Paul's Call To Abolish the TSA, One Year Later 353
A year ago today, we noted that Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky called for the abolition of the Transportation Security Administration. It's now nearly 12 years since the hijacked-plane terror attacks of 2001; the TSA was created barely two months later, and has been (with various rules, procedures, and equipment, all of it controversial for reasons of privacy, safety, and efficacy) a major presence ever since at American commercial airports. "The American people shouldn't be subjected to harassment, groping, and other public humiliation simply to board an airplane," wrote Paul last year, and in June of 2012, he followed up by introducing two bills on the topic; the first calling for a "bill of rights" for air travelers, the other for privatizing airport screening practices. Neither bill went far. Should they have? Libertarian-leaning Paul did not succeed in knocking back the TSA, never mind privatizing its functions (currently funded at nearly $8 billion annually), though some of the things called for in his bill of rights are manifest now at least in muted form. (Very young passengers, as well as elderly passengers, face less stringent security requirements, for instance, and TSA has ended its prohibition of certain items aboard planes.) Whether you're from the U.S. or not, what practical changes would you like to see implemented? What shouldn't be on the bill of rights for airplane passengers?
Bad for us = Good for gov't (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time some disaster hits the US, we're going to see a big growth in the size and reach of government. In fact, I believe there are many politicians who salivate at the thought of catastrophe so they can go cry about the children on camera and create a new 3-letter tumor on our already unconstitutional government.
Nothing in Government ever gets Abolished (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, come on, this is a government that still administers polygraph examinations for its employees, eight decades after the guy [wikipedia.org] who sold it to the government admitted he made the device up to support his other lifelong work, the Wonder Woman [wikipedia.org] comic book.
The TSA isn't going anywhere folks. Look all the fighting it took to force sequestration, and then take a step back and view it from a different perspective [youtube.com].
Why do we even need screening anymore? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do we even need screening anymore? No one will ever be allowed into the cockpit again, even if they start murdering passengers. Bomb sniffers are still useful, but at this point, an attack on a football stadium during a game would be far more detrimental, both in terms of casualties and psychologically.
Re:Nothing in Government ever gets Abolished (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention the TSA now has mandate over much more then airport security. Wan't to work on a boat? Not as a U.S. Citizen, and not without much TSA paperwork. While I'm not going to say that the TSA grabbed this position, it was lumped onto them most likely by the Coast Guard who still has some involvement administering safety certifications.
The bureaucracy this country has put into so many fields is ridiculous and the TSA is simple another part of it. Someone commented below that Rand wanted to privatize the TSA and not abolish it. This would be fine, if they didn't end up in the same monopolistic situations that telecoms, radio, music, movie (face it many fronts, few faces) and defense has.
Re:His own strawman (Score:5, Insightful)
Your ideas are the worst thing to happen to civil discourse.
I do not have to agree with everything someone believes in order to agree with them on some things. So we should find the things we agree on and work to enact those changes.
I do not like the TSA, so when Paul says "let's shut that mother down," I say, "good idea, Rand-o! Lets do this shit!" And when Paul says, "drone strikes?! Blowin up Americans and shit? That ain't right!" I say, "I'd go further than not just blowing up Americans, and we should talk about not blowing up anybody, but it's a start. I'm with you on that!" But when he says "boooo gays!" or "abortions?! For legals? In hospitals and shit? Pssssh! Coat hangers and alleys for you!" I'd say, "naw, gotta disagree with you there buddy."
It doesn't have to be all or nothing. On different topics, you can fully agree, partially agree, or disagree with no contradiction and maybe actually get some stuff you agree on accomplished! Or you can wait until only representatives you agree with on every last issue get elected. Which won't happen. So in the meantime I'm still getting groped every flight.
Re:No call made to abolish (Score:5, Insightful)
iirc he made a call to abolish the tsa and privatize airport security...like how it was before the tsa.
consider this though: if it were privatized, and their employees did something that violated your rights, you would have some realistic hope of legal recourse.
nonsense question (Score:5, Insightful)
What shouldn't be on the bill of rights for airplane passengers?
- nonsense question.
There shouldn't even be such a legal document as 'bill of rights', because it is completely misunderstood probably by all to mean that those are your rights and nothing else. Not true, the government has no authority to limit any of your rights, by default you have all of your rights intact.
Government can strip you of your rights temporarily or permanently depending on whether the Constitution authorises that power to government for certain situations (like taxing your transactions, it's loss of a right, but at least it's Constitutional).
Saying that there should be an "airplane passenger bill of rights" is like saying that there should be a "bill of rights for blacks" or "bill of rights for gays" or "bill of rights for women" or "bill of rights for employees", none of it makes any sense, you have all of your rights regardless of your group and association, you shouldn't lose your rights for reasons that are outside of the power authorised to the government by the Constitution, yet here we are.
Re:No call made to abolish (Score:4, Insightful)
. Privatizing it would just remove all accountability
No. Assuming the privatization meant that the airlines would once again be responsible for their own security, the airlines would either compete on maximum invasiveness (anal cavity searches for all), maximum privacy (likely pre-2001 screening to meet their insurance carriers' requirements), maximum security (say, pressure-testing luggage and allowing small arms aboard), or some hybrid that people liked. The airlines would be directly accountable to their passengers and those passengers would provide their feedback by way of ticket purchases and relative pricing. The exception might be remote areas where one carrier has a monopoly at a local airport and there is no actual choice in commercial aviation.
Re:His own strawman (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not have to agree with everything someone believes in order to agree with them on some things.
Well stated. If only we could somehow move there as a nation we'd be a lot better off. Unfortunately we're stuck with the Bushism "If you're not with us, you're against us."
Re:Rand Paul just flipflopped on use of drones in (Score:4, Insightful)
Ironically how would armed drones have been sane to use in a busy metropolitan city to catch TWO people on foot. Maybe if they had hijacked a passenger less bus or vehicle and were on a stretch of the interstate by themselves, but then your still blowing up civil infrastructure for something a good o'le fashioned barricade would have made much more sense for.
Drones are a military technology for war fighting with limited use in the civil arena. The problems were having as a nation is conflating terrorism with military action.
Re:Bad for us = Good for gov't (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a saying in Washington "Never let a good disaster go to waste".
If people haven't already spoken out in outrage "Never let this happen again!" it's easy enought to get polling data to justify a new power grab.
Before 2001 nobody ever hear the US Govt use terms like "homeland". Now it's in everyday use. Homeland Security. I've always thought it sounded facist.
Re:No call made to abolish (Score:5, Insightful)
How would returning airport security to private hands remove accountability? It would do just the opposite.
Notice how mall cops don't hassle anybody? Except maybe kids skateboarding in the parking lot? And why? Because if a mall cop stops you for no good reason and demands to search your bags or something, you call the management. The manager comes out, reprimands the mall cop for harassing the customers, apologizes profusely to you, Sir, and gives you a gift certificate to the food court.
When a government cop hassles you and you demand to speak to his superior, expect to get tased, beaten and charged with assaulting an officer.
I would much rather have private security personnel working for the airports and airlines than government officials. The rent-a-cops at least have an economic incentive to not treat you like shit. The government cops have no incentive to give a fuck, and so they don't.
Re:why not ban capitalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
In a world where people aren't encouraged from a young age to compete, but instead to cooperate, you'll have neither the warmongers who encourage relaliatory action, nor the sort of petty dictators who staff the TSA.
Wow, that just substitutes the past 9000 years of history for pop psychology that wouldn't survive a 101-level course. Since I can't say it better:
Re:why not ban capitalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats a beautiful sentiment, but is it really true? =)
Re:The anti-TouriSm Agency (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of the stuff discouraging tourism isn't from the TSA, but from other agencies under the Department of Homeland Security. For example, Customs and Border Patrol are the ones who run the ridiculous entry process, where non-U.S.-nationals typically have to wait in a line for 1-2 hours before they can be interrogated about their visit and eventually make it out of the airport. And the Office of Biometric Identity Management (formerly US-VISIT), another agency, requires all non-nationals to be biometrically recorded upon entry. And that's only for people in the visa-waiver program: if you're not from a visa-waiver country, there's a whole other set of hassles and delays [state.gov] to get a tourist visa. This process operates poorly enough that a number of academic conferences have started avoiding the U.S., because the delay is so long that speakers from countries like China and Egypt can't get a visa in time to attend and present their paper.
Re:don't privatize the police (Score:4, Insightful)
Also the wealthiest. Coincidence?
Re:why not ban capitalism? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not even close.
Success in capitalism is directly correlated with a distinct lack of morals, self-centeredness, sociopathic behavior, and of course inherited dynastic wealth. None of those serve anybody. Yes, there are edge case examples of successful people who don't exhibit these traits, but for the most part successful capitalists do exhibit them, and the most successful ones manage to hide that fact from a lot of people.
Now, if you want to tell me you can get relatively wealthy running your own business, employing people, and selling stuff that people want to buy to people who want to buy it, more power to you. That's free enterprise, but it's not modern capitalism. In the modern capitalism version of that story, you start a business, employ a bunch of people, then sell the business quickly to get a bunch of cash while the purchaser either moves the business to China and/or tries to eliminate as many of the employees as possible in order ot pay off the leveraged debt that was used to buy the business in the first place. That's the "captial" part.
Modern capitalism also makes looting, pillaging, and economic slavery legal. It even turns a blind eye to actual slavery, as long as the customers don't find out about it and as long as it takes place in some country with people of a different skin color and all. Actual looting and plundering? You outsource that to purchased government leaders. Financial looting and plundering? That's still a bit of a DIY operation, primarily handled by Wall Street investment banking firms.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:why not ban capitalism? (Score:2, Insightful)
LOL. Seriously. If your believe that you are quite mad or seriously gullible.
Bush caused two wars and conquered, the Halliburton Corporation, owned by him and Chaney, made 50 billion with this wars.
The Banks are serving no one except themselves and when they royally fucked up, society was needed to save them.
No one can nowadays become really wealthy by "serving your fellow man". Do nurses get rich? Or police officers? Or the sanitation worker? No. never. The only getting rich (I mean rich) are either already rich, criminals or both. Or win the lottery. Ordinary people starting their business and getting rich are a rare exception not the rule. And they don't serve. They just make money. Many people have two or more jobs. Not to get rich, but to survive.
Capitalism ensures that a few have as much as possible to rule above the rest and keep them dependent. Slaves with wages. Nothing else
BTW : WHY should one amass great wealth? Why should one have more than his fellow man?
Re:why not ban capitalism? (Score:3, Insightful)
Since someone else already responded to the second sentence, decisively, I'll do the first sentence:
In a world where people aren't encouraged from a young age to compete, but instead to cooperate, you'll have neither the warmongers who encourage relaliatory action, nor the sort of petty dictators who staff the TSA.
I'm not a libertarian, nor GOP, nor male. I can tell you this, though: It is contrary to human nature not to be competitive. Some competition, starting from a young age, is good! It increases self-esteem, pride in family, school and country. Yes, cooperation is necessary too, e.g. a group of people aligned to achieve a common goal, which (usually) can be accomplished only through competition with those whose goals are different. Regarding "warmongers who encourage relaliatory [retaliatory?] action": Retaliatory action doesn't mean you are a warmonger. There are many ways to retaliate such as tariffs, embargoes, intermarriage. The latter is even a form of cooperation!
The TSA is a pathological bureaucracy. We had security and screening prior to boarding flights at airports for 20 (30?) years before 9/11. Those people didn't behave like the TSA. They searched and screened, but not in the TSA's rude, distasteful manner. They weren't privatized, and they didn't cost $8 billion per year to fund.
Re:His own strawman (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care about 'libertarianism.' I care about getting the TSA abolished. So when Rand says "let's abolish the TSA," he gets my support on that issue, and I will gladly write my representatives to tell them I'd like them to work with Paul on this topic.
That does not explicitly or implicitly express support or opposition to any of his other positions. As far as "voting for the package," it's too late for that. He's already been elected. After they've been elected, we absolutely do vote on issues separately (except in the all-too-frequent cases where irrelevant riders are attached to important bills).
Politicians are trainable, and react to incentives just like anybody else. When a politician says something you like, cheer. When he says something you don't like, boo. Do this often enough and they'll learn to do the things that earn them treats instead of swats with a rolled-up newspaper. But if you just keep smacking him no matter what he does (or still cheering him on even when he wets on the carpet), he'll never learn.
Coincidentally, Paul needs some corrective action right now. A few months back he did a really good job with that filibuster about drone strikes on US soil. Good boy, Rand, good boy! But, a week or two ago, he came out and said he'd have no problem with a drone killing the Boston bombers, or a 'robber running out of a store with a sack of money and a gun.' Boo, Rand, boo! No, that's bad Rand! In this house we respect due process, and the right to a fair trial by a jury of your peers before you get a missile shot at your face. But, if you can see what you did wrong there and learn from your mistake, we might scratch you behind your ears again.
prison in my own country (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: why not ban capitalism? (Score:2, Insightful)
The wealthy donate to museums and cultural causes that have acquired the same tax exempt status as humanitarian aid causes. They're also the only ones benefiting from their own causes. They also donate less as a percentage of income than the poor. [msn.com] That on top of being able to exploit capital gains tax rates to pay a lower percentage of income on taxes than the middle and working classes.
Millions is peanuts. As middle class wage earners, you'll "contribute" that in mandatory taxes, some of which may actually be used for something you care about (school, roads, social safety nets, wars, ...) A single hospital is billions of dollars. Countries cost trillions to run.
Capitalism is working and generating wealth in society, but it's not something that works faithfully or evenly. It's very easy to have the winners in the "free market" capture your government too, and then where are you [brainyquote.com]?
Re:why not ban capitalism? (Score:3, Insightful)
People like you forget that the same man who wrote _The Wealth of Nations_ also wrote _The Theory of Moral Sentiments_.
Re: why not ban capitalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually I was questioning the quote and not dictating a particular political policy or cultural methodology or social dogma. I rather like the idea of Star Trek, but we can't try that out until we can beam people we dislike to far away places and give them whatever tools they need to create their planet of tropes.
I think in many cases capitalism has been benificial, but by a means in itself I question it. Because on one hand you have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Hughes [wikipedia.org] . And then you have Bell... *cough* vs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Meucci [wikipedia.org]
Innovation isn't even consistently rewarded by capitalism. No matter how much stock you may want to put into a free market. There are lots of historical events that can point this out.
Why is it we are still so reliant on oil. When there are a myriad different ways to produce energy now? Because we have an oil industry. And its that simple.
Re:why not ban capitalism? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bad for us = Good for gov't (Score:5, Insightful)
There's little that is as dangerous as "effective government". The more gridlock, the better, I always say.
Passengers know no one can save them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bad for us = Good for gov't (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually this was a very common term used by the Obama administration... Rahm Emanuel was the king of this.
When did the democratic party go from "power to the people" to "power to the establishment"? Seriously, they make the republicans looks like the best choice anymore.
Before you go sweeping this all onto the Democrats, why don't you count up how many times the Bush administration capitalized on various disasters. For that matter, you should read Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" for a bigger perspective.
Republicans the best choice? Those ARE the folks who gave us the TSA, in case your memory is conveniently lost.
Re:No call made to abolish (Score:5, Insightful)
The airlines would be directly accountable to their passengers and those passengers would provide their feedback by way of ticket purchases and relative pricing.
Not to mention that pissing off a TSA agent is bound to send you to jail or get you on a no-fly list. However, if I pissed of a private security guard, the best they could do is maybe bar me from that particular airport.
Re:why not ban capitalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, and before the creation and repeatedly increased power of the Corporation to shield people from the consequences of their actions, when businesses were primarily local affairs, and communities were close-knit enough to be a strong motivator to most people, that theory held reasonably well. In the modern world though we've drifted into a situation where psychopathic behaviour is encouraged and rewarded within large corporations, especially within the financial sector. Andthe massive increase in population and ease of transportation has degraded community to the point where it tends to be restricted to your co-workers and chosen social network rather than being heavily determined by geography. The result being that you get groups of people who are encouraged to ever more psycopathic behaviour and are surrounded primarily by others who are likewise encouraged, resulting in something of a social echo-chamber effect that tends to spiral out of control.
This perception is backed by many psychology experiments that show, among other things, that ethics tend to be heavily dependent on peer pressure - if an aparent member of your social group blatantly cheats and gets away with it, you become far more likely to do the same.
Re:Bad for us = Good for gov't (Score:4, Insightful)
"Republicans the best choice? Those ARE the folks who gave us the TSA, in case your memory is conveniently lost."
... which was expanded and made worse by the Democrats.
Let's talk reality here. NEITHER of the "Big 2" parties have been our friends over the last few decades. And there ARE alternatives. If you don't like it, vote for something else. Like the Constitution, for a change.
Re:Rand Paul just flipflopped on use of drones in (Score:3, Insightful)
Ironically how would armed drones have been sane to use in a busy metropolitan city to catch TWO people on foot. Maybe if they had hijacked a passenger less bus or vehicle and were on a stretch of the interstate by themselves, but then your still blowing up civil infrastructure for something a good o'le fashioned barricade would have made much more sense for.
Drones are a military technology for war fighting with limited use in the civil arena. The problems were having as a nation is conflating terrorism with military action.
Boston proved the when the chips are down, americans are a bunch of pussies.
Imagine what would happen if you didn't have a second amendment and a population who love their guns
"Please declare marshal law and put heavilly armed soldiers and tanks on the streets, I'm scared of a couple of guys on the run, please come into my house, don't mind the 4th amendment"
Oh wait.
Re:How about... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Just remember that this is the actual defense is that people use if you are talking about stopping it."
Who gives a damn? Because you know they're completely full of sh*t. So why in hell should you care what their argument is?
TSA hasn't made America safer. If anything, it's done the opposite by weakening our Constitutional rights... and getting people used to it. TSA all by itself is extremely dangerous to America.
Re:Bad for us = Good for gov't (Score:4, Insightful)
Homeland Security. I've always thought it sounded facist.
Yes of course it is. Sep 11th 2001 was the day america died. The fear that outsiders could actually harm you, something which hadn't happened for 60 years, got you all shitting your pants.
Your vaunted bill of rights was torn up, and you didn't bother using the 2nd amendment to ensure the rest of them remained. All it takes is the word "terror" and you have marshal law, the 4th amendment is thrown out.
Re:Bad for us = Good for gov't (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: why not ban capitalism? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No call made to abolish (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why do we even need screening anymore? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not the military at all, in fact the Government is downsizing the military and increasing the scope, power, and budgets for people not the Military. The 5 branches of Service are trained to protect the USA from all enemies both foreign and domestic . Obviously this means that if DHS started shooting people, the US Military forces should fight against them.
In addition to boosting agencies not subject to posse comitatus, more and more domestic work is being funneled to private mercenary companies like "Craft" aka Blackwater. This should cause great amounts of concern to all Citizens. In fact, a rather disturbing fact is that Craft was all over Boston during the Marathon while allegedly two lone wolves planted and detonated bombs.