Hobby Airport Road Checkpoint

[4t5]

I dropped someone off at Hobby yesterday and was amazed to see a checkpoint where HPD was randomly stopping cars going up the ramp to the departure area. I guess that some feds could have been there, too, but that is speculation. There were several non-LEO types with mirrors on sticks looking up under the car. I think the last checkpoint that I recall seeing was in the 1970's, and thought one could only be pulled over now in Texas with the LEO having probable cause. I did not see if the driver was questioned, but I had to start thinking how I would handle such a situation. I guess that, if asked, I would show my licenses, but not answer any questions nor give permission to search. Is the ramp at Hobby any different than a public street? Is it some sort of federally controlled area? What about 4th amendment rights? I am asking here since some of the members here know Texas law well, and might be able to tell how it applies.

This sort of thing really bothers me. I am much more concerned about my government than I am afraid of any terrorist. Terrorists will never destroy this country, but the infringement of our rights by government will.

[nitrogen]

This is something I don't talk about a lot, but I somewhat agree.

This fear of terrorists drives me nuts; some nutjobs kill 3000 people and we go crazy, yet 42,000 people died in car accidents in 2001, and we didn't bat an eye.

Half as many were killed by Influenza.

18,000 died directly or indirectly because they didn't have health insurance.

You'd think we'd want to spend all this time and effort working on ways to reduce deaths due to car accidents, influenza, or indigent people without insurance, but it just doesn't seem to happen that way.

As far as what you said, I'd agree. As there's no federal or state law against carrying a legal weapon in the unsecured area of the airport.

[iflyabeech]

Boy....so how exactly do you fellas propose that we fight terrorism? Just let them drive into our airports with car bombs? Or let them plan terrorist acts on the phone with no way to listen in? come on now. . . This is not time for the hypothetical "big brother is watching!" They are not looking for you or me or our guns. . .

[jimlongley]

When I was with TSA at Love Field DPD used to randomly screen vehicles entering the dropoff and pickup area, one day they would have the roadblock and mirrors out, another they wouldn't. It seemed to have little or no relationship to the threat level, although when it was raised one time they screened ALL the vehicles.

I never questioned whether they were doing something they were supposed to or not.

[nitrogen]

Boy....so how exactly do you fellas propose that we fight terrorism? Just let them drive into our airports with car bombs? Or let them plan terrorist acts on the phone with no way to listen in? come on now. . . This is not time for the hypothetical "big brother is watching!" They are not looking for you or me or our guns. . .

I think you misunderstood my point.

My point is, I'm not afraid of this at all.

You have a 1 in 88,000 chance of dying from a terrorist attack in the USA.
You have a 1 in 55,000,000 chance of dying in an airplane due to terrorism.

You are more likely to die by being struck by lightning (1 in 55,000) or or in your bathtub (1 in 10,455)

You're MUCH more likely to be murdered (1 in 197) or shot (1 in 299).

There are plenty of other things that can kill us that our government should worry about, other than terrorism.
Not that I don't believe in being ready, mind you, but my point is, I think we're taking it way too far.

I'm more afraid of George Bush or Hillary Clinton with these newfound powers to "protect" us from something that's not very likely to affect us.

[iflyabeech]

Boy....so how exactly do you fellas propose that we fight terrorism? Just let them drive into our airports with car bombs? Or let them plan terrorist acts on the phone with no way to listen in? come on now. . . This is not time for the hypothetical "big brother is watching!" They are not looking for you or me or our guns. . .

I think you misunderstood my point.

My point is, I'm not afraid of this at all.

You have a 1 in 88,000 chance of dying from a terrorist attack in the USA.
You have a 1 in 55,000,000 chance of dying in an airplane due toterrorism.
You are more likely to die by being struck by lightning (1 in 55,000) or or in your bathtub (1 in 10,455)

You're MUCH more likely to be murdered (1 in 197) or shot (1 in 299).

There are plenty of other things that can kill us that our government should worry about, other than terrorism.
Not that I don't believe in being ready, mind you, but my point is, I think we're taking it way too far.

I'm more afraid of George Bush or Hillary Clinton with these newfound powers to "protect" us from something that's not very likely to affect us.

Hmm, I don't hide under trees or play golf during thunderstorms. Prevention is the best medicine!
Statistics are bogus. Your argument about other things being more important than terrorists is asinine. It belittles every single one of those folks who died that September day in 2001. Muslim extremists are trying to kill us.....How do you propose we stop them?
I am not sure what you are talking about. You don't have to be killed to be a affected by terrorism...Thats kind of the definition of terrorism- to inflict terror. We need to take the terrorists out. I am not afraid of them, but, by God, I will do anything in my power to protect my family, friends, and fellow Americans from them.
I refuse to forget.
I hate tell you, but if Billary is elected, you might have your way, and we will all be affected.

[CHL/LEO]

The TSA has control of most aspects of airport security within about 300 feet of the arrival and departure points. If they decide they want to set up a checkpoint then they can do so. The airport police will assist them as needed.

[srothstein]

Boy....so how exactly do you fellas propose that we fight terrorism? Just let them drive into our airports with car bombs? Or let them plan terrorist acts on the phone with no way to listen in? come on now. . . This is not time for the hypothetical "big brother is watching!" They are not looking for you or me or our guns. . .

Yes, they are looking for you and your guns. After all, there is no defintion of what is a terrorist and there have been some pretty weak claims made for it so far.

How do we fight terrorism? I suggest we do it the same way we have been fighting crime for 100 years, by good police work and intelligence. Terrorists are criminals and we can use the same old standard tools for fighting it without violating people's rights. We do not need the "new" powers of the patriot act, nor do we need to give up the right against unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant.

TSA has some good people in it, as do the FBI, the ATF, and the DEA. But they also have some people who are not in favor of our freedoms and will do what they can to violate them.

There is a rule, by TSA, that when they decide to up the security threat level, they can stop and search all cars in a certain area in the airport. Is this a proper law that meets the Constitutional requirements? I do not think so, as it has not been proven to be the best way to do its intended function. Does it help calm the masses and make them think the government is fighting terrorism? Yes, because they really do not understand how the real world works.

There is an old saying in law enforcement that you cannot stop a dedicated criminal who is not afraid to die for his mission. Most of the Mideastern/Muslim terrorists meet this definition. I would rather have the populace educated and understanding the real world than feel good measures to keep them calm.

[phddan]

Well, I think the precedent has already been set since the Civil War, and every war since then, to limit and censor individuals for the good of the nation.
Heck, can you imagine the uproar if they brought back the ration card!!!:shock:
Personally, I don't think that having check points at airports is a bad thing, since those docs in England pulled that stunt a few weeks ago.
To me, that is far different than the DUI checkpoints and license and insurance checkpoints that just scream PAPERS PLEASE!!!!
In a time of war, you have to be hyper vigilant, while at the same time you must balance individuals rights. So far, I don't think they, the gov., has crossed the line.

Dan

[Will938]

Your argument about other things being more important than terrorists is asinine. It belittles every single one of those folks who died that September day in 2001. Muslim extremists are trying to kill us.....How do you propose we stop them?
I am not sure what you are talking about. You don't have to be killed to be a affected by terrorism...Thats kind of the definition of terrorism- to inflict terror. We need to take the terrorists out. I am not afraid of them, but, by God, I will do anything in my power to protect my family, friends, and fellow Americans from them.
I refuse to forget.
I hate tell you, but if Billary is elected, you might have your way, and we will all be affected.

It is a slap in the face of all Americans to bow into what the point of terrorism is, to change our way of life. Why is it ok for our government to randomly search us, to listen in on our conversations, or to hold people as terrorists without a speedy trial (Americans, not gitmo). Why are we accepting such treatment, even if there is a chance of terrorism? There always has been, and always will be terrorism. The key is a good intel network overseas. Rely on good police work and legal intel here. Beyond that, leave us alone. Terrorists have already won here, they've got us thinking photographers are terrorists, that it is ok to allow the government to shread our rights a bit. People should be able to do as they always have before 9/11. Airlines are private companies and should be able to decide what legal item comes aboard their planes, not the government. I shouldn't be stopped for a random search ever. I shouldn't have to worry about things I say that might be suspicious and get unwanted attention from the "OMG a terrorist" crowd. If that results in more dead Americans then so be it, at least they would die with the freedoms they deserve, that hundreds of thousands of other Americans died to give them.

If Hillary gets elected nitrogen won't have his way, it will only get worse.

[KBCraig]

Hmmm... "iflyabeech". General Aviation, I presume?

Tell me: who checks you, your passengers, or what you load into that Beech before takeoff, to make sure you're not carrying a full load of avgas and dynamite on a kamikaze mission against an innocent civilian target?

....*crickets chirp*....

Nothing stops you from doing that, except your human decency.

A car bomb wold be totally ineffective as a weapon of terror, compared to a Twin Beech taking off from the GA side of Love, and crashing fast and level in a suicide bombing through the Southwest concourse.

[stevie_d_64]

Boy....so how exactly do you fellas propose that we fight terrorism? Just let them drive into our airports with car bombs? Or let them plan terrorist acts on the phone with no way to listen in? come on now. . . This is not time for the hypothetical "big brother is watching!" They are not looking for you or me or our guns. . .

Yeah, but in this case, at the very least, we would have been asked to stop and leave...

I imagine we would be given a close escort away from the airport...

At which time the person I'm going to pick up at Hobby is going to be pretty mad that I drove right by with the law trailing me...

The whole situation is rediculous...

I had not heard of this stepped up (boundary of the airport "pushed this far back") at Hobby...I only live a few miles from there, and when the "hightened" state gets raised even higher, I have never heard of them doing anything at Hobby, its always been at "IAH"...

But still the "random" stop, is still a stop...And we are required to disclose to the LEO our status...I'll always carry "to" the airport anyway, so I guess I'll cross that bridge when I get there...

I have to wonder what they are doing to the folks just walking in...And not obviously into the "secure" area of an airport...

[stevie_d_64]

How do you propose we stop them?

Well that is a loaded question, pull up a chair...

It would involve obtaining launch codes and authorization, and me winning the 2008 Presidential election...

But thats beside the point...

The payoff from my booky in Vegas would be tremendous if I got it right...The odds of you or I or anyone else on this forum being in the right place at the right time, and clueing up on the situation to stop an attack in this country is astronomical...So it doesn't even come into play...

So I'm not too bent out of shape with the efforts (however rediculous they are) so far in this war...And these are just a few annoying little aspects of this deal we have to put up with these days...

Go talk to a family member who might have been around during WWII...See what they had to deal with...

And the fact that we carry guns almost has no bearing on anything with this issue, other than the off chance they may turn you around at some point...At which time you have the right to file a grievance which is in the Constitution...

Not at TexasCHLforum.com

I'm not doing anything today...I might mosey on over to Hobby and go check things out...

(The lawyers are cringing right about now...)

[austin]

How do we fight terrorism? I suggest we do it the same way we have been fighting crime for 100 years, by good police work and intelligence. Terrorists are criminals and we can use the same old standard tools for fighting it without violating people's rights. We do not need the "new" powers of the patriot act, nor do we need to give up the right against unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant.
.

Terrorists have specific social and political goals. Because of this, they are soldiers, not criminals. Because they don't wear uniforms and are not state actors, they are subject to the same laws that pertain to sabotuers.

While there has to be due process, and where possible use the Law to get them, but sometimes, its not enough.

Letting someone do a bunch of dry runs at an airline or a public building who has known ties to terrorists is stupid. All that is left is for the assault team to come into the country and execute the plans laid down.

Letting someone rent safehouses, outfit training setups in warehouses, buy and position vehicles who has known ties to terrorism is stupid.

The above two types of activities are clear indicators of impending attacks, yet under the previous legal framework, nothing could be done. Nor could the calls and correspondence of these people be tracked.

Now, it can be.

The law can list the types of activities which trigger specific powers and the law itself can have sunset provisions.

Failure to address the problem properly will lead to a much worse situation from the standpoint of civil liberties - public unrest, loss of faith in law enforcement, vigilante justice, and the rise of domestic terrorism.

[austin]

How do we fight terrorism? I suggest we do it the same way we have been fighting crime for 100 years, by good police work and intelligence. Terrorists are criminals and we can use the same old standard tools for fighting it without violating people's rights. We do not need the "new" powers of the patriot act, nor do we need to give up the right against unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant.
.

.

NONE of the 911 hijackers could have been stopped nor were stopped under the old laws.

The "21st hijacker" ZM computer had all the plans on it, but they could not search it. ZM was picked up on an immigration charge and he reeked terrorism, but the DOJ could do nothing and the CIA could not tell DOJ that ZM was AQ nor could DOJ ask the CIA about him.