I can't remember whose idea it was, but: Airport security should be an armed service. Not just snappy uniforms, but the whole enchilada... Physical fitness, ranks (through achievement) by visible badges, flexible assignments, and employment adjudication through martial justice rather than union grievances.

Why should you expect anything less from people so vital (we are told) for protecting your ass?

Good grief, Crid, are you trying to give us all nightmares? As badly as they've been performing their tasks do you really want to give them fire power to perhaps shoot that nun next time instead of just searching her for being so damned suspicious?

I'm damned glad I won't be flying any time soon. With luck, for the rest of my life. I'm 51 in a few months and have taken only one flight. It's enough, especially with this nonsense going on in our airports. I don't envy those of you whose life styles enable you to travel more often and who enjoy traveling and/or do so for business. It's gotta suck these days getting to your seat on the plane.

But I have to concur. There's nothing to say they won't strike the street bus I'm on. Well, except if they were to go that route, the subway in NYC would make more sense. Of course, these are crazy people and they don't necessarily make sense. But terroists or no, there's a chance I could be taken out by a nutcase on the bus. I ride regularly the toughest route in the city and have been threatened on it.

But you can't live in fear of the what-ifs. I'm a worry wart by nature and worry all the time about shit that could go wrong but in the end you really do just have to take it one day at a time. We could get hit again -- or not. All you know is you have life at the moment. Enjoy it. And don't let anyone keep you from it.

I, frankly, think Osama's laughing his head off at how rapidly our freedoms were curtailed following 9/11. He got -- at least partially -- what he wanted. Our political leaders gave it to him on a silver platter.

A couple of months ago, I was flying out of Dulles in DC (from which the plane that crashed into the Pentagon departed). I watched as a young man in his 20's casually swigged from a Snapple bottle as we both approached "security". When we got up to the x-ray machine, he took off his sneakers, set the half-full bottle inside one of his shoes, and sent it through the machine. On the other side, he removed the bottle and began drinking from it again. I wasn't terribly worried, because obviously it was not a high-explosive if he was drinking it, but c'mon! If the TSA doesn't catch a half-full bottle of Snapple, I certainly don't trust them to catch an actual threat.

I, frankly, think Osama's laughing his head off at how rapidly our freedoms were curtailed following 9/11. He got -- at least partially -- what he wanted. Our political leaders gave it to him on a silver platter.

You know, I've been hearing this pretty much since the week after 9/11, and nobody has yet showed me one freedom that they had that was curtailed. Unless the ability to fly anonymously and unharrassed is to be considered a freedom.

And Bin Laden is dead. He's not laughing about anything.

Those of you who might be hysterical about weapons - the term might be "hoplophobia" - might wonder why it is that the French police don't machine-gun people at CDG, or at the train station at Montparnasse.

I suggest it's because they know how to fill a uniform. That's more important than what color it is, and unfortunately TSA will not camouflage an idiot by changing his shirt.

Those of you who have traveled more recently: do you think Americans personally hold police and military in contempt - and whatever the distinction, is this different from Europeans?

brian, if you can't see encroachments on the Constitution, you're just like the frog in the slowly heating water. I won't be able to convince you you're actually being cooked.

You should have seen notices all over popular media about people who are flatly forbidden to fly because they are on a list they cannot challenge. Do you see any problem with that? You should. Clearly, you are ignoring this because it hasn't happened to you personally. That's just plain selfish. I further suggest you don't know about the Lemuel Penn case.

Whether you want to travel, buy a gun, get a pilot's license or build something at home, the loss of liberty doesn't NOT happen merely because you're not doing that right now.

In fact, restrictions on all sorts of things DO affect you right now, through the actions of others. You're not immune simply because you have blinders on.

Harry Callahan said it best - "It's a helluva price to pay for being stylish." o_O

The last theing we need is to give those fuckmuppets official looking uniforms. They're on some kind of unholy powertrip to begin with. TSA is a fucking joke. I have more faith in my fellow passengers to help me survive a terrorist attack than those yahoos.

Well said, Radwaste.

brian, you remember the scene from The Jerk with Steve Martin in front of the defective oil cans? That's you right now. And that's fine, but don't expect the rest of us not to notice the guy shooting.

>>You know, I've been hearing this pretty much since the week after 9/11, and nobody has yet showed me one freedom that they had that was curtailed. Unless the ability to fly anonymously and unharrassed is to be considered a freedom.

The freedom to efficiently attract and bring in the best and brightest foreign students to study science/engineering in the USA, brian.

FYI, here's a really boring govt statistics paragraph (below). I won't blame you if your eyes glaze over.

The effect of the such stupefying paragraphs can be seen in senior American scientists/administrators swamped by trying - sometimes in vain - to intervene - often on a case-by-case- basis to clear up individual snafus for (blameless) brilliant graduate students.

{BORING PARAGRAPH}
Data compiled by Education Sector
estimates that the annual number of academic study (F-1)
visas issued to current and prospective international students
by the US State Department, a key barometer of international
student activity, remains about 20,000 below those issued
prior to 2001 (Jaschik, 2007; Yeager and Kargo, 2007). By
contrast, in the five years before 2001, the number of visas
issued for academic study increased an average of 11%
annually (US Department of Homeland Security, 2006).

So, wait a minute. Congress pulls this legislation (PATRIOT) out of nowhere on 9/13/01 and passes it, and that's BUSH'S fault? Congress DEMANDS that a cabinet-level position be created for airline security, DEMANDS that the responsibility for security be taken from the airlines and given to unionized federal employees, demonizes the Bush administration for not going along with it, and the TSA is BUSH'S fault?

Why is there so much inertia against placing blame where it belongs? Listening to you bitch about it, one could be forgiven for believing we lived in a dictatorship.

I don't have blinders on. I just don't see where having one mode of transit that was already a complete basket case be even more fucked up is really all that severe a limitation on liberty. Does having trouble getting on a plane keep you from driving? Should I be blaming Bush for the rash of DWBs that seem to happen in expensive white neighborhoods?

Jody - I'm a little confused by your position here. Are you saying that in the middle of "the worst economy evah!" that we should be importing grad students and workers instead of sending all the legions of (supposedly) unemployed Americans to university?

You might consider also that the visa quotas are set by Congress. Oh, and also remember the ration of shit that was heaped upon Bush for not preventing Saudi students from coming to the US to study.

God, you people are SO inconsistent.

And Shawn, for all the backpatting you're engaging in, you might notice that Rad STILL didn't give me an example of how Bush shredded the Constitution. Or intruded upon a civil liberty. There is no right, express or implied, to utilize a given mode of transit.

And I'm afraid I have no clue what you're talking about, I never saw the movie "The Jerk". So you'll have to use a less obtuse insult if you wish to attack me further.

er, Brian... Last I checked, Congress was part of the government.

The paragraph you replied to was: I, frankly, think Osama's laughing his head off at how rapidly our freedoms were curtailed following 9/11. He got -- at least partially -- what he wanted. Our political leaders gave it to him on a silver platter.

I don't see Bush mentioned specifically anywhere. I don't see "Republicans" mentioned anywhere. I don't see a level of government mentioned anywhere.

Why the missing-the-point hissy fit?

>>Jody - I'm a little confused by your position here. Are you saying that in the middle of "the worst economy evah!" that we should be importing grad students and workers instead of sending all the legions of (supposedly) unemployed Americans to university?

Totally, brian.

These are not positions that simply need to be filled by warm bodies.

These are (in the grad science world) stepping stone positions for the very best, working in the finest institutions here, historically attracting the highest calibre applicants from "forrin' parts"...and it's critical the USA is seen as an obvious choice for the world's most talented research candidates.

It's how hard science works in America.
It cannot thrive without the constant influx of brilliant young people with funny surnames.

Fancier uniforms? They suck at their job and get off on humiliating and irritating innocent travelers and we're going to improve them by making their badges metal instead of iron-on. Yep, much better use of funds than anything crazy like more training and quality control.

Eileen - this argument has carried over from several threads, and it always boils down to "the administration" which means the executive branch which means the president.

Besides, we've handed Bin Laden no such thing. I could see if we lived in a police state where I needed to show papers to go from state to state, but face it - an EZ-Pass just isn't the same.

Jody - Well, I keep hearing Democrats bellyaching about the unemployment level in this country, and they want a guest worker program for Mexicans. Now you're bellyaching about grad students. Why aren't we finding the best and brightest in the US and getting THEM into these fields?

Could it be that the Democrats position is a lie, and there just aren't enough Americans to go around?

Given my position on immigration, I think you can tell where I come down on that argument.

Katie - when it gets unbearable and enough people stop flying, then the TSA will go away. Not until it is no longer economically viable to have them exist will anything get better.

Wanna fix the problem? Don't fly.

> As badly as they've been
> performing their tasks

Huh?

> The last theing we need is
> to give those fuckmuppets

"fuckmuppets!" Har!

> The freedom to efficiently attract
> and bring in the best and brightest
> foreign students to study
> science/engineering in the USA

Yes. And to move them (and everyone else) through the airports conveniently.

> we should be importing grad
> students and workers instead of
> sending all the legions of
> (supposedly) unemployed Americans
> to university?

Yes. First of all, we want the best and the brightest from everywhere in the world. When our homegrown talent is sharp enough or studious enough to compete with them, so much the better.

Secondly, a lot of Americans go to college without appreciable effect. It keeps incompetent educators in business, often on the government's dime, but that's about it.

If you take the total number of passenger-hours wasted as a result of TSA regulations and procedures, and divide by the number of hours in the average person's life, TSA has almost certainly cost more lives than were lost on 9/11. Bin Laden must indeed be cackling in glee, whether from the cave or from the grave.

brian: There is no right, express or implied, to utilize a given mode of transit.

US Constitution:
nor shall any person...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
So are you saying that airline tickets aren't property and that being detained at an airport isn't a loss of liberty? Or are you saying that having your name on a watch list without being able remove it or challenge the evidence that put your name on it is due process? Do you understand that people who work for the government aren't perfect? Also, perhaps you know that two or more different people sometimes have the same name.

One link in this post and another in the next:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20070215.html

brian: ...Bush shredded the Constitution
You were the first person on this thread to mention Bush or shredding the Constitution. Radwaste used the word encroachments. No doubt you are winning the argument with the people in your head, but you should try reading the posts you're responding to.

brian: So you'll have to use a less obtuse insult if you wish to attack me further.
It's not worth the trouble. I do recommend that you see the movie, though. It's great.

The second link mentioned above (with kudos to reason.com):
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/09/12/canadian-man-changes.html

>>Now you're bellyaching about grad students. Why aren't we finding the best and brightest in the US and getting THEM into these fields?

Brian,

Because the best hard science research is international. Because it thrives on open global communication and fierce competition.

Because the fiercest, most productive intellectual loyalties are often to labs of scientists from different countries, who flock to the best-supported, most welcoming research institutes.

Because it is good for the best young American scientists to work with the best from the global community.

Because science withers and rots when individual countries put up barriers.

And, perhaps mainly, because when a government ceases to trust its intellectuals in detailed matters of science research & recruitment, it's a huge warning about the health of that society.

Bri-bri, did I mention Bush? I don't think so.

I didn't say I was referring specifically to air travel. I'd be pretty dense to do so inasmuch I've only flown once and that way back in 1986.

But, if you haven't felt any curtailment of your basic civil rights, either you rarely leave your house, turn on a radio or television or read the paper (and I know you're on the internet), or you're in big fat DENIAL.

Frankly, I think that's the one. I hope you aren't forced out of it because of some personal violation that finally happens to you instead of others.

The price of freedom is vigilance.

But, if you haven't felt any curtailment of your basic civil rights, either you rarely leave your house, turn on a radio or television or read the paper (and I know you're on the internet), or you're in big fat DENIAL.

Well, the SWAT team hasn't broken my door down and shot my dog yet, so I guess there's that.

Oh, wait. That's got nothing to do with the war on terror. Sorry.

What basic civil rights of mine have been curtailed? I want specifics, not some glossed-over generalization.

I'm no more subject to random search than I was on 9/10/01. There's no restrictions on where I can go or whom I can associate with (withing the bounds of previously existing law, anyhow). Sure, I have a harder time buying certain things, but again - they didn't outlaw Sudafed as part of the war on terror.

You're just going to have to face facts - projection isn't just a river in Egypt.

Any loss of liberties you may have experienced in the past two decades have been on behalf of the "war on drugs", not terrorism. And everything everyone cries about as part of the PATRIOT act was already in place either from drug control acts or RICO. Which is why PATRIOT looks so damned familiar.

As I said, the Bush thing is cross-thread. You and others have said "bush shredded the constitution" on multiple threads here. And it's the meme undergirding most of the paranoid left.

Finally, if you're getting your news from papers, no wonder you think the economy is crap and the Constitution has been set aside.

"I just don't see where having one mode of transit that was already a complete basket case be even more fucked up is really all that severe a limitation on liberty."

Hey, I know you don't see it. I just wish you did - and I've already hinted where you can go, yourself, to find these things. I don't think you're interested, or you would have noted this on your own. Why, then, should I waste my time when you can't be bothered?

The "Patriot Act" (first hint: the popularized name of a bill) didn't affect just flyers, but you, too. It's only ego that claims you're not wet yet because the water is only up to your waist.

Liberty is not just about you.

Thing is, Shawn, the problem you have with the "no fly" list was a known problem before 9/11. Ever heard of a mistaken identity arrest?

Sure, the idea that we ought to trust in government was stupid, even after 9/11. But isn't all this hyperventilating about it a bit over done?

As far as airline tickets being property - you should read the fine print. That ticket doesn't guarantee you passage, it never did. They can deny you at any time for any reason and keep your money. Government just gave them a convenient scapegoat.

Which is why I say not flying is the best option. If the airlines didn't WANT this to happen, it wouldn't have. The airlines were quite happy to have the cost of security pushed off onto the taxpayer. They don't care that you get humiliated and inconvenienced in the process because you can't fly any other way. Well, unless you get your license and a Cessna, that is.

Which is fine with me. Let the airlines die. They want to cling to a dysfunctional business model and get bailed out every 5-10 years by the taxpayers. Fuck them.

Still doesn't constitute a curtailment of civil liberties. Certainly not one worthy of the breathless response it's gotten.

The "Patriot Act" (first hint: the popularized name of a bill) didn't affect just flyers, but you, too. It's only ego that claims you're not wet yet because the water is only up to your waist.

It's as likely to affect me as RICO. Which is to say "only if I manage to piss off the wrong people".

And I have no control over that anyhow. Hell, Nifong didn't even need that to destroy three men's lives, did he?

And you still haven't given me a concrete example of liberty denied.

Interesting change of words there, brian.

Originally, you said:

and nobody has yet showed me one freedom that they had that was curtailed.

Now - after quite an energetic response - you say:

And you still haven't given me a concrete example of liberty denied.

What'll it be on your third retreat?

And you still haven't shown me one inalienable right reversed?

brian: As far as airline tickets being property...[blah, blah]
I eagerly await your post with proof to back this up, because I don't remember reading in the news about the airlines randomly stopping people from flying without recourse or justification or seeing it in the fine print on my ticket (which I have occasionally read, but not memorized). Also, does this mean if you had a ticket and someone took it from you at gunpoint that you wouldn't consider it theft?

brian: If the airlines didn't WANT this to happen, it wouldn't have.
I believe this is correct, although I don't have proof. It doesn't follow that because the airlines are assholes the government is an angel or that we should ignore encroachments on the Constitution.

brian: Still doesn't constitute a curtailment of civil liberties.
No, it certainly doesn't, unless by curtailment you mean there's less of something than there was before.

brian: And you still haven't given me a concrete example of liberty denied.
And as long as you pick and choose the parts of posts that you read and respond to, then respond with non sequiturs, I guess we never will.

OK, Just to be sure I hadn't gone mad, I went back and completely re-read your posts, and the linked articles.

Still not seeing it. Only travel being made more difficult.

I mean, yeah, it's certainly suboptimal, but calling it a reduction, curtailment, infringement, denial, or anything else of liberty is a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

I mean, that's like saying that speed limits are an encroachment on liberty. In a highly theoretical sense, sure.

And I don't know where you got the idea I think government is an angel. They couldn't find their ass with both hands and a map.

Still doesn't mean that Bush or Congress have locked us up in an East German-style police state complete with Stasi checkpoints and "Papers, comrade?".

And Jody, every time I read your post above, I just don't get it. No mention of either quota changes, or applications going in either direction, just number of visas issued.

Instead, what I get is the same thing I get from troofers: If you can't see the conspiracy right in front of your face, you must be blind and/or stupid.

I'm neither. I'm skeptical of any claims that something heinous has happened that the media hasn't jumped all over. If the NYT can leak troop movements and national security secrets on the front page and nobody even gets dragged into a poorly-lit room for a little knuckle time, how am I supposed to believe some massive reduction in liberty has happened?

Oh, and Jody - you might want to look up "synonym".

>>Oh, and Jody - you might want to look up "synonym".

Brian,
That's not completely unfair.
However, I'd still argue "curtail" can mean to cut away/remove "some part of" rather than the whole. So I thought you were slyly moving from liberties simply being restricted - to liberties being flat out denied..I guess it was a bit nit-picky!

Brian,
Here's a less "boring" quote about the damaging restrictions I was arguing about. Maybe I should have hotly waved this one at you first, rather than go with the latest plummeting visa numbers - which are the background to the same problem.

This statement is jointly from the presidents of the US National Academies of Science/Engineering and the president of the Institute of Medicine:

The list of those who have been prevented from entering the United States includes scholars asked to speak at major conferences, distinguished professors invited to teach at our universities, and even foreign associates of our Academies. It includes research collaborators for U.S. laboratories whose absence not only halts projects, but also compromises commitments made in long-standing international cooperative agreements. It includes scientists from countries such as Iran and Pakistan whose exclusion from this country blocks our efforts to build allied educational and scientific institutions in those parts of the world. Perhaps most seriously, the list also includes large numbers of outstanding young graduate and postdoctoral students who contribute in many ways to the U.S. research enterprise and our economy.(2003)

ok, I'm gonna need something better than that.

Iran's been on the shit list since 1979. Pakistan had that little "A.Q. Khan" incident.

Does a blanket restriction over do it? Perhaps. But right now, priority one is denying Iran and Pakistan any more information into advanced weapons systems than they've already stolen.

Although I'm surprised we still let Chinese engineering students in after we caught several of those with their hands in the cookie jar.

You're expecting State to have some kind of fine-grained filter with which to determine the true nature of a scientist's visa application. As we've seen before, scientists are just as easily corrupted as anyone else, and in the case of countries like Iran are almost certainly in the pay of the government.

The problem here is that State (and other government departments) have a sledge-hammer. You shouldn't expect them to do finish work with it.

Plus your article is from 2003, which is right around the time that A.Q. Khan got busted selling nuclear secrets to North Korea and Iran.

Finally, this STILL doesn't point to any changes in the civil liberties structure for Americans. It only says we are being a little pickier about who we let in. Although not picky enough if the parking lot of the local Home Depot is any indication.

Next one cited below is from Nature (2004)...

...I'm getting there brian!

(There's a more recent 2007 statement - specifically from oncologists and geneticists - that I'm looking for - because it says what I hear anecdotally the whole time...Mind you, if you're just going to retort that Chinese students are notorious thieves, so no loss and all that...should I bother searching?)

The number of foreign graduate students admitted to top US research institutions has declined precipitously this year, according to data released on 7 September.Admissions from China, by far the largest source of foreign scientists in the United States, fell by a third this year, compared with 2003, according to the Council of Graduate Schools.

Okey dokey, brian.

A goody from YaleGlobal from 2006

The net effect of shutting the door to foreign scientists, the homeward journey by others, could mean less international recognition for the US. Half of US Nobel physics and chemistry laureates in this century were born in foreign countries or of foreign parents, and a recent World Bank report suggests that every 10 percent increase in foreign graduate students leads to a 6 percent increase in patents.

Okay, truce!

(Though I think A Jolly Good Point has been made!)

You've made a case for a result without explaining the manner by which that result was reached. Still doesn't point to either a problem with people being denied visas or some kind of limitation on American liberties for its citizens.

You are aware that China's growing like gangbusters, right? Is it not possible that those students are attending Chinese universities where those former Chinese students that came here and went home are now professors?

Although I'm not so concerned about international recognition for the US anyhow.

But I'll take the truce. I'm gone. See ya monday.

I thought Jody's point was excellence, not just recognition.

brian look at about 1:08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMJgC0ZidLg

Also, Amy your search feature isnt working, I was looking for a post I wrote a while back - I figured I'd repost it for brian as it was about the patriot act, but your search feature only shows me posting as far back as February of this year

Okay, Brian, I'll do the work for you. Well, partially.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/cassel/20070827.html

Yes, he was a scumbag. Also, an American citizen denied basic rights we American citizens are supposedly guaranteed by the constitution. I would have pointed out the whole Guatamo Bay thing but I know you would have screamed not Americans, etc. No one's crying at Jose Padilla being arrested. However, frankly, it sends a chill up my spine that due process wasn't followed for him just like it should every American citizen.

Yes, they have no reason to suspect you. Just hold your breath and hope no one takes a disliking to you justified or not, puts a warrantless wire tap on your phone, arrests you and denies you access to an attorney or a phone call to your family to let them know where you are. Some folks someone would still not know if the ACLU hadn't demanded lists of names. Whatever you think of the ACLU, that's what it took.

No rights curtailed? Not you personally perhaps but if the rights of one citizen -- even a scumbag like Padilla -- are, then all our rights are in danger. Everyone's rights need to be protected or any one of us, with reason or not, can find ourselves in hot water without the recourses we've come to take for granted.

So, Brian, if you're arrested and expect things that we automatically assume with an arrest -- like a phone call and an attorney -- don't happen, remember your rights were not curtailed after 9/11.

After reading this entire thread, I have come to the conclusion that "Brian" is either a sock puppet or an idiot. Anyone who is unable to see the trend in the reduction of our civil liberties is willfully ignorant or has a severe head injury. If you doubt this, go try and take a photo inside an airport or of a Federal building and tell me what happens.