You know. People who work for the government really should read the laws which created the organizations that employ them.
[ QUOTE ]
There is no "sunset clause" for DHS. This was the largest reorganization of the government since the Department of Defense was created in 1949. TSA is just a small part that has been provided with an option to change its work operations in the future.
[/ QUOTE ]
I never said that there was a sunset for the DHS, just the TSA.
From
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 : Title IV, Subtitle C, Section 224:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, and subject to subsection (b), the Transportation Security
Administration shall be maintained as a distinct entity within
the Department under the Under Secretary for Border Transportation and Security.
(b) SUNSET.—Subsection (a) shall cease to apply 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
Notice that it doesn't say that Subsection (a)
may cease to apply, it says "Subsection (a)
shall shall cease to apply"
That means that congress
will have to decide what to do with the TSA, and don't think for one minute that the airlines and airports aren't going to be lobbying their asses off to make the TSA a shadow of it's former self.
I said:
"For example why was a new government agency needed to not allow box cutters on airplanes?"
to which you responded:
"Maybe because they got through on 9/11???"
To which I'll say again, they got through because they were
legal prior to 9/11. Had they not been legal before 9/11 and gotten through then I would have agreed that perhaps a new agency was needed.
You said:
"How about you question the effeciency of the pre-9/11 companies that were not able to stop the trajedy from happening?"
To which I reply, how exactly would more stringent screening given the laws at the time prevented 9/11? Unless you are referring to more stringent screening by INS, the CIA, and the FBI and communications between all 3 groups which would have kept the hijackers out of the country.
Watch the video of the hijackers going through security on 9/11. They empty their pockets, walk through the metal detectors, etc. To me the screening they went through didn't look much different than the screening that happens now. Except for the fact that you can't have any sharp objects on the plane, but again I ask why was an entirely new organization needed to enforce a couple of new rules? The arguement that the private companies weren't doing the job isn't valid because they were never given the opportunity. Had the TSA been on the job pre-9/11 with the law still allowing small, folding or retractable blades on an airplane 9/11 still would have happened.
You said:
"What do you think the FAA is? Not only is this an agency that regulates the industry, but it governs it, and maintains absolute authority."
Perhaps I used the wrong word. Yes the FAA governs aviation, but does not
operate it. The FAA licences pilots, but they do not employe those pilots to fly airliners, nor does the FAA provide reservation agents, rampers, etc. This is a great system. The government certifies and provides oversight, but let's private industry do the work. Unlike the TSA that not only makes the rules for screeners, but employs the screeners itself. This is big government at it's best.
You continue...
"Would you like to see the federal reserve go private?"
No I wouldn't, but then again, I would not like to see banks
run by the Federal Government. You're confusing regulation with operation. The same is true with nuclear power plants. Yes the NRC regulates, but the NRC employees are not coming to the plant from 9-5 to push the buttons and make the plant go.
You said:
"These dual-use items, such as your "keepsake pocket knife," are dealt with in a way so as to always give the passenger an opportunity to save the item. ALWAYS."
Okay, I'll give you an opportunity to correct me here: If I have a pocket knife that is found while I'm going through a checkpoint, what are my options to save the item? A few caveats: 1. telling me I can either leave the knife or miss my flight does not count as an option; 2. My checked luggage has already been screened and is in a secure part of the airport; 3. Telling me that at
some airports they do XYZ is not an option. I want to know what I can do at
any airport where the TSA is present.
You continue...
"At some airports there are even checkpoint mailing services provided by a private company."
Well to turn things around why is a private company doing this when the Federal Government is running airport security? I mean the last time I checked the Federal Government was running a little known agency called the Post Office.
You also said...
"The 4th Amendment protects against "illegal search & seizure." As soon as a passenger sets foot on airport property, they and their property are subject to any "lawful search." This is called "implied consent.""
I have no problem with the search. It is the seizure of property that I have a problem with. With the exception of you "known hazards".
You said:
"There is no suspension of a person's 1st at the airport. That is ridiculous. You and any other person can discuss ANY subject you would like. You are welcome to say or scream any of those danger words on that list of yours if you would like to. But, as an adult with a right to free speech, you must also be willing to accept all the extra negative attention that you will receive. Those signs are simply a way of trying to prevent people from getting into that mess in the first place."
From the Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You say that I can go on about what you call "danger words", but must accept the consequences of my speech.
Let look at the word prohibit.
The word "prohibit" is defined as the following:
1. To forbid by authority
2. To hinder; to debar; to prevent; to preclude.
So saying a "danger word" has consequences. You mean like hurt feelings or having to defend your position in an argument? Or changing someone's mind? No. That's not what you meant. Oh, so you meant that I could be charged with a crime, arrested, etc. for saying a "danger word". Which by the way is a great term. Sounds like something that people trying to ban books would say.
A reasonable person would conclude that those consequences exist in order to hinder or prevent people from saying those words. In your own words you say "Those signs are simply a way of trying to
prevent people from getting into that mess in the first place." (emphasis added). Now perhaps I'm missing something here, but that seems to fit the definition of "prohibit". Going back to the text of the Bill of Rights:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"
So let me see if I understand what exactly your position might be on this: You'll probably argue that there are no laws that state you can't say this or that in an airport. Fair enough, but congress did make a law establishing the TSA which in turn made a rule that established "danger words". So as long as it's done indirectly it's okay to prohibit people from saying something, or to say it another way: Congress can't make laws prohibiting speech, but they can make a law that establishes an organization that can prohibit speech.
Freedom of Speech means being able to say what I want, when I want, where I want without worrying about being charged with a crime. Remember for a law abiding citizen a suggestion of consequences is all that is needed to prohibit something.
So again, 1st Amendment Rights are being abridged in airports.
Moving on. You said:
"Have you forgotten that there have not been any aviation related terrorist attacks since 9/11?"
So by your logic you would agree with the following: Because I do not step on cracks in the sidewalk my mother's back has not broken. This is just poor logic. Unless you can show me that A) there would have been an aviation related terrorist attack without the TSA after 9/11 and B) the TSA played a documented role in stopping the attempts. You provide me that data.
Perhaps the simpler answer is that there haven't been any aviation related terrorist attacks since they haven't been planning any, or some other change to our laws have thwarted them. Maybe our intelligence community is sharing more, or maybe they accomplished their goals on 9/11 and are just sitting back and watching the chaos. To be fair you also must state that since 9/11 there have been no terrorist attacks in the U.S..
Your logic is simply wrong in this case.
You said:
"We should not as hell give in to their demands."
Now what exactly are their demands? I've yet to hear them articulate any demands. Now perhaps they hope to make us all Muslim or abide by the tenants of the Taliban, but as yet I've yet to read or hear any member of Al Quida say: "Hey America here's what you have to do to get us to stop." I have heard Osama say, "Hey Al Quida go kill all the infidels.".
So until they articulate their "demands" I have to assume they simply want to us to be afraid of everyday life. To have rights taken away, to have the nightly news going on about terror alerts etc. I'm willing to bet that there are a bunch of terrorists laughing because all they have to do to get us to cower under a rock is say, "hey we're going to attack you sometime."
Finally you said:
"Yet, why would someone want to join something like that if nothing had changed? Wouldn't they just become part of the problem then?"
Would they really have become part of the problem? Or was the problem that no one, but the lowest common denominator wanted these non-galmorous jobs? I mean how many illegal aliens would be working in this country if American Citizens were willing to knock on a door and say, "housekeeping!". So perhaps the people who were part of the problem were the people who felt that working as a screener was beneath them. Until of course it became a matter of patriotism. Perhaps if we'd had people like you working for the private companies
before 9/11 it wouldn't had happened.
Again it's just my take on things.
Naunga
