John wrote:
I am one of those people that is called a "security professional". I do this stuff for a living and in the process I travel some by air and I know (as would any well trained potential terrorist) that most of the post 9/11 security measures were largely "feel good stuff". The level of expertise of airport screeners is certainly not inspiring, but, we have not had another hijacking!
You seem to shout this as though suggesting that there may well be a connection between the stuff you refer to as "feel-good" and the fact that we haven't had another hijacking.
Why?
Tests of the system have made it quite abundantly clear that determined evildoers could slip weapons and/or explosives past airport security by assorted methods. They have gotten dummy bombs through, and dummy weapons, to prove this.
Isn't it more reasonable to suspect that the greatest reason "they" haven't attempted another hijacking is because everyone in the U.S. knows to never again trust a hijacker to simply redirect the plane to a safe landing in an unplanned location? What hijacking would ever succeed now that the bluff has been exposed, and we are all going to treat a hijacker as a dire threat of death and deal with him accordingly, even if that exposes
some on board the plane to risk of injury while subduing the would-be hijacker(s)? When there are 1-5 hijackers aboard a plane with 50-500 people on it, I'd say that "piling on" may be a good, practical, and in the end effective response.
The only problem that I have with the subway searches is the PC crap of not "profiling". Profiling is a legitimate method of finding potential terrorists (or suspects, or whatever - if you are looking for a white male in his mid 20s, you should not waste time with persons who obviously don't come close to that description. But that is another matter.
Why not say what we're all thinking? "If you are looking for a suspicious-looking
middle-eastern man in his mid 20s, you should not waste time with..."? Why is it okay to substutite the sensitive ethnic group in question with "white males" all the time? Are you really that ridiculously PC?!
I'm offended every time a person is so "sensitive" to the sensibilities of EVERY OTHER ethnic or gender group that they substitute the hardy, nothing-bothers-him "white male" for their example. But I'm a white male, the only species on earth that it's fair to offend.
I think the original post had to do with 4th Amendment issues. I recommend you read the 4th Amendment (and the rest of them for that matter) before getting too worked up. A "Terry" stop has been legal for years!
I thought that "Terry stops" had to articulate some reason why the officer felt that a crime was in progress and that a weapon that could be used against the officer was in the subject's possession. Here you are arguing Terry stops... why? What relevance do they have to stopping ANYONE and/or EVERYONE, with NO reason to suspect anything?
The "violation" is largely one of "convenience".
If they required you to register and get a license before you could post your views here, that also would be a "violation" that is largely one of "convenience." Hey, eventually once the paperwork came through you'd be able to post. Sorry for the inconvenience during those 3-6 months when you could not post. But you eventually secured the use of your rights, so what's your beef?
Our world has changed and it is highly unlikely that it will return to what we knew 4 years ago. Basic values and constitutional rights should not change, but surely you can tolerate an "inconvenience" in some areas.
Yeah, fine, but the problem is, basic values and constitutional rights ARE being changed -- NOT for the better -- and this is not just far more than an "inconvenience," it's also bound to not accomplish a goddamned thing.
-blackmind
) and if they attempt to seach someone and they decline and leave, this totally worthless.