Wait, interstate TSA checkpoints now, too?

Pages

Hang on, what?
http://tennesseenewspress.com/2011/10/19/tsa-checkpoints-now-on-tn-highways/

Presented with minimal comment, outside of really hoping that this particular brand of rampant insanity stays confined to TN. I really don't want to have to deal with TSA checkpoints on I-80.

It's, like, the anti-Schengen.

Papers?

I have a sneaking suspicion this is aimed more at the 'war on drugs' than anything else.

I saw that earlier tonight and it had me thinking about all the times I have been told after making my screeds against the TSA that if I didn't like the TSA, I should just drive to my destination.

Um...

Phoenix Rev wrote:

I saw that earlier tonight and it had me thinking about all the times I have been told after making my screeds against the TSA that if I didn't like the TSA, I should just drive to my destination.

Um...

They were listening...

Rallick wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

I saw that earlier tonight and it had me thinking about all the times I have been told after making my screeds against the TSA that if I didn't like the TSA, I should just drive to my destination.

Um...

They were listening...

Someone realized, "wait a second, if the terrorists could drive to their location and avoid TSA agents, that means the citizens could do it to! This must be stopped!"

When is enough going to be enough?

This country is a fascist state.

From the sources linked to the article it looks like the checkpoints are set up at weigh stations etc and they're primarily targeting trucks and buses (vehicles large enough to carry a payload).

I was slightly alarmed at the headline because the first thing that popped into my head was randomly pulling over people in cars and searching them, but that doesn't seem to be what's going on, so now I'm decidedly indifferent.

TheArtOfScience wrote:

When is enough going to be enough?

This country is a fascist state.

Seriously. Canada is looking better and better.

bandit0013 wrote:

From the sources linked to the article it looks like the checkpoints are set up at weigh stations etc and they're primarily targeting trucks and buses (vehicles large enough to carry a payload).

I was slightly alarmed at the headline because the first thing that popped into my head was randomly pulling over people in cars and searching them, but that doesn't seem to be what's going on, so now I'm decidedly indifferent.

There was also this report from Atlanta about a year ago:

Local law enforcement and federal agents conducted a checkpoint operation Tuesday afternoon in Douglas County, the Federal Air Marshal Service told the AJC.

...

Mostly trucks were being checked, Minerly said. Shortly before 6 p.m., nothing had been recovered in the operation, he said.

"Primarily." "Mostly."

How many citizens driving along and minding their own business need to be stopped and scrutinized by the TSA before it's a problem?

Phoenix Rev wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

From the sources linked to the article it looks like the checkpoints are set up at weigh stations etc and they're primarily targeting trucks and buses (vehicles large enough to carry a payload).

I was slightly alarmed at the headline because the first thing that popped into my head was randomly pulling over people in cars and searching them, but that doesn't seem to be what's going on, so now I'm decidedly indifferent.

There was also this report from Atlanta about a year ago:

Local law enforcement and federal agents conducted a checkpoint operation Tuesday afternoon in Douglas County, the Federal Air Marshal Service told the AJC.

...

Mostly trucks were being checked, Minerly said. Shortly before 6 p.m., nothing had been recovered in the operation, he said.

"Primarily." "Mostly."

How many citizens driving along and minding their own business need to be stopped and scrutinized by the TSA before it's a problem?

If there's no probable cause, then my answer is one.

yes, but sobriety checkpoints have been tested in the courts (I believe, not 100% certain) and one might argue that they are closely related. Granted, I tend to believe that sobriety checkpoints are also unconstitutional but that won't stop a cop from arresting me if I circumvent one.

Nevin73 wrote:

yes, but sobriety checkpoints have been tested in the courts (I believe, not 100% certain) and one might argue that they are closely related. Granted, I tend to believe that sobriety checkpoints are also unconstitutional but that won't stop a cop from arresting me if I circumvent one.

The supreme court ruled that while the checkpoints do technically violate the 4th amendment, the infringement is "minor" and outweighed by the state's interest in traffic safety given that the CDC (center for disease control) found that sobriety checkpoint states experience 20% less alcohol related crashes than those that don't.

bandit0013 wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

yes, but sobriety checkpoints have been tested in the courts (I believe, not 100% certain) and one might argue that they are closely related. Granted, I tend to believe that sobriety checkpoints are also unconstitutional but that won't stop a cop from arresting me if I circumvent one.

The supreme court ruled that while the checkpoints do technically violate the 4th amendment, the infringement is "minor" and outweighed by the state's interest in traffic safety given that the CDC (center for disease control) found that sobriety checkpoint states experience 20% less alcohol related crashes than those that don't.

I wasn't aware that the Constitution allowed for "minor" infringement of rights.

4th Amendment to the US Constitution wrote:

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.

unless the popo think there might be drunk people

Garden Ninja wrote:

I wasn't aware that the Constitution allowed for "minor" infringement of rights.

It actually does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_...

CheezePavilion wrote:
Garden Ninja wrote:

I wasn't aware that the Constitution allowed for "minor" infringement of rights.

It actually does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_...

In that article, it references that the first case where that was utilized was Korematsu v. United States. I'm sure there are some people who will agree with that ruling, but I'm not one of them. By that logic, we should've put all Arabic-Americans into internment camps when we launched the War on Terror, and it would be Constitutional.

Farscry wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Garden Ninja wrote:

I wasn't aware that the Constitution allowed for "minor" infringement of rights.

It actually does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_...

In that article, it references that the first case where that was utilized was Korematsu v. United States. I'm sure there are some people who will agree with that ruling, but I'm not one of them. By that logic, we should've put all Arabic-Americans into internment camps when we launched the War on Terror, and it would be Constitutional.

Okay, and I agree with you, but I'm not seeing your point here.

Sorry, I didn't clarify my position.

My point is that, while there is legal precedent for the Consitution to allow for "minor" infringement of Constitutional rights, that precedent is not necessarily correct. It's something that I think should be revisited and perhaps have the ruling(s) reversed or modified to account for a better understanding of past events.

If anything, we should be able to point out that rationalizing the infringement of Constitutional rights in the past turns out later to be a regrettable decision, and consider our current policies in light of that.

I'm against TSA checkpoints (even in airports, yes). In particular I really find the concept of random vehicle searches to be abhorrent because that will easily lead to abuse. It's very disturbing to see this nation going right down the path that I warned it could back in the early part of this century when the majority of the country was overreacting to the 9/11 attacks.

clover wrote:

It's, like, the anti-Schengen.

Best post of the thread. I'll leave it to others to google this if they don't already know what it means.

TheArtOfScience wrote:

When is enough going to be enough?

This country is a fascist state.

I've been saying for a long time that this is becoming a police state. Each time I say this the typical reaction is "oh, don't overreact".

Great, so now I can only go north and south out of Nashville, not east or west? f*ck you, TSA. f*ck. You.

EDIT: from the first of three sources listed in the linked article:

"Where is a terrorist more apt to be found? Not these days on an airplane more likely on the interstate," said Tennessee Department of Safety & Homeland Security Commissioner Bill Gibbons.

Where in bloody hell do you think a terrorist is going to attack in Tennessee? Honestly. You don't think they'd have their eyes on NYC or DC or LA or Vegas first? Or, y'know, just about any other place in the country?

DSGamer wrote:
TheArtOfScience wrote:

When is enough going to be enough?

This country is a fascist state.

I've been saying for a long time that this is becoming a police state. Each time I say this the typical reaction is "oh, don't overreact".

I distinctly recall debating about overkill on domestic security back around 2003, and when I was using examples such as highway DHS checkpoints for future destinations along the slippery slope, I was told to "take off the tinfoil hat."

Yeah. On the one hand, sometimes I really love to say "I told you so." But on the other hand, I didn't really want to be proven right on this topic.

Minarchist wrote:

Great, so now I can only go north and south out of Nashville, not east or west? f*ck you, TSA. f*ck. You.

EDIT: from the first of three sources listed in the linked article:

"Where is a terrorist more apt to be found? Not these days on an airplane more likely on the interstate," said Tennessee Department of Safety & Homeland Security Commissioner Bill Gibbons.

Where in bloody hell do you think a terrorist is going to attack in Tennessee? Honestly. You don't think they'd have their eyes on NYC or DC or LA or Vegas first? Or, y'know, just about any other place in the country?

To me this was the 2nd biggest crime (aside from attacking Iraq) to come out of the fear-mongering after 9/11. Every little podunk state and town became convinced that they were a potential terrorist target. I'm sorry, but Al Qaida probably can't find Tennessee on a map, much less figure out what's worth going after there. Nevermind Idaho, Utah, etc.

I keep thinking that people will stop for a second, look around, and realize that none of us are really in danger of being attacked by terrorists, but 9/11 really messed people up, didn't it?

ClockworkHouse wrote:

I keep thinking that people will stop for a second, look around, and realize that none of us are really in danger of being attacked by terrorists, but 9/11 really messed people up, didn't it?

I feel like I have better odds of winning the lottery.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

I keep thinking that people will stop for a second, look around, and realize that none of us are really in danger of being attacked by terrorists, but 9/11 really messed people up, didn't it?

Sadly yes, it did. And honestly, yes, we did need a bit of a wake-up call that the world is a fairly sh*tty place sometimes, and terrorist organizations are a legitimate concern.

However, that didn't mean we should swing the pendulum all the freakin' other way.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

I keep thinking that people will stop for a second, look around, and realize that none of us are really in danger of being attacked by terrorists, but 9/11 really messed people up, didn't it?

I have this theory about 9/11. Probably for another thread. But I feel like there were multiple ways people experienced 9/11.

- People who saw it live on TV
- People who witnessed it in New York, DC, etc.
- People who saw the replays later on the news

My theory is that the last group is the group that's the most freaked out about a terrorist attack in Boise, Idaho. I saw it live on TV. By chance I happened to turn on the TV the morning of 9/11 and turn on the news before work. My wife and I sat and watched as the story progressed from "a fire in one of the towers" to "some crazy farmer" to "Holy S***, here comes a plane". This is completely non-empirical, but I feel like if you saw it like that it was so surreal that you realized what a moon-shot hail-mary that was. Not likely to happen again.

Yeah, I am not a sky-is-falling type either, but that headline did freak me out more than a little.

Bandit, here's my concern: I think at this point it's pretty clear whoever is behind the TSA is clearly paying attention and noticed that rolling this crap out gradually reduces the furor. I can see the path forward from here to get away with more common checkpoints. Suffice to say, I really don't like it.

Minarchist wrote:
"Where is a terrorist more apt to be found? Not these days on an airplane more likely on the interstate," said Tennessee Department of Safety & Homeland Security Commissioner Bill Gibbons.

Where in bloody hell do you think a terrorist is going to attack in Tennessee? Honestly. You don't think they'd have their eyes on NYC or DC or LA or Vegas first? Or, y'know, just about any other place in the country?

But Tennessee has nuclear stuffs! And terrorists drive dirty bombs around in UHaul trucks! Don't you read Tom Clancy novels?

clover wrote:

But Tennessee has nuclear stuffs! And terrorists drive dirty bombs around in UHaul trucks! Don't you read Tom Clancy novels?

I did briefly think of Oak Ridge Laboratory for a moment, but even that is research-driven; it's not a huge reactor area or anything. Even if they incinerated the entire compound, I don't think there's enough radiation there really approach nearby Knoxville.

I know what they are after.

IMAGE(http://www.cowboydirectory.com/AA-Newsletter/News-2009/Issue-33/OakRidgeBoys.jpg)

Pages