I don't think it is correct to say that checked luggage goes breezing through the system. It is all scanned by advanced machines, and judging from the frequency I find the standard note from TSA in my luggage, a lot of it gets opened and looked through.

Quite frankly, I don't understand why people get so upset about airport security. It is a relatively minor inconvenience, especially compared to the security experience at some foreign airports. Travelers should have a positive attitude and look at the bright side - we are getting to our destination safely.

And about the liquids, I believe it was Congressman DeFazio who rightly led the campaign to ban liquids, while Homeland Security dragged its feet because it could hurt airport sales, until a liquids explosive plot was uncovered.

Brian, have you ever had the same experience as Carla?

If so, did you have a positive attitude?

Here's where I get into lots of arguments with people. I don't believe most issues are binary. I believe there are gray areas and areas of logistical concern. When I ask clarifying or logistical questions, there are people who say "OH! You are against this idea!".

No, I was asking a question about a detail--something wrong with asking questions?

In other areas of life, people in public contact positions can get into trouble for being rude to customers. If the TSA rules say that doesn't apply, would it cause a new terrorist attack to change that attitude to teaching the employees to be polite? How far above min. wage are those TSA screeners paid? What is the turnover rate? Are all machines 100% effective? Is the random search truly random?

If PDX were screening randomly (say, every 15th passenger) and DeFazio fit that profile (the 15th or 30th passenger, for instance) why couldn't they tell him that quietly? Because it would hurt security? Or could it have been possible that a TSA employee overstepped? If we question TSA employee behavior in any way we will be attacked?

Oregonian article appears to me to be basing a story on a gossip column, not a news story.

Quote from the RG:

http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/news/cityregion/9920289-41/story.csp

“Heard on the Hill,” the paper’s gossip column, said an unnamed airport source said the congressman was visibly angry about a random inspection by Transportation Security Administration, Dwayne Baird, the administration’s regional public affairs manager, said it was inaccurate to say that DeFazio was upset and that extra security personnel were called in.

Quote in large lettering at the bottom of the article:

“I wish the press would pay one one-hundredth as much attention to issues of national import.”

I'd like to know whether the Congressman was on his way to a session of Congress, in which case he should be free from any onerous delay or detention by the Executive Branch. (A standard security check of course, but being pulled from line?)

What if it was widely known that a Congressman was on his way to DC to offer the tie-breaking vote on a bill that would have cut back TSA authority?

When we have our lawmakers' access to the capital (and Capitol) subject to the whim of another branch of government, then we lose a key element of our representative democracy.

(And, for our Republican friends, I will allow that Senator Craig should have been held immune from any detention in Minneapolis... creepy as he is.)

They may be pointless, but the US are not the only ones.

I travel to Canada through YVR (Vancouver)and YYC (Calgary) constantly. I have been pulled aside, randomly, at these Canadian airports as well. They do the same things as well as ask you if you have ever been arrested (not convicted). Even if charges are dropped, you could still get detained and sent back if the customs officials are having a bad day.

It's not just the US. Unfortuneatly, since we, the common folk, do not have any recourse or resources to combat this and change it, we will just have to lump it and live with it until someone, who does have the money, time, and lawyers to combat it and change it, has the guts to go forward on it.

The Theatrical Security Agency exists to provide Security Theater, because if you annoy people enough in the name of "security," some people will feel more secure.

The only real benefit to it is that it's hastening the collapse of the airlines, which is essential if the planet is to maintain anything approximating a stable climate.

Just to let you'all know...

TSA officials and Canadian custom agents are trained to pick out overly excited and/or slightly agitated/nervous looking people regardless of the random selection process. I have seen people who yell 'lets get moving' in a line for security or customs get pulled aside...every time.

It's best to keep your cool when in an airport. TSA and customs people are trained to be anal and jumpy.

The liquids rule is idiotic.

Apparently, it's okay to bring a liquid bomb on board the airplane as long as you carry it in a bunch of 3 oz containers and a larger empty bottle to mix them in. I suppose liquid bombs aren't dangerous when assembled AFTER passing the security checkpoint.

My own experience: I forgot to empty my water bottle when I was changing planes in Reno and left the secured area to have a burger during my layover. When I came back in, I was pulled out of the line because my 8 oz water bottle had (gasp!) eight ounces of water in it. I couldn't pour it out, or drink it in front of security to empty the bottle, or do anything else: either I let them confiscate it or escort me out. I didn't want to pay inflated airport prices for bottled water, so the TSA drone escorted me all the way out of the security area while she carried the bottle, and then returned it to me. So I drank my water and went through the entire security process from the beginning, with the water bottle empty this time.

Really, seriously idiotic rule.

I agree with most here that the security measures are mostly theater and fairly ridiculous.

However, if the allegations are true regarding DeFazio's conduct and his 'do you know who I am' type of tirade , I must say that irks me to no end. Who doesn't feel intruded upon by airport security measures? I don't care who he is. The rules are there for everyone. Sorry.

Don't like the rules? Change them--and Peter is in a far better position than any of us to do that but don't be a baby about it just because you are subjected to the same experience as the rest of us.

Last December I flew through Heathrow. After going through their security (hands-on full pat-down of all passengers after going through the scanners), I bought a coffee and watched a bit. Of course, the pat-downs were done by gender-appropriate personnel. But twice I watched as attractive women were being intimately patted-down while smirking male personnel stood 2 meters away watching their friend run her hands all over -- and I mean ALL OVER the woman passenger. I suppose we should count ourselves lucky to not have such invasive practices.

Another part of the Heathrow experience: guys in uniform with automatic weapons. I don't mean cops walking around; I mean soldiers with assault rifles.

Not sure how is it in 2009, but earlier this decade, there were absolutely no trash cans on railway platforms in the UK. Reason: history of IRA bombs hidden in such.

Well Carla, in a way, you can thank all those civil rights groups and the omnipresent push for 'political correctness' here in the US (and so often supported here in BO) for a good bit of these 'beyond ridiculous' security measures.

Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe penned an interesting piece a few years ago comparing airport security measures in Israel vs here in US. The punch line is: '...because federal policy still bans ethnic or religious profiling, US passengers continue to be singled out for special scrutiny mostly on a random basis.'

The Israeli airline El Al and the Ben Gurion International Airport are widely considered the safest in the world... As Casey Stengel used to say, 'you could look it up'-

But we've chosen the possible indignity of enduring these random security measures over taking the risk of offending someone(s).

P.S. it looks like another episode of all good things must end though: Israel's renowned airline security faced a legal challenge Wednesday from a civil rights group charging that its practice of ethnic profiling is racist because it singles out Arabs for tougher treatment.

If you want to raise your blood pressure 20 points, check out this Atlantic article: The Things He Carried, by Jeffrey Goldberg. [By good luck or bad, I picked up that issue to read the last time I flew.]

From the opening paragraph: "[T]he Transportation Security Administration, which is meant to protect American aviation from al-Qaeda, represents an egregious waste of tax dollars, dollars that could otherwise be used to catch terrorists before they arrive at the Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport, by which time it is, generally speaking, too late."

The author, suspecting that the elaborate, intrusive, and demeaning security measures like Carla went through are largely for show, began experimenting to see just what kind of contraband he could stroll through airport security with. The results would be funny if the stakes weren't so high.

Everyone should read this: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811/airport-security/

This is the key quote:

“Counter­terrorism in the airport is a show designed to make people feel better,” [security expert Bruce Schnei­er] said. “Only two things have made flying safer: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers.” This assumes, of course, that al-Qaeda will target airplanes for hijacking, or target aviation at all. “We defend against what the terrorists did last week,” Schnei­er said. He believes that the country would be just as safe as it is today if airport security were rolled back to pre-9/11 levels. “Spend the rest of your money on intelligence, investigations, and emergency response.”

The author of the article managed to get all kinds of items through airport security, including liquids. (He put them in a 12-ounce bottle marked "saline solution".)

Oops! Nothstine beat me to the punch.

I have no problem with being taken out of line at the security checkpoint like Carla, the author, was. It's happened to me. No biggie.

I do have a problem with Rep. DeFazio being taken out of the boarding line at the gate. He had already gotten past the security checkpoint. If they thought he had something or could have had something, they would have had to shut down the whole terminal and conduct a search to make sure he didn't drop his contraband somewhere for a friend to pick up. And that obviously didn't happen. So the post checkpoint search makes no sense.

Carla

I've lost your email, please read today's blog post

I have travelled in some of the most security conscious countries in the world. Only in the US must I take off my shoes. Only in the US have I been pulled out of line and subjected to a search in a public place. It is rediculous to stop a person at the gate for yet another search. It won't surprise me if we are asked to consent to a strip search every time we want to fly.

Frankly, you should have a problem with it. Its a ridiculous and inconvenient invasion that does nothing to make us safer.

Well excuse me if I don't think that standing in a machine at a security checkpoint "removes" me of my "dignity" and is an "invasion" on my body. The airports don't have the capacity to search everyone at this level so they do it with random samples. Would you rather they searched nobody and thus not even have the possibility of deterring any illegal activities?

To say that your treatment was similar to that of Rep. DeFazio's is plainly false. Your search happened at the security checkpoint. His happened at the gate. Random searches at the gate are ineffective because the searchee has already made it into the "secure" area of the airport so if they are looking for something on them, odds are they have nothing since they have already made it through the security checkpoint. Your case on the other hand happened at the junction of "secure" area and "contraband land". The odds are higher that you would have something prohibited as you are coming from "contraband land" where possible possessions is the universe.

I say you're wrong, Carla.

Reader poll: Pete DeFazio: Down how many notches?

So for you..its either invasive and embarrassing searches...or none at all?

I don't find standing in a machine at a checkpoint an "invasive", "embarrassing", "dignity-removing" "invasion". So to me it's either you search people or you don't. And I would rather have people searched.

I specifically said that Defazio was forced to endure a similar, but not as ridiculous, process.

Except your search was not similar to DeFazio's. His happened at the gate in a secure area where nothing should be found and thus is ineffective. Yours happened at the checkpoint where searches are not "ridiculous" and where contraband is often found and thus is effective.

And how does the removal of my shoes, coat, jewelry and other security "contraband" make flying safer, exactly?

You know, not all contraband is made of metal. Lots of places to put stuff in a nice big jacket. By removing jewelry, there is a reduction in possibility that the metal detectors do go off when you pass through.

I agree with Zarathustra.

I would only add that if you are so uptight and grumpy with the whole thing, just don't fly anymore. Drive to where you're going and chill out.

I would only add that if you are so uptight and grumpy with the whole thing, just don't fly anymore. Drive to where you're going and chill out.

+1

That isn't what I've objected to.

You characterized your search as an "invasive", "embarrassing", "dignity-removing" "invasion". I sure as hell would object to something if I characterized something that way. But now you say your are not objecting to the "invasion", so why characterize it that way to begin with? Why not just call it a random checkpoint search? It's because you are objecting to it.

Different venues..different ways..but the same type of thing.

See, this is where you are not grasping it. DeFazio was searching in a secure area. This means he has already passed through the checkpoint and been screened. You were searched at the checkpoint. When you re-search someone that has already been searched, your odds of finding contraband are very low. When you search someone at the checkpoint, your odds of finding contraband are higher. So if you have limited resources, and you have a choice between searching people at the checkpoint versus re-searching people at the gate, it is more effective to use those resources at the checkpoint as your odds of confiscating contraband is higher.

We need Voight-Kampff tests , too. They're already funded and just about developed.

Thanks, Decker

Well, at first we wanted to profile people who we thought were most likely to be carrying weapons or dangerous chemicals, but y'all insisted on the random screens. Now you're complaining how stupid it is that people are pulled out of line.

So, which way do you want it?

Folks,

Many of you are thinking like the law-abiding citizens that you are.

The random searches are to catch people off-guard. If they were to profile travelers, we'd be complaining about rights violations.

I use to fly quite regularly to all parts of the world. I was in the Rome airport a few days after the massacre there back in the 80's - yes, this resulted in tightened security, and lots of soldiers with machine guns and guard dogs patrolling the terminals. I flew on Pan Am a few weeks after Lockerbie. In the London Airport, there were all sorts of stepped-up security precautions - dogs, guns, searches, baggage verification, questioning etc.

I've been pulled from the security line for additional searches and questioning in the 80s, 90s, but not at all since 9/11. I was subjected to a psychological profile at Amsterdam's Schipol. Yes, these all took time, but I kept my cool and got thru it with minimal delay; I never missed a flight due to these extra precautions.

Pay attention to your boarding pass, and be ready for extra searches if you find an "SSSS" stamped on your boarding pass. these are randomly printed on the passes to alert security to a random search candidate.

Now back to my premise - think like a bad guy. There are so many ways to regain contraband AFTER the security checkpoint. There are many ways to construct potentially harmful devices while in this "secure zone". That is one of the reasons why there are sometimes additional searches at the gate, after you have gone thru security. I don't want to explain further.

Yes, the security actions today are theater to some extent, but how then do you act on a potential threat. How do you sort out the nervous infrequent traveler from the guy who might do something.

Missing from this discussion is how to effectively make flying safe without disturbing the honest public.

As for me, I don't mind the steps in place right now. Am I confident that these make flying safe? No. Only safer.

The other machine that I've written about, I did find undignified, invasive, embarrassing and ridiculous.

This is where I'll refer you to Eric's post that you seem to be "uptight and grumpy" and should "chill out".

OMG you want me to stand like that while this machine searches me for explosives and what not? Who do you think you are? That stance is far to undignified for me.

That's what you sound like. Get over yourself Carla. Nobody cares.

They had the same odds of finding "contraband" on me at that point as they did DeFazio.

Okay, if you look at it that way then, now look at the method in which the search is performed and the resources that go into each search. If you station people at the gates and search there, they can't search with the same depth as they can at the checkpoint. At the checkpoint, they can search more people in the same amount of time versus at the gate. They can also do it in a more noninvasive way at the checkpoint because the machine is not going to pat you down while to get that same level of security at the gate, one would need to be pat down.

So higher throughput and less invasive searches happen at the checkpoint. Sounds more effective to me.

And why are shoes "contraband"?

You're joking right? You know you are aloud to take shoes with you on a plane.

The random check on DeFazio is beyond silly. I mean, if we can't trust members of Congress, who can we trust? Wait. Perhaps I've spoken too quickly. After all, MN Rep. Michele Bachmann did want the major newspapers of the country to investigate other members of Congress to "find out if they are pro-America or anti-America." So maybe TSA can help us ferret out those 'anti-America' congress-critters before it's too late. Oh, the humanity.

Silly, the check on DeFazio? Hmmm. We could blow up the House or a plane. Tough choice that one. I think the terrorists like planes. It's probably a good idea.

Posted by: LT | Mar 18, 2009 9:58:16 AM

Brian, have you ever had the same experience as Carla?

If so, did you have a positive attitude?

A lot of your "experience" is how in touch you are to begin with! Have you ever seen Carla? Let me take some a wild guess. It was a male screener that "randomly" selected you. If the gawkers could see the scan, I don't doubt they were agape, given you couldn't air that scan without incurring an FCC fine. You were basically assaulted, but you "understand all that". Jeezus.

Let me put it totally different. Antonio López de Santa Anna wasn't exactly known as a nice guy. Justice isn't a part of his historical resume. So, before the "Massacre At Goliad", why did he have the prisoners pick pinto beans from a jar to see who would die? That was a random selection process too. He was a brutal, military dictator that committed abuses whenever he felt like it. He couldn't tell an officer, randomly select 1/5 of the names on this list? He couldn't just take his imperial bold finger and simply say, "you, you, you and you"?

No. General Santa Anna understood what you do not, Carla, that it isn't random if you can't see the evidence that led to your selection. That's why people draw straws. Does it bother anyone, just a tiny little bit, that a brutal occupying general would extend more transparency about his process of terrorizing the rebels than TSA do in "keeping us safe"?

Worse, no one has mentioned this detail, so the blindness is endemic. "How can we make flying safe"? Yet, no one mentions, not having inane policies that make us the scorn of the world. As we debate this, Obama is stepping up the attacks on Pakistan to include real, settled, provinces, like Balukastan, not just the tribal areas. He continues to pursue the failed Bush doctrine that Taliban=Al Quaeda. Pakistan have India threatening to invade from the South, they consider their PM to be a stooge of the US, and we think that it might be militarily advantageous to chase a rag-tag band of rebels into a position that leaves us threatening the opposite border to India.

This is going to be a long 4. Apologists telling us why compromise is good, The military industrial complex, the financial crooks, energy companies, still getting everything they want, have sold us that we are looking at change and should be hopeful. Meanwhile, the cap and trade greenwash is going on.

You're driving the Dem Party off a cliff. You seem to really think you can give us the same policies, with totally different spin, then allow no in-party challenger in 4. If that is the way it plays out, we might finally get a real third party candidate. You should think about the spectre off all the Dems that won't swallow this, plus all the Republicans that should be Libertarians but don't have the guts. Evidence is that both parties are so full of hubris that you will do exactly that, and the Republicans will stick with the "which evangelical this time" theme. I really hope so. Since 1980 progressives have been saying that surely enough is enough. I think this cynical Dem dog and pony show is the final act towards a real choice.

One had better hope it is. If this goes down as I described, and you succeed in rolling whoever the people didn't vote for into office once again, airport security is going to seem minor to activities you take for granted today, like going to the mall. Obama? Change? You had better hope so.

WTF is this?

Post a comment Verify your Comment Previewing your Comment

Posted by: |

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted. Working... Your comment could not be posted. Error type: undefined No entry_xid in request

I have traveled in a lot of different countries. The US does have good security. The shoe bomb is plausable. Stable liquids can be turned into explosives. Most of the time by mixing with a stable powder they can then be turned into an explosive. Research it. It is a common replacement for dynamite. Yes I have seen it and have seen the damage it can do to solid rock. If you people think special people should get around it then that is the problem. If you bitch loud enough and claim you are important then you can get out of a randon search?

The key to catching contraband is randomness. Can it get past security? Yup. How? Maybe the same way drugs get into our prisons? Defazio is no different than any one posting here. Why should he not be subjected to a random search. He is not above the rest of us, he is equall to us. Remember, he works for us.

So, to those who oppose the current screening methods (for whatever reason)---what do you think should replace them? I do agree that much of it is theatre currently and I agree that you can't prevent ALL terrorist acts no matter what you do, but we need some type of screening. What do you think should happen before people board a plane?

I've been pulled out of lines, scanned, patted down, and questioned. Some of this has felt invasive and sometimes the screeners have seemed more aggressive or rude than necessary for the job they are doing---but I've found most to be efficient and professional about it.

A few tricks I've learned:

**Plan ahead of time. Plan for the security and the plane. That means: shoes that are easy on/off, clothing that is easily removed (zippers, not 3 million buttons/hooks). And for heaven's sake, remember you may end up running for a plane. Don't wear 4-inch stiletto heels or carry a 20-lb carry-on unless you are prepared to move fast in/with them.

**Jewelry: I rarely see anyone fly without a carry-on or purse or laptop case. Don't wear your jewelry to the airport. Put it in your carry-on and then put it on after you go through security. This has saved me more time than I can count since otherwise I invariably forget to remove a piece and have to go back through the scanners.

**If you can, wear pants/shirt that has pockets(not the jacket you place through xray). Place your ID and boarding pass in your pocket along with some money (no coins). Now you've got easy access to what you need and don't have to open/close/deal with purses/carry-ons for these items.

**Plan an extra 1/2 hour minimum, an hour if you can. Bring a book. Assume you WILL be pulled out of line and delayed. You'll gain peace of mind knowing you have plenty of time and you'll therefore appear calmer and less likely to raise flags for security.

**Thank the screeners for their work. Yes, I said, thank them. Look, it's a job for these people. And I've overheard some of them say privately that they agree some of the rules are stupid/pointless. That doesn't mean they don't need to bring home a paycheck. Save your ire for those higher up who can actually change the rules---not the poor schmuck who is just trying to get through the day to a cold beer. Yes, if you encounter someone who is overly agressive or rude, take down their info and report them. But as for the rest, smile, say "thank you" and move on. You gain nothing by being rude to the people who have the ability to make your life a living hell and can arrange it so you miss your flight.

The system isn't perfect. No system is, so send your ideas and complaints to those who can change things and plan ahead to work with the system we have (no matter how mickey-mouse you think it is) until something better comes along.

Carla, as long as you and I have to endure TSA proceedure; why is it so unusual that the egomaniac from Eugene can't? PD should have used his experience as a fact-finding situation to determine how well his security laws are working. Instead he choose to behave like a monarch. I travel alot and its into big airports like Newark, JFK, Mexico City, Houston and Frankfurt; not some rinky dink, cargo field, like PDX. Pete the hayseed freaks in PDX over a random search; I wonder how he'd fare with some Tutonic-derived security official brandishing an uzi in one hand and a German shepard in the other? Take a pill Pete; your behavior is making me airsick...

DeFazio wouldn't be the first cogressperson to raise a fit and draw attention to themselves. I believe that Cynthia McKinney did the same in the capital once as well.

From my viewpoint the whole TSA experience is pure theater. I traveled a whole lot from 2000 through 2005. The extra measures are mostly feel good exercises that do noting to stop a determined person. I was once pulled out of line while traveling with my three children and wife. My father-in-law got stopped repeatedly in his advanced medical state and my son religiously has to point out his titanium plate and 14 screws in his leg.

Now if we wanted to get serious, young men of middle eastern heritage would get extra scrutiny and the rest of us would have limited reviews.

It was a male screener that "randomly" selected you

In European airports, people take a number and get selected by a computer. Are you saying that you don't have a number or anything? It's just faith by the screener?

Surely not... I've not been in an American airport in 10 years, so I wouldn't know.

Defazio is no different than any one posting here. Why should he not be subjected to a random search.

Yes he is different! Peter Defazio is a member of a policymaking body the creation of which is provided for by the U.S. Constitution and set apart from the Executive branch through a series of checks and balances. I don't think anyone posting here is granted the priviledges from arrest and detention enumerated in Article I of the Constitution.

Making DeFazio's trips to DC subject to the approval of an agency subject to the authority of the Executive branch threatens the independent authority of that branch of government.

If DeFazio was on a personal trip, then he should be subject to search like everyone else. If his trip is related to Congressional business, he should be unfettered by the Executive branch and its agents.

There is such a thing as abuse of power.

DeFazio was CHANGING planes. If he had been the model of politeness, written down the names of the screeners, then waited until he got to DC and made a complaint to the management, would that have been OK?

What really bothers me about this story (aside from the fact that the Oregonian's story was from Heard on the Hill which calls itself a gossip column---NOT a hard news story ) is that it is OK to attack a Congressman for complaining about the actions of airport screeners as if he should have been as meek as any ordinary traveler because there is no oversight of the level of courtesy expected of TSA screeners, and it is OK for our tax money to be spent however the screeners decide it should be spent and how dare anyone do any oversight.

As I have said before, if they had explained they were numerically doing extra screening (say, every 15th passenger) that would make sense of the kind Dil Mirch is talking about. Are they so arrogant that any member of the flying public is suspect unless they prove otherwise?

As someone who has worked in retail, where a customer can complain to management simply because they didn't like the tone of the sales clerk's voice, I am tired of hearing that by definition the behavior of all TSA screeners is above reproach and the Congressman should be ashamed of himself.

Article I, Section 6 says that members of either chamber of Congress are "privileged from arrest" when in Congress or "going to and returning from the same" except in cases of treason, felony, breach of the peace.

The Bush years are over folks, and this country is once again under the rule of the Constitution. If that makes nitpicking against Democrats more difficult than before, tough luck.

The first 2 charges, treason orfelony would be pretty hard to prove in this case. If someone wants to bring a breach of the peace action against DeFazio, they will need more evidence than just a gossip column. Why don't such people who want to make trouble for DeFazio do some investigation, find out the names of some witnesses of the event, and see if they can build a case?

But if it turns out that there was capriciousness, or that nothing DeFazio said or did was beyond the normal actions of tired business travelers, this will make the accusers look like people trying to sensationalize something. Maybe they are shallow and love scandals. Maybe they have an anti-DeFazio agenda? Or maybe they are tired of discussing solutions to actual problems and were looking to create a scandal so they didn't have to do serious discussion of actual issues.

I, for one, will take into account that the Oregonian made a big fuss about this story based on a gossip column the next time they try to win public support/respect for a cause or a candidate.

Often, it is people who have worked in customer service positions and gotten flak because a customer didn't like their tone of voice (esp. if they'd been working 7 days in a row, or working long hours, or been called in to work an unfamiliar dept., or were just saying something they had been paid to say as part of a sales pitch) who complain the most loudly at lousy customer service/ arrogant or hostile employees.

Call me any name you want, but I agree with the title of this blog post.

Preach, LT, preach!

So much for free speech. I thought this was progressive

There is such a thing as abuse of power.

That's precisely why the Constitution is meant to prevent the executive branch from affecting the transit of Congressmen thusly.

So much for free speech.

I don't see how anyone's free speech has been abridged. Remember: The right to free speech does not necessarily mean that everyone you use it on will agree with you. :)

My last post was deleted or not allowed some how. Thats the free speech comment.

Just out of curiosity, I bet this would have a whole different spin had this been a Republican. Cause they're just nasty greedy corporate puppets only trying to make the airlines more wealthy, right? Oh yeah, it would prolly be some how big oil or Bush, maybe even Haliburton.

I flew cross-country for a Federal test case trial in Montgomery, Alabama. The marshals purchase one way tickets, nearly the day-before in some cases. So I was targeted at every single airport going out and coming home. Every last one had utterly different standards of what they took away from me; none of them had policy-competent workers to address my questions. It was rude, petty, incoherent from one end of the country to the other. I lost all of my beautiful hand made teakwood hairsticks because, me, a limping grey-haired lady in khaki corporate drag, I might just seek to poke out the eyes of someone crucial to airplane flight. :)... Because this is under Homeland Security (those jobs are reserved solely for military personnel, unless it has changed recently), there was nowhere to reliably turn for help or explanation.

I felt chuffed that DeFazio escaped VIP treatment. Why should he receive special dispensation? My thought is that he is just a person too: he should not get special dispensation from the same security standards as common men and women. Ask the Ghandi family whether they think high placement in the guard and other elite heirarchies ensures loyalty to the government, eh?

... meanwhile, yes, I agree. DeFazio should take on TSA, but on behalf of all of us. And he should take on the US public for their delusional belief that what passes for security here in the US is even a scratch on a hippo's horn for efficacy. It ain't. We are as exposed as we ever were.

BUT I feel that the media depictions of Defazio expose him as just a little out of touch in his feeling of entitlement - if he really seeks only to be put on some kind of "Do not touch" list and this satisfies him back to silence.

It should not. Lucky for us if it does not.

So no one has ever noticed a correlation between the quality of internal state security and the progressiveness of the state? Wouldn't it have been bizarre if the Gestapo had been extremely well mannered? Say you're writing a novel. What kind of security procedures would you imagine a brutal terrorist empire, populated by self-righteous cretins would develop?

I don't know the answer to that, but I'm pretty sure the debate would sound like this one.

<hr/>