Curious (not trolling): Sometimes, when Amy (and any anti-TSA blogger) posts about the TSA, commenters will respond that we should do what Israel (which is known for its stringent yet effective airport security) does -- have officers ask pointed questions of travelers to determine who needs extra screening.

What happened to Steve Gunn appears to be on par with what's asked in Israeli airports -- less invasive, actually (my sister was asked repeatedly about the shabby condition of her clothing the last time she flew through -- she dresses like a filthy hippie).

"Your shoes are falling apart. Do you have other clothing packed in your checked bags? Oh...you didn't check a bag? This is all you have brought with you? How long will you be here? Why do you have so few clothes for a long trip?"

Now, is the problem that Steve Gunn was asked questions? Or the fact that a poorly trained rent-a-cop was asking them?

Do not mistake me for a TSA fan -- I think they're vile. I don't want the federal government asking me such questions either. It just seems like there's a sizeable "We should do what Israel does!" contingent, and I'm curious to hear what they say about this, if in fact, any post here.

I've been commenting on a 2A friendly web site. Several comments lately have been blaming people who open carry as the reason that open carry rights have been severely restricted in CA.

No, the reason that OC has been severely restricted is the CA Legislature was convinced by the tofu eating, pot smoking, liberal left to do that.

But what is the point of having a right if you don't exercise it?

sofar.

Realistically we could go back to the same security we had on 9/10/2001 with the exception of the hardened cockpit doors. The only thing that changed was the attitude of the flying public.

When you have about 80+ people against 4 or 5 terrorists who do you think will win?

Jim P. "But what is the point of having a right if you don't exercise it?"

Having rights is different than being obliged to exercise them. You also have the right to choose.

One of your rights as an American is the right to a fair trial. Committing a crime so you could exercise that right would be foolish.

Doing something because you can is rarely a good reason to do anything.

One of your rights as an American is the right to a fair trial. Committing a crime so you could exercise that right would be foolish.

Excuse me, what?

Either it is a right, or a crime. It can not be both.

Well this is security theatre! So make a show of it!

T: Where are you going?

P: To my seat once I get past you?

T: I meant what city?

P: It says right there on the ticket in your hand?

T: Sir, where are you going?

P: I am going to (fill in)?

T: That is such a short flight?

P: Sure is.

T: Why are you taking a short flight.

P: Do not want to say.

T: WHY!

P: (SHOUT) Because I am 30 year old man who can not drive! There you embarrassed me. (CUE a sad look and tear)

T: OK, sir! Calm down.

P: *Sniff* Are we done?

T: No, what is your business there?

P: (Stop sniffing). (Thoughtful pause) Well once I get off the plane in (city) I need to figure out how I am going to get to (someplace). I am sorry to admit that I have not friends who can pick me up. So I might have to take a taxi........ (continue on as long as possible, but still avoiding the major issue).

T: STOP! What are you going to be doing in (city).

P: OK! (Feign Annoyance) You caught me. I want to get laid! I am going to (city) to see if I can get lucky. While I am there on the look of for some lovin'. I am also going to conduct some business too.

T: We have another on! Bag check!

John Paulson is carted away in handcuffs....
End Scene

-----
Nothing like mood swings and over the top acting to liven up the day.

Amy, your incoherence on this topic has just set a new record.

In today's NYT, there is a story about proposed shoe scanners failing operational tests.

Many security experts say the security agency is too focused on technologies for intercepting things — guns, knives, explosives — instead of focusing on stopping people.

Rafi Ron, the former chief of security for Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport, said the agency should abandon its shoe-removal policy. “They need a more passenger-based approach instead of looking for items,” Mr. Ron said.

The Israeli model is based on interviews and profiles of passengers. Screeners quickly try to decide whether a passenger poses a threat based on reactions to a set of questions.

You shriek at the TSA for not conducting operations like the Israelis, then shriek at the TSA when it conducts operations like the TSA.

Sheesh, pick one or the other.

"Sheesh, pick one or the other."

Or neither. The ability to hold two conflicting ideas without losing one's mind is the mark of an intelligent person.

Realistically we could go back to the same security we had on 9/10/2001 with the exception of the hardened cockpit doors. The only thing that changed was the attitude of the flying public.

Oh, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

I guess the point of my question was to see if any of the "Do what Israel does!" crowd still comments here -- and what they think about this. This is the more passenger-based approach they wanted (albeit with TSA goons instead of highly trained facial readers).

But I'm with you -- none of the extra measures employed today (with the exception of the cockpit door and changed passenger attitudes) would have prevented 9/11.

" This is the more passenger-based approach they wanted (albeit with TSA goons instead of highly trained facial readers). "

Right, that's exactly the problem. The TSA spends millions on devices that don't work, tries to illegally stop and search people at random in train stations, kicks off a plan to stop and search at highway rest stops, and none of it with any more professional training or aplomb than they've displayed to date.

So why should we trust them to employ the techniques of the highly-trained Israelis when they're such semi-literate ham-handed half-witted unqualified-for-McDonald's finger-raping child-groping handicapped-humiliating anti-liberty sons of bitches?

Prove they're qualified, then we'll chat.

I flew to AZ recently and noticed differences in TSA work since I flew last (I don't fly frequently).

In Tucson, a little TSA woman patrolled the passenger security line. Strange, since there were fewer than 10 of us in line. On the one hand I was amused at the absurdness of this tiny woman pacing back and forth and scowling at us. I don't know if the scowl was to convince us she knew what she was looking for, or if she hated her job, or if she was trying to intimidate. Reminded me of those Nat Geo prison shows, where the officers line the prisoners along the walls to control them during transportation.

In Denver while on layover, a TSA woman made repeat rounds through the gates. Same scowl, same behavior that she was looking for something. I'm sure they couldn't uncover a terrorist plot if it blew up in their face, but they sure seem to be trying to act the part.

And the armed pilots.

Prove they're qualified, then we'll chat.

Yeah, I wouldn't trust a lot of them to be able to read at a 5th grade level, let alone be able to read my micro expressions.

Or neither. The ability to hold two conflicting ideas without losing one's mind is the mark of an religious person.

There. Fixed it for you.

Observed at Logan yesterday: Two Muslim women with their heads covered were escorted to the front of the very long security line, and allowed to have their screenings done in private side rooms. Then they went merrily along to their flights, while people who were in line in front of them had to wait 45 minutes or more.

@Jeff Guinn: "There. Fixed it for you."

Er, no. You 'fixed' it for F. Scott Fitzgerald.

That was a pretty bitchin' segue, there, Amy! Flawless, actually. ;-)

In Israel, the security agents are highly trained and have often done military service. in the TSA, the "agents" can read pizza boxes. It's a job for people who otherwise would be on welfare.
And tell the chick in the pilot program that you're a pilot.

We have to understand an uncomfortable truth-- that TSA is only the tip of an iceberg. The US government employs around 2 million people in public positions. Possibly twice as many government workers are in secret positions where they have no accountability to laws or the Constitution. They are the people who actually drive this country's policies and carry out its (often illegal) actions. When we're accused of believing in a "conspiracy", it says more about the other person's ignorance. When 2/3rds of the government is involved, it's no conspiracy, it has become business-as-usual.

Doing something because you can is rarely a good reason to do anything. -- Ray at August 24, 2012 10:14 AM

So I'm only supposed to do what my neighbors do? Or what the government tells me to do? Or they allow me to do?

We live in a representative republic, not a democracy. A democracy is mob rules. A republic says everyone has equal rights. I can do what I like as long as I don't damage anyone else.

So if I carry a gun in full public view in a holster and don't touch it -- how does that hurt you?

Let's step it back a level -- I wear an iPod walking down the street playing rap at volume 9 and you can barely hear it, no matter how much you hate it. Do you have the right to call the cops for disturbing your peace?

Should I do it as it is going to damage my hearing? No. Is it your responsibility? No.

So why should you have a say in my carrying a firearm?

I can do what I like as long as I don't damage anyone else.
Unless the government has decided it's bad for me:
Smoking weed, drinking whole (raw) milk, not wearing a seatbelt/helmet...

Sofer, that's exactly what I was about to say! this is what the Tel Aviv airport is like.

To me that's troubling. Israel has a very real enemy that we don't have that they've been at war with for half a century who lives next to them and interacts with them often. We don't. Why are we acting like a state who does?

I thought of you Amy the other day as I went through security and saw the sign for the pilot program. But it turned out they were understaffed because the Jet Blue line had closed down or something, so they didnt have time to question us.

Nicole, I agree to a point. There is a very big difference though between asking a foreigner visiting a sovereign country why they've brought no luggage, or quizzing a citizen who is flying between cities in the same country. I'm sure Israel has to worry about illegal immigration too, on top of everything else, and every country does this. Try flying into the UK with no bags sofar, you'll get pulled aside for checking so fast you won't know what hit you.

My point being, confusing customs/immigration procedures at national borders with internal movement controls doesn't advance the argument far. I doubt that Amy would object to incoming non-citizens being questioned if they look suspicious. Personally, I would report anyone who didn't question me as incompetent.

Sheesh, pick one or the other. - Jeff Guinn

Or neither. The ability to hold two conflicting ideas without losing one's mind is the mark of an intelligent person. -: Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers

Or neither. The ability to hold two conflicting ideas without losing one's mind is the mark of an religious person.
There. Fixed it for you. – Jeff Gunin

Sorry Jeff, for a religious person it wold be the ability to BELIEVE, not to hold

Over react much Jim P.?

I said absolutely nothing about you carrying, not carrying, open or concealed or your right to do so. All I said was that the reason you gave (exercising your right because you have it) was not a good reason to do it. You have the right to have God Bless America tattooed on your forehead too.

The comment you made happened to be about guns. If you had given the same reason for doing anything else I would have made the same comment. It had nothing to do with guns.

Holding two conflicting ideas was deemed "cognitive dissonance" by social psychologist Leon Festinger. We try to diminish the dissonance in a way that works best for our self-esteem. A person who is not only intelligent but introspective in a way that allows them to be honest about their shortcomings can admit to holding two conflicting ideas and may be correct for them.

Amy, self congratulate much?

Having mulled that, please parse the second sentence, because I sure as heck can't.

When it comes to the real world -- perhaps you have made its acquaintance on occasion, it is the one where you have to make actual decisions -- wallowing in cognitive dissonance is pathetic at best, disastrous at worst.

---

lujlp, in case you ever have problems with the concept of distinction without difference, remember this:

Sorry Jeff, for a religious person it wold be the ability to BELIEVE, not to hold

No Jeff it is very much a distinction with a huge difference.

I can hold in my mind the conflicting notions that 2+2= both 5 and 4. That does not neccesarily mean I BELIEVE both of them.

When it comes to the real world -- perhaps you have made its acquaintance on occasion,

Do you speak to people in person like this? If so, do you find it successful?

To be truthful, I have no idea, because I have never spoken to anyone who was so absolutely incoherent on a subject as you are on this.

And that is before you dive straight into hypocrisy. At worst, I am guilty of mild sarcasm in pointing out your damned-if-they-do-and-damned-if-they-don't attitude. In response, you go straight to insult.

Okay. You are queen of the TSA. Please tell us what the threat is, and how you intend to deal with it. Keep in mind downside risks.

Oh, and one other thing. You keep going on about constitutional rights being violated. That is a classic example of a conclusion without an argument. Which Right? How? And yes, those questions are serious; I doubt you've seriously considered either one of them. Hint: your indignation is not necessarily a good basis for constitutional law.

[lujlp] I can hold in my mind the conflicting notions that 2+2= both 5 and 4. That does not neccesarily mean I BELIEVE both of them.

Note: the definition of a belief is holding a statement to be true.

Perhaps this phrase rings a bell: "We hold these truths to be self-evident ..."

I don't do it in every single post just to make up for people like you -- which most people posting here aren't like -- who need to lie and demean others to aggrandize themselves.

Calling someone a liar is pretty nasty stuff, the sort of thing that, if you were a guy, would get you decked. So, considering how serious that is, how about telling us all the lie I told. Or, for that matter, where I aggrandize myself.

Since you call me the "Queen of the TSA," ...

Apologies for typing very unclearly.

I'll get it right this time: Okay, let's say you are made Queen of the TSA: you are the head dudette what's in charge. Please tell us what you think the threats are, and how you intend to counter them.

... it is likely you have seen me refer (countless times) to the violations of our Fourth and First Amendment rights.

Yes, I have. You are wrong.

Google [fourth amendment TSA Volokh], first hit:

The new airport screening measures involving millimeter wave technology and backscatter technology — together with the opt-out of a pat-down — have received a great deal of public attention. Back when the new measures were first widely introduced, I blogged about why a Fourth Amendment challenge to the new practices was an uphill battle. Today, the DC Circuit handed down an opinion in EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security holding that the new practices comply with the Fourth Amendment.

I hate to waste my time like this when I've awakened for my deadline simply because you need to aggrandize yourself. Do try to find a healthier and less rude outlet to make yourself feel good, such as jerking off.

That word "aggrandize", it doesn't mean what you think it does.

And in the rudeness sweepstakes, I don't even begin to hold a candle to you, whose response to a little light sarcasm is to toss out "asshole", cast aspersions on my size (whatever it may be you are talking about), calls me a liar, or tells me to go jerk off.

Now that's real classy, a standard to which we should all aspire.

Some sort of break after the Volokh cite would have helped readability immeasurably.

Once again, I need to make Preview my friend.

You know, I read about the DC Circuit court's verdict, but my (admittedly limited) understanding is that only the Supreme Court can give a final say on Constitutionality.

I'm not meaning to be petty or over precise, but isn't it still sort of "up in the air" until such a time as somebody appeals and it goes to the Supreme Court? Isn't that what happened with Obamacare and a bunch of (different) rulings from various lower courts?

Because the court hands down a decision doesn't mean it's right or constitutional.

Two things.

First, it is precisely due to a court handing down a decision that means it is constitutional.

Second, before deciding your indignation really should be ground truth for constitutional law, perhaps you should read the decision, or at least the summary at Volokh.

---

It is interesting that you brought up cognitive dissonance.

Your reactions to being presented with information dissonant with your preconceptions (scanners while not perfect, are far from ineffective; your refusal to go through a scanner, which led to your subsequent difficulties, would make a great case study for an ethics seminar; your counterfactual assertions of unconstitutionality; shouting at the TSA for not being like the Israelis, then shouting at the TSA for being like the Israelis) has elicited one of the typical reactions: rather than address the dissonance itself, you react against the source of the dissonance.

In fact, it is reminiscent of the reactions the religious frequently have when presented with information contradicting their beliefs.

Hence the baseless insults. If I lied, what was the lie? If there isn't one -- and there isn't -- then what you owe me is an apology, not further insults.

As for the rest of your truly objectionable hysterics, they would bring down the tone of a middle-school playground at least several notches.

So, then if the supreme court found that executing a man without trail didnt violate the various amendments we all know that such an act would violate you would have no complaints and claim that as it is legal everyone else needs to shut their fucking mouths??

You know, I read about the DC Circuit court's verdict, but my (admittedly limited) understanding is that only the Supreme Court can give a final say on Constitutionality.

You are right, but there is more to it than that.

All laws are presumed to be constitutional. Some laws provoke challenges. Any law found to be constitutional by a Federal court remains what it always was. At each trial, the losing side may appeal to the next level in the Federal court system. Ultimately, that can reach the Supreme Court. The SC can either decline to hear the case, in which case the lower court's decision stands, or hear it and pass judgment. Either way, that is the final Constitutional decision for that law.

So, the moment Congress approved searches at airports, those searches were presumed constitutional (i.e., they are reasonable). EPIC challenged the reasonability of searches in the DC Circuit court, which decided the searches are reasonable, and therefore Constitutional.

Therefore, until someone successfully challenges the law in, it is Constitutional.

But Amy can't be blamed for not knowing this; after all, she is a product of the Detroit school system

---

lujlp:

Do us both a favor, and instead of posing preposterous hypotheticals, just go and read Volokh's summary.

What hypothetical? We exectuted a man without trial, and no court cases about it have yet reached the supreme court,