Box Cutter Boy
 

So the Box Cutter Kid is going to face charges of . taking a dangerous weapon aboard an airplane. . The TSA says it's going to look into why his emails to the government went unreported for several weeks, but Joe Kelley, who hosts a syndicated talk show out of Dallas, says that's not the problem.


I can only hope that the TSA believes it goes without saying that they're going to figure out how Heatwole got his weapons on board a plane.

I agree 100%. Fix the real security problems.

Those of us who fly regularly suspected that it would be way too easy to bring banned items aboard an airplane.

Side note: However, I also suspect that another 9-11 is impossible if terrorists were to try to use the exact same tactics. The response to a hijacking has been changed. A terrorist may be able to take a plane down, but not take it over and fly it into whatever location they want. Passengers would do anything possible to insure that didn't happen (much like the passengers on the flight that went down in Pennsylvania).

So hopefully, the Homeland Security Agency is working a step ahead trying to find and prevent the next way a terrorist will try to hurt the nation. For the record, I think they are trying to do this, but so far their most publicized attempts have been less than reassuring.

Another case of treating the symptom, and not the disease.

While I think it was pretty stupid of the kid to basically ruin his future to make a point, the point was made, and the TSA needs to address that point, not just throw the kid in jail.

I realized how much of a joke airport security was last summer when I flew with my family to Australia, about 10 flights around the country and then back. I was stopped twice at security, once at Logan where they searched my carry-on backpack (ended up being a 20-pack of batteries looked like ammo) and once in Australia (where they tore off the pick part of the nail clippers I had.) Only after I got back did I find my swiss army knife, which has about a 3-inch blade - in my backpack I was carrying the whole time.

I agree with this point completely. The rules have changed.

It is also believe that the ridiculous hoops the TSA makes us passengers go through don't take that into consideration. In the current climate it would take a hell of a lot more than the pocketknife on my keychain to commandeer a plane. Certainly a lot more than a transformer robot I saw taken away from a four year old once. Don't even get me started on the 90 year old with a walker they stopped to check her shoes.

the last time we flew, my wife (holding our 3 month old baby), got completely searched - shoes off, pat down, everything. TWICE. Scruffy and unshaven me walked right through both times.

oh, and no matter what he was trying to prove, this kid is a fucking idiot.

Dola,

I also think this kid should skate. Hell he TOLD them exactly what he was going to do. Even the exact date and the planes. Someone shoulda dropped him a line and said "No Thank You".

THis is a sore subject for me really. I get upset when I see ridiculous things like this. I mean not a whole lot of suicidal hijackers travel with small children.

Well, we've only seen, what? 19 suicidal hijackers? And if you don't think terrorists are willing to use children as "martyrs", you haven't seen the pictures of five and six year old Palestinian children dressed up in full Islamic Jihad regalia, complete with a mini-automatic rifle.

Right. As soon as we stop searching people based on some criteria, terrorists will use this against us.

You know, this incident affected us in Canada too! My Manager was on a flight back from Regina to Edmonton, and was stuck on the plane in Edmonton for a half hour while the police searched every plane and every body before letting them off...I guess they did this all across Canada when the incident happened.

Cam hit the nail on the head with this one. Old or young it makes no difference. A warm body is a warm body in the eyes of the TSA. Thats the way it should be. Things are so much different now these are the unfortunate side effects of security.

The kid should never have been able to place the items, given the fact that he provided the government a month's lead time in catching him and preventing it. What if someone in the know from Al-Qaeda was trying to tip them off about a plan in the works? They would find the email after something blew up. Yay! How many extra billions are we throwing into this anti-terrorism crap again?

The kid should not be prosecuted. Tom Ridge should be fired. The people sucking this money down and not improving things one bit should be out on their ass. This kid just pointed out to all of America, and the World, that the US government is full of shit and we're going to make him take a fall for it. What a joke.

He was stupid, but if it helps to improve airline security, I'm glad someone was stupid enough to do it for the rest of us.

Here here, well-stated. First thing I thought when I read about this is that the whole point of his stunt would be glossed over and he would be punished severely for proving the emporer wears no clothes. No good deed goes unpunished apparently...

Mrs. Q and I discussed this, and she pretty persuasively managed to simultaneously argue that (a) the kid proved a pretty important point, and (b) the kid should still be punished for what he did, at least to some degree.

Isn't it possible that these can both be right? So far, I keep hearing the argument (more or less) that it's not fair for the kid to be punished, because there is such a real problem with our security.

Isn't a meaningful part of civil disobedience a willingness to accept the resulting punishment for breaking the laws that you deliberately broke?

Yes, and that's why I appreciate his efforts, because there's no way I would have done the same.

clap clap clap

When we live in a society that lets people off with nothing after engaging in activities that kill others, I see no reason to make an example of this person.

No No you took what I said too far. Yes I agree that some of these psychos would use their children in that manner. I also think the number of psychos willing to do so is a distinct subset of all homicidal/suicidal psychos. I guess the general issue I have with these kind of searches, is that the people often being searched are not a threat. I mean granny who is using a walker to get to the plane, isn't a realistic threat to take that plane over. It is ridiculous to let the three able bodied males in front of her walk on the plane, but she gets pulled aside to take off her therapeutic shoes.

In principle I agree that you can't say "Don't check pregnant women", because some nut job will use it against you. I want then to use intelligent profiling, with some random and reasonable searches tossed in.

I am pro-profiling

I don't think what he did could be classified civil disobedience. I mean he wasn't trying to "fight the system" or any such thing.

He was an idiot. I'll grant you that he was an idiot with a cause.

He may have been obsessed with preventing hijackings, or some such, so he wanted to help and be part of the solution. I am just guessing what he or his attorneys are going to argue. What I am getting at, is I don't think he considered what he was doing as breaking the law. Remember, he is an idiot, therefore that is not that much of a leap.

I can see this logic... but the kid apparently made the "civil disobenience" claim himself, even if it was misguided in substance.

But that's what truly random searches create, seemingly bizarre looking situations like you describe.

I don't object to granny being searched though -- who knows what's been stashed in her walker, her purse, her shoes, or just about anywhere by, say, her nutjob grandson?

How about this alternative instead -- do a f'n thorough search of every traveler, regardless of their characteristics? Seems to me that accomplishes the goal, to reduce the risk of terrorist acts on the plane.

Instead, we get the half-assed system we have now, which worries far too much about "inconvience" and not nearly enough about security.

AH I didn't see that.

I can see that what he did had the effect of Civil Disobedience, in that it brought the horrible state of security to light. I don't think that dog would hunt as a legal maneuver though. I think he is better off with I asked for permission. was pretty confident they got and read my email. When they didn't tell me "NO", I thought they were OK with it. I mean really I think it will be hard for the government to put him away. I think this may be a time to let him plea to something where he gets probation. Hell if we put him away, he is nuts enough to really blow up a plane when he gets out.

The problem I have with this approach to safety is where do you stop? At what point do you say that the inconvenience involved in trying to maintain security outweighs the likelihood of something bad happening to me?

Maybe we should outlaw cars and force everyone to use public transportation systems since traffic accidents are bad. Maybe we should outlaw gun production in this country and declare a 'war on guns' to prevent any from entering the country, since guns can be used by bad people to hurt others.

I guess I'm willing to live with a higher level of risk in my life if it means that while I'm still alive the quality of my life is better by not having so many inconveniences getting in the way. Defining that dividing line is the crux, and no matter where you draw it someone will be upset.

For the record, I'm not suggesting the kid shouldn't be punished. What I'm suggesting is it would not surprise me if the vigor with which he is punished and the extent of that punishment will betray an attitude of "shoot the messenger".

At what point do you say that the inconvenience involved in trying to maintain security outweighs the likelihood of something bad happening to me?

And that's the line we were on the wrong side of 9/11/01.

I have similar questions along this same line. I think there is a possibility that if this guy were a reporter for Newsweek or a producer for Dateline, he may have had few if any legal problems.

I believe it was 20/20 that did a story on airline security before 9/11 in which they had someone with a hidden camera apply for a job as an airport screener to show how easy it was for someone who wasn't qualified to get into the job. Similar stories have been done on topics like government meat inspection.

Each of these "news" stories involved some level of illegality, but I'm unaware of a reporter facing charges. I know a local news reporter who was fired and slapped with minor charges for calling in fake 911 calls to test emergency response times. Heck, my high school cable-access show did a story on teenage drinking in which we had hidden camera footage of minors buying alcohol. No charges were filed against the clerks or stores who sold (our footage was considered illegal entrapment) but the authorities did briefly consider filing charges against the students who bought alcohol on camera until cooler heads prevailed.

With my journalist background, I certainly understand the value of individual breaking the law to illustrate a vulnerability in our safety. That said, we cannot have every Tom, Dick and Harry pulling stunts like this under the protection that it was in the common good.

I think I would have to side with Mrs. QS on this one.

Not to threadjack, but since when did you become naked with regards to a title? (I figured if I had the word naked in the thread, it would attract more views ;) )

SI

I don't think I need to say much more than that to illuminate my position on the matter.

convenience is not the same as essential liberty, and one could argue fairly persuasively that making sure people aren't carrying bombs or weapons on a plane isn't an unreasonable search.

But there's no probable cause, unless your next step is to assume that anybody and everybody stepping on that plane is a potential terrorist. Above and beyond that, where's your probable cause? How are you going to demonstrate before a judge that Joe Blow is indeed enough of a threat to justify searching his person or his effects, except via ex post facto?

And furthermore, let's assume that the courts either have already, or soon will, permit such searches as Constitutional.

What's the next step? Are we then going to subject to search every vehicle that travels to and from an airport, on the grounds that there might be a nuclear weapon in the trunk?

Do we start searching passengers waiting to board at train stations? Heck, why not put checkpoints at every bridge, tunnel, and freeway overpass in the country, and make every single vehicle stop there and submit to a search? After all, mass transportation on that scale is a matter of interstate commerce, and regulation of such is permissible for Congress, right?

Convenience is not essential liberty, you're absolutely right. But there is nothing in the Constitution that says infringement upon convenience is permissible, while infringement upon essential liberty is not.

The Fourth Amendment states that the right of the people to be secure in their persons and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and that a warrant, supported by probable cause, is required. As far as I can tell, no warrants have been issued. Let's say they DID find something. I can't imagine that would remotely hold up in court as permissible evidence.

The part that makes this particularly troubling for me is that the Fourth Amendment should be *particularly* enforceable here, now that the airport security forces are federal agents. If the Constitution is applicable primarily to the federal government, and agents of that government are conducting these searches, then to my untrained eye and ear, there are some unconstitutional actions being taken here in the name of national security.

At what point would you suggest we draw the line between national security and personal freedom? Is freedom really so disposable to you, that it should be cast aside in the name of temporary safety?

There seem to be some who believe that any means necessary to prevent terrorrism, regardless of the infringements of personal liberty or convenience or the impact on the quality of life are justified. At another extreme are those who could care less about the risks and dangers and want as much freedom and convenience as is possible. Between these 2 poles sit most of us; the problem is finding a comfortable location between these 2 poles that upsets the least amount of people.

I don't know that I'd cast myself in the light of "could care less about the risks and dangers..."

It's more that people grow complacent. Once the outrage over one infringement has passed, it becomes easier to implement another. And another. Shrugging it off and saying "Oh, it's okay, at least we're safer" is a dangerous mentality.

Nazi Germany is an oft-quoted, and oft-misused example, but it's at least partly relevant here. One of the first things that happened under the Nazi regime was the revocation of gun ownership rights. The argument can be made - and I'm sure it was made - that taking guns out of the hands of your average citizen makes the society as a whole safer. That may or may not be so, but it also removes the tools of rebellion against an unjust government.

An extreme example, to be certain, but that's the sort of thing that worries me about incursions of this sort. They're easy to justify in the name of public safety and security, but at what point do we draw the line between the government's responsibility to keep its citizens secure, and the protection of individual rights and freedoms?

To use a more timely example, the Patriot Act, if I read it right, effectively suspends habeas corpus when national security interests are involved. So somebody suspected of terrorist links can be locked up indefinitely without being brought before a judge and charged with a crime, simply because the government has decided of its own volition that he poses a credible threat?

Don't get me wrong. Security is important. It's good to know that we can, by and large, go to a restaurant, or a local bar, or what have you, and know that we're reasonably safe from some wacko walking in with a bomb strapped to his chest to blow the place up.

But at the same time, security can be both a benefit to the people, and a weapon against them. I believe it was Lenin (although it may have been Marx) who once called religion the opiate of the masses. Over the last two-plus years, I've grown more and more convinced that 'security' has become so as well.

I completely agree Sack, and I apologize if it seemed like I implied you were on one extreme.

I mean, seriously, does anybody want to go through life being known as Box Cutter Boy? What a lousy superhero name.

-Anxiety

No apology necessary, dawg. I just wanted to clarify where I stood because I realized there was some room for interpretation with my earlier posts.

Box Cutter Boy!!!!

with his side-kick

Bleach Girl

The whole notion of "probable cause" applies to people who are, for lack of a better term, "minding their own business." Without a good reason, the government or a private party can't just hassle you with a search or the like.

Thing is, if you're getting onto an airplane, you're not just minding your own business. It's everyone's business whether you have a weapon or something of the sort.

General concepts of "probable cause" don't apply to people who are participating in elective behavior with a public effect. If you want to fly on a plane - a federally regulated enterprise - then you simply sacrifice some of your general liberties to do so. If you object, fine - take a bus.

I'm generally very strong on the concepts of civil liberties, but I think they need to be correctly placed. There's no guarantee of unimpeded access to a public airliner.

Thank you. I was hoping for a more "lawyerly" point of view.

me too. Good job, Quik

He answered one of my questions (or maybe he didn't). Do we have a Constitutional right to fly in a plane? I know we have a right travel within the United States (at least I seem to remember that), but does that cover the mode of transport?

Personally, I think if someone exposes a security hole without actually intending to do harm, he or she should be given a medal, not prosecuted.

So as long as someone says he is testing the security and maybe puts it in writing, he should get off?

Ok. I'm going to test the security measures at Best Buy and try to walk off with a $2000 lap top. Your all my witnesses that this is a test, right?

The guy sent an email declaring his intentions, as well as providing his contact information a month before it happened (this is what I have read and heard in reports). Given this much, and what has happened after the fact, we KNOW the intentions of this individual. Throwing a felony case on the table is merely punishing him for exposing the lie that the TSA and "Homeland Security" is. If the government does not want to thank him, the taxpayers of this nation better thank him for uncovering a fraud that has been pushed at us at the cost of billions of dollars.

.

Really? So as long as I email someone at Best Buy, they wouldn't mind, right? I mean, there is no way I could have other than the best motives, right?

Throwing a felony case at him is called justice, because he did indeed commit a felony.

Sometimes justice requires that the Justice Department use common sense, instead of blindly following statutes and guidelines.

With all due respect, I think you are using a poor analogy. Exposing a hole in Best Buy's security and exposing one in airline security are not even remotely similar. No one is going to lose their life if Best Buy has shoddy security. Thousands could if airline security is as weak as suspected.