Ask Slashdot: What's the Best Way To Deal With Roving TSA Teams? 1059
Posted
by
Soulskill
from the tip-well dept.
from the tip-well dept.
An anonymous reader writes "I live in Boston, and I have noticed the TSA performs random security checks at the Copley T (subway station) and other locations. I routinely travel with a laptop, iPhone, and other gadgetry. What are my rights when asked by one of the TSA agents to 'come over here'? Can I say no and proceed with my private business? What if a police officer says that I 'must go over there and cooperate'? Can I decline or ask for a warrant? Like the majority of the population, I turn into an absolute shrinking violet when pressured by intimidating authority, but I struggle with what I see to be blatant social devolution. Has anybody out there actually responded rationally, without complying? What were your experiences?"
What rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless I'm mistaken, you don't have rights anymore. If the TSA thinks you're a terrorist based on your evasiveness and defiance they can detain you indefinitely.
Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the answer to either of those questions is "No", then you better do what they tell you.
Sure, they're violating your rights. But in the United States, you have no recourse except to go to court. Which will costs LOTS of money. More than you have, probably. And don't forget that the cops and TSA will make your life hell while the case slowly progresses.
This country is so fucked.
Bureaucrats Not Officers (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless they are carrying a weapon and a REAL badge, you can probably tell them to fly a kite (especially if it's not a standard gateway procedure such as those as airports)... not sure how that'd stand up under scrutiny... but, they aren't "officers of the law" unless they ARE "officers"... very few of them if any are actually LE...
Good luck!
Best way... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe you should be asking the ACLU? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know where they have lawyers and actually might know more than the random crap you'll get here.
Re:just cooperate (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:just cooperate (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone needs to stand up for their civil rights, or no will have any civil rights anymore. The TSA thinks they're above the law, above the Bill of Rights, and they have to be proven wrong. That, and the TSA needs to be dismantled. If they're "expanding" into non-airport-related areas (train stations, bus stations, docks), how long does anyone think it'll be before they start performing traffic stops at random and committing search-and-seizure without a warrant "because they thought you acted/looked/smelled like a terrorist"?
Re:just cooperate (Score:4, Insightful)
no need to get into trouble
I love that this was posted by AC.
Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? (Score:5, Insightful)
I had no idea the TSA was doing random checks (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought the US was turning into a police state, but I didn't realize the TSA gestapo were wandering the subways and accosting people at random.
I weep for the America that once was.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"I do not consent to a search." (Score:5, Insightful)
"I do not consent to a search."
"Why are you detaining "Why are you detaining me?"
"Am I under arrest?"
"Am I free to go?"
that first one is really important and may be overlooked due to hiding in the subject line (I do not understand the tendency of people here to start typing in the subject and then continue in the body)
No (Score:2, Insightful)
"Like the majority of the population, I turn into an absolute shrinking violet when pressured by intimidating authority, but I struggle with what I see to be blatant social devolution."
No. You're not like "the majority of the population": you have a problem with authority, while most people don't. The TSA is completely useless, and their presence is a sad statement of what the US has become, but it doesn't mean that personally complying to a TSA control is some kind of horrible event that you should struggle with and go out of your way to avoid.
You want to resist them as some form of political statement? I then encourage you, as this is necessary for things to change. But don't confuse this with protecting your bruised ego. There are plenty of times in your life you'll face "intimidating authority", and in most of these occasions, this authority will be legitimate, and will have a good reason to act so. Learning to cope with such personal feelings is important for your own psychological health.
Re:Here's what you say (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
To fight the TSA requires any number of resources in your favor: time, money, influence, or numbers.
Perhaps the easiest way to fight this particular group is by pulling a SEP -> someone else's problem. Attend a city council meeting, and move that the local Boston Police Department have its budget slashed, reasoning that since the TSA is doing their job, the city no longer needs to pay for benefits that the Boston PD is not providing. 3 possibilities are likely -> 1.) the city council will squash the movement (but doing so will draw attention to your plight, and paint the current politicians as being in bed with the TSA -> not a good place to be when the TSA is chafing potential voters), 2.) the city will cut Boston PD's budget (at which point the Boston PD will have to make a tough choice of pissing off the populace because of a pay cut, or letting it slide), or 3.) the Boston PD will become wise to the situation, and take out a jurisdictional grievance against the TSA (they get to keep their budget, remove some competition, and look like the heroes -> kid gloves from the officers reassigned to the public transit beat, something of a junket for the officers concerned as it may be 'easy' compared to other patrols).
This is how you handle problems that you do not have the resources to fight properly -> get someone who has the proper resources to do the fighting for you. It helps if you appeal to this person's / group's best interest in a truthful, sincere way (the untruthful / insincere stuff tends to fall apart before a victory).
And yes, given the Amtrak PD's response to various TSA shenanigans, it has a precedent. And the danger to the Boston PD (or whoever patrolled that beat prior to the TSA) is quite real; you don't want a generation of Bostonians growing up thinking that it takes a guy in tactical gear with a SMG to keep public transportation safe; once they do, the original patrollers will never get that beat back (loss of territory),
Rights? You have no rights. (Score:5, Insightful)
For those not counting, the Federal government has in this one encounter wiped its collective ass with the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and (probably) 9th Amendments, as well as pissing on the grave of habeas corpus.
Have a nice day.
-B
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Edmund Burke said all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Yeah but fighting back against police or TSA agents isn't the thing that needs done. The thing to do is to convince our Congressmen that we actually care about civil rights more than protection from terrorists. Fight the stupid laws not the people paid to enforce them
Re:Best way... (Score:4, Insightful)
Wealthy and influential persons don't ride the subway. I think even the the TSA knows that.
Re:Bureaucrats Not Officers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? (Score:5, Insightful)
Devil's advocate, and one of the reasons I think the constitution needs an updating for the modern age. Sadly, I'm afraid to let people currently in charge do such a rewrite.
4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizures. It says nothing about not letting you on said mode of public transportation that is technically merely subsidized, and thus faux-public, that you need to go to work. You can invoke your fourth, but don't expect to be getting to work on time.
The letter is upheld, the spirit isn't.
Re:just cooperate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? (Score:5, Insightful)
The freedom to travel freely with out undue restriction is a corner stone to the idea of a free world...
Per the UN Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
In Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
(1) Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
(2) Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
(3) The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.
(4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
From US code you have: Corfield v. Coryell, and Paul v. Virginia among others.
If a person can not freely move with in their own country then they may (can) not engaged in other activities seen as being part of a free society. Making a petition of grievance at city hall is once such example. With out freedom of movement I can not be guaranteed that I would be able to make to city hall to file said hypothetical grievance, Then there are rights to life and property. If I'm sick I have a right to seek medical attention at a clinic or hospital of my choosing. With out the ability to freely travel there I can not receive the treatment I need.
With out the freedom to move, we are forced to stay put. In effect our homes would become a jail. If you can't see that as tyranny then your ether a fool, or a dangerous idiot.
Serious answer: Call a lawyer NOW. (Score:5, Insightful)
Find a lawyer. Get a suggestion from that lawyer. Reach an agreement with that lawyer to represent you should you be arrested during such a stop. (This will probably involve putting money into an escrow account equal to the charge of a few hours of his time - also called a "retainer".)
Research your local laws regarding police stops. (Also called "Terry stops".) In some states, you are under ZERO obligation to do anything unless they are explicitly detaining you, and in those locations, the simple first response is "Am I being detained or am I free to go?" If they say you are being detained, the second response would be "On suspicion of the violation of what law am I being detained?" The third response is "I will not consent to any searches, and will not answer any questions until I have an attorney present." Then you call the lawyer mentioned above. You go to booking, you get searched anyway, you answer *NO* questions that are asked.
Take direct legal advice given by random strangers on the internet with a grain of salt.
Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? (Score:5, Insightful)
I just can't help thinking, Osama (assuming he's dead) is laughing in his grave so f'in hardddddd right now.
Vote for Ron Paul. End the TSA (Score:5, Insightful)
Vote for Ron Paul. End the TSA
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Fight the stupid laws not the stupid people paid to enforce them.
FTFY
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I had no idea the TSA was doing random checks (Score:4, Insightful)
America died the 11th of september 2001.
All the rest is as they say history.
The US of today is no better than arab countries.
You have even less rights than european citizens living in old europe (and oh how that must hurt to the american ego).
Words written on paper have no value if the people that govern you are the first to disrespect the ideals of the constitution.
USA land of the free, home of the brave ? Not anymore, that line should be stricked from the star spangled banner lyrics.
Re:Best way... (Score:5, Insightful)
I ride a commuter train in northern Virginia, and the demographic breakdown of the ridership has shown that the median income of the riders is solid six figures. Trains like these are not being ridden by hobos.
Remarkable how times change (Score:5, Insightful)
Eastern-Europe immigrants who lived in the communist time might have experience in these matters ask them how best to avoid random searches.
Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? (Score:4, Insightful)
Most roads are taxpayer subsidized too. I wonder when Americans will start accepting random stops and vehicle searches by TSA personnel on the highway during rush hour.
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Insightful)
The best part of your linked article:
"There are notices posted at the entrance to the station that the inspection is in progress."
Terrorist in Boston: "Well, I guess we should bring our bombs to Downtown Crossing instead of Park St!"
I mean, the way they're doing this, they're absolutely guaranteeing they won't actually catch a reasonably non-stupid terrorist.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry but this is pretty naive in the face of all that's happened in recent times. I agree that outright fighting isn't the answer but begging isn't going to work either. I'd suggest impeachments and instating true patriots. The government/TSA/police only have any kind of authority because the people let them. Don't like what they're doing? Then stop acknowledging their authority. Stop feeding into their power.
Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say that even the letter isn't.
Consider this case: let's say there was a law that to acquire food, you needed to submit to a search. That would mean that you get searched, or you starve. Most folks would agree that in this case, the letter is being violated.
I'd argue that all that's happened here is that the chain has been extended a bit. To ride the train to get to work to get the check to buy the food, you need to submit to a search.
Also:
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.
If you look at the text, you'll note that it is actually in direct violation. People are not secure in their persons, and there is no warrants being issued, with our without probable cause, let alone sworn.
With all this said, it probably doesn't matter. It looks to me that we may have passed the tipping point, and I'm probably a fool for even posting this.....
If your state allows for CCW, then carry (Score:4, Insightful)
Not because you are going to turn in to an Internet Toughguy and go shoot at the agents or anything, but just to make their lives difficult and show the stupidity of what they are doing. Nothing makes a checkpoint for weapons worthless like someone who is in fact carrying weapons and doing so legally.
Where I live (Arizona) concealed carry is legal with or without a permit. I don't carry a gun because there's no real reason to, I find it unlikely I would find a situation where I would need to use it. However in the event the TSA starts doing that shit here, I'll start carrying any time I know I might encounter a checkpoint.
Now of course if you are going to do this do some prep work first:
1) Make sure you can legally carry a weapon, either concealed or openly, in your state and city. Laws vary. Make 110% sure you understand the law and you are properly licensed. Most states require a permit for concealed carry.
2) Make sure you can legally carry a weapon in the areas you will be going. Some places will be prohibited by statue, like here schools would be one of those places, others because the owners post a sign that say you can't have weapons. Only carry in an area that is legal. So if the subway is an area that doesn't allow weapons by statute or policy, then you can't do it.
3) Be ready to be arrested and have your gun taken away. If they do that, comply completely. Don't try and fight or something stupid. You'll WTFPWN them in court, but that is where you fight it.
If it is legal, and you are willing to start some trouble, then this is a way to do it and to point out the stupidity. Also, you will have people (like the NRA) on your side in the fight.
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:just cooperate (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone needs to stand up for their civil rights, or no will have any civil rights anymore.
This is demonstrably untrue. Only a tiny percentage of people were ever involved in repealing Jim Crow laws during the 50s/60s civil rights era. Indeed, many people opposed the change.
Your statement that unless everyone stands up for civil rights, no one will have then any more is unproven.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is based on the US legal system the way to challenge the Constitutionality of these laws is to break them, and then (after a likely horrible reaming by the justice system) appeal to the Supreme court to try to get it overturned.
Unless someone stands up to the violation of their civil rights, these things never get tested. Relying on the useless Congress that passed the law in the first place to overturn it is pretty much futile.
Re:What rights? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:the advantage of dealing with police (Score:4, Insightful)
When it comes to police in most civilized societies
The TSA are not police, and the USA is not a civilized society.
American Politics (Score:5, Insightful)
You really think you can get anyone impeached? Unless they are busted in a FBI corruption sting, I'd say your chances are about zero.
The reason why we are stuck with these idiots and petty tyrants leading us is because 70% of the population just doesn't give a fuck. They want their SUVs and big screen cable TV, and they don't give a damn if somebody passes a law that allows indefinite detention of 'Terrorists'.
Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? (Score:5, Insightful)
Good links, thanks! Re:ACLU's guidance (Score:5, Insightful)
Americans have lived through civil war, economic collapse, a surprise military attack on U.S. territory, dictators and world war on two fronts, and, for 50 years, the threat of nuclear Armageddon. Through all these threats, we mostly stayed true to our values and preserved our freedom. And when we didn’t, it didn’t make us safer and we always came to regret it.
Re:Rights? You have no rights. (Score:4, Insightful)
The bill of rights is an acknowledgement, not a permission slip. Rights can't be taken away, then can only be oppressed by force.
and thats why you cant do shit : (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing to do is to convince our Congressmen
those 'congressmen' do not give zit about what you think. so you cant 'convince' them either. they have been elected there by the monetary backing of private interest groups who are much richer than rest 95% of the population. only they have their ear.
you have 2 choices at this juncture :
- be richer than 5% or so of the population, that controls 72% of the wealth. (in contrast you have only 15% - so its impossible - there would be enough who made it that much up till this point if it would work)
- get rid of the economic system that allows tiny minority of population to command 70-80% of economic wealth.
- get rid of the current existing political system, in which only those who are extremely rich or have the backing of extremely rich can get elected.
Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? (Score:5, Insightful)
TSA VIPR teams are already working the highways in Tennessee for their pilot program, though they are focusing more on trucks and busses as they ease people in to the idea of the pervasive police state.
The new TSA budget added money for more VIPR teams so they will, no doubt, be extending their reach over time and as their budget allows. They really need to enlist state and local police to be able to afford doing this nationwide, considering the current constraints on the Federal budget.
It is nearly inevitable that you will eventually not be allowed to move in this country unless you have your papers in order and are not on the DHS "Do Not Travel" (a.k.a. "You Are An Enemy of the State") list, just like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in their heyday. Presumably they will be using the now pervasive freeway traffic cams and license plate recognition, to track the movements of everyone who is on that list, and will encourage to not get in their cars in the first place.
The introduction of police states in to formerly free countries are often creeping affairs. They chisel away civil liberties slowly so there is no single point in time when everyone realizes they are screwed and revolt en masse. If you do it slowly everyone realizes at a different point in time that they are in a police state. People either revolt one at a time and are crushed, or more typically never revolt at all because no one around them is.
One ray of sunshine is Joe Lieberman is retiring at the end of 2012. He is the person most responsible for the maddness that is DHS and TSA, but his police state has so much momentum now I doubt it will stop just because its Saint-Just is stepping down.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Seeing as they just passed a defence bill allowing indefinite detention without trial for suspected terrorists, for now I would just go with it.
Factually incorrect.
That's incorrect, every word was truthful.
Man, debating rocks when you don't need to back anything up.
Re:just cooperate (Score:5, Insightful)
no need to get into trouble
No kidding, the person posting the question seems to have his tinfoil wrapped too tightly. He has a laptop and a smartphone, like that is not an ordinary every day occurrence that draws no interest, except possibly from thieves. The roving teams most likely just want to look in his bag/pack. Nothing looks ilke a block of C4 with a detonator attached, thank you have a nice day.
You completely miss the point. The fourth amendment to the US Constitution [wikipedia.org] guarantees that
The right of the people to be secure in their persons...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. [emphasis mine]
Warrantless street searches clearly violate the spirit and letter of the law.
What about public safety you ask? According to the US government, four times as many people die from lightning strikes every year than from terrorist activities [wordpress.com].
By your logic, we should cover the country with a non-conductive dome.
Nature can't be controlled you say? Okay, how about this: the US government estimated that 730 US persons died as a result of terrorism. [wordpress.com] in 2007
They also report 17,100 murders in the US [wikipedia.org] during the same year.
I suspect you'd be hard pressed to find a lot of people who think that we should give up our Fourth amendment protections to stop all the murders. Why then, should we give them up to "fight terrorism."
In any case, I suggest you either grow a brain or stop trolling. Pretty please?
Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? (Score:5, Insightful)
Again - I maintain that if you cannot preform your normal day to day activities; activities required to get to work, to feed your family, and to move about the city in which you live without submitting to random searches that you are most certainly not secure in your person.
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:1, Insightful)
What's really funny (or not) is that, back when Bush was President, all the liberals were complaining (rightfully) about these attacks on our civil liberties. But now that Obama's in charge and he's making them 10x worse, they're all for it.
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed, contacting your elected representatives is the only reasonable way to achieve meaningful change.
Just like the people did in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria and Bahrain.
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not likely. I despised "W" giving the okey-dokey to invade the persons and privacy of people in the US then and feel betrayed that our current President has done nothing to fix the problem.
Terrorist: Look at that! 600 people waiting in the security check point line at LAX!!! More than they can fit on any plane!!!
Terrorist: *BOOM*
CNN: 100s dead, 100s wounded in LAX bombing.
See the problem?
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Civil liberties know no "right" or "left". It's one of the few common causes we have left.
You might try reading the WHOLE text (Score:4, Insightful)
Like it or not, this is clearly a measure "provided for by law" and also "necessary to protect national security [and] public order". The fact that the measures are unlikely to actually be effective at protecting the public is unlikely to cause a court to rule them a violation.
Just earlier this week Slashdot ran a story to the effect that the government should never regulate technology, because they don't understand any of it. Well, more or less for the same reason, judges tend to give deference to the decisions of government bodies that are (theoretically) experts on the subject. The judge is going to take the word of the government agencies saying "we need to do this to increase security" because hey, they're the ones who spend all their time protecting the public.
As for the US cases you cite, I find nothing in Paul v. Virginia [justia.com] that's even related to this topic. And Corfield v Coryell [wikipedia.org] is a district court ruling, which means it's not precedent. And it isn't in agreement with the actual precedent on the issue of the 14th Amendment (the Slaughterhouse cases) or the right to travel. Gilmore v Gonzales [wikipedia.org] is the case most directly dealing with this issuek, and it's not a Supreme Court ruling but it is binding precedent for part of the country: You don't have the right to any one particular mode of transportation, even if it is far more convenient than any other.
If it were the only available mode of transportation, the constitutionality question would be very different. But in the particular case at issue, you can take a taxi, or a bicycle, or even simply walk.
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:1, Insightful)
Not likely. I despised "W" giving the okey-dokey to invade the persons and privacy of people in the US then and feel betrayed that our current President has done nothing to fix the problem.
You may feel betrayed after voting for him, and maybe 10-20% (or who knows, maybe even up to 40%) of others who voted for him feel the same as you do. However, there's a very strong contingent of Democrat voters who have changed their very values so that they don't have to admit to themselves that they made a big mistake. You can see it on lots of Democrat message boards; they're the ones defending Obama's every move, saying "we need to stay united with Obama", etc.
I do hope I'm proven wrong, however, and Democrat voters elect a different Democrat in the primaries this year. It's happened before 4 times in history. I'm not hopeful however.
Re:Don't forget (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't wish to leave my car, but I will comply with any lawful order you give me.
I love this. It's perfect because it is so clear, and also because it uses a term of art [wikipedia.org], which is a subtextual way of telling them look, asshole, I know my rights, and you know my rights, so let's do this one by the fucking book.
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Insightful)
The best part of your linked article:
"There are notices posted at the entrance to the station that the inspection is in progress."
Terrorist in Boston: "Well, I guess we should bring our bombs to Downtown Crossing instead of Park St!"
I mean, the way they're doing this, they're absolutely guaranteeing they won't actually catch a reasonably non-stupid terrorist.
Our government would not pat people down for safety. They are patting people down to scare them and make them feel powerless. They are reinforcing the fact that we do not have rights or control over the situation. The only reason our government would want us to think that they are protecting us is to avoid future liability when something actually does go wrong. That way, they can say "look, look, we were trying to prevent this all along..." Even if they are full of crap.
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, they aren't. The ones who are howling with rage are being shunned by "mainstream" Democrats on message boards like democraticunderground and dailykos from what I hear. This guy [vastleft.com] even has a comic [thecomicseries.com] series about the phenomenon.
For example, a quick browsing of DailyKos yields this article [dailykos.com] claiming Obama is the best president ever.
Re:Vote for Ron Paul. End the TSA (Score:5, Insightful)
The same thing Obama did about Gitmo. Issue an executive order, get stonewalled by Congress, realize that being president isn't like being king, and give up.
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
I remember back when the TSA was being rolled out, I ran into a guy I'd known for years who was a total clusterfuck of a person. Totaled a good half-dozen cars in single vehicle accidents, rarely made it a year at a job before getting fired for mistakes and screwups, eviction after eviction, etc. He couldn't wait to apply for a TSA job. "If I can get in on the ground floor of this shit, I'm set. They'll never stomp out 'terror' and if I screw up, they'll just move me to another location."
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah every time i'm at an airport security checkpoint surrounded by hundreds of people waiting in line to check their shoes I get a good laugh thinking how perfect a target the checkpoint line makes. You can shove a lot of explosives into a carry on bag when you know it'll never be checked because your target is the line of people waiting to be checkedd...
I wonder what they'll do besides mandating clear luggage or banning carry on items all together.
Re:What rights? (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously? This is what you took the time out of your day to point out? You should maybe, I dunno, check your facts a bit?
Maybe watch video of the fucking thing again, cause your memory sucks. Obama didn't 'mumble'. Nor did anyone think it was 'cute'. And if you're referring to the mistake that was made during the oath, it was the judge giving him the oath that flubbed the line.
Regardless, it has absolutely no bearing on Obama's policy making at all.
In fact, this is the sort of crap that makes America's political climate so toxic these days. Everyone needs to stop pretending like your guy/country could never make mistakes or have unpopular policies. It's staggeringly stupid and ignorant of reality.
This was modded insightful? Fucking hell...
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Insightful)
They're called "Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response" teams? Seriously? That has got to be a backronym [wikipedia.org].
"OK, so we put these teams together. What do we call them?"
"I dunno. Should probably be something that sounds all scary and badass. You know, to scare the bad guys when they hear you're coming."
"Snakes are badass. How about COBRA teams? Cobras are scary."
"Nah, that sounds like a GI Joe episode. I like the general idea though."
"OK then, how about VIPER teams?"
"Ooh, that's good. VIPER. I like it."
"Great. Now we just need to figure out what the hell VIPER stands for."
"I can't think of a word for the E either. Screw it, we'll just leave it out. VIPR teams. Same difference."
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:3, Insightful)
If iran is preparing to nuke you.. you might want to reconsider that. Being the richest guy in the world makes you a target, whether you deserve it or not (see sept 11).
Are you one of those morons who thinks "they hate us because of our freedom!"?
9/11 happened because we had American troops in the Holy Land (Saudi Arabia). That's it. Iran only hates us because we're involved in the middle east.
The US has done the isolation bit before, and found out the hard way you're part of the world, and if shit goes badly, you're getting bombed or torpedoed or whatever, whether you are involved or not, and whether you were at fault or not.
Citation needed.
The Lusitania was torpedoed in WWI because it was transporting munitions. It was a valid war target, and the civilians aboard were human shields, just like Saddam and other tin-pot dictators have done. You can't be "isolationist" and also supplying war material to one side in a conflict.
The war on drugs.. what's your alternative? Legalize it?
So you think Prohibition was a good thing?
You're a moron, and this discussion is pointless.
Hell that's nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
How about Free Speech Zones? [wikipedia.org]
They put you in a chain link fence box a couple of miles away from whatever it is you happen to be protesting, so politicians don't see anything that might upset them.
Got news for ya. We're in the declining days of our Republic. A lot of the great ideas the founding fathers had at the beginning are pretty much gone now.
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Because it isn't the citizens in the airport they're protecting, and if you thought it was, you've been had.
First, they are protecting the aircraft, which represents millions of dollars as well as a portion of the transport infrastructure. Second, they are protecting anything on the ground (such as the world trade center) which might be damaged in a very costly way if a heavy aircraft plowed into it at high speed.
You, they don't give a flying fuck about. That's over. Any remarks to the contrary are propaganda, nothing else. All you need to do is look at what they've done to your rights. Even a cursory look will come to the conclusion that you now have none that aren't more than a temporary illusion maintained for no other reason than to keep you calm until the time comes when you get in the way, at which point you will be brushed aside like the fly you are to them.
Re:Hell that's nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
We can help them along by electing a President with both principles and testicles: Ron Paul.
What makes you think electing Ron Paul will change anything? Do you think that the entrenched powers will simply let him walk in and change things?
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Security checkpoints aren't to protect normal people. They're to protect the pentagon, white house and financial centers from having planes dropped on them.
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's what the lock on the cockpit door is for.
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:3, Insightful)
By DC I assume you mean the District of Columbia, but that wouldn't make an sense, being as the downtown stations are less than a mile part, which is very easily walking distance (I've walked between them many times).
Then you're obviously a terrorist, since no American would walk that far..
Re:Hell that's nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
These aren't "charges". It's a fact that Paul published racist and homophobic gibberish.
There are only three opinions: he believes that crap; he doesn't believe it but allowed it to be published, probably in order to pander to racists; he doesn't believe and didn't know about it, because he's an idiot who's incompetent to run a 'zine.