horse a privilege, a bike?

early boil setting the "privilege" idea.

Simple. Try reading the Constitution. Your rights are defined in the Bill of Rights. You don't have a right to drive. you don't have a right to fly. You, on your own, CHOOSE to drive or fly. The highways weren't built for you. They were built to transport nukes from coast to coast and/or be landing strips for military aircraft during the Cold War. No one gave nor gives a shit about where you want to go.

But it's all about YOUR convenience, right?

When individuals put themselves before the team, the team loses. Simple math.

You have a right to move about the country. That right does not extend to your CHOICE of conveyance. Walk if you don't like the rules of motorized conveyance.

[revelarts]

Simple. Try reading the Constitution. Your rights are defined in the Bill of Rights. You don't have a right to drive. you don't have a right to fly. You, on your own, CHOOSE to drive or fly. The highways weren't built for you. They were built to transport nukes from coast to coast and/or be landing strips for military aircraft during the Cold War. No one gave nor gives a shit about where you want to go.

But it's all about YOUR convenience, right?

When individuals put themselves before the team, the team loses. Simple math.

You have a right to move about the country. That right does not extend to your CHOICE of conveyance. Walk if you don't like the rules of motorized conveyance.

Ah so Gunny we do live in a police state. the Military is in charge and don't give a damn about individual rights. At least we've got some clarity here.

But you know there's this bit in the bill of rights that says...


The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


basically the people grant the feds certain authority, finitely outlined in the constitution and the the people retain ALL of their God given rights. not the other way around Gunny. At least that the way it was suppose to be.

[logroller]

I think what is lost here is that flying, just like driving, is a privilege, not a right. Don't like TSA? DUI checkpoints? Don't fly/drive. Walk.


Not disagreeing with ya, but doesn't TSA only apply to commercial air travel, not private? I suppose that's next.

As for being free to walk---

I have a fun story to share. I was stopped while walking home from a friend's house around 2AM.(yes I was drinking, but walking--not a crime) A patrol car pulled up behind myself and a neighbor. They told us their had been a group of burgularies in the area and my neighbor fit the description. They asked where we were coming/going etc., asked for ID and patted us down (for their "comfort and security" they said, because I asked:laugh:). Then they asked, which I refused, then ordered me to sit on the curb, which I did. Then I was asked how I liked the neighborhood,
"It's quiet and peaceful" I responded, "I guess I have to give up some freedom for that peace and quiet."
The jr. officer says "You don't have to give up your freedoms.",
To which I quipped "Am I free to go then?"

Hook, meet line and sinker. Dumbfounded, the junior officer looks to his partner for assistance; but before he could, I asked more abruptly--
"Am I being detained?"
-pause-
"Umm, No. We just need to check and see if you have any warrants."
"Well I don't, so can I leave?"
"Uh, yea." he weakly responds, knowing his barking up the wrong tree practice in evidence gathering has been thwarted.
"Can I have my ID back then?....thanks!"

I'm not bragging (well, kinda); but it's not like I got away with anything, and they were just doing their job to keep the neighborhood safe. It's just important to know what information they need to have to continue. They can stop anybody with a reasonable suspicion, but they need to find probable cause to continue beyond establishing identity and current activity. Once I say who I am and what I'm doing, the burden is theirs-- My taxes pay 'em, they need to earn it. http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?28505-Of-the-Bill-of-Rights&p=460276#post460276

[fj1200]

It wasn't as though they had a choice; other than [Comply-or-lose your commercial license.]

Exactly, besides why would the airlines want to take on that liability when the Federal government is chomping at the bit to take something off of a private entities hands. It's another moral hazard that places the burden on the government and not the private sector.

[fj1200]

I think what is lost here is that flying, just like driving, is a privilege, not a right. Don't like TSA? DUI checkpoints? Don't fly/drive. Walk.

So you're OK with the presumption of guilt being placed on you for exercising your "privileges"?

[Gunny]

Ah so Gunny we do live in a police state. the Military is in charge and don't give a damn about individual rights. At least we've got some clarity here.

But you know there's this bit in the bill of rights that says...


The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


basically the people grant the feds certain authority, finitely outlined in the constitution and the the people retain ALL of their God given rights. not the other way around Gunny. At least that the way it was suppose to be.

Try again. Your argument is dead in the water before you start since you don not have the right to drive and/or fly. The states DO regulate driving. The federal government regulates flying because in the vast majority of cases, it involves crossing state lines/international borders. In both cases, the federal/state governments are within the law. The state can and will take your license for not adhering to the law, and the Federal government can deny you passage on an aircraft if they deem you are a threat to the rest of the passengers. The airline itself can deny you passage just for behaving badly.

Your so called rights as an individual end where the rights of other individuals are endangered by your behavior.

[Gunny]

Not disagreeing with ya, but doesn't TSA only apply to commercial air travel, not private? I suppose that's next.

As for being free to walk---
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?28505-Of-the-Bill-of-Rights&p=460276#post460276

There's a thread I saw recently where apparently, the TSA applies to ALL public transportation. Buses, trains ... I don't know about the private air travel thing.

The guy in your story got lucky. Most cops I've seen would have at least written him a ticket for drinking in public and or public intoxication, depending on your state and local laws. Most won't take being smartassed back to.

[revelarts]

Try again. Your argument is dead in the water before you start since you don not have the right to drive and/or fly. The states DO regulate driving. The federal government regulates flying because in the vast majority of cases, it involves crossing state lines/international borders. In both cases, the federal/state governments are within the law. The state can and will take your license for not adhering to the law, and the Federal government can deny you passage on an aircraft if they deem you are a threat to the rest of the passengers. The airline itself can deny you passage just for behaving badly.

Your so called rights as an individual end where the rights of other individuals are endangered by your behavior.
Wrong, feds can regulate interstate COMMERCE but not an individuals personal travel. period
You argument is dead based on the law and only hold weight only becuase "that's the way it is". not becuase it's Legal in any constitutional or moral sense.
You have to ASSUME the states grant people the right to walk, drive or fly. that assumption is FALSE. the people never ceeded the right to the states or regulate personal travel.
The ONLY reason a person should be stopped is IF there are about to or have caused HARM or broken a different law. if not the assumption of innocents SHOULD be in play. No need for me to "show my papers" to the constabal to tell him where and why i'm going and who gave me permission to go. That's all totalitarian police state thinking GUNNY.
I dunno seems like you've been in the military to long. Free citizens don't have SHOULDN'T HAVE TO to ask a CO for a pass to leave the base (state), or show ID to get back in.