Trip Report - SDF-DTW-AMS-BCN-MAD-JFK-CVG-SDF

Larry Gold wrote:
talk about going over the top!

We have already gone over the top.

Shoes were used by terrorists so it makes perfect sense to check them
and as for x-rays, we have been going through x-ray machines at the airport
for many many years, so as usual you are talking bull.

Yup, and every year we go through more and more. I remember back when you
could carry automatic rifles on the plane as long as you took the firing pins
out and checked them with the pilot. Now carrying an allen wrench makes you
a security risk.

If someone in 1970 had told me that I would have to get my shoes checked
getting on the plane some day, I would have laughed at them.

Anything else you suggest will not happen, and if you used your brain you
would know this.
Airlines need to make money, they need passengers, and giving them each a
full body search, and stopping them flying will lose the Airlines and the
government millions.

The current security provisions are already losing the airlines and the
government millions.

Each country wants tourists if the things happen as you suggest there will
not be any!

Soon there may not be. Certainly tourism here is down by something like
70% or so.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Larry Gold wrote:

talk about going over the top!
Shoes were used by terrorists so it makes perfect sense to check them

Why? What if the bomb material had been in his underwear instead of his
shoes? Would that justify strip searching everyone?

mrtravel wrote in message . com...
But we generally have the right to drive them at the speed limit without
being subject to an inspection. After all, we aren't talking about
speeding, but inspections.

The question is not properly 'do we have the right to drive at 200 mph
on public roads' but rather, does the government have the obligation
to protect the rights of others by infringing on our right to drive at
200 mph on public roads?

The Supreme Court has consistantly and historically held that the
government must not infringe on the those rights it is specifically
forbidden in the Bill of Rights and additional Amendments to the US
Constitution.

With regard to the cited example of driving as fast as one wishes to
on public roads - the various states regulate driving on public roads,
and the federal government provides the 'stick' in the form of
witholding highway construction funds from states that do not do as
the federal government wishes. The federal government also claims
jurisdiction over all interstate commercial highway traffic, as part
of the 'commerce clause' of the Constitution and enforced by the DOT.

However, why are there any laws regulating driving at whatever speed
on public roads? The justification that the states use is that not
doing so threatens the rights of others, and this is more important
than the right of an individual. In the case of a DUI - why can't a
person drink themselves into oblivion and then drive their car?
Because their demonstrable inability to control that car puts the
lives (and therefore the civil rights) of others at immediate risk -
and this is more important than the right of the citizen to drink and
drive, or drive really fast, or whatever.

The various states (and the federal government), could, if they
thought they could get away with it, place roadblocks at the end of
everyone's driveway and demand that every driver complete a sobriety
test before being allowed to drive at all. But this would be
correctly determined by a court to be overly intrusive into the
privacy rights of those citizens - and there are less intrusive ways
for the states and feds to get the job done.

But the gist of it is that the government can't regulate or take away
rights without justification, and they must also choose the least
intrusive means of achieving their aims.

The federal government has made airport security a priority - and has
assumed the responsibility of providing that security itself, through
the TSA. But this is an obvious and clear breech of Amendment IV -
search and seizure. The question, then, is whether or not this is an
'unreasonable' search when they perform it.

I maintain that it *is* unreasonable, because the Supreme Court has
held that the government is obligated, when such requirements arise,
to select the least intrusive means of achieving their goals. This
could be done with private security, as was debated in Congress and
defeated. I believe the Supreme Court, if they granted cert to such a
case, would (and eventually will) agree with me.

Until then, though, it remains the law of the land, and I will obey
it, with gritted teeth.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

(Justin) wrote in message om...
And poker rocks, the day when I can move out to Vegas, I'm there.

I think you should. I'd be happy to contribute a few bucks for your
bus ticket. Let us know, we'll pass the hat.

I know I've said this before...but dang, kid. Life *is* just going to
kick the crap right outta you. You've got a 'punch me' attitude that
just attracts the sharks who will eat you alive. I don't think I
could stand to watch it.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

The Bill Mattocks wrote:
The Supreme Court has consistantly and historically held that the
government must not infringe on the those rights it is specifically
forbidden in the Bill of Rights and additional Amendments to the US
Constitution.

If the current regime abuses those rights, how come there is no mechanism to
stop those abuses and punish those who have made the abuses ?

Something is very wrong when is president is nearly impeached for having
gotten a blow job in the oval room, but people continue to applaus and be
totally blind to human rights abises inside the USA.

On 8 Nov 2003 20:13:33 -0800 (The Bill Mattocks) wrote:

:Binyamin Dissen wrote in message . ..
: : The question is whether the searches are forced by the state or voluntary.

: :If a citizen has a 'right to travel freely', then the question as to
: :whether the search is mandatory or voluntary becomes moot. Assuming a
: :citizen has the right to travel freely by whatever public conveyance
: :they wish, then a search by federal agents prior to such conveyance
: :being permitted is, ipso facto, mandatory.

: False.

:Just FYI - this morning, I flew from MCI-PHX-ABQ on HP. HP has moved
:to a new terminal, nicely redecorated, and the ITS private security
:firm is now being handled by a new private security firm (one of the
:few aiports in the US which are not using the TSA, under a pilot
:program). When I went through security this morning, the security
:goon announced that he was going to 'search my bag.' I asked if that
:was a question or a statement. He blinked and replied it was a
:statement. I asked if it was not true that I could refuse to have my
:bag searched, even though it would mean I would be denied passage.
:His response was that no, he was going to search my bag, there was
:nothing I could do about it, and I had "given up my rights" by
:stepping into his security zone.

:I let him do as he wished, and then asked to speak to his supervisor,
:a pimple-faced youth of about twelve or thirteen. I repeated my
:assertation that such searches were voluntary, and that I should have
:been 'asked' if he could search my bag, not 'told' that it was going
:to be searched regardless. Again I was told that I had no right to
:refuse to have my bag searched, even if it meant choosing to not fly.

:I was actually grinning as he told me that. I was thinking of you and
:your 'voluntary' searches. I thanked PFY (pimple-faced youth) and
:went on my way. And by the way, I asked for and received a complaint
:form - it's from the TSA. This may be private security firm, but they
:act with the authority and under the auspices of the TSA, so it's the
:same as if the TSA had searched my bag. And my checked bag was
:searched and had a TSA sticker inside. So it is just a different
:uniform, still the TSA under the skin.

The fact than some people, even in a enforcement position, do not know the law
does not change the law.

: The right to travel does not give one the right to travel any way they wish
: and under any conditions they wish.

: For example, one does not have the right to drive at 200MPH on public
: highways.

:Because the courts have consistantly held that driving at such speeds
:infringes on the rights of others, it is unsafe. The courts have
:historically held that for rights to be abrogated in any way, there
:has to be an factor that overrules one citizen's rights. When it is
:the rights of all citizens that are being endangered by the one
:citizen, the state has the right to curtail those rights. This is
:also true in many other areas where clearly-defined rights are subject
:to control by the state - the classic chestnut of yelling 'Fire!' in a
:crowded theater, for example - a clear violation of the rights of the
:OTHER people in that theatre.

Many times it is quite safe, such as on an empty highway where one can see all
cars (except will-hidden police cars) for miles.

:Now, does the TSA have the right to infringe on my Amendment IV right
:to be secure in my possessions, etc, from unreasonable search and
:seizure? One could argue that in attempting to deter terrorists who
:have demonstrably blown up planes full of passengers and crashed them
:into buildings full of citizens, they are acting for the greater good,
:and therefore have that right. But this has not been tested by any
:court.

Oh, so your issue, if any, is that is was not adequately tested (in your eyes)
by "any" court?

Easy enough for you to correct.

:In any event, I believe it is still not permissible, because (and this
:refers to my later point, which you didn't seem to see how it applied;
:below), there are LESS INTRUSIVE MEANS of ensuring that security.
:Private security (not TSA contracted, real private security) can and
:historically has performed that role. There is no reason to believe
:that they cannot do so again, if given the chance. So the federal
:government is sticking their intrusive noses in where they do not
:belong, and thus they violate our Amendment IV rights.

For multiple private firms, and to avoid lawsuits, the firms themselves would
want government control.

While this might change the ways things look on paper, it would not have any
practical difference.

: :In Aptheker v. Secretary of State (378 U.S. 500), in 1964, the US
: :Supreme Court held that ''Congress could have chosen less drastic
: :means of achieving the national security objective without such
: :sweeping abridgment of liberty.''

: Irrelevant to the issue.

:Not at all. The Supreme Court has clearly spoken - in issues where
:the government attempts to assert the authority to abridge civil
:liberties in the name of security for all, IF THERE IS A LESS
:INTRUSIVE WAY to do so, the government is OBLIGED to do so. They must
:ALWAYS choose the method least intrusive of citizen's rights.

Lets say.

Which is?

: :And there we have it. The Congress is obliged to select the least
: :intrusive means of achieving national security objectives with regard
: :to the liberties of US citizens. Could it have done so in the case of
: :the TSA? Yes, certainly. The proposal to use (and beef up
: :significantly) private security firms was on the table, but was not
: :selected. Such a choice would have been constitutional, but it was
: :rejected by the US Congress (in my opinion).

: I fail to understand your issue here.

:I thought I made it quite clear. My premise is that the TSA violates
:our Amendment IV protection against unreasonable government searches
:and seizures. If security must be provided for the good of all air
:travelers (and those in tall buildings), then the government is
:required to choose the method that intrudes least on citizen's civil
:rights and still ensures the objective. Private security was a choice
:that Congress debated and rejected in the days following September 11,
:2001. I believe that the Supreme Court would hold that they were
:obliged to select private rather than government security, if they
:were to grant cert to such a test case.

The private security firms would have wanted government controls to limit
their liability.

: The airlines choose to have the government do it.

:No, the government chose to have the government do it. Regardless of
:what the airline industry may have asked, the government made the
:decision and passed the laws necessary to form the DOHS and TSA and
:implement federal security at airports.

So you assert.

: : Simple when you think about it, isn't it?

: :Not at all - the issue is complex. John Gilmore is currently pursuing
: :such a case in the court system - time will tell if he is successful
: :or not. If the issue were simple and clear-cut as you say, his suit
: :would have been dismissed rather rapidly as being without merit.

: Not in the USA.

: Is he in the 9th district?

:I'm not sure what you mean. The suit is in the US District Court,
:Northern District of California, San Francisco, because that's where
:John Gilmore lives. If either side loses and appeals and the appeal
:is heard, it would be by the 9th District, I believe. But it has not
:gotten to an appeals court yet, there has been no ruling at all.

:I refer you to http://cryptome.org/gilmore-v-usa-ht1.htm if you are at
:all interested.

9th district.

--
Binyamin Dissen
http://www.dissensoftware.com

(The Bill Mattocks) wrote in message . com...
(Justin) wrote in message om...
And poker rocks, the day when I can move out to Vegas, I'm there.

I think you should. I'd be happy to contribute a few bucks for your
bus ticket. Let us know, we'll pass the hat.

I know I've said this before...but dang, kid. Life *is* just going to
kick the crap right outta you. You've got a 'punch me' attitude that
just attracts the sharks who will eat you alive. I don't think I
could stand to watch it.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Don't tempt me (about the bus ticket).

And I'm the complete opposite at the poker table. I tend to be quiet,
letting the other players think that they are in charge, then I strike
and eliminate them one by one (like I did in my last tournament).

Only reason I'm touchy here is, because like everything I'm into -
including work, I defend 100%. So, don't ever talk bad about a
Philadelphia sports team.



Grr, this is the 3rd time I had to retype it, so it keeps getting
shorter and shorter... stupid server errors.

Sleeping Racoon wrote in message ...
The Bill Mattocks wrote:
The Supreme Court has consistantly and historically held that the
government must not infringe on the those rights it is specifically
forbidden in the Bill of Rights and additional Amendments to the US
Constitution.

If the current regime abuses those rights, how come there is no mechanism to
stop those abuses and punish those who have made the abuses ?

There is. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the
constitutionality of US law. The electoral system is set up to
'punish' those who pass laws that are unconstitutional - vote 'em out
of office.

Something is very wrong when is president is nearly impeached for having
gotten a blow job in the oval room, but people continue to applaus and be
totally blind to human rights abises inside the USA.

You're barking up the wrong tree here. Don't mistake my insistance
that the civil rights of US citizens be protected with a liberal
leaning on my part. I'm a conservative, registered, Libertarian.
Liberals amuse me.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Binyamin Dissen wrote in message . ..
The fact than some people, even in a enforcement position, do not know the law
does not change the law.


Agreed. I just found it amusing - voluntary searches are hardly
voluntary when the 'uninformed' security force proceeds to alter the
rules and perform the search without obtaining permission first.

Many times it is quite safe, such as on an empty highway where one can see all
cars (except will-hidden police cars) for miles.

The various states have sucessfully made the case that their right to
regulate driving on public roads is constant, not a case-by-case or
moment-by-moment decision. It may be 'safe' by your opinion at given
times and given locations, but the state's right to regulate overrides
in this case.

At one time, in some states, people accused of DUI could challenge
their arrest on the grounds that they were effectively not impaired by
the booze they had imbibed. It is an accepted medical fact that
different people respond differently to different amounts of alcohol.
Some people build up a tolerance to alcohol's effects and are
demonstrably not impaired at blood-alcohol levels that would render
others unconscious. However, I believe that at this time, all states
have stated and effectively defended their right to impose a DUI
statute that measures only B.A.C., with no exception made for an
individual's capacity. Same for speeding - whether it is 'safe' or
not, the law applies just the same.

Oh, so your issue, if any, is that is was not adequately tested (in your eyes)
by "any" court?

No. And I am curious why you seem to keep referring to my 'issue' as
either not existing or being unclear in some way. I think I have been
quite clear.

For the record, my 'issue' is that I contend that the TSA is abridging
the Amendment IV rights of all US citizens when it performs searches
and seizures. Everything I have said in this thread thus far is my
attempt to show why I believe that to be true.

Easy enough for you to correct.

Becoming a 'test case' is not easy, and it involves hardships I am not
yet prepared to accept. I still have to pay my rent and buy food, and
if I cannot fly, I cannot work.

For multiple private firms, and to avoid lawsuits, the firms themselves would
want government control.

What the airlines or security firms 'want' does not enter into it.
They have no civil rights as companies - US citizens do. My company
could choose to 'want' the US government to conduct searches of
everyone's cars in the parking lot. The federal government still
could not do it. If the company 'wants' to do it, they have to accept
that responsibility themselves.

While this might change the ways things look on paper, it would not have any
practical difference.

A search is a search, no matter who does it? I disagree. A search
done by private security as a condition of carriage established by the
airline or airport authority is not a government search, and it does
not infringe on my rights as a US citizen. In the end, I still get
searched, yes. But when the government intrudes, that intrusion tends
to expand. If we lay down and accept this, it will continue. By the
time government intrusion into our lives expands enough to bother even
someone like yourself, it will be far too late to correct except
through violent means.

: Irrelevant to the issue.

:Not at all. The Supreme Court has clearly spoken - in issues where
:the government attempts to assert the authority to abridge civil
:liberties in the name of security for all, IF THERE IS A LESS
:INTRUSIVE WAY to do so, the government is OBLIGED to do so. They must
:ALWAYS choose the method least intrusive of citizen's rights.

Lets say.

Which is?

Non-responsive. Argue or give up. I've stated that private security
would be less intrusive of the rights of US citizens than federal
security in airports. I can't say it more clearly than that.

The private security firms would have wanted government controls to limit
their liability.

So what? What they 'want' doesn't matter. Intrusion into the civil
rights of US citizens does. I've not yet seen a US Supreme Court
challenge on the grounds that the government choose not to interfere
with the rights of citizens, although some company 'wanted' them to.

: The airlines choose to have the government do it.

:No, the government chose to have the government do it. Regardless of
:what the airline industry may have asked, the government made the
:decision and passed the laws necessary to form the DOHS and TSA and
:implement federal security at airports.

So you assert.

Do you not read the news at all? How do you think the laws
establishing the DOHS and TSA happened? Entered as bills in Congress,
debated and voted upon, signed by the President. Are we being
intentionally obtuse, or were you unclear on how laws are made?

9th district.

And this means what, exactly?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Sleeping Racoon wrote:

The Bill Mattocks wrote:

The Supreme Court has consistantly and historically held that the
government must not infringe on the those rights it is specifically
forbidden in the Bill of Rights and additional Amendments to the US
Constitution.


If the current regime abuses those rights, how come there is no mechanism to
stop those abuses and punish those who have made the abuses ?

Something is very wrong when is president is nearly impeached for having
gotten a blow job in the oval room

Actually, it was related to lying about the event, not actually doing it.