How to handle the TSA? Take Amtrak!

[bmorechris]

No one is forcing you to fly, so any civil liberties or illegal search argument can immediately be thrown out the window. You could always fly general aviation, no security there.

So are you saying that if the loss of these liberties is legal under American law then it's simply not a loss at all? As a practical matter most Americans cannot replace commercial flying with general aviation flying. Likewise, many jobs that I may be hired for consider routine travel on commercial flights to be a requirement of continued employment. If the TSA confuses me with any of the tens-of-thousands of folks on their no-fly list from who knows where, who do I talk to about having my information corrected or my name removed? So far as I can tell the TSA does not seem to have much in the way of independent oversight. Like any true boondoggle, in many ways the TSA are their own judge and jury. Although some people apparently luck out and eventually find some sort of workable resolution not everyone has the means or connections to do so.

As a practical matter how do you retain a job that requires you to travel on a regular basis if the TSA has fingered you for abuse? How do you correct it? How do you reach Europe or Asia in anything resembling a reasonable time without access to a commercial flight? Even if you're traveling domestically we now have stop-and-search processing on arteries as large and important as I-10. That didn't use to bother as much me until I saw how little we truly understand about what inspection dogs are actually picking up on when they alert. In short, I simply do not agree we're not in the process of losing our civil liberties simply because the powers that be have found a fully legal method for taking them away.

Well its really a matter of choice. I have given up a good amount of my liberties for my job because I weighed the advantages and disadvantages and chose to do so. What I really have an issue with is people using the Bill of Rights to prop up an argument where it isn't a factor. My feeling on it is that, no, the TSA is not a well run agency, but they also have an essentially thankless job. There are roughly 2 million commercial airline boardings per day, and knowing some are connections, say TSA or other security organizations inspect 1 million passengers per day; they are bound to have some issues. And this isn't a secret, but every organization that has ever existed, public or private, has had their fair share of problems. I won't argue that the TSA is a model agency, it is clear they where hastily formed and are not exactly the most efficient organization. I won't contend that their methods are the best. But when it comes down to it, I like to know when I am flying that the person next to me has had some level of inspection before we take off in an aluminum tube traveling nearly the speed of sound 7 miles above the earth.

As for being fingered by the TSA for abuse, do you mean the no fly list? I expect many will take this info with a grain of salt as it comes from the horses mouth, but here is some info about it provided by the TSA. The gist of the document is, they get their list from the FBI, 2500 people are actually on the list, about 10% are US citizens (250 individuals). If you or someone you know falls into this category, I do feel sorry for you/them, because it probably is a hassle, but they do at least provide a link to the Traveler Redress Inquiry Program which is supposed to handle issues with TSA and DHS. If that didn't work, I would suggest getting in touch with your congresscritters, and if you are just throwing up a straw man, well, I don't know what to tell you because you probably have already made up your mind.

 

[Fuse]

What I really have an issue with is people using the Bill of Rights to prop up an argument where it isn't a factor.

How is the Bill of Rights not a factor? We have the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, and the public right of transit through the navigable airspace.

The right to the navigable airspace should not be dependent on waiving one's right to be free of unreasonable searches. A right is a right.

A strip search as a condition of carriage is an unreasonable search. Submitting to the pat-down as per TSA's policies (which are sometimes followed by screeners, sometimes not) is sexual assault.

Taking my first long-distance Amtrak trip this month. The only reason I chose Amtrak is to avoid the TSA grope, because there is NO WAY I am going through those scanner machines.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

I take Amtrak to avoid:

1. TSA

2. Paying to check bags/taking just a small rollaboard

3. Being forced to check bags because I need threatening weapons like a screw driver and needle nose pliers at my destination

4. Having my checked bags rummaged through by the TSA (TSA in Pittsburgh is bored... if you depart from there, just assume they are going to rummage through it)

5. Awful delays when connecting to small regional airports (US Airways has a remarkable 5% on time departure rate with me, anything more than 30 minutes late is late)

6. Absurdly long door to door travel times. There are several cities I can drive to faster than total travel time for a flight. Pittsburgh - DC is just about a tie.

7. Having my toiletries thrown out because they are in a black plastic bag instead of a clear plastic bag. They did let me keep the empty black plastic bag.

8. Insane Airline pricing (PIT-PHL is $300, but PIT - PHL - EWR is $180)

 

[Trogdor]

What I really have an issue with is people using the Bill of Rights to prop up an argument where it isn't a factor.

How is the Bill of Rights not a factor? We have the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, and the public right of transit through the navigable airspace.

The right to the navigable airspace should not be dependent on waiving one's right to be free of unreasonable searches. A right is a right.

Can you tell me which amendment of the bill of rights grants us the public right of transit through the navigable airspace?

 

[reefgeek]

1334086231[/url]' post='359841']I have no problem with bomb sniffing dogs at the large Amtrak terminals as they provide a non-intrusive search service. I do have a problem with the Blueshirts putting their hands on me and my family. We are hard working, hopefully decent, law abiding citizens and refuse to be treated like prisoners of war. This is H*tlers Germany all over again only his soldiers wore Brownshirts.

Until the system changes so that government starts respecting the Bill of Rights again, I will not fly.

Minus 1000 points for playing the Hitler card. Tacky and excessive. Read a little history before comparing ANY ASPECT of the US to N@zi Germany. Did somebody beat or murder your family at a TSA checkpoint?

 

[jis]

I believe TSA has serious problems with the way they operate, and have campaigned in the past to get those problems addressed. However, it is also true that TSA is not particularly worse than similar outfits in other countries. Unfortunately that piece of pain has become an integral part of flying. Those that can tolerate it, do so and fly. Those that can't are better of not flying for their own sanity probably, though if they still want to fly that is OK too. My mention about "urging" was not meant seriously and I did put in a smiley. Some seem to have a certain lack of sense of humor. Oh well.... it takes one of each kind to make this world.

I still believe that it is none of anyones business to lecture others about how they should or should not travel or lead their lives in normal course of things, and they are worthy of being ignored. That would include me in situations where I do so too.

 

[ParrotRob]

I don't get the up in arms agains TSA thing...

&

As a Frequent Flier, I do get the express line...

Looks like you already answered a big part of your own question.

There's also the way some of us were raised, what with our deep respect for civil rights and liberties and all.

And then there are the folks who would rather everyone just grinned and bared it like they do.

150+ flights in the last year, and I've never had to "bare" anything

Oh, and a TSA agent has never laid a finger on my person except to help me out of a wheelchair when I had a broken leg.

Likewise. I love to fly as much as I love to ride trains. I fly over 100,000 miles each year and am yet to have a problem with TSA. Things actually just got better due to the trusted traveler program, so now no need to take off shoes and take computers out of bag at airports and airlines that are participants in the program.

Frankly I find the charm of flying high above the clouds, seeing beautiful sunrises, sunsets, cloud formations, stars in daylight and even places that I could never otherwise get to, far below (e.g. the North Pole, the Hindu Kush in Afghanistan etc. etc.), is quite fascinating, at least to me. I'd never give up the chance to experience those just because of a simple security check here and there. Trains have their own charm that are different from flying and worth it in and of themselves, not as an either/or proposition relative to flying IMHO.

However, I do respect the opinions of those who do not like to fly for whatever reason and would urge them to not fly. because generally happier people as co-passengers are better than grumbling folks. What can I say?

Of course everyone to their own poisons I suppose

i feel the exact same way. I also respect the opinions of those who do not like to fly, as well. What I do not respect, though, are those who make outlandish claims of being "strip searched", "violated", "groped", etc as an excuse. If you don't want to/like to fly, no problem. No one is going to gang rape you at security, though, no matter how much you think they are.

 

[ParrotRob]

Most of us will smile at this description, but I wonder how much of Amtrak's record ridership is made up of people avoiding the TSA.

I can assure you that it's a significant factor for a NUMBER of Long Distance travelers, based on conversations in the diner...

Thank you, someone else who actually feels the way I do. Yeah, they are mostly show, but I, too, go through airports ALL THE TIME, and I've never once been hassled or felt violated in any way by the TSA.

Well bully for you. What about those of us who have?

The people who complain about them would have no problems if they just took a few minutes to familiarize themselves with the rules and then follow them.

Yeah, because the rules are SOOOOOOO consistent... must be the victim's fault!

One would think with so many "victims", one who goes through an airport twice a week on average would see one. I wonder where all these victims are coming from!

 

[ParrotRob]

I'd welcome a serious defender of civil rights explaining how the TSA is not a loss of our civil liberties or an end-run around a hundred years of search-seizure-charge precedent. Let's hear it...

When you fly (or travel Amtrak for that matter) you enter into a contract with a private entity. By purchasing that ticket, whether you like it or not, you agree to their contract of carriage. This is the pertinent rule from United's contract of carriage:

RULE 20 SCREENING OF PASSENGERS AND BAGGAGE

Passengers and/or their baggage are subject to security screening, including but not limited to, security profiling, physical pat-downs and inspections, x-ray screening, manual bag searches, questioning of Passengers, and use of electronic or other detectors or screening or security devices, in the sole discretion of the government, airport or UA, and with or without the Passenger's presence, consent or knowledge. Neither UA nor its employees or agents is liable for any damage, loss, delay (including refusal to transport), confiscation of property, injury or other harm relating to or arising out of security screening or Passenger's failure to submit to or comply with such security screening.

No one is forcing you to fly, so any civil liberties or illegal search argument can immediately be thrown out the window. You could always fly general aviation, no security there

Bingo. Commercial flight is not a "right". It's a voluntary choice, and there ARE alternatives.

 

[Shortline]

1334105310[/url]' post='359909']

1334070814[/url]' post='359782']

1334006942[/url]' post='359616']Most of us will smile at this description, but I wonder how much of Amtrak's record ridership is made up of people avoiding the TSA.

I can assure you that it's a significant factor for a NUMBER of Long Distance travelers, based on conversations in the diner...

1334020326[/url]' post='359692']Thank you, someone else who actually feels the way I do. Yeah, they are mostly show, but I, too, go through airports ALL THE TIME, and I've never once been hassled or felt violated in any way by the TSA.

Well bully for you. What about those of us who have?

1334020326[/url]' post='359692']The people who complain about them would have no problems if they just took a few minutes to familiarize themselves with the rules and then follow them.

Yeah, because the rules are SOOOOOOO consistent... must be the victim's fault!

One would think with so many "victims", one who goes through an airport twice a week on average would see one. I wonder where all these victims are coming from!

They must fly on different days than I do. I'm starting to get offended, I bet I've gone through airport security in 15 cities, at least 60 times or so just in the last year, and not one security person has asked to touch me. And I'm not a bad looking guy! Must be something I'm doing wrong.....

 

[ParrotRob]

Most of us will smile at this description, but I wonder how much of Amtrak's record ridership is made up of people avoiding the TSA.

I can assure you that it's a significant factor for a NUMBER of Long Distance travelers, based on conversations in the diner...

Thank you, someone else who actually feels the way I do. Yeah, they are mostly show, but I, too, go through airports ALL THE TIME, and I've never once been hassled or felt violated in any way by the TSA.

Well bully for you. What about those of us who have?

The people who complain about them would have no problems if they just took a few minutes to familiarize themselves with the rules and then follow them.

Yeah, because the rules are SOOOOOOO consistent... must be the victim's fault!

One would think with so many "victims", one who goes through an airport twice a week on average would see one. I wonder where all these victims are coming from!

They must fly on different days than I do. I'm starting to get offended, I bet I've gone through airport security in 15 cities, at least 60 times or so just in the last year, and not one security person has asked to touch me. And I'm not a bad looking guy! Must be something I'm doing wrong.....

35 million people fly per month. The TSA handles 900-1500 complaints per month. Even independent watchdogs like the ACLU handle <1000 complaints per month. 0.002%.

So statistically speaking, you'd have to fly one round trip every single day, 365 days a year, for about 53 years to have a chance at getting groped :blink:

 

[Fuse]

What I really have an issue with is people using the Bill of Rights to prop up an argument where it isn't a factor.

How is the Bill of Rights not a factor? We have the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, and the public right of transit through the navigable airspace.

The right to the navigable airspace should not be dependent on waiving one's right to be free of unreasonable searches. A right is a right.

Can you tell me which amendment of the bill of rights grants us the public right of transit through the navigable airspace?

Sigh. Okay, on the very small chance you're asking seriously, I'll play.

I'm referring to the fourth amendment, regarding unreasonable searches and seizures.

Many find the Bill of Rights germane to a discussion regarding the TSA, but I've not yet encountered someone who can make a reasonable argument for declaring it irrelevant, so I was curious to hear the reasoning behind the statement.

The 49 US Code SS 40103 is the appropriate reference for the public right of transit through navigable airspace.

 

[JoeBas]

Well you just met one guys. And I'm not alone.

 

[ParrotRob]

1334107473[/url]' post='359924']

1334096268[/url]' post='359872']

1334092442[/url]' post='359860']

1334087774[/url]' post='359845']What I really have an issue with is people using the Bill of Rights to prop up an argument where it isn't a factor.

How is the Bill of Rights not a factor? We have the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, and the public right of transit through the navigable airspace.

The right to the navigable airspace should not be dependent on waiving one's right to be free of unreasonable searches. A right is a right.

Can you tell me which amendment of the bill of rights grants us the public right of transit through the navigable airspace?

Sigh. Okay, on the very small chance you're asking seriously, I'll play.

I'm referring to the fourth amendment, regarding unreasonable searches and seizures.

Many find the Bill of Rights germane to a discussion regarding the TSA, but I've not yet encountered someone who can make a reasonable argument for declaring it irrelevant, so I was curious to hear the reasoning behind the statement.

The 49 US Code SS 40103 is the appropriate reference for the public right of transit through navigable airspace.

And 49 USC 44901 provides for the screening of passengers and cargo. You can't pick and choose parts of the USC that grant you a privilege and discard those parts that regulate that privilege.

 

[MattW]

What I really have an issue with is people using the Bill of Rights to prop up an argument where it isn't a factor.

How is the Bill of Rights not a factor? We have the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, and the public right of transit through the navigable airspace.

The right to the navigable airspace should not be dependent on waiving one's right to be free of unreasonable searches. A right is a right.

Can you tell me which amendment of the bill of rights grants us the public right of transit through the navigable airspace?

Sigh. Okay, on the very small chance you're asking seriously, I'll play.

I'm referring to the fourth amendment, regarding unreasonable searches and seizures.

Many find the Bill of Rights germane to a discussion regarding the TSA, but I've not yet encountered someone who can make a reasonable argument for declaring it irrelevant, so I was curious to hear the reasoning behind the statement.

The 49 US Code SS 40103 is the appropriate reference for the public right of transit through navigable airspace.

There's also Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, the privileges and immunities clause as well as Corfield v. Coryell, Paul v. Virginia, and the 10th amendment.

 

[JoeBas]

People always seem to forget that the constitution is not there to give us rights, it's there to specifically enumerate powers and everything else belongs to the people.

It's not "Show me where it says you can fly", it's. "Show me where it says they can stop me.".

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I also respect the opinions of those who do not like to fly, as well. What I do not respect, though, are those who make outlandish claims of being "strip searched", "violated", "groped", etc as an excuse. If you don't want to/like to fly, no problem. No one is going to gang rape you at security, though, no matter how much you think they are.

Really makes you wonder when someone shows "respect" by bringing up gang rape of all things. Makes you wonder if they even know what respect is. Or gang rape for that matter. Stay classy ParrotBob.

*I'd be happy to video the TSA's repeated fondling of me and others. Unfortunately it's apparently against the law to record anything in the security checking area here in the "land of the free."

 

[ParrotRob]

Huh? The privileges and immunities clause simply states that no state can discriminate against people of another state. If the people of California decided to target those from Nevada for increased screening, then maybe you've got yourself a P&I issue. Otherwise it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

[ParrotRob]

1334109546[/url]' post='359933']

1334105182[/url]' post='359907']I also respect the opinions of those who do not like to fly, as well. What I do not respect, though, are those who make outlandish claims of being "strip searched", "violated", "groped", etc as an excuse. If you don't want to/like to fly, no problem. No one is going to gang rape you at security, though, no matter how much you think they are.

Really makes you wonder when someone shows "respect" by bringing up gang rape of all things. Makes you wonder if they even know what respect is. Or gang rape for that matter. Stay classy ParrotBob.

*I'd be happy to video the TSA's repeated fondling of me and others. Unfortunately it's apparently against the law to record anything in the security checking area here in the "land of the free."

The point is, gang rape is about as likely to occur in a TSA checkpoint as is the "repeated fondling" you reference.

Or were you out sick the day they taught hyperbole?

 

[JoeBas]

Is it hyperbole to call a woman sticking her hand so far down my pants she touched Mr. Winkie with her filthy blue glove "fondling"?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

The point is, gang rape is about as likely to occur in a TSA checkpoint as is the "repeated fondling" you reference. Or were you out sick the day they taught hyperbole?

There's nothing hyperbolic about it. I have received highly invasive attention that would be "groping/fondling" in any other situation from the TSA on numerous occasions. Both my mom and my aunt have been searched in a very private way. I know of no legal way to get proof of this since you can't photograph or record anything that happens in the secure area. The fact that you refuse to believe it, and in fact substitute it with "gang rape" doesn't change anything. You think you can sway me by telling me what I saw with my own eyes and felt with my own body didn't happen? You're too clueless for words.

 

[dlagrua]

The point that I am making is that the Bill of Rights and rule of law doesn't end at a place of business or on your property. If I decided to open a business and made it a policy to pay below minimum wage I would be prosecuted. Could we justify that illegality by saying "if you don't want to work at my place and acccept that wage then you don't have to"?

A persons civil rights doesn't end at the TSA gate or on an airplane. You are innocent until proven guilty. At the TSA checkpoints, the Blueshirts make the rules and in many cases they are in direct violation of ones constitutional rights, in particular the Forth amendment to the Bill of Rights.

Here we have a system that attacks the innocent and some people actually say its OK and use the logic that you don't have to fly if you don't want to" ? Welcome to the land of the mindless sheep.

 

[ParrotRob]

1334110657[/url]' post='359942']Is it hyperbole to call a woman sticking her hand so far down my pants she touched Mr. Winkie with her filthy blue glove "fondling"?

No, that's called "imagination". Because, for starters, all TSA pat-downs are conducted by members of the same sex. Nice try, though.

 

[JoeBas]

Yeah, I imagined it. Total psychosis. That's your respect right there.

When you or someone you love has it happen to you, don't say you didn't know.

 

[ParrotRob]

You KNOW when you enter a TSA screening checkpoint tht you have exactly two options:1) consent to screening by the back scatter device, or 2) consent to a manual pat down

THERE ARE NO OTHER CHOICES and this is made very clear to you before you VOLUNTARILY enter the line. THEREFORE, if you CHOOSE to forego the screening, then you have made a conscious decision to be manually searched. There really are no two ways about it. One or the other. You pick.

Now let's talk about the constitutionalists out there. Seriously? "Show me where it says they can stop me?". Show me where it says I have to go no faster than 70 on the interstate, yet they stop me from doing that all the time. Why? Because the legislature of the United States and the States themselves are empowered to make laws, and those laws govern what you can and can not do to to the extent that they are not trumped by the supreme law of the land. So until such time as the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law impeding air travel in the several states" then Congress is free to do just that. Oh, and the Executive branch is free to create a department and appoint a head of it to oversee it all. THAT is what it says in there, go read it.

The constitution also doesn't say I can't kill someone, smoke weed or yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. But that doesn't give me the de facto right to do so. The constitution, in fact, only guarantees a very small number of rights, contrary to popular belief. And your right to fly is not one of them.