Do You Have a “Right” to Fly?
posted at 11:19 am on November 17, 2010 by Jazz Shaw
[ Culture ]
The entire brouhaha over TSA screening, imaging and groping policies is one that I’ve been hesitant to jump into, mostly because it’s not nearly as clear cut as some pundits are trying to depict it. The debate pits two or three very different concerns against one another.
The most pressing one seems to be national security. It’s all well and good to talk about eliminating the TSA for being a waste of money or chuckling at that antics of the Don’t Touch My Junk guy. But it’s pretty obvious that if we’re not taking enough precautions and another plane blows up in mid-air, many of the same people who are complaining the loudest today will be first in line to pillory the Obama administration for not doing enough to fight terrorism.
And yes, there is a perfectly valid argument to be made that the government’s proper role in preventing these disasters involves stopping terrorists long before they make it to the Jet Blue check-in counter with a couple of pounds of C4 shoved up their nether regions. But we also must be honest enough to admit that in this sort of unconventional warfare, attacks can and do come in all shapes and sizes from every possible direction. Our intelligence agencies can’t settle for catching 99.7% of the bombers because the attackers only have to get it right once. And given that premise, don’t we want one last chance to stop them just before they board the plane?
This isn’t to say that I don’t have a high degree of sympathy for those concerned over their privacy. This was brought keenly into focus for me this week when my wife shared a group of letters from rape survivors who absolutely rejected the idea of screeners touching their private areas or looking at scans of their bodies. Stories of these supposedly private images being leaked on to the web certainly add to their understandable discomfort.
But not everyone is quite as alarmed. Personally, I’m in the camp of those not much put off by it. But then again, I’m a 50+ gray haired, arthritic curmudgeon who has long since traded in his six-pack of abs for a pony keg. If you really want a peek at this dream package, help yourself. And I’m clearly not alone in this, since a recent CBS poll found that an overwhelming four in five Americans favor the full body scanning equipment.
Perhaps the question we should be looking at is who has the ultimate responsibility for preventing people from blowing up your plane, particularly on domestic flights. Is it the government or the airline? Some seem to be suggesting more of a free market approach to the problem. Remove the TSA and let each airline handle security as they see fit. That way you can either choose to feel more secure after long lines, some nudie pictures and an airline flunky copping a feel, or you can choose to get there faster with Speedy Sam and Discount Dan’s Airlines! (200+ seats on every flight and no waiting! But please leave your weapons at home. We’re on the honor system here.)
Or just maybe, in the end, we should examine the protests over these search policies in terms of people “having their rights violated.” Do you really have a right to fly? Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to get on the plane. There is virtually no place on the surface of this planet that you can’t get to through a combination of boats, trains, buses, taxis and/or rental cars, providing you have the time to do so and plan ahead. Precisely what “right” of yours is being violated if the airlines (and/or the TSA) specifically warn you in advance that you will be subject to these specific search practices before you are allowed to board the aircraft? That seems to be the attitude taken by the agency recently when they said you are welcome to not fly if you won’t submit to their searches.
As I said in the beginning of this missive, I’m not claiming to have all the answers here. But I can at least pose some of the questions which demonstrate that it’s a far more complex issue than can reasonably stuffed into one sound bite or a few one liners on the late night talk shows. I like my privacy as much as the next person, but I also like the idea of landing at my destination in one piece.
Oh, and I also like the idea of the already long wait times not being extended on the day before Thanksgiving by people simply trying to prove a point. With that in mind, all of you clowns behind the National Opt-Out Day scheme can bite me.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/ar…-little-bother
GarandFan on November 17, 2010 at 5:25 PM
My wife and I have already flown more than 150,000 miles this year. We’ve supported with growing reluctance the previous “enhancements” of the screening process and accepted the reality that it’s more unpleasant to clear security in the U.S. than in any other country we’ve flown in.
This is the last straw. What, if any, would be your last straw, the point at which you say the government has gone too far? A full-scale strip search? At least with those the searcher doesn’t touch you, including the same gloves with which the TSA screener may have just checked out somebody else’s groin so perhaps you’d even prefer it.
The government has bought these new X-ray machines based on the pressure and advice of lobbyists, not scientists. I’m old enough to remember when a doctor advised my mother to smoke cigarettes to help clear her bronchial tubes, when we could pass mercury from hand to hand in science class, when we could put our feet in shoe store fluoroscopes, all and many other goods and activities Government Approved.
The X-Ray scanners may be fine for somebody who flies once in two years, if ever, but we and quite a few others board planes between once and twice monthly on average. No wonder pilots are upset. I have also read experts who say, although the stated “dose” of radiation is minimally harmful, it poses at least as high a statistical risk as that of being a victim of a terrorist. Furthermore, other experts point out that machines can act up. Does anybody really trust the government to check and maintain them properly? People go to school for several years to become proficient in operating medical X-Ray machines – how does that compare to the training of TSA screeners?
So we’re offered an alternative, the invasive search. The politicians have reacted by suddenly saying they’ll exempt chldren under 12. Stop and think about that – that absolutely blows ALL of their other arguments out of the water (I apologize for the explosive figure of speech). It doesn’t make any sense at all. If we’re worried about nuns and grandmothers being conscious or unwitting “mules” for terrorists, stop worrying. They’ll be using 11-year-olds.
One final point: As of now in many if not most airports, your screening line may lead you through a magnetometer. You could buy your ticket and take your chance that you won’t be x-rayed or groped. Oops, no you can’t as the soon-to-be-squashed “Don’t Touch My Junk” guy found out. If you leave you’re threatened with a $10,000 (or is it now $11,000?) fine. Furthermore, you can go through a machine and still be selected for the grope.
For an hilarious and only slightly exaggerated description, watch this.
No, as an American I’m not going to roll over – or bend over – and accept this. As we frequent fliers say, YMMV – your mileage may vary.
Drained Brain on November 17, 2010 at 5:27 PM
Of course we don’t have a right to fly. But we do have a right to privacy and dignity. The Constitution absolutely protects us from unreasonable searches.
The courts have mis-ruled on this issue, basically saying that terrorism concerns trump the right to privacy. The courts are wrong. Let’s compare with an example from the criminal justice system. If police know someone on a bus is carrying a note from a serial killer, do they have the right everyone down and take it? Of course not.
Why, then, if we change the words bus, and serial killer, do authorities suddenly have that right?
hawksruleva on November 17, 2010 at 5:28 PM
Exactly.
Murf76 on November 17, 2010 at 5:33 PM
You’re ok with “random” patdown screening; which you have to admit would be sexual harassment/assault or molestation charges elsewhere. And you know that children will be randomly selected at some point.
How many children will you support being sexually assaulted so you can feel safe?
I’m not flying; I’ve decided my limit is zero. If you’re flying, have you decided this, or even considered it? How ok are you with the knowledge that you’re condoning and endorsing the sexual assault of children for safety?
Would you knowingly make this choice? If the choice were “I’m a bad shot with this .22 pistol, but I’m going to either take a blindfolded shot at you from 100 feet; or I’m going to molest a child; your call…” what do you decide? Is it the same choice you’re making now?
Can you do this to me? Sure, don’t care.
Can you do this to my girlfriend… I’m not happy about this, but if she doesn’t raise a ruckus I might stand for it… maybe.
Can you do this to her kid? I’d recommend putting me in handcuffs before you try.
Random means I’m ok with all of these choices doesn’t it?
I can’t see being ok with all of these choices.
gekkobear on November 17, 2010 at 5:38 PM
Make ‘em change their gloves first. And if it was me, I’d make them work in front of witnesses.
Murf76 on November 17, 2010 at 5:40 PM
so let me get this right. there’s an $11,000 fine if someone discontinues the search. Hum… don’t think that’s really a deterring factor to guys like Mohammad Atta ..so it must be a control thing for guy’s like.. don’t touch my junk.. and ladies that are having their 3 year old groped by TSA agents. You know …Law abiding American’s. Sure wish our government would just be honest and use a cattle prod.
roflmao
donabernathy on November 17, 2010 at 5:40 PM
The Constitution grants us Liberty and Freedom. Of course we have the right to travel when, where, and how we wish because we are pursuing business around the country and the mode of transportation is an important component of that freedom. To have to suspend our Constitutional rights in order to use the best mode of transportation for our needs is beyond the pale.
How many people are designated for enhanced inspection? 5%, 20%, 98%. If the number is below 100%, how soon before a terrorist gets through? If the number is below 50% then this whole process is a farce.
Does luggage still get lost? Do items still disappear from luggage? When passengers are pulled aside, is their luggage left in the open and out of their sight? If the answers to these questions are still “yes”, then how good is the security – really?
Would you accept renouncing your 4th Amendment rights to travel in a car, bus, train, or boat?
SouthernRoots on November 17, 2010 at 5:43 PM
Strip searches for EVERYONE. Then we’ll really really be safe!
GarandFan on November 17, 2010 at 5:48 PM
so why are taxpayers footing the security bill for the airline industry (TSA’s $7 billion annual)? Shouldn’t that be a part of doing business and bore by the ticket purchasers or the airlines. Or Maybe Disney….Hotels….Cruise Lines etal!!
roflmao
donabernathy on November 17, 2010 at 5:55 PM
Yes, I would want it done in public, which is part of the point of Opt-Out Day, making sure everyone sees what is being done. They’re definitely bringing out the rebel in me, but in reality, I probably won’t get snarky or anything other than polite. I just like to laugh at the suggestions of some, like a commenter at PJmedia who said he would give the TSO his safe word and moan audibly when the groping started.
I must say, I have been flagged for super-extra-special security in Israel before and taken in a back room for a search, but it turned out to be not that bad, and definitely wasn’t as invasive as these appear to be.
tikvah on November 17, 2010 at 6:00 PM
Nice couple of strawmen being offered up here to support a rather weak argument.
First, the very example of C4 boarding the plan would not be stopped by these scanner (they don’t penetrate the skin and if placed where you suggest (an obvious location for a terrorist) the pat down wouldn’t detect it either.
Second, one does have a “right” to drive a car, either but that doesn’t allow the government the right to invade my privacy without have due cause.
Hint: Follow the money.
Sailfish on November 17, 2010 at 6:20 PM
Sorry, “does have a right to drive a car” s/b “doesn’t have a right…”.
Sailfish on November 17, 2010 at 6:23 PM
The problem with the “you don’t have any right to fly” argument is that the TSA obviates it by saying that you can’t change your mind when deciding invasive search procedures are not to your liking.
IOW, if you have no “right” to fly, the TSA has no “right” to prosecute or harass you for deciding not to.
Natrium on November 17, 2010 at 6:39 PM
SouthernRoots,
I’m with you! Imagine what would happen if the government made us get government licenses before allowing us to drive our cars and made us identify ourselves to get them.
audiculous on November 17, 2010 at 6:44 PM
I didn’t say “drive”, I said ride. All you are in a plane is a passenger. My question was about your being a passenger on a different mode of transport.
Even though you have to comply with identification laws to receive a driver’s license, the information requested is not unConstitutional. In addition, you aren’t forced through pat down searches every time you go to get in your car.
SouthernRoots on November 17, 2010 at 7:42 PM
What’s next, a warning that you’re obese?
flataffect on November 17, 2010 at 7:52 PM
“Do you have a right to fly” is the WRONG QUESTION.
The MAIN issue is whether the current practices of the TSA amount to “UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SIEZURE”!!!
IMHO, offering innocent citizens a choice between:
1. Assault by an XRAY technology which has not been vetted for health effects, is intrusive, and is easy to exploit and abuse. In addition, there is absolutely no proof that this methodology is even moderately effective: especially when it is deployed INSTEAD of cargo examination, profiling, and other PROVEN techniques.
…and…
2. Sexual assault by TSA personnel
…IS NOT REASONABLE SEARCH AND SIEZURE BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION!!! Where did a citizen’s rights go??? There is no supervisory court.
There is also a SECONDARY issue: WHO IS IN CHARGE OF AIR TRAVEL FACILITIES???: What right has the TSA to usurp the authority of airlines, airline pilots, local airport authorities, and local police and subordinate these highly trained and vetted personnel to barely-trained TSA personnel?? This arrangement is completely wrong-headed as well as an unconstitutional seizure of private property without compensation.
The airlines and airline pilots have the expertise and the motivation to determine the correct balance between safety and comfort. These parameters are key to their business, and nobody has more to lose!!! If we are to have government employees AT ALL in the airports, they should be subordinate to The Pilots, The Airlines, The Airport Authority, and the Local Police!!!
IN SUMMARY:
The questions are:
A. What is “unreasonable search and siezure”, and what court is providing a proper venue for resolving conflicts? We do not have autonomous “constitution-deciders” which are above the law and above review of the legal system in the USA!!!
B. Who authorized the seizure of the Airlines, Airline Personnel, and Airport property and brought all of these under the unsupervised control of the Executive branch??
The “Right to Fly” argument is simply a Red Herring to distract from these other flagrant Constitutional Violations!!! But I DO have a “right to fly,” as well as a right to use any other mode of transportation without subjecting myself to a completely unreasonable anal exam.
And if the government wants our trust, it must stop lying to us about equipment, its safety, and how it is being used in the context of an overall air safety plan. It also must come up with a reasonable plan which results in “air safety” without destroying “air travel”!!!!
landlines on November 17, 2010 at 8:00 PM
SouthernRoots,
I don’t think that they’re asking for any unconstitutional information, but I’m thinking that the government has long been exercising power over people who seek to travel the public highways and have asserted even greater power over people traveling using public transportation or (privately-owned) common carriers using public facilities.
Airport searches have been found to be constitutional (at the level of federal circuit courts) since the as far back as the 1970s.
I’m not really thrilled about how far things have gone, and I’m less thrilled with where it’s going, as I think that people should be able to refuse a search and leave without problem as long as nothing has given probable cause to stop them.
Maybe it’s time that the issue(s) hit the Supreme Court before things go much further.
audiculous on November 17, 2010 at 8:17 PM
Excuse me, but if you really believe this, then you’ve never driven on a two-lane road with no divider.
Safety on roads is up to the individuals using them. If there is a crazy person who does not care about his own safety behind the wheel, nobody is safe…and there is nothing the government can do about it.
The government cannot assure safety. Its bungling attempts to do so are really just ruses designed to be a cover for some scheme to deprive us of liberty and/or property.
landlines on November 17, 2010 at 8:38 PM
landlines,
not only have I driven on roads like that, I’ve even driven off them a time or two.
and I’ve sure as hell been stopped and been searched by gov’t officials.
audiculous on November 17, 2010 at 8:43 PM
@audiculous:
…so the government didn’t prevent you from driving off the road.
And you could have easily taken out an oncoming car in the process.
…and the government was late to the scene, as usual.
QED
I concede that the government was “exercising power” in your example, but (as is usual when government is involved) the exercise was ineffective.
landlines on November 17, 2010 at 10:01 PM
More ineffective than you and, hopefully, they know !!!
audiculous on November 17, 2010 at 10:46 PM
And I want her to be HOT!!!!
RegularJoe on November 18, 2010 at 7:36 AM
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.
1791 pal
gordo on November 18, 2010 at 8:25 AM
I have the right not to fly.
Or do I?
Can the government make me fly since my not doing so could impact interstate commerce?
dczombie on November 19, 2010 at 1:10 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2