State, local lawmakers seek alternatives to TSA airport screenings

A coach-class rebellion against the Transportation Security Administration is brewing as state and local lawmakers challenge the agency's right to implement its invasive airport-safety protocols.

"I'd like to send Washington a clear signal that these aggressive pat-downs and body scanners may have crossed the line," said Sean Paige, a member of the Colorado Springs City Council. "We want to maintain airport security, but need to speak up for the passengers who come through our city."

He has asked the Colorado Springs airport's aviation commission and director to prepare a briefing on a proposal to replace the TSA with a private security firm. The council is expected to hear the results in January, Mr. Paige said.

How about this? For a small fee, passengers can elect to go through screening in a private location. Make it gender-segregated and, shoot, have people pass through naked or in undies if that will make things easier. Deliver them to a corralled location after they are cleared so that they go directly to the plane without opportunity to pick anything bad up. Just like now after having passed through security.

I could see a lot of people preferring this, even if they had to pay a surcharge and get to the airport earlier.

If such privately held group screenings can’t be conducted by TSA, hire contractors and have them supervised by TSA.

“I’d like to send Washington a clear signal that these aggressive pat-downs and body scanners may have crossed the line,”

I like to analyze these things in a way where I can hopefully see it for what it is, even if I am one of the “frogs slowly being boiled alive. I do it by using extremes on both sides, and then try to come up with what would be “reasonable”.

It is in the following steps:
1. Remember that it must be constitutional. IOW, unless we are under martial law, it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights.
2. I must consider what we are actually trying to prevent, vs the cost and impact, culturally, dollars, etc. of the proposed risk mitigation process.
3. I then take a worst case scenario to the far lest and best case scenario to the far right as a “viability bar” and try to find a place somewhere between them that meets the requirement and preserves constitutional rights.

So, the constitution contains the fourth amendment and we are not under martial law. What we are trying to prevent is an airplane being blown up. That really is it, because after 9/11, no crew and passengers are gonna give a perp access to fly a plane. Flight 93 clarifies that.

The far left side of the viability bar would be giving every passenger a full body cavity search. The far right is to allow them to board as they did in the 1920’s.

With that in mind, I think the needle went too far to the left when they started inspecting shoes and it must roll back to there. That also means that people are allowed to bring full tubes of toothpaste on board, water bottles and coffee, etc.

And what they are doing now is absolutely preposterous and so unconstitutional that the public should be railing against it. But be don’t. For a hint, go to youtube and search “The Century of Self”.

Are you f*cking nuts? You want to reduce customers to a cattle herd before boarding? Why not then just fly them to the gas chamber where you personally can have the thrill to pull the lever and get rid of these potential terrorists?

Have all the passengers waiting to board a plane assemble at the gate. Tell them all to mingle for five minutes and talk to each other. At the end of the five minutes have the passengers fill out a card listing any passengers they think need “enhanced screening”.

This would be 100% effective, much faster and less costly than the current policy. It would also give the passengers a feeling that they have a role in their own security.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.