From: Matthew Russotto on
In article <LPKdnbHEJrofwlbWnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d(a)nethere.com>,
Daniel W. Rouse Jr. <dwrousejr(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>The problem of losing track of secondary search passenger candidates can be
>solved. Here's one way to do it:
>
>1. Persons waiting for secondary search are not just simply asked to wait in
>a separate line, but are actually personally escorted to a separate waiting
>room by a TSA official. Such a room could contain TV, magazines, water
>faucets and restroom facilities so as not to resemble any sort of holding
>cell, but should still have the entry/exit door locked from exit (except for
>an alarmed emergency exit door handle) that is also guarded by an armed TSA
>official.

A nicely appointed cell is still a cell.

>2. Anyone who verbally protests that they are not willing to go to the
>secondary waiting room is immediately arrested for disorderly conduct and
>held for the police to take them into custody.

Ah, so much for the first amendment.

>3. Anyone who attempts to evade the TSA, hopefully the TSA would treat the
>suspect as armed and dangerous and act according to their authorized
>procedures.

"Shot while attempting to escape", no doubt.

>Police state mentality or not, the safety of all the soon-to-be passengers
>on the plane must always trump the actual or perceived rights of the
>individual.

There's no "or not"; that's the police state mentality right there.
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.
From: Brent on
On 2010-04-18, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. <dwrousejr(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:

> The problem of losing track of secondary search passenger candidates can be
> solved. Here's one way to do it:

Of course it can be solved. I don't think government wishes to solve it
just like the TSA doesn't offer any real security. It has as much to do
with safety as 55mph speed limit interstate and speeding tickets,
nothing.

> 2. Anyone who verbally protests that they are not willing to go to the
> secondary waiting room is immediately arrested for disorderly conduct and
> held for the police to take them into custody.

That's a typical government answer to a problem. More force. More
penalties. more violence.

> Police state mentality or not, the safety of all the soon-to-be passengers
> on the plane must always trump the actual or perceived rights of the
> individual.

The collective, which the government claims to represent but really
represents itself, is not more important than the individual. By clamping
down on the individual you enslave the collective. Then there is the fact
that the TSA is just an illusion of security anyway.

> One badly behaved passenger can screw things up for all the
> passengers and flight crew in the plane, even if no damage or catastrophic
> event actually happens to the plane. Don't want to follow TSA policy? The
> choice is that simple: don't fly.

How about a free market where the airlines each had to secure their
aircraft? Instead of the post office version of security we'd have
choices ranging from UPS to Fed Ex. Nahh.. but that spoils the real
reason for the TSA. To make us believe we are just units of a collective.
Nothing but animals to be managed.


From: gpsman on
On Apr 8, In article <gcorr5p9e3rk1ppfqr2cr4e0q5fogn2...(a)4ax.com>,
Scott in SoCal  wrote:
>
> >Right now 3 terminals at LAX are shut down and hudreds of passengers
> >are standing outside because of a security breach. This was because
> >some MFFY ditched the secondary screening; the TSA selected him for a
> >wanding, but instead he grabbed his bags and ran.

TSA reviews another security breach at LAX

By ROBERT JABLON (AP) – Apr 8, 2010

LOS ANGELES — A man who walked onto an airplane with a bag flagged for
further inspection touched off a security breach Thursday that delayed
15 flights and left hundreds of passengers waiting at Los Angeles
International Airport, authorities said.

The screening shutdown occurred when a man's bag was X-rayed and
flagged for a physical check at Terminal 7, but the man picked up his
bag and left without realizing it needed additional screening, Trevino
said.

No dangerous or threatening items were found and the man was allowed
to reboard his plane, Trevino said.

"He was not doing this maliciously," she said. "He was not trying to
evade screening at all."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ijb-jiCfD7_n6BP1Eox0OkKtcOHAD9EV46G00

You can't trust an idiot obsessed with MFFY to not deliberately
misconstrue an event as MFFY, for reasons a rational application of
Occam's Razor should make obvious.
-----

- gpsman
From: Brent on
On 2010-04-19, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent
><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> said:
>
>>Again with the crappy analogies.
>
> Where "crappy" is defined as "proves Brent and Matthew wrong."

*sigh* crappy as in no where even close. Notice scoupie deletes the
rest where I point out why it's crappy.

The closest driving analogy is leaving or avoiding a police checkpoint.


From: Brent on
On 2010-04-20, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent
><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> said:
>
>>On 2010-04-19, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent
>>><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> said:
>>>
>>>>Again with the crappy analogies.
>>>
>>> Where "crappy" is defined as "proves Brent and Matthew wrong."
>>
>>*sigh* crappy as in no where even close. Notice scoupie deletes the
>>rest where I point out why it's crappy.
>
> Actually, I delete the stuff that tries to suck me into The Blennie
> Vortex. Homie don' play dat game no mo.

If you're lucky you'll give up on silly illusions before some cop is
driving what was your corvette.