Shouldn't Obama insist that he and Congress be subject to the same TSA standards as everyone else?

[brentspeak]

And show some leadership and solidarity with the American people? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

[Loge23]

1. Absolutely! (eom)

[ClarkUSA]

2. Why should he? He and members of Congress are a known quantity but members of the public are not.

Ditto for other heads of state and international government officials.

[Empowerer]

4. If they are flying commercial planes, they are.

I doubt the President is going to get on a commercial flight any time soon. But Members of Congress fly commercial all the time and are subjected to the same screening procedures as everyone else. I've seen it myself.

FYI, Ted Kennedy's name was on the the No-Fly list and he often got pulled out of line.

[ClarkUSA]

16. Good point, thanks. The OP needs to read what you're saying.

[Slit Skirt]

3. Yep!! Boner...i mean Boehner got escorted around security

it's all bullshit!!!!1

[Empowerer]

6. Congressional leadership who have government security don't have to go through this for obvious

reasons. But this applies only to a 3 or 4 Members. All of the others have to go through the same security screenings as everyone else.

I think it's absurd to whine about people who are in the direct line of succession to the presidency, who are escorted by federal agents not going through the same security screenings as everyone. This argument is getting a little ridiculous, in my view. It's clear to me that, for many people, tightened security is not the problem - the fact that THEY have to undergo it is the rub. But they certainly don't mind that OTHER people - you know, the ones who seem more likely to be terrorists - face deeper scrutiny. They fail to realize that to people who don't know us, we are almost ALL seen as OTHER people.

[Slit Skirt]

9. you have your opinion and that is fine...

...but if you want to take away my rights..or i should say the people who take away our rights, those rights get taken away from them too. Sorry, I will not budge on this issue.

[Empowerer]

12. I don't see this as having anyone's "rights taken away."

There is no constitutional right to go anywhere by commercial airplane.

You are certainly free to travel anywhere you like by car or by train or by bus if you don't want to go through TSA screening. Or you can charter a private plane and fly wherever you like without going through TSA screening.

Of course, I was being facetious with the last point. But the bottom line is that tighter security at airports is not a violation of anyone's civil rights.

[Arctic Dave]

14. So if you ride a bus that means you can now be molested?

If I go into a Mall can be molested there? As far as i know the Fourth Amendment doesn't a geographical location clause.

[Empowerer]

17. The Fourth Amendment DOES trigger a strict scrutiny test

Which the airport screening procedures have always passed.

Moreover, heightened security screenings for bus travel have not, to date, necessitated the kind of governmental activity that air travel has - probably because security threats are not likely to lead to mass casualties of the sort possible in air travel - therefore your comparison fails.

[Arctic Dave]

28. They pass only because the goal post are always moved to accommodate the new intrusion

Much like bushes use of torture.

[Exilednight]

30. Yep, and I bet someone's getting tired of digging the holes to prop up those goal posts. n/t

[Slit Skirt]

15. you can have tighter security without the groping and without

the make-you-naked-scanners...ask Israel and many other countries and their security experts...
this isn't necessary and groping is a violation of my rights...

do not buy into this bullshit...your rationale is ridiculous and your arguement holds not weight. .. People need to fly and this nonsense needs to stop.


why aren't they doing this for trains, busses, sporting events, etc.?
there is a ton of money being made on these machines for the sake of "securtiy"
just like we went to war to "keep us safe"
just like we went to a second war to "keep us safe"
if they scare the public, they know they can get away with a lot.

"Or you can charter a private plane and fly wherever you like" ??? ...so your premise is the rich doesn't have to be scanned, because the average American can't charter a plane.
The priveledged (Senators and House Reps, adminitration ) does not have to be scanned and the rich can find a way to get around it...
right there is the problems

[Empowerer]

18. There is a considerable difference in the potential threats in air travel and that in other public

events. The courts understand this and that's why they have not overturned the screenings.

You apparently missed the term "facetious" in my post. You also are wrong that the "privileged" don't have to go through screenings. The likes of John Boehner and the President don't have to be screened, not because they are "privileged" but because they travel under very different circumstances - including being accompanied by federal agents. As I noted, the vast majority of government officials - indeed just about all of them except the very senior leadership who have federal security because their lives are in danger - must go through the same security screenings as everyone else.

[Slit Skirt]

20. BS how many americans could they kill in a sporting event...

if we have strip searches, pat downs, gropings,...everyone should get them.

the courts haven't decided anything yet..TSA said Boehner didn't need to go through.

And back to the chartered plane option....give me a break

I will not budge on this, this is not the way to handle our security..and no one is whining. This has gone too far

[karynnj]

36. Only the House and Senate leadership are excluded - maybe 4 or 5 people

I actually would have no problem exempting the entire Congress. Even very wealthy people don't always take private jets.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

47. They do do lots of that stuff

That's partly why I'm confused about all the grousing about this now.

As someone who frequently attends concerts and sporting events, I'm used to getting frisked/patted down at least once a month.

I've also been searched before boarding the subway in NYC. As well as on an Amtrak train.

I also get searched every time I go to a courthouse or the Municipal Building in NYC (I work in the legal biz so I have to do this frequently.)

I've also been searched entering the public library in NYC.

I'm not saying that any/all of this is right or Constitutional, but I'm confused as to how this has suddenly turned into the Issue Du Jour. I'm beginning to suspect that some of the most vocal opponents of these searches haven't really left their homes that much over the last decade.

[FormerDittoHead]

21. Calling bullshit on that. They're starting to scan bus travellers.

>You are certainly free to travel anywhere you like by car or by train or by bus if you don't want to go through TSA screening.

Check out the pat downs of the bus passengers by the TSA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEiMvu6svgw

[customerserviceguy]

44. Does the Federal government own the air?

Does it own the means of transportation by which we fly through that air?

If you think so, then any time you leave your house, you might be engaging in a mode of travel that the Feds will lay claim to.

The Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves.

[tritsofme]

5. Government by PR campaign? No thanks.

I'll leave it to the military and the Secret Service to prepare for the president's travel arrangements.

And members of Congress that fly commercial (which is the vast majority) still deal with the TSA's garbage.

[Empowerer]

7. Thank you!

I'd rather Secret Service and the military protect the President rather than waste their time accommodating him getting patted down before going off to represent the nation.

[brentspeak]

8. You already have a "government by PR campaign"

So what would change?

And members of Congress that fly commercial (which is the vast majority) still deal with the TSA's garbage.

John Boehner is being exempted from the TSA checkpoints: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/19/AR2010111905676.html

[Empowerer]

10. John Boehner is second line to the Presidency and has federal agents protecting him

He's in a different position and is hardly an example for this.

Most of the other 534 Senators and Congresspersons have to go through security just like everyone else whenever they fly commercial. Pointing to a couple of people who don't because of extraordinary circumstances is not an effective argument against the policy.

[awoke_in_2003]

41. not yet, he isn't. nt

[CreekDog]

11. Yup 100%

in the past i would've thought differently.

but now i'm being told to get xrayed. i've had enough xrays in my life.

no more.

[RufusTFirefly]

13. Goose is right! n/t

[littlewolf]

19. LOL ... that will be the day ... lol ..

thanks I needed a laugh ....

[Pisces]

22. Maybe he should stand in line at a grocery store, pump his own gas etc.

Get over yourself. Travel outside of the country and maybe you will see what security looks like elswhere. There is no permission asked in other countries. There are no opt out options.

I don't like the pat downs or the x-ray machine. Therefore I will be driving anywhere that is close, and will have to reconsider other trips until this is sorted out. One thing I will not be doing
is getting hysterical and blaming the President or demanding that the President be subjected to x-rays and pat downs.

[brentspeak]

27. "One thing I will not be doing is getting hysterical"

Seems like the only ones getting hysterical are the President and the President's supporters on this: they're they're the ones claiming these police state tactics are necessary to protect us from "duh terr-ists!"

"And blaming the President"

Are you suggesting that President Obama really isn't the President? Is there somebody inhabiting his body and making decisions in his name? An alien involved? Tell us what you think happened to President Obama's body and who might have hijacked it.

[Exilednight]

31. Maybe he should. It might snap him out of the bubble he's in. n/t

[Laelth]

23. In all fairness to Congress, this isn't their responsibility.

Congress didn't create these rules. Congress doesn't run the TSA. Obama does, and Obama is solely responsible for these procedures and their implementation.

Do I think Obama and his family should be subject to the same procedures? Yes. But only because I believe these procedures would be immediately eliminated if the President and his family were required to endure them.

-Laelth

[sally cat]

34. Well said.

[Hippo_Tron]

46. Congress is responsible for oversight of the executive branch

And the TSA as well as all other federal agencies are required to abide by the laws passed by congress. Obviously they can (and will) punt the football but they are empowered to do something about this if they want to.

[Occam Bandage]

24. This type of pseudopopulism is tiresome.

It would be satisfying to see our princes forced to deal with the indignities of daily life. It would not result in said indignities being abolished.

[pnwmom]

25. Oh sure. Just as soon as Obama starts flying on commercial aircraft. n/t

[polichick]

26. Congress members should absolutely go through the same thing as everyone else. nt

[Empowerer]

29. They do.

[bigwillq]

32. Yes

Everyone should be. And why don't they do the pat downs on trains, buses, supermarkets? :shurg:

[JamesA1102]

33. I'm sure if they take a commercial flight they will be nt

[karynnj]

35. Congress, other than a few people in leadership, are

As to the President, that is the dumbest thing I ever heard. In the first place what is the risk of the President taking a bomb on air force one?

[jefferson_dem]

37. Of course not.

POTUS, at least, is already subjected to some of the most egregious violations of privacy ever known to man. That's enough. Anyway, this would be a shallow "show" and resolve nothing. In case you haven't noticed, he doesn't fly commercial anyway.

[Empowerer]

39. Excellent point!

I suspect the President might be willing to get physically patted down a few times a week in return for getting some privacy back for himself and his family . . .

This manufactured "controversy" is getting more and more absurd. And we wonder why the Republicans keep eating our lunch.

Good Lord!

[geek tragedy]

38. I think Air Force One's security is more than adequate. nt

[Inuca]

40. Absurd n/t

[akbacchus_BC]

42. No, they will not be looking to sabotage the US, big difference!

[Catherina]

43. Why? They think they're better than us little people. Rec'd. Yes they should. n/t

[paparush]

45. I agree with another DUer - This isn't about safety, its about obedience.

His best line - They don't give a flying fuck about your safety. If they did, they'd give you Universal Healthcare.