The courts are not going to stop this injustice. The ONLY thing that will put an end to it is if you refuse to fly and make it known to your representatives why. Explain to your relatives why you cannot easily visit them as often as you would like and encourage them to write their representatives explaining why their loved ones wont visit. Only Congress has the power to stop this and they will not do so until it is clear that the survival of the airlines and their very status as representatives depends on their switching sides.

I have put my money where my mouth is and have not flown since October. Forgoing opportunities to travel cross country, driving and taking the train or bus is a sacrifice but it is a small one.

Like the 4th for instance:

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.

I’m a Brit, and even I’m annoyed about this whole TSA BS. When it’s all gone, I’ll come and visit. Until then, it’s just here. Shame.

I have the sudden urge to chisel that statement into a huge block of granite somewhere for all to see. :)

I beg your pardon, but ‘not the same as my reasons’ ≠ ‘wrong reasons.’ While the global issue you point out is certainly true, refusing what amounts to assault is never, ever wrong. I’d refuse simply because nobody’s going to lay a hand on me as a prerequisite to travel, and I will do so without regard to what is or is not legal.

Don’t minimize someone else’s issue to garner attention to your own.

speakertweaker

More seriously:
While there is a vocal part of the population demanding security from terrorism, it is unlikely that the TSA is going anywhere useful. No elected official is going to say “cut down on the security theater” because his/her opponents will start the “Weak on Terror, sekrit mooslim, hates the heroes of 9/11″ speech. In the current volatile political environment, no-one who advocates a more sensible approach will be re-elected.

The bosses of TSA and DHS isn’t going to say, “this is too much” because that would mean giving up power, and our appointed officials don’t do that. Indeed, every time there is an outcry about some TSA gate-rape, we hear a few days later that “we are more at risk than ever for a terrorist attack!”

What to do? Well, the other solution is to treat people who work for the TSA as we do any other sexual predator/child molester. If you know someone who works for the TSA, add their names to the sexual offenders registry. Make complaints to CPS/social services about their parenting skills. Refuse to serve them in restaurants and shops. Insist they move away from schools. Decline to rent property to them because of their depraved behavior.
Make it so that the “power trip” of groping junior genitalia at the airport has repercussions in their day-to-day lives.

Hell, it would at least be entertaining…

It wasn’t sexual and it wasn’t personal and it certainly wasn’t the result of racial profiling.

It is not required to be any of those things to be wrong.

I can see the child psychologist video now, “Okay Billy, can you show me on the doll where Uncle TSA touched you?”

> All terrorists are engaged in something unusual, therefore all
> unusual occurrences should be viewed as potential terrorism

please stop the complaints about the “targeted” screening. If they could screen everyone for everything efficiently, they should. Targeting (e.g. detecting metal, chemical, profile) is because screening everyone for everything is not efficient.

Now that we agree that we have to target (i.e. sampling), there will, of course, be cases that are missed (if you’re looking for a,b,c , and not looking for d), and there will, of course, be false positive (people fitting criteria ‘a’ that need further investigation but are actually not terrorists).

Note, I’m not saying stop complaining if some screening method is useless. I’m saying if we think that we should protect ourselves against the events of 9/11, then can we stop complaining if doing so is inconvenient.

Furthermore, before complaining about TSA, I think people should ask if TSA does not exist and each airline does their own screening, would you still complain? I would say that airlines should have the right to check what they want to secure their million dollar planes, and as passengers, you have the right to choose a different airline or another mode of transportation or creating your own airline. If you agree to this and think we should protect ourselves against events of 9/11, then why complain about the TSA?

9/11 required no weapon, or liquids, or bomb, or even mechanical failure.

It needed only the will of a person.

Thought police? Dangerous, misdirected, WRONG!

Many beat-up nerdy teenagers entertained ideas of killing their persecutors, yet went on to improving the human condition.

As a Canadian who knows she traveled through BC, I see why.

I don’t recall ever saying we should protect ourselves from the events of 9/11. I don’t recall ever being asked if I thought we should. I sure don’t recall ever giving anyone the authority to do so.

speakertweaker

But almost beside the point, isn’t it impossible to drive to Juneau? I’ve heard this before and a cursory look at a map confirms that no roads lead to Juneau from the rest of North America. Only planes and boats. She must have taken a boat?

Sorry to digress, I know it’s a small point…

It’s unfortunate she’s not a federal congrescritter. I call this a lost oportunity, not heroism.

If you think the government should be allowed to do things that can cause severe trauma without a warrant or pressing, immediate need, well, I’m almost hoping you’ll get to experience it. Almost. Either everybody has rights or nobody does, and if the only way to exercise your rights can involve psychological trauma, you are being denied that right. Since she hasn’t done anything, there is no cause to deny her any rights.

I’m not saying what Cissna did is revolutionary in any way but I’m not about to turn down any story that could add to the visibility of this issue.

Also, she didn’t drive to Seattle – she was IN Seattle and had to get back to Juneau. Without flying that is one hell of a trip (Cissna took small planes to Canada where she could catch up with the ferry and reach Juneau by water).

Having driven from Seattle to Alaska myself, I can tell you it isn’t a quick or easy trip. I did it with a friend, driving in shifts and only stopping for a couple hours each night and it took us three entire days. I’m young and like that sort of adventure but making that kind of journey when you are older and especially when you’d planned on flying and have limited time is an enormous statement to me, and, I’d assume, to other Alaskans.

Speaking as a lifelong Alaskan, I am very conflicted over the state of our airline industry and its ties with the TSA. I have to fly if I want to go anywhere but I refuse to submit to unwarranted searches at the airport. As I said, I can’t just hop in a car and be-bop down to the Lower 48 any time I want to see my friends. A lot of people don’t have that kind of time or energy, and it’s not particularly cost effective. (It is also very difficult to drive to Hawaii from here as well, which is where most of my travel will be to so I can help my mom as she goes through chemotherapy there).

Cissna may be a small fish to the rest of the world but Alaskans take notice when other Alaskans make news like this. And with Alaska’s dependency on air travel, stories like these have the ability to spark some heavy debate on the subject. Gotta keep up the momentum somehow. :)