NationStates Jolt Archive

I wondered how anyone could object to faster security screenings. But after reading this in the USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2006-01-19-trusted-travelers_x.htm), I know that where there's an ACLU, there's a way.

ACLU lawyer Tim Sparapani said, "There's no question that the lines for non-Registered Travelers are going to be longer because we're taking away screening space from the mass public and giving it to a few select people."

Heaven forbid that people willing to pay for special treatment should actually get it.

Heaven forbid that the ACLU be critical of something that is an infringement of personal integrity and that will be forced on people through long queues as a punitive effect for not willing to let Uncle Sam know every detail of their life so that he can stick it in his database.

i dont get what this securetravelpassport would bring as an advantage, i mean, it is not like you can travel faster, the plane wont start without the passengers queued in the 'normal' line and if you were in the fast line, you will just have to wait longer on board.

ACLU lawyer Tim Sparapani said, "There's no question that the lines for non-Registered Travelers are going to be longer because we're taking away screening space from the mass public and giving it to a few select people."
Let me get this straight - if you screen somebody in advance (thus removing them from normal screening procedures), the lines will get *longer?* His logic is flawless :headbang:

Besides, if I know the ACLU right they'd be demanding an end to *all* screening period! Now that's just plain stupid, even for a civil liberty nut like myself.

I wondered how anyone could object to faster security screenings. But after reading this in the USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2006-01-19-trusted-travelers_x.htm), I know that where there's an ACLU, there's a way.

Heaven forbid that people willing to pay for special treatment should actually get it.
I kinda wonder how you got from that to the idea of them being anti-individual? Seems like a big jump to me...

I thought it looked like a good idea but then the idea of paying turned me waaay off.

I'm sorry. Flying on a civilian aircraft run by an airline is a privilege earned by paying to get on the plane - it's not an inalienable right.

Technically, the airline could demand that every passenger recite "Mary Had A Little Lamb" as a condition of flying.

Considering the ass-covering that corporations need nowadays, I'm surprised that airlines don't have their own security screening with their own rules - including barium x-rays of the colons of suspect passengers.

i dont get what this securetravelpassport would bring as an advantage, i mean, it is not like you can travel faster, the plane wont start without the passengers queued in the 'normal' line and if you were in the fast line, you will just have to wait longer on board.
You've obviously not had to catch the 0600 flight, after getting in from a week of 18 hour days. The 0600 flight means a 0430 show at most big airports. If I could count on getting to the gate at 0545, after an 0530 arrival at the airport, as in the pre-911 days, I'd be a happy traveller.

I kinda wonder how you got from that to the idea of them being anti-individual? Seems like a big jump to me...
Absolutely not. When you start demanding that individuals have no special privileges over the masses, that's certainly very anti-individualistic. Almost Communist, one might say.

Absolutely not. When you start demanding that individuals have no special privileges over the masses, that's certainly very anti-individualistic. Almost Communist, one might say.
All you need is your own A-6 you know.

All you need is your own A-6 you know.
I was at NAS Whidbey Island this week on a job. Seeing all the Prowlers launch and land was rather nostalgic. A-6s were too dirty to use as a business aircraft. I'd rather have one of the Cessna Citations that the NFOs use for training in P'cola.

But then there were the bombs ...

Let me get this straight - if you screen somebody in advance (thus removing them from normal screening procedures), the lines will get *longer?* His logic is flawless :headbang:

Actually, it does not give you a walkon privledge. You still have to go through the xray. The longer lines is the fact they will allocate a check-in and an xray machine for the "privledged"

Also, I am not keen on the idea of passing a background check. They need to be updated from time to time. Will the company do that?



Besides, if I know the ACLU right they'd be demanding an end to *all* screening period! Now that's just plain stupid, even for a civil liberty nut like myself.

And why would they do that? I supposed you would say they would also want to end the police force as well?

Also, I am not keen on the idea of passing a background check. They need to be updated from time to time. Will the company do that?

I assume you get the background check from TSA. With computers, it should be easy to run a background check on every clearance holder whenever it's desired.

By the way, my DISCO security clearance is only updated every five years, I believe. Certainly not annually.

Absolutely not. When you start demanding that individuals have no special privileges over the masses, that's certainly very anti-individualistic. Almost Communist, one might say.
Of course this is bad, but this is one person in one case. Look at almost every other ACLU case, and they sure seem to be promoting legalization of gay marriage, protection of free speech, etc, etc, which last time I checked, were individual choice things. In fact, I'm pretty surprised the ACLU did this, because it's quite against the rest of what they have done, I thought. It seems like the ACLU has made a bad decision here, but to use that as an excuse to denounce them all as Communists seems like a bit of a stretch.

I certainly feel safer now that they are thinking of putting an express lane that bypasses security screenings. YAY!

Of course this is bad, but this is one person in one case. Look at almost every other ACLU case, and they sure seem to be promoting legalization of gay marriage, protection of free speech, etc, etc, which last time I checked, were individual choice things. In fact, I'm pretty surprised the ACLU did this, because it's quite against the rest of what they have done, I thought. It seems like the ACLU has made a bad decision here, but to use that as an excuse to denounce them all as Communists seems like a bit of a stretch.
I've been stuck in airports all week. I'm just having fun. Although, if the shoe fits...

I certainly feel safer now that they are thinking of putting an express lane that bypasses security screenings. YAY!
I think the only advantage to bypassing the masses is a better screener to screenee ration, combined with a relaxed requirement to undress. For example, one will be able to wear his jacket, shoes, and belts unless a metal detector complains.