|
Grex > Agora41 > #113: Security nazis at Detroit airport | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 167 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 125 of 167:
| 
May 27 16:12 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 126 of 167:
|
May 27 16:59 UTC 2002 |
I disagree. I think there is all kinds of room for interpretation in:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
I don't think that government mandated searches of airline travelers is
a violation of this amendment. The Supreme Court agrees with me.
|
jp2
|
|
response 127 of 167:
|
May 27 17:16 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 128 of 167:
|
May 27 18:20 UTC 2002 |
If you dont know the difference between "random" and "without reason"
then there is no hope for you.
|
jp2
|
|
response 129 of 167:
|
May 28 00:26 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
russ
|
|
response 130 of 167:
|
May 28 01:39 UTC 2002 |
Re #123: I hadn't even responded in this item. Is other hearing
voices again?
|
oval
|
|
response 131 of 167:
|
May 28 05:57 UTC 2002 |
th reason behind random searching is racial profiling.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 132 of 167:
|
May 28 07:02 UTC 2002 |
Which when done to blacks seems to have been found to be illegal.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 133 of 167:
|
May 28 07:03 UTC 2002 |
(Mind you, I'm in favor of 'profiling'.)
|
oval
|
|
response 134 of 167:
|
May 28 07:21 UTC 2002 |
i've noticed.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 135 of 167:
|
May 28 07:32 UTC 2002 |
Good for you, you 'profiled'.
|
oval
|
|
response 136 of 167:
|
May 28 07:37 UTC 2002 |
<ducks>
|
flem
|
|
response 137 of 167:
|
May 28 16:48 UTC 2002 |
Having been "randomly" searched on four of my five flights this weekend, I
have reason to doubt the randomness of these searches. I don't know which
side that's an argument on, though.
|
gull
|
|
response 138 of 167:
|
May 28 17:23 UTC 2002 |
Did you pay cash for your ticket? Not using a credit card, like a patriotic
American consumer, makes you a target for suspicion.
|
flem
|
|
response 139 of 167:
|
May 28 19:42 UTC 2002 |
Nope. I feel pretty confident that their "random" procedure amounts to:
"Hmm, who in this line looks scary? Yeah, the black guy, and the big guy with
long hair and a beard, and... let's see, need someone else... well that old
lady is about halfway between the other two."
|
oval
|
|
response 140 of 167:
|
May 28 20:35 UTC 2002 |
right. a certain prick i know who doesn;t exactly have legal status here is
travelling. i wonder if he'll be able to get back in the country ..
how's the security coming back in?
|
scg
|
|
response 141 of 167:
|
May 28 23:29 UTC 2002 |
Last time I came back into the US was in late Februrary. I walked across the
border from Tijuana. Walking into Mexico had been easy -- I walked through
a big turnstyle in a fence, with lots of armed guards on the American side
to make sure nobody came through going the wrong way, crossed a line painted
on the ground, and was in Mexico. There wasn't even anybody on the Mexican
side to question me. Walking back into the US was another story. I waited
in line for an hour and a half and then went through airport style security
to get into the building where the INS people were. During the 10 minutes
or so I was actually in sight of the border checkpoint, I saw three people
approach the counter, talk to the agents, and get led away in handcuffs. When
it was my turn, I showed my US passport, said I wasn't importing anything,
and was let right through.
The border with Mexico is probably the US's most secure border. I think the
last time I'd seen anything like it was in East Berlin in 1986, and that kind
of border security preventing people from going where they wanted to go was
what I understood to be the really evil thing about communist dictatorships.
I haven't tried entering the US by air or from Canada recently, but from what
I hear that's still considerably easier.
|
mdw
|
|
response 142 of 167:
|
May 29 01:19 UTC 2002 |
Well, I'll get to find out if their paradigm includes long hair soon
enough; I've got several air flights planned in the near future.
|
scg
|
|
response 143 of 167:
|
May 29 04:19 UTC 2002 |
I've never been selected to the random search, other than one case of figuring
they might as well check my shoes for explosives since they were already
checking the computer. I tend to kepe my long hair tied back somewhat neatly,
though.
|
brighn
|
|
response 144 of 167:
|
May 29 15:36 UTC 2002 |
Security at Metro, going to Frankfort: Nothing unusual or surprising. On the
advice of a coworker, I wore tennis shoes, and didn't have to remove them.
Everything seemed very standard, and wasn't anything that I wouldn't have
expected a year ago, same time. Everything got put through the Xray except
the clothing I was wearing, I walked through a metal detector, then was
scanned by a handheld detector (arms out to your sides, please), and that was
it.
|
janc
|
|
response 145 of 167:
|
May 29 17:43 UTC 2002 |
I'd be surprised if Marcus doesn't trigger their "search" criteria.
His chosen look isn't that different from Ted Kazinski's.
Apparantly, a pair of frazzled parents with an infant, a three-year
old, and an array of diaper bags and baby strollers do not trigger the
suspicious character criteria.
|
janc
|
|
response 146 of 167:
|
May 29 17:46 UTC 2002 |
By the way, I noticed that all the security check points had guys
conspicuously dressed in camoflague fatigues loitering around looking
incrediably bored. Who are these guys? Are they expected to wake up
and start shooting if something happens, or do they just impart a
spurious aura of security?
|
drew
|
|
response 147 of 167:
|
May 29 20:31 UTC 2002 |
I might decide to find random searches tolerable on this condition: Live
up to the word _random_. ROLL DICE!
|
scg
|
|
response 148 of 167:
|
May 29 22:20 UTC 2002 |
Those guys are the National Guard. I forget whether they were supposed to
supervise the security screeners, or go after people who run through the
checkpoints without stopping. Mostly, they're probably about as effective
as the National Guard people sitting in their Hummers on the Golden Gate and
Bay Bridges, although the Chronicle or one of the local TV stations (I forget
which) had a story recently about the National Guard people on the Golden Gate
Bridge having talked a lot of people out of committing suicide in the last
six months. Supposedly, the National Guard people at the airports have been
replaced by local police recently, but I haven't been to an airport in a few
months.
|
mdw
|
|
response 149 of 167:
|
May 29 22:52 UTC 2002 |
Pre-9/11, the only airport security guard who seemed at all freaked out
about me was some lady in Ithaca, who was convinced my water bottle was
actually full of booze. Me, I was just trying to beat the
dehydrate/headache thing.
|