I travel ALOT for business. I refuse to fly unless it takes more than a day to drive to my final destination, because going through the airport is so disgusting. If full body imaging is not enough, the pat downs are just humiliating. I cannot count how many times an agent has had to pat down my breasts due to my undergarment setting off the little wand. Come on, women have wires in the bras, but this seems to be an excuse to touch and fondle breasts. Why does anyone have the right to touch women like this? Is buying a ticket to fly make you a criminal to be patted down and fondled? When did we give up all our rights to Homeland Security? I agree with these groups, just say no to flying if at all possible...
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/12/travel.screening/index.html?hpt=T2
(CNN) -- A growing pilot and passenger revolt over full-body scans and what many consider intrusive pat-downs couldn't have come at a worse time for the nation's air travel system.
Thanksgiving, the busiest travel time of the year, is less than two weeks away.
Grassroots groups are urging travelers to either not fly or to protest by opting out of the full-body scanners and undergo time-consuming pat-downs instead.
Such concerns prompted a meeting Friday of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano with leaders of travel industry groups.
Napolitano met with the U.S.Travel Association and 20 travel companies "to underscore the Department's continued commitment to partnering with the nation's travel and tourism industry to facilitate the flow of trade and travel while maintaining high security standards to protect the American people," the department said in a statement.
Federal officials have increased security in the wake of plots attributed to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
Industry leaders are worried about the grassroots backlash to Transportation Security Administration security procedures. Some pilots, passengers and flight attendants have chosen to opt out of the revealing scans.
More of the units are arriving at airports, with 1,000 expected to be in place by the end of 2011.
"While the meeting with Secretary Napolitano was informative, it was not entirely reassuring," the U.S. Travel Association said in a statement.
"We certainly understand the challenges that DHS confronts, but the question remains, 'where do we draw the line'? Our country desperately needs a long-term vision for aviation security screening, rather than an endless reaction to yesterday's threat," the statement said. "At the same time, fundamental American values must be protected."
The travel industry is concerned that consumers may decide not to take a plane to Aunt Gertrude's for the holiday.
"We have received hundreds of e-mails and phone calls from travelers vowing to stop flying," Geoff Freeman, an executive vice president of the U.S. Travel Association, told Reuters.
A 2008 survey found that air travelers "avoided" 41 million trips because they believed the air travel system was either "broken" or in need of "moderate correction," the U.S. Travel Association said. The decisions cost airlines $9.4 billion, the survey said.
One online group, "National Opt Out Day" calls for a day of protest against the scanners on Wednesday, November 24, the busiest travel day of the year.
Another group argues the TSA should remove the scanners from all airports. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a non-profit privacy advocacy group, is taking legal action, saying the TSA should be required to conduct a public rule-making to evaluate the privacy, security and health risks caused by the body scanners.
Pilots' unions for US Airways and American Airlines are urging their members to avoid full-body scanning at airport security checkpoints, citing health risks and concerns about intrusiveness and security officer behavior.
"Pilots should NOT submit to AIT (Advanced Imaging Technology) screening," wrote Capt. Mike Cleary, president of the U.S. Airline Pilots Association, in a letter to members this week. USAPA represents more than 5,000 US Airways pilots.
"Based on currently available medical information, USAPA has determined that frequent exposure to TSA-operated scanner devices may subject pilots to significant health risks," Cleary wrote.
Napolitano told industry leaders that biometric identification, such as retinal scanning and thorough background checks will expedite the screening of 80,000 passengers who participate in "trusted traveler" programs, the department said.
But the chorus against the security measures is getting louder.
The website "We Won't Fly" urgers travelers to "Act now. Travel with Dignity."
"We are opposed to the full-body backscatter X-ray airport scanners on grounds of health and privacy. We do not consent to strip searches, virtual or otherwise. We do not wish to be guinea pigs for new, and possibly dangerous, technology. We are not criminals. We are your customers. We will not beg the government anymore. We will simply stop flying until the porno-scanners are history," the site says.
"National Opt Out Day," organized by Brian Sodegren, encourages solidarity on November 24, amid the crush of Thanksgiving travelers.
"It's the day ordinary citizens stand up for their rights, stand up for liberty, and protest the federal government's desire to virtually strip us naked or submit to an "enhanced pat-down" that touches people's breasts and genitals. You should never have to explain to your children, 'Remember that no stranger can touch or see your private area, unless it's a government employee, then it's OK.' "
According to the group, passengers who say "I opt out" when told to go through body scanners are submitted to a pat-down.
"Be sure to have your pat-down by TSA in full public -- do not go to the back room when asked. Every citizen must see for themselves how the government treats law-abiding citizens," the website says.
The Facebook page of the group includes a litany of complaints about the scanners.
"I'm completely appalled by this," one woman wrote. "What happened to our right to privacy? Has Homeland Security forgotten our rights because they think its going to stop terrorists?"
Meanwhile, the Council on American-Islamic Relations has issued its own travel advisory over pat-downs many "describe as invasive and humiliating."
Muslim women who wear a hijab and are selected for secondary screening because of a head scarf should remind TSA officers "that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They should not subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down," the group said.
The TSA has deployed nearly 350 advanced imaging technology (body scanner) units in nearly 70 U.S. airports, administrator John Pistole said recently. "By the end of calendar year 2011, we plan to have deployed approximately 1,000 units."
The agency is exploring enhancements to the technology.
"This capability would make screening more efficient and would eliminate most privacy concerns about the technology," Pistole said.
Privacy concerns aren't the only reason for protests.
Some scientists and two major airline pilots unions contend not enough is known about the effects of the small doses of X-ray radiation emitted by one of the two types of airport scanning machines.
The Transportation Security Administration's advanced imaging technology machines use two separate means of creating images of passengers -- backscatter X-ray technology and millimeter-wave technology.
While the TSA says the machines are safe, backscatter technology raises concerns among some because it uses small doses of ionizing radiation. The use of millimeter-wave technology hasn't received the same attention, and radiation experts say it poses no known health risks.
The risk of harmful radiation exposure from backscatter scans is very small, according to David Brenner, director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University and a professor of radiation biophysics.
The TSA says the technology has been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Devices and Radiological Health, the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.
In a word: yes.
To put it more bluntly: The terrorists won.
That's the dirty secret no one wants you to know. In the past 10 years we've given up our rights in the name of safety. Only to be harangued when we want to go visit grandma for the holidays. Our economy has gone to garbage due to out of control defense spending on two wars (only one of which was even remotely justified). We've killed over 100,000 innocent Iraqis. Tortured "suspects" and "war criminals". Wiped our rear ends with the more important parts of the constitution via the PATRIOT act, and we've thrown the image of the United States down the crapper... for what? All in the name of "safety". Because we're scared of brown people.
I've known some TSA agents, and I know that most of them are just trying to do their job. But I have also known one or two that think that TSA badge magically gives them law enforcement powers and a criminal justice degree. Well, it doesn't.
Did you know that it requires no more skill to work at TSA than it does to land a job at burger king?
I AM NOT EVEN KIDDING.
QuoteKEY REQUIREMENTS:
* Must possess U.S. Citizenship or be a U.S. National.
* Must be able to obtain and maintain a Secret Clearance.
* Must pass Drug and Alcohol Screening and be subject to random drug tests.
* May require occasional overnight travel.
* Must complete a favorable Background Investigation (BI).
Source: http://jobview.usajobs.gov/GetJob.aspx?JobID=91940565&JobTitle=Transportation+Security+Specialist+-SV-1801-I&lid=316&sort=rv%2c-dtex&cn=&rad_units=miles&brd=3876&pp=50&fn=4604&jbf574=HSBC&vw=b&re=134&FedEmp=N&FedPub=Y&caller=basic.aspx&ss=0&AVSDM=2010-11-05+15%3a16%3a00
They don't train them on human interaction. They train them to find crap. If they were trained with a little "customer service" skills, then maybe something like this could have been avoided.
http://www.youtube.com/v/2TCHSGvNwRY
Or maybe they'd have the common sense not to do this....
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3584/3304306634_0a9e51503c_b.jpg)
+1 Well said, Riverside!
I am glad people are standing up for their rights, I did in NOLA once, made them call the police and filed a complaint. Of course not much happened, except I did get an apology later.
The real war on terror is happening here and now, with our rights being taken away one by one.
What right is being taken away?
The right to be considered innocent until proven guilty? This is why these guys feel empowered to feel up women taking a business trip. What is in my bra is all me, not some bomb. How about the right to privacy? No one should have to expose their body parts or be subjected to some sickos feel up to get on a plane. I have not, and never will be a terrorist. I do not fit the profile in anyway shape or form, and have been flying constantly for years and years without ever blowing anything/anyone up. Why should I have to show these yahoos my DL? What is it any of their business where I live? I have not done anything wrong. In fact I am only pursuing my happiness by travelling for work , pleasure, or family.
QuoteThe right to be considered innocent until proven guilty?
Did someone say you were guilty of something?
QuoteThis is why these guys feel empowered to feel up women taking a business trip.
Really??
QuoteI have not, and never will be a terrorist.
This is good to know. But not really relevant...
QuoteI do not fit the profile in anyway shape or form
So... you support profiling? Would that be arab "looking" people?
QuoteWhy should I have to show these yahoos my DL?
To prove your identity.
When you are pulled to the side and a man fondles your breasts, you bet!
Every single person entering that security check point is treated as a guilty of trying to commit a crime, if not then why the pat down? Why the strip down?
I have no issue with profiling, it is a useful tool if not subverted by the absolute losers TSA seems to attract.
I do not need to prove my identity? Why should I? I never had to before, and should not ahve to now.
I am sure it is difficult for guys to sit back and really understand what it is like to be on your way to a business meeting, trying to get to your plane and have some disgusting dood pull you to the side, wand your boobs for five minutes,then reach out and pat them, and then jump on your plane and hit your meeting not feeling violated in the least.
If that is the world you are advocating, I want no part of it-that is not America to me.
QuoteEvery single person entering that security check point is treated as a guilty of trying to commit a crime, if not then why the pat down? Why the strip down?
No they arent. you are being scanned and searched for yours and your fellow passengers safety. As to ID... we have been showing ID for a long time now. This is hardly intrusive.
I am not a fan of the "pat down" either but if you opt out of the scan that is your choice. If you go thrugh the scan an set something off you need to be "patted down".
If I remember correctly, a few hours after September 11th, people started complaining about why the government wasn't doing anything about it. The people were yelling loudly, "Why didn't the government do anything? Why isn't the government running airport security? Why aren't they fixing this thing tomorrow?" From what I remember, the lawmakers, listening to the general public, worked as fast as they could using the input they got from the public to "fix" this solution. To create a good plan takes months to years of work, the people wanted it done in hours so we ended up with a plan created in hours.
If I remember correctly, the people were thrilled and excited about it. The more harassing the TSA, the better marks they were getting. Try and argue against the TSA in a travel forum visited by an average tourist and watch your post get flamed by people saying they are there for our protection. Well, that was a a while back, I don't know about now.
The thing is, true safety is gotten by things hidden from the public view (Intelligence spending, spies, hiring more air marshals, building foreign relationships, etc) but the public rejected that view hoping for something more visible and comforting.
Think back when National Guards men were roaming the halls of airports carrying M-16 Rifles. For some reason, people feel more secure with that then well, more hidden air marshals. When your paying someone to carry around a M-16 rifle, you aren't using the money you paid them for more useful stuff.
To put this post in another way, when you asked the government to take over airport security 10 years ago, what did you expect to happen?
May I offer a quote that describes this entire frakkin' thing?
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin
-Josh
wsansewjs... So you are advocating no ID check, no scanning, no metal detection, no air marshalls... No security?? ::) Really wsansewjs?? I mean really?
I sure hope these employees are subjected to the same searches each and every time they come to work...including the security guard who checks them.
there better not be an employee entrance!
NOBODY is above the law,including soldiers,law enforcement,judges,security....some in positions of power (Homeland security) think they are.
When I was growing up here in America,I never got the impression I was "OWED" a safe life from the rest of the world.
They are not. You have a TSA badge and you can go on through. At least that's how it was a year ago. It's a false sense of security. Contractors can take anything in their bags through the side door if they are accompanied by a TSA agent.
Anything.
Air travel is a private (though subsidized ) service. You are absolutley free not to participate. No one is making anyone go through security.
Guilty until proven innocent is a rule that only exists in a court of law. It is not the American way and is not applicable outside of the courtroom.
The rules are not made so some one can feel you up. The people making the rules do not work the lines.
I would like to know why we spend the money (TSA is taxpayer funded) the money for the scanners if we still have to do pat downs.
I was in two airports this week both had women patting down women same sex for men also.
The most targeted airline in the world has never had an attack succeed against it. El Al.
They profile, they question, they search luggage. They have much better airport security than we do and don't seem to harass their passengers as much as we do. They are a lot more careful about the people who work in the airports and their access and seem to worry less about the passengers.
Do they use those "naked body" scanners? I don't know. They did not have them in the past.
what airline ???
EL AL the Israeli airline.
I guess it would be safe to say that any of your fellow Israeli passengers over the age of say 25, are Military trained?
That might be a deterrant :-\
Quote from: Ernest Street on November 13, 2010, 09:20:52 PM
I sure hope these employees are subjected to the same searches each and every time they come to work...including the security guard who checks them.
there better not be an employee entrance!
This makes me think of a fun exercise. I have a fun proposal that will probably make people erupt in anger but it will be funny to watch. I say all federally elected officials and state governors should have special privileges that allow them to skip airport security.
Why not? Can't your trust your Senator or Governor (elected and vouched for by the people) to board an airplane w/o blowing it up?
Remember, all this is for safety! That's what people argue all day, right?
QuotePilots and passengers rail at new airport patdowns
(Reuters) - Stepped-up security screening at airports in the wake of foiled terrorism plots has provoked an outcry from airline pilots and travelers, including parents of children who say they are too intrusive.
With the busiest holiday travel season nearing, fliers face long security lines and new rigorous patdown checks begun in recent weeks aimed at discovering hidden explosives. As a result, some travelers are questioning whether to fly at all.
The Transportation Security Administration has ramped up airport security after two plots by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. A Nigerian man hid a bomb in his underwear last Christmas and the group tried to send package bombs via U.S. cargo carriers but none of the explosives detonated.
To thwart such attacks, TSA is deploying body scanning machines to U.S. airports but travelers and pilots have complained about potential health risks and that they are too intrusive. The alternative is a physical patdown by a TSA officer.
"Pilots are not the terrorist threat," said John Prater, president of the Air Line Pilots Association and a veteran pilot for United Continental. "Seeing scarce security resources being used on pilots makes absolutely no sense."
Some pilots, male and female, have complained the patdowns make them feel uncomfortable. The group urged any pilot who feels unfit for duty afterward to "call in sick and remove themselves from the trip."
That has prompted urgent talks between the pilots' group and TSA Administrator John Pistole. The two sides hope to resolve the matter in a few weeks, Prater said.
Full Article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AA55S20101111
http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html
Thanks for posting this Lunican, this is simlar to experiences I have had at the airport too, unfortunately when you need to be at a business meeting/presentation you can;t always decline and leave. If I do something stupid (like rob a bank) and get arrested I expect to be patted down in a very personal way, and even more personal if ever put in jail. Comparing PAYING a significant amount of money to fly a couple of hours to a business meeting, to say robbing a bank to jusitfy a public pat down (sometimes just to prove these idiots are not profiling) is disgusting. I remember one incident when I was about 8 months pregnant with my daughter, in the KC airport. These idiots were very concerned about my big belly, and made a big to-do about patting me down, and requesting me to pull my shirt up so they could see I was really pregnant right in the line! Once I exposed my belly, they just had to then touch it, I mean it looked real....so they just had to know for sure that their was an American baby in there, and not some big ol plastic explosive. I think it is stupid and overly obtrusive, and I choose now not to fly unless absolutely required. The airlines lost a significant amount of money just from little ol me's decision, but Hertz is a fat happy clam.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/48118/
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_111510/content/01125113.guest.html
The country is more united then we first thought it was.
So what is it? We have more than a few posters who feel similar to this...
QuoteI sure hope these employees are subjected to the same searches each and every time they come to work...including the security guard who checks them.
there better not be an employee entrance!
NOBODY is above the law,including soldiers,law enforcement,judges,security....some in positions of power (Homeland security) think they are.
Then the Pilots and crew of the article...
Quote"Pilots are not the terrorist threat," said John Prater, president of the Air Line Pilots Association and a veteran pilot for United Continental. "Seeing scarce security resources being used on pilots makes absolutely no sense."
Some pilots, male and female, have complained the patdowns make them feel uncomfortable. The group urged any pilot who feels unfit for duty afterward to "call in sick and remove themselves from the trip."
IMHO... anything and everyone accessing the flight line or airport gate areas needs to be scanned and or searched. If you think the TSA security folks actually enjoy patting down an irate passenger you are delusional. My guess is when the policy first came out THEY were the first to object.
It's such a slippery slope. This nonsense starts at the airport. Then maybe moves to passenger trains and buses. Next up is federal and city buildings. And before you know it, you're using this technology on kids as they enter school. People balk when you say such a thing, but as an American citizen, you should be under no obligation to even show your ID when you fly. It's nobody's business where you travel within your country.
It sure is Ken... I suppose all we need is an explosion at the subway station or an AMTRAK gets blown up. Have you been to a ball game or concert lately? Metal detectors, purse searches, and pat downs are the norm.
From columnist Steve Chapman:
QuoteWhen it comes to protecting against terrorism, this is how things usually go: A danger presents itself. The federal government responds with new rules that erode privacy, treat innocent people as suspicious, and blur the distinction between life in a free society and life in a correctional facility. And we all tamely accept the new intrusions, like sheep being shorn.
Maybe not this time.
The war on terrorism is going to get personal. Very personal. Americans have long resented the hassles that go with air travel ever since 9/11â€"long security lines, limits on liquids, forced removal of footwear, and so on. But if the Transportation Security Administration has its way, we will look back to 2009 as the good old days.
QuoteThough the harm to privacy is certain, the benefit to public safety is not. The federal Government Accountability Office has said it "remains unclear" if the scanners would have detected the explosives carried by the would-be Christmas Day bomber.
They would also be useless against a terrorist who inserts a bomb in his rectumâ€"like the al-Qaida operative who blew himself up last year in an attempt to kill a Saudi prince. Full-body scanning will sorely chafe many innocent travelers, while creating only a minor inconvenience to bloodthirsty fanatics.
The good news is that last year, the House of Representatives voted to bar the use of whole-body scanners for routine screening. But only a sustained public outcry will force a change.
We will soon find out if there is a limit to the sacrifices of personal freedom that Americans will endure in the name of fighting terrorism. If we don't say no when they want to inspect and handle our private parts, when will we?
Whole column here:http://reason.com/archives/2010/11/15/get-the-government-out-of-our (http://reason.com/archives/2010/11/15/get-the-government-out-of-our)
Hey! I have an idea for a quiet protest, one that TSA could not say would not meet their security guidelines and refuse to let you board.
At the point in the security line where you take off your shoes, proceed to take off ALL the rest of your clothes and put them in the bin with your shoes. As you go through the metal detector, raise your arms and turn around so the agent can see all of you. No x-ray, no pat down. Group of ten doing this would make the news for sure.
Second alternative: Ten people in a row. Refuse the x-ray. When the pat down starts begin writhing around and making sexual moaning noises and shout, "Oh don't stop, don't stop! Touch me again!" for as long as the pat down takes. What could they do?
While I may agree with the gripes regarding privacy... I see no solutions forthcoming from those who think this is such an outrage. Please enlighten us and TSA. I suppose we could get all our freedoms back if we roll security back to 9/10/2001. I mean how many airliners could they really bring down a year? 2? 3? 10? I mean there are thousands of flights per day... what are your chances of being on one of those unlucky ones?
Quote from: Dog Walker on November 16, 2010, 03:03:55 PM
Hey! I have an idea for a quiet protest, one that TSA could not say would not meet their security guidelines and refuse to let you board.... What could they do?
How about arrest your butt, naked or not!
What made 9/11 possible were the stupid guidelines for pilots in a hostage/hijacking situation. Because of the hijackings to Cuba and the later ones by publicity seeking groups, pilots were told to cooperate with the hijackers, get on the ground and let the negotiators take over the case.
That obviously didn't work with the 9/11 guys since they were after something different than the earlier hijackers.
Now we have locked and armored pilot's doors, armed pilots and a different attitude. Had an airline pilot tell me a couple of years ago that if I was on a flight that was hijacked to belt in real tight because he was going to beat the hijacker to death with his airplane.
Well since then they have been trying to blow them up.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 16, 2010, 03:19:24 PM
Well since then they have been trying to blow them up.
Which hasn't worked.
You're facing a pretty tough time getting a timer-based bomb large enough and reliable enough to blow up an airliner past baggage xrays, now that shoes go through the xray machine. And after 9/11 passengers are vigilant enough that you aren't likely to get away with lighting an external fuse. And there is nothing on the entire plane, up to and including smuggled firearms, that would get through the current variant of the cockpit security doors. 9/11 could not occur in the form it took before, presently. The terrorist psychos may have a one in a million shot at damaging a plane, but taking control of the aircraft and using it as a giant missile again is extraordinarily unlikely.
We are safer flying now than before 9/11, but not because TSA is hassling people and grabbing dicks.
That part, frankly, is just unnecessary excess that accomplishes nothing except pissing people off.
Thanks Chris +1000
I like the passenger empowerment system. In that little pamphlet seat back pamphlet it mentions what to do if your seatmate is trying to set off a bomb. It should also give hints and tips on what various parts of your chair can be used as a weapon.
Subdued with an entire scalding carafe of coffee...should include a victory "Blue" swirly in the lavatory afterwards. :D
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 16, 2010, 06:09:26 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 16, 2010, 03:19:24 PM
Well since then they have been trying to blow them up.
Which hasn't worked.
You're facing a pretty tough time getting a timer-based bomb large enough and reliable enough to blow up an airliner past baggage xrays, now that shoes go through the xray machine. And after 9/11 passengers are vigilant enough that you aren't likely to get away with lighting an external fuse. And there is nothing on the entire plane, up to and including smuggled firearms, that would get through the current variant of the cockpit security doors. 9/11 could not occur in the form it took before, presently. The terrorist psychos may have a one in a million shot at damaging a plane, but taking control of the aircraft and using it as a giant missile again is extraordinarily unlikely.
We are safer flying now than before 9/11, but not because TSA is hassling people and grabbing dicks.
That part, frankly, is just unnecessary excess that accomplishes nothing except pissing people off.
You are correct that it hasnt worked yet. I credit the improved security measures coupled with good luck that the bombers who have actually gotten explosives aboard have failed to detonate them. Again... for the sake of convenience and comfort... you and a few others seem willing to sacrifice an airliner or two. I am sure an al qaida cell or two here in the States are watching the debate over pat downs with glee and disbelief.
One thing IS certain... they WILL keep trying to kill you and your family.
BT I used to feel the same as you, I am sure there are some old arguments on here where I said the same thing to StephenDare. I remember him questioning me on where would it end, how much was I willing to give up? That giving up what I thought was acceptable now, would lead to giving up more than I thought acceptable later. Unfortunately he was correct.
al qaida? Who the hell cares what they think? They do not run our daily lives and by posting this:
I am sure an al qaida cell or two here in the States are watching the debate over pat downs with glee and disbelief.
( I am sure the glee is over the loss of rights and fear they have instilled, giving them the win) You are publicly giving them much more power than they actually have. Any terrorist group will not even come into my day to day decisions, nor influence my fear to the point I give up all rights as an American and start living in fear and allowing strange, uneducated men at the airport to touch my private body parts just so I can go to a business meeting. It cannot happen. You see when it does, and we let it continue they win- it is not about them killing us, it is about the fear of them killing us.
Quoteto the point I give up all rights as an American and start living in fear
You are not giving up ALL your rights and no one is living in fear. This is simply emotional hyperbole. I am not living in fear... TSA is not living in fear... they are taking prudent actions based on known threats, attempts and intelligence and they would GROSSLY negligent if they did not do what they are doing and allowed a bomber to bring down an airliner. I do not fear al qaida nor any other crazy... I do however take their threats coupled with their failed(so far) attempts seriously.
You should too.
It is all about fear, utilizing fear and outrage to cahnge policy. These terrorist understand there is more than one way to skin a cat, but the sheeple they terrorize...well they do not.
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/9/9/2/p99922_index.html
At its heart terrorism is about fear. While terrorist attacks destroy, maim and kill, the intended audience for these attacks is almost always the whole body politic and the terrorist?s goal is to strike fear into their hearts. But how successful are these attacks in achieving this goal; do terrorist attacks really have a debilitating impact on a countries? morale? Does the impact of an attack vary as a function of the attack?s characteristics? Do certain types of attacks have the opposite impact, instead of paralyzing the public, rallying them to a central goal, as was the case after the September 11, 2001 attacks? Are there trends that exist across national boundaries? This study seeks to understand the fear-causing impact of terrorist attacks by examining a useful proxy: public opinion polls. By combining the ITERATE dataset of terrorist activities with public opinion poll results for 1979 ? 2004, I examine the impact of terrorist attacks in the United States and Great Britain on public perceptions and fear. I find that public awareness and perceived importance of terrorism increase following terrorist attacks. This increased salience does not, however, consistently generate widespread fear or cause the public to lose faith in the government. In particular, the public?s fear of terrorism and its support for the government vary in conjunction with the human and material costs associated with recent attacks, the types of people targeted and the types of weapons used. This variation lends support to the work of Bruce Jentleson and others suggesting that, even in the context of a terrorist incident, the public exercises some prudence when offering its support to the government.The results also suggest terrorists may use different types of attacks depending on the objectives they seek to accomplish. If, for example, terrorists seek to change U.S. behavior but minimize the possibility of a retaliatory strike, they may choose targets and means that increase fear of terrorism and disapproval of the government. If, on the other hand, their goal is to gain local political benefits or symbolic gains by goading the U.S. into action, as perhaps Bin Laden was trying to do on September 11, then they would likely chose targets and means that would increase the policy salience of terrorism and mobilize the public to demand policy responses on the international and domestic levels. The results suggest that terrorists that choose their targets and strategies poorly will likely be self-defeating. More importantly, these results suggest that with knowledge of the terrorists? objectives, policymakers can better anticipate the characteristics of future incidents.
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/the-endless-fear-of-terrorism/
That’s a depressing thought. It means (to quote the common phrase after Sept. 11) that “the terrorists will have won†even if they never pull off any larger attacks in the future. But is there any way to avoid decades of angst? Anything that could be done to counter the efforts of what Dr. Mueller calls the terrorism industry â€" the public officials and journalists and security corporations that spread fears of terrorism? Is there any way that the social scientists who study risk could improve the way the public deals with this particular threat? Or any way that members of the public could deal with it better on their own?
Interestingly enough, this article compares fear of terrorism with the McCartney phase when there was a fear of communism...today groping of private parts, tomorrow trials for Islamic sympathisers?
::) So what? Gee... I did not know that. Thanks for posting! Lets show em how brave and unafraid we are and roll back security to those idyllic pre 9/11 good ole days of air travel.
Remember the discussion shortly after 9/11 about "connecting the dots?" Well... the dots are connected... again. This time they are reacting properly. Are you suggesting they ignore the dots? Really?
I am not saying roll back all security, I am saying it has gotten way out of hand. The shoe bomber got through, even though we put shoes in the x-ray machine, a guy got through with a bomb in his underwear, even though we group Swedish flight attendants breasts. Did these new security measures stop them? No but it did piss off a lot of women and men being grouped inappropriately. Throwing out my $100 lotion because it is more than 3oz, did not save anyone. These security measures are reactionary at best, and are not targeting terrorist, just women with large breasts and dry hands.
Quote from: uptowngirl on November 17, 2010, 07:50:56 AM
I am not saying roll back all security, I am saying it has gotten way out of hand. The shoe bomber got through, even though we put shoes in the x-ray machine, a guy got through with a bomb in his underwear, even though we group Swedish flight attendants breasts. Did these new security measures stop them? No but it did piss off a lot of women and men being grouped inappropriately. Throwing out my $100 lotion because it is more than 3oz, did not save anyone. These security measures are reactionary at best, and are not targeting terrorist, just women with large breasts and dry hands.
Well in fairness the shoe bomber is why we now have to take our shoes off. But I agree with the rest.
Nothing will ever be absolutely secure. You can't destroy the quality of life of millions of people to bring about a.05% increase in security or whatever it is (it's definitely marginal). "Those who would give up liberty to gain security deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin
I'm surprised bridge troll, for someone who allegedly is a strict constructionist, you really seem to have forgotten the founding fathers' lessons and the whole spirit in which this country was created. I assure you their goal was not to fondle travelers.
I'm glad you clarified the shoe bomber... because I sure was about to. The full body scans and or pat downs are a response to the guy who had explosives in his underwear... the liquid limitations is a response to the guy who attempted to mix two non explosive ingredients into one very explosive ingredient.
Quote"Any nation that would give up liberty in the name of security deserves neither."
My response...
"Any nation that would sacrifice security for convenience and expediency should not be surprised at what it gets."
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 17, 2010, 08:15:59 AM
I'm glad you clarified the shoe bomber... because I sure was about to. The full body scans and or pat downs are a response to the guy who had explosives in his underwear... the liquid limitations is a response to the guy who attempted to mix two non explosive ingredients into one very explosive ingredient.
Quote"Any nation that would give up liberty in the name of security deserves neither."
My response...
"Any nation that would sacrifice security for convenience and expediency should not be surprised at what it gets."
I think I'm far more comfortable taking Benjamin Franklin's word on this than yours. Having been a founder of the United States, I would suspect he was in the better position to state what his own intent was when founding the nation and drafting the constitution than BridgeTroll. Just a suspicion. Again, you're the one who claims to be a strict constructionist whenever it's convenient, like the healthcare debate. Where is your strict constructionism here?
Then just answer this Chris. Are you willing to sacrifice an airliner or two?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 17, 2010, 08:35:03 AM
Then just answer this Chris. Are you willing to sacrifice an airliner or two?
That's a false bifurcation. The dick grabbings aren't accomplishing anything that metal detectors and xray machines already weren't. It's a useless procedure that is unconstitutional and personally invasive, and does little or nothing to increase security.
You are trying to make it seem like if the TSA is no longer allowed to touch your junk, 9/11 is going to happen again tomorrow. That is simply overblown rhetoric, and is untrue. These molestation pat downs and naked body scans aren't adding anything we didn't already have, they are simply taking away dignity and rights we already had.
Your position is patently un-American, as Benjamin Franklin has already pointed out for you.
It's been awhile since I have been through an airport, but don't the pat downs only occur IF you refuse the scan? It's one or the other, isn't it?
Of course if the scan shows something suspicious, then I'm sure a pat down would follow or vice versa.
Frankly, if you don't do one or the other, something will slip through. Any prison guard will tell you that if they are too embarassed to check the groin area, that is exactly the passageway that the next shank is coming into the prison from.
We need to do whatever Israel does, because that obviously works.
Quote from: vicupstate on November 17, 2010, 08:59:51 AM
It's been awhile since I have been through an airport, but don't the pat downs only occur IF you refuse the scan? It's one or the other, isn't it?
Of course if the scan shows something suspicious, then I'm sure a pat down would follow or vice versa.
Frankly, if you don't do one or the other, something will slip through. Any prison guard will tell you that if they are too embarassed to check the groin area, that is exactly the passageway that the next shank is coming into the prison from.
We need to do whatever Israel does, because that obviously works.
The rules have changed since you've flown last.
You can now be randomly selected for pat-downs where the TSA is instructed to grab your crotch, and naked body scanners are being installed at most airports. Neither of these things was in place before the past month or so, and if the last time you flew was prior to that then the game has changed, significantly for the worse.
That's what all the fuss is about...
So you are willing to sacrifice an airliner (and the passengers therin)or two... Got it. Your precious boobies and junk are safe from those molesters at TSA... ::)
"Any prison guard will tell you that if they are too embarassed to check the groin area, that is exactly the passageway that the next shank is coming into the prison from. "
My point exactly, prisoners
(pris·on·er (prz-nr, prznr)
n.
1. A person held in custody, captivity, or a condition of forcible restraint, especially while on trial or serving a prison sentence.
2. One deprived of freedom of expression or action
not a traveller
trav·el·er or trav·el·ler (trvl-r, trvlr)
n.
1. One who travels or has traveled, as to distant places.
a. A traveling salesperson.
Quote from: stephendare on November 17, 2010, 09:39:09 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 17, 2010, 09:35:18 AM
So you are willing to sacrifice an airliner (and the passengers therin)or two... Got it. Your precious boobies and junk are safe from those molesters at TSA... ::)
And you are willing to sacrifice millions of people to disease and poverty....got it. Your precious billionaires are safe from the evil poor people who worked their whole lives. :D :D
Well, naturally, they have private planes so BridgeTroll doesn't have to worry about them being inconvenienced.
Otherwise I'm sure he'd find all this horrifying...
Yes. I'm perfectly willing to accept a lost airliner or two, and I'm willing to accept the chances that I may be on one of them as well.
This is the price you pay to live in a free society.
In a free society, traveling within your country is supposed to be a reasonably pleasant experience. Call me old fashioned, but there is nothing pleasant about having my testicles fondled or being looked at nude by TSA officers. Many of them are nice people simply doing their job, but walk into any airport, and you will undoubtedly see egregious bullying as well. There is nothing American about intimidating and humiliating the elderly, and children, and pregnant women like they are convicted criminals. It’s disgusting. And if you dare feel uncomfortable and decide that you aren’t willing to be subject to such violation, you can technically be arrested on the spot. Airports were once a beautiful place, full of the same excitement and wonder that you would see at places like Grand Central Terminal or the old Jacksonville Terminal. Now, they are these creepy human processing centers where everyone is on edge.
I completed understand that there are two distinct sides to the debate. There are people like me. And then there are those of the opinion that “if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide.†These are the people who have no problem with invasive TSA rub downs, warrantless wiretaps, red light cameras, and the federal government having access to their financial, travel, and library records. These are the type of people who often believe that if someone values their privacy and doesn’t want the government in their business, they are obvious doing something illicit.
I completely respect a person’s right to that opinion, but I don’t want anything to do with it. I’d be more than happy to see a new airline pop up that promises complete safety. Before you board, they take you into a back room and probe you every which way. When a person gets on this plane, they know that there is no way they face even the slightest risk. Give it some goofy name like Freedom Air, and let the type of people noted above go nuts with it. But for the rest of us, keep it to a minimum and let us take our chances with the one in a billion shot that we’ll be killed by terrorists.
Yes we are giving up our rights in the name of safety if we chose to use these private businesses.
We give up the right to not have the line be fifteen minutes longer, to not spend the money to fund the TSA and the right not have the awkward moment when they are checking the awkward places terrorists are willing to hide weapons.
Their will always be a balance between freedoms and safety for me slight inconveniences do not cross that line.
I hope I am not becoming a Republican.
Spain had powerful backpack bombs set off on a train, killing dozens. London buses were bombed the same way.
Ride a London bus or a Spanish train today and you do not go through metal detectors, luggage searches, x-rays, pat-downs, etc, but they have not had another similar attack.
Why? They have found effective methods of stopping these attacks BEFORE people come close to a train station or bus stop and have stopped several similar attacks from even getting well organized by good intelligence and police work.
They do what the Israelis do, they profile intelligently and train their people to do more than pat downs.
Quote from: KenFSU on November 17, 2010, 10:41:23 AM
Yes. I'm perfectly willing to accept a lost airliner or two, and I'm willing to accept the chances that I may be on one of them as well.
This is the price you pay to live in a free society.
In a free society, traveling within your country is supposed to be a reasonably pleasant experience. Call me old fashioned, but there is nothing pleasant about having my testicles fondled or being looked at nude by TSA officers. Many of them are nice people simply doing their job, but walk into any airport, and you will undoubtedly see egregious bullying as well. There is nothing American about intimidating and humiliating the elderly, and children, and pregnant women like they are convicted criminals. It’s disgusting. And if you dare feel uncomfortable and decide that you aren’t willing to be subject to such violation, you can technically be arrested on the spot. Airports were once a beautiful place, full of the same excitement and wonder that you would see at places like Grand Central Terminal or the old Jacksonville Terminal. Now, they are these creepy human processing centers where everyone is on edge.
I completed understand that there are two distinct sides to the debate. There are people like me. And then there are those of the opinion that “if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide.†These are the people who have no problem with invasive TSA rub downs, warrantless wiretaps, red light cameras, and the federal government having access to their financial, travel, and library records. These are the type of people who often believe that if someone values their privacy and doesn’t want the government in their business, they are obvious doing something illicit.
I completely respect a person’s right to that opinion, but I don’t want anything to do with it. I’d be more than happy to see a new airline pop up that promises complete safety. Before you board, they take you into a back room and probe you every which way. When a person gets on this plane, they know that there is no way they face even the slightest risk. Give it some goofy name like Freedom Air, and let the type of people noted above go nuts with it. But for the rest of us, keep it to a minimum and let us take our chances with the one in a billion shot that we’ll be killed by terrorists.
I appreciate you are honest enough to say so... Not sure where Stephen is going with his diseases and billionaires rhetoric or Uptown equating herself with a prisoner.
I believe there is a clear and present danger.
I believe efforts to date have deterred or discouraged attacks.
I am with Jeffrey in that I see this as an annoyance, an inconvenience, a hassle. I was patted down at the football game Sunday. I get patted down at concerts... some schools have metal detectors to pass through. These are prudent steps to deter or stop attacks. Your argument that someone will still sneak something through and kill people is silly and foolish.
Jeffrey... you are not becoming a republican... You are just using common sense.
I still have no idea what you are talking about. ::)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 17, 2010, 11:35:46 AM
I still have no idea what you are talking about. ::)
You browbeat us with your strict constructionist constitutional arguments on every other topic, ranging from healthcare, to taxes, to dealing with the homeless, grasping for arguments supporting your views, and which rest on your interpeting the constitution as rationally as a fundamentalist preacher interprets the bible. You laboriously birth these arguments that the government lacks the constitutional authority to do pretty much anything you don't agree with, even when that position is clearly unsupported by the very language you are citing.
But then, when something finally comes along that is expressly prohibited by the bill of rights, US Cont. Amendment IV, e.g. being subjected by the government to an unreasonable and personally invasive nude / crotch-rubbing search and seizure, just to go through security at an airport, you do a complete flip-flop and all of your prior constitutional arguments go right out the window.
"
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."
Seems pretty simple doesn't it?
You made the most convoluted twisted constitutional argument imaginable to say the US Govt lacks the authority to reform healthcare, despite that power having been specifically enumerated in the General Welfare Clause, Art. I ss. 8, but you're fine with a federal agency searching your genitals and conducting nude body scans in violation of the the express prohibitions of the Fourth Amendment? In this case, the language is completely self-explanatory, needing no twisted logic or interpretation. It's clear as day.
This is really a hell of a contradiction, no? Or do you just twist the constitution to suit your political needs?
Ah... I see where you are going now.
Quote"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."
Looks like it depends on the the key word "unreasonable". By yours and others definitions the entire process we were going through prior to these new TSA rules should be eliminated. Searches at concerts and football games would also be unreasonable. Perhaps you could enlighten me and others on the courts rulings regarding these types of searches.
QuoteOr do you just twist the constitution to suit your political needs?
Are you telling me you are a strict construtionalist on this issue but the many others we have discussed you are not?
20 years from today we will all be ushered by the TSA single-file into an antechamber, stripped except for our boarding passes and passports, and piled into an Abu Ghraib mass of human indignity before we are allowed to take to the skies. Then we will all yearn for the days when a gloved hand caressed our testicles and titillated our breasts. ;D
So, I have a better chance of being shot or beaten to death by the crack dealers over on the otherside of the tracks from my house (they like to shoot off a round or two once in a while) and yet JSO does not feel the need to set up check points at the railroad tracks and search each and every person crossing that line? No pat downs, weapons check, ID checks....
Quoteby which you mean, right wing nativist and activist.
I am neither... I am asking Chris to bring his legal expertise to bear regarding courts rulings regarding these types of searches. They have been going on for quite some time now and have been supported by both the Bush administration and the Obama. Pretty bipartisan don't you think?
It matters because these two opposites are apparently in agreement with regards to the "reasonableness" of these searches...
More info...
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5116&page=34
QuoteThe Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the most obvious context in which the legality of airport security searches is determined. Like airport security searches, the role of the Fourth Amendment is to balance privacy and law enforcement. The Fourth Amendment protects "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures" by stipulating that any search conducted must be made on reasonable grounds. In addition to the reasonableness of the grounds, the courts commonly weigh three aspects of a search to determine whether the search is reasonable: the degree of intrusiveness of the search procedure; the magnitude and frequency of the threat; and the sufficiency of alternatives to conducting a search. Courts also consider the effectiveness of the search in reducing the threat and whether sufficient care has been taken to limit the scope of the search as much as possible, while still maintaining this effectiveness.
There is plenty more... :)
I am certainly NOT being disingenuous. Up to this point... the laws and restrictions of preboarding airline searches HAS been constitutional. Two opposing administrations and Congress have apparently agreed. It is unclear... at least to me... where the Judicial branch is...
Quotethe courts commonly weigh three aspects of a search to determine whether the search is reasonable: the degree of intrusiveness of the search procedure; the magnitude and frequency of the threat; and the sufficiency of alternatives to conducting a search. Courts also consider the effectiveness of the search in reducing the threat and whether sufficient care has been taken to limit the scope of the search as much as possible, while still maintaining this effectiveness.
"the degree of intrusiveness of the search procedure" -- stripping me virtually naked and feeling my genitals is pretty intrusive.
"magnitude and frequency of the threat" -- bringing down and airliner with 150 people on board is pretty big magnitude. Frequency - three attempts in ten years--meh!
"effectiveness of the search in reducing the threat" - I've never heard of anything explosive being found by any of the TSA searches. Indeed, the only stories I've heard about effectiveness are the ones where the test "bombs" made it through all the screening in checked and carry-on luggage.
I was just about to ask the same question. I'm happy to find this thread here.
Banned "flavored" cigarettes because they are "bad for the kids". Now, it's the caffeinated alcohol that's killing America's youth.
I got news for you, gov't - you banned my favorite cigarettes...and they just re-made them with another name and another package...also made them taste crappier but...I still buy them. And so does anyone else who bought them before you intervened in our lives and our bodies. Does Obama still smoke Marlboros??? Still legal, surprise, surprise. I'd be willing to bet if there is a study - "the kids" smoke Marlboros before anything else.
I'd like to know why it's the government's business what people put into their bodies? Banning things only makes the appeal grow. Probably creates underground crime rings that otherwise never existed. When is it going to end???
And the next time I get groped at the airport - I guess you will see me on CNN as well. I'm still feeling molested from the first time it happened and I'm terrified to even go to the airport because I feel like I'm being treated like a terrorist just for wanting to board a plane and fly an hour away. It's outta control and does nothing to protect me, you, or Sister Sue in the nun habit getting felt up in the name of SAFETY.
Eff.
This appears to be the ruling which gives TSA the authority do conduct these searches...
http://fourthamendment.com/blog/index.php?blog=1&title=airport_screening_searches_no_longer_con&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
QuoteAirport screening searches no longer considered a matter of implied consent; they are regulatory searches, and they are not without limits
Defendant went into the security line at the Honolulu airport, but it was noted on his boarding pass that he presented "No ID" to get through security. He was accordingly selected for secondary screening, although he was protesting that his flight was about to leave, which it was. A handheld wand went off on a front pants pocket three times, and he protested that he had nothing in his pocket. The TSA officer used the back of his hand to feel what might be setting off the alarm on the wand, and something was in there but he could not tell what it was. Defendant at that point asked to leave the airport because he changed his mind about flying. The TSA officer told him to empty his pockets, and a meth pipe was found in the front pocket. A further search of his person revealed meth. The Ninth Circuit held that airport searches no longer are dependent upon implied consent; they are now administrative searches because flying on an airplane in a post-9/11 world is now the same as a "highly regulated industry." Any "implied consent," thus, cannot be revoked once the passenger elects to enter the secure area. Such searches, however, are not limitless; they are limited by their justification: screening for terrorists. This search was reasonable under the circumstances. United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc):
Further...
QuoteWe have held that airport screening searches, like the one at issue here, are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches because they are "conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft, and thereby to prevent hijackings." United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973); see also United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174, 178 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 111 (2006); Marquez, 410 F.3d at 616. Our case law, however, has erroneously suggested that the reasonableness of airport screening searches is dependent upon consent, either ongoing consent or irrevocable implied consent.
The constitutionality of an airport screening search, however, does not depend on consent, see Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315, and requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world. Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by "electing not to fly" on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found. This rule would also allow terrorists a low-cost method of detecting systematic vulnerabilities in airport security, knowledge that could be extremely valuable in planning future attacks. Likewise, given that consent is not required, it makes little sense to predicate the reasonableness of an administrative airport screening search on an irrevocable implied consent theory. Rather, where an airport screening search is otherwise reasonable and conducted pursuant to statutory authority, 49 U.S.C. § 44901, all that is required is the passenger's election to attempt entry into the secured area of an airport. See Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315; 49 C.F.R. § 1540.107. Under current TSA regulations and procedures, that election occurs when a prospective passenger walks through the magnetometer or places items on the conveyor belt of the x-ray machine. The record establishes that Aukai elected to attempt entry into the posted secured area of Honolulu International Airport when he walked through the magnetometer, thereby subjecting himself to the airport screening process.
To the extent our cases have predicated the reasonableness of an airport screening search upon either ongoing consent or irrevocable implied consent, they are overruled.
IV.
Although the constitutionality of airport screening searches is not dependent on consent, the scope of such searches is not limitless. A particular airport security screening search is constitutionally reasonable provided that it "is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives [] [and] that it is confined in good faith to that purpose." Davis, 482 F.2d at 913. We conclude that the airport screening search of Aukai satisfied these requirements.
The search procedures used in this case were neither more extensive nor more intensive than necessary under the circumstances to rule out the presence of weapons or explosives. After passing through a magnetometer, Aukai was directed to secondary screening because his boarding pass was marked "No ID." Aukai then underwent a standard "wanding procedure." When the wand alarm sounded as the wand passed over Aukai's front right pants pocket, TSA Officer Misajon did not reach into Aukai's pocket or feel the outside of Aukai's pocket. Rather, Misajon asked Aukai if he had something in his pocket. When Aukai denied that there was anything in his pocket, Misajon repeated the wanding procedure. Only after the wand alarm again sounded and Aukai again denied having anything in his pocket did Misajon employ a more intrusive search procedure by feeling the outside of Aukai's pocket and determining that there was something in there.
But that is not the case, this type of grope and feel is occurring for no reason at all! This dood had no ID and also flat out lied about having the phone in his pocket, a lot different than grabbing pregnant womens stomachs, and fondling the swedish flight attendants breasts. Come on Bridge, I expect a better response out of you.
Not a lawyer Uptown... not even sure I understand most of what was in the case. The gist of it... and I may be wrong (again NOT a lawyer) is...
QuoteThe Ninth Circuit held that airport searches no longer are dependent upon implied consent; they are now administrative searches because flying on an airplane in a post-9/11 world is now the same as a "highly regulated industry." Any "implied consent," thus, cannot be revoked once the passenger elects to enter the secure area. Such searches, however, are not limitless; they are limited by their justification: screening for terrorists. This search was reasonable under the circumstances.
This is for Chris... it is the caselaw findings for this case which it appears is the basis for TSA's authority. Feel free to read through it but I would be interested in Chris's explanation of the ruling. Namely...
Quoteairport screening searches, like the one at issue here, are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches because they are “conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1265662.html
More from this ruling...
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1265662.html
QuoteAlthough the constitutionality of airport screening searches is not dependent on consent, the scope of such searches is not limitless. A particular airport security screening search is constitutionally reasonable provided that it “is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives [ ][and] that it is confined in good faith to that purpose.â€
And...
QuoteThe majority holds, and I agree, that once a passenger enters the secured area of an airport, the constitutionality of a screening search does not depend on consent. That legal conclusion rests firmly on Supreme Court precedent and on the government's interest in ensuring the safety of passengers, airline personnel, and the general public. For decades, nefarious individuals have tried to use commercial aircraft to further a personal or political agenda at the expense of those on board and on the ground.1 And the threat continues to exist that individuals, whether members of an organized group or not, may attempt to do the same.
BT, the problem is that these new security measures have just been instituted in the last two weeks, and they are so disproportionately invasive compared to anything that came before them that none of the current case law really applies. We've gone from looking inside people's bags and running them through a metal detector to fondling their genitalia and subjecting them to nude electronic searches.
The logic behind the existing searches not being violative of the 4th Amendment was already pretty far stretched, to the point where I wonder whether it could cover the new procedures. I doubt it. People can always argue any point, but I think the vast majority of people in this country (including judges) are only just now finding out about the issue, and are likely to be horrified by it.
The reason, in part, that the prior procedures were authorized was because they were actually relatively reasonable. We're all used to walking through metal detectors, and though a minor annoyance, taking your shoes off for 2 minutes is hardly unreasonable either. This is a whole different ballgame. We're talking about government agents rubbing people's balls and conducting nude searches. The definition of reasonable has been stretched pretty far already, and this may well fall outside the limit.
I wonder whether the courts will even get a chance to decide? The public outrage is already spreading and is pretty intense. I would suspect that this issue will be dealt with on its own, and that TSA will have to revise its procedures, beforethis has a chance to play out. And the TSA, if they are actually dumb enough to sue that gentleman from San Diego, will almost certainly lose, because they clearly told him on camera that if he didn't leave they would arrest him, and later said they were going to sue him because he did leave. Which way did they want it? Give me a break.
OK... I see what you are saying. The "reasonableness" test seems to be two pronged. On one hand is the intrusiveness of the search which you have addressed. On the other is...
Quoteairport screening searches, like the one at issue here, are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches because they are “conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft
So in the case you cited, I am sure the majority of us here understand this guy was flat out lying about having a cell phone (while it was ringing!), I guess what I am saying is it is reasonable to treat a person in this position as suspect. Someone who chooses not to have their naked body scan viewed by some unknown TSA agent being the catalysts for a full body search and pat down is quite different, to me it does not pass the reasonableness test.
This just happened in Ft. Lauderdale today:
TSA to Traveler: Next Time, Leave Your Insulin Pump at Home?
Woman complains about TSA screening at local airport.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
As we hear from more outraged air travelers about the humiliating procedures they're being forced to endure to pass through airport security checkpoints, comes this doozy out of Fort Lauderdale / Hollywood International Airport.
A woman called the South Florida's First News Show on radio station 610am WIOD, this morning (Wed. 11-17-10), horrified about what her daughter had been put through.
The call was with the woman, named Jackie, speaking with 610am WIOD host Jimmy Cefalo & Manny Munoz.
"She is an insuline depended diabetic who has an isuline pump. She travels regularly in the airport. Today, about 25 minutes ago, she was..the alarm went off she told them she had an insuline pump, they physically groped her, went down her pants, her thighs, and advised her not to wear the insuline pump any more going through security. They advised her to take it off in the future if she didn't want to be groped. She was so upset she called me after she got through security hysterically crying"
Fort Lauderdale Airport officials say no formal complaint was filed so they are unaware if the alleged incident ever took place.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 17, 2010, 03:39:56 PM
OK... I see what you are saying. The "reasonableness" test seems to be two pronged. On one hand is the intrusiveness of the search which you have addressed. On the other is...
Quoteairport screening searches, like the one at issue here, are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches because they are “conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft
Yes that's exactly correct.
The constitutionality of the search is determined by weighing its invasiveness against the government's interest in conducting it. Invasiveness is really the determining factor in two ways. It is a weighing factor along with government interest in determining reasonability of the search, but additionally the court will look at whether there are any less invasive means available to achieve the same result. If there are, then the search is likely unconstitutional.
In this case, nothing is really being accomplished with these new nude body search machines that wasn't already being accomplished with metal detectors and puffer machines, and so a less invasive means clearly exists to achieve the same result. The TSA was already forced to admit that the underwear bomber probably wouldn't have been discovered with the new machines either. And when it comes to the second problem here, namely the TSA fondling your nuts in the name of security, I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue that isn't unnecessarily invasive.
So then the question becomes what does this do to enhance security that couldn't be otherwise accomplished with some less invasive means? The answer is little or nothing. And that's the problem.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely...
I have a solution..............don't fly! Drive or take the bus.........better yet,ride a train! None of those selections require being groped or patted down..........screw TSA! Barney Fife's with no brains at all or safety nazi's take your pick!
http://www.fark.com/cgi/vidplayer.pl?IDLink=5765176 (http://www.fark.com/cgi/vidplayer.pl?IDLink=5765176)
This captures all the angles of the controversy. Enjoy!
Quote from: CS Foltz on November 17, 2010, 05:13:32 PM
I have a solution..............don't fly! Drive or take the bus.........better yet,ride a train! None of those selections require being groped or patted down..........screw TSA! Barney Fife's with no brains at all or safety nazi's take your pick!
I can honestly say I absolutely would choose not to fly and would instead drive wherever I was going if I was given the choice to either get naked in a body scanner, have my nuts fondled by a government agent, or be denied boarding. And I mean that. I'd happily walk out and drive.
I do just that Chris, spend hours on the road, rather subject myself to that.
According to a news report I just saw it looks like TSA may be on in it's waaaayyyy ooouuuttt!
they should be...the government gave into panic and as always, it over reacted...big time. Think about it, how many millions of flights, with how many billions of travelers, and how often were there problems? Then we're stuck with these TSA clowns, fresh from the burger line at Mcdonalds.
What makes me mad is I possibly saw backscatter detectors in place in April and August 2001 at the Newark Airport.
Smokers waiting for a flight have to leave the building ...sending them back through security each time they light up.
I peeked at a screen as they were x-raying a ladies makeup bag and remember being able to clearly see a toothbrush...seeing the bristles through the brush if that makes sense.
How did the Suadi's get through?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40242420/ns/travel-news/
Instead, TSA anticipates only a small increase in “opt outs†and believe the entire topic is an overblown issue propelled by the media and by Internet chatter
As usual the good old boys in charge are well, OLD. Internet chatter is being dimissed so casually....shows they just don't get it
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/17/tsa-screenings-worry-sexual-assault-survivors.html
Imagine....
Quote from: Ernest Street on November 17, 2010, 08:03:21 PM
How did the Suadi's get through?
At that time you could bring small pocket knives and box cutters on board. The Saudis used box cutters to threaten flight attendants and the pilots. Air crews at that time were trained to cooperate with hijackers so the Saudis were able to take control of the planes.
I"m not sure what everyone is upset about...have you guys completely forgotten that there are bad people out here in the "real world" and they'd like to kill you and me. Once you step out of your home in modern day American you cannot expect any privacy. If you want privacy either drive or stay home. Get use to this as long as the materials to make explosives continue to not be controlled. Anyone complaining or refusing a search should be exited from the building. I'd rather know that everyone on my plane was safe. If your ego is so fragil that a pat down sends you into a fit...."STAY HOME".
Quote from: Garden guy on November 19, 2010, 07:20:24 AM
I"m not sure what everyone is upset about...have you guys completely forgotten that there are bad people out here in the "real world" and they'd like to kill you and me. Once you step out of your home in modern day American you cannot expect any privacy. If you want privacy either drive or stay home. Get use to this as long as the materials to make explosives continue to not be controlled. Anyone complaining or refusing a search should be exited from the building. I'd rather know that everyone on my plane was safe. If your ego is so fragil that a pat down sends you into a fit...."STAY HOME".
None of that is the point.
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=us/2010/11/15/ac.anger.at.airport.screenings.cnn
Quote from: Garden guy on November 19, 2010, 07:20:24 AM
Have you guys completely forgotten that there are bad people out here in the "real world" and they'd like to kill you and me. Get use to this as long as the materials to make explosives continue to not be controlled.
You speak like this is a new development. Throughout our nation's history, there have always been outside threats. And the means to create explosives have always been available to those willing to seek them out.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 19, 2010, 08:18:21 AM
Quote from: Garden guy on November 19, 2010, 07:20:24 AM
I"m not sure what everyone is upset about...have you guys completely forgotten that there are bad people out here in the "real world" and they'd like to kill you and me. Once you step out of your home in modern day American you cannot expect any privacy. If you want privacy either drive or stay home. Get use to this as long as the materials to make explosives continue to not be controlled. Anyone complaining or refusing a search should be exited from the building. I'd rather know that everyone on my plane was safe. If your ego is so fragil that a pat down sends you into a fit...."STAY HOME".
None of that is the point.
Actually, it is exactly the point. if you don't have scans and you don't allow pat downs, how will you prevent terrorists exploiting that loophole to their benefit and our deteriment?
Quote from: vicupstate on November 19, 2010, 11:04:39 AMActually, it is exactly the point. if you don't have scans and you don't allow pat downs, how will you prevent terrorists exploiting that loophole to their benefit and our deteriment?
The key is, there are perfectly acceptable non-invasive ways to accomplish the same goal. I have no problem having my bags x-rayed. I have no problem walking through a metal detector. I have no problem walking through an explosive-detecting puffer machine. I can chalk all of these steps up as acceptable precaution. Beyond that, there is
zero reason that I should be looked at naked, or that I should be groped by a TSA goon.
If some evil supervillian terrorist finds a way to defy science and somehow build both an explosive device and a means to detonate it without using metal and without using known explosives, and then boards my high-risk flight from Jacksonville to Tampa with said device thoughtfully smuggled behind his left testicle or jammed up his rectum, let him kill me.
Quote from: stephendare on November 19, 2010, 11:28:42 AM
Quote from: vicupstate on November 19, 2010, 11:04:39 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 19, 2010, 08:18:21 AM
Quote from: Garden guy on November 19, 2010, 07:20:24 AM
I"m not sure what everyone is upset about...have you guys completely forgotten that there are bad people out here in the "real world" and they'd like to kill you and me. Once you step out of your home in modern day American you cannot expect any privacy. If you want privacy either drive or stay home. Get use to this as long as the materials to make explosives continue to not be controlled. Anyone complaining or refusing a search should be exited from the building. I'd rather know that everyone on my plane was safe. If your ego is so fragil that a pat down sends you into a fit...."STAY HOME".
None of that is the point.
Actually, it is exactly the point. if you don't have scans and you don't allow pat downs, how will you prevent terrorists exploiting that loophole to their benefit and our deteriment?
Whats to prevent 'the terrorists' from dropping meteors on your house if we don't immediately forces all homeowners to begin living in underground caves?
that is the most idiotic response I have heard on this thread.
Quote from: stephendare on November 19, 2010, 11:28:42 AM
Quote from: vicupstate on November 19, 2010, 11:04:39 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 19, 2010, 08:18:21 AM
Quote from: Garden guy on November 19, 2010, 07:20:24 AM
I"m not sure what everyone is upset about...have you guys completely forgotten that there are bad people out here in the "real world" and they'd like to kill you and me. Once you step out of your home in modern day American you cannot expect any privacy. If you want privacy either drive or stay home. Get use to this as long as the materials to make explosives continue to not be controlled. Anyone complaining or refusing a search should be exited from the building. I'd rather know that everyone on my plane was safe. If your ego is so fragil that a pat down sends you into a fit...."STAY HOME".
None of that is the point.
Actually, it is exactly the point. if you don't have scans and you don't allow pat downs, how will you prevent terrorists exploiting that loophole to their benefit and our deteriment?
Whats to prevent 'the terrorists' from dropping meteors on your house if we don't immediately forces all homeowners to begin living in underground caves?
That's the point.
The additional security measures are draconian, unconstitutional, and aren't accomplishing much.
At what point do we draw the line? You can never eliminate all risk. It's supposed to be about finding a balance that sensibly limits risk without causing such hardship that the terrorists have already won without lifting a finger.
In this morning's paper article, Mica was promoting private security for use at Florida airports. Whatz up?
Touchy-feely at Denver International Airport:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/19/airport.security.issues/index.html?
So basically we're damned if we do damned if we don't. I hear the cry of "too much this" and "too invasive that" and hell, if the people aren't happy then I won't be re-elected. And I hear you, "If I get blown up, so what." Let your kids know you feel that way.
So what's the plan? Do we stop making
everyone uncomfortable until another plane blows up or do we keep everything as is?
I don't know the validity of the site that I'm posting this info from, but according to the table below, hijacked planes resulting in fatality aren't a common thing - and non-existant from 2001-2009. Ask yourself, is this due to the heightened security or is it because there is no table that tells us how many others were avoided due to these new measures.
QuoteHijacking (resulting in fatalities)
07/16/1948 Pacific Ocean Cathay Pacific AW Crashed after being hijacked and losing control during a struggle in the cockpit.
11/01/1958 Nipe Bay, Cuba Cubana Crashed after being hijacked and running out of fuel.
04/28/1960 Calabozo, Venezuela Linea Aero. Venezolana Detonation of a hand-grenade brought aboard by a Russian immigrant.
05/07/1964 San Ramon, California Pacific AL Francisco Gonzales, a passenger, shot both the pilot and first officer.
01/23/1971 Korean Air Lines Sokcho, South Korea A hijacker detonated grenades he was carrying.
12/06/1971 Tikaka, Sudan Sudan AW Hijacked and ran out of fuel.
05/18/1973 Chita, Russia Aeroflot Detonation of a bomb in the cabin being carried by a hijacker.
09/15/1974 Phan Rang, Vietnam Air Vietnam Detonation of two hand grenades in the passenger compartment by a hijacker.
05/23/1976 Zamboanga, Philippines Philippine AL A hijacker set off grenades in the cabin.
06/27/1976 Entebbe, Uganda Air France Seven passengers were killed during a commando raid by Israeli forces.
12/04/1977 Kampung Ladang, Malaysia Malaysia AL Hijacked with both pilots shot.
06/14/1985 Athens, Greece Trans World AL U.S. Navy diver Robert Stethem was murdered aboard by hijackers.
11/24/1985 Luqa, Malta Egyptair Several hand grenades were thrown into the cabin causing a fire.
09/05/1986 Karachi, Pakistan Pan American AW Hijackers opened fire on the passengers and crew and threw grenades among them.
12/25/1986 Ay, Saudi Arabia Iraqi AW Two hand grenades exploded in the cockpit causing the plane to lose control & crash.
07/24/1987 Geneva, Switzerland Air Afrique A hijacker killed one passenger before the plane was stormed by troops.
12/07/1987 San Luis Obispo, California Pacific Southwest AL David Burk, a fired employee, shot the pilot and first officer.
04/05/1988 Combi, Cyprus Kuwait AW Two hostages killed on the ground by hijackers.
10/02/1990 Guangzhou, China Xiamen/China SW AL After a struggle in the cockpit with a hijacker the pilot hit three parked planes.
08/28/1993 Khorag, Tajikistan Tadzhikistan Nat. AL The crew was coerced into taking off with an overloaded plane by armed hijackers.
12/26/1994 Algiers, Algeria Air France Three passengers and four hijackers were killed when the plane was stormed.
11/23/1996 Moroni, Comoros Islands Ethiopian AL The plane was hijacked and ran out of fuel crashing in the ocean.
07/23/1999 Tokyo, Japan All Nippon AW The plane crashed after the pilot was stabbed by a mentally ill passenger.
12/24/1999 Amritsar, India Indian Airlines One crew member was killed after the plane was hijacked.
05/25/2000 Manila, Philippines Philippine Air Lines A hijacker was killed after jumping out of plane with a homemade parachute.
03/15/2001 Medina, Saudi Arabia Vnukovo Airlines Three people were killed after the hijacked plane was stormed.
09/11/2001 New York, New York American AL Hijacked and flown into the twin towers in New York.
09/11/2001 New York, New York United AL Hijacked and flown into the twin towers in New York.
09/11/2001 Arlington, Virginia American AL Hijacked and flown into the Pentagon.
09/11/2001 Shanksville, Pennsylvania United AL Hijacked and flown into the ground in Pennsylvania.
http://planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm
Here is a question for you...
All of these procedures were put in place in RESPONSE to an attempt, so in other words in reaction to a failed attempt. How safe is that? So whatever procedure is put in place the terrorist will find a new way to try and get a weapon on board. So where does it all stop? And how safe can we be using reactionary defense measures to try and protect ourselves?
Tyranny of the majority?
I'm guessing 80% of citizens want a fully scrutinized flying experience. They don't care if TSA has to strip search (and cavity search with reasonable cause) everyone, just as long as the plane looks safe. They would rather be vastly overprotected then under protected. My guess is these people are also rare or casuals who only fly every so often. As an individual, they rarely fly but as a group, they are a large portion of fliers.
Then we have the FlyerTalk.com crowd. Their jobs depend on convenient air travel. They are the ones who have to put up with the TSA on a daily basis. From what I'm seeing, they are about ready to riot. They want change but for the most part, they have very little power compared to the masses.
I think the problem we have now is similar to if California controlled the government of Florida because California has more people than Florida. TSA is the product of the tyranny of the majority who really don't care nor fly much. For the most part, it's not their problem! The majority of us rarely fly.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 19, 2010, 05:48:42 PM
So basically we're damned if we do damned if we don't. I hear the cry of "too much this" and "too invasive that" and hell, if the people aren't happy then I won't be re-elected. And I hear you, "If I get blown up, so what." Let your kids know you feel that way.
So what's the plan? Do we stop making everyone uncomfortable until another plane blows up or do we keep everything as is?
I don't know the validity of the site that I'm posting this info from, but according to the table below, hijacked planes resulting in fatality aren't a common thing - and non-existant from 2001-2009. Ask yourself, is this due to the heightened security or is it because there is no table that tells us how many others were avoided due to these new measures.
QuoteHijacking (resulting in fatalities)
07/16/1948 Pacific Ocean Cathay Pacific AW Crashed after being hijacked and losing control during a struggle in the cockpit.
11/01/1958 Nipe Bay, Cuba Cubana Crashed after being hijacked and running out of fuel.
04/28/1960 Calabozo, Venezuela Linea Aero. Venezolana Detonation of a hand-grenade brought aboard by a Russian immigrant.
05/07/1964 San Ramon, California Pacific AL Francisco Gonzales, a passenger, shot both the pilot and first officer.
01/23/1971 Korean Air Lines Sokcho, South Korea A hijacker detonated grenades he was carrying.
12/06/1971 Tikaka, Sudan Sudan AW Hijacked and ran out of fuel.
05/18/1973 Chita, Russia Aeroflot Detonation of a bomb in the cabin being carried by a hijacker.
09/15/1974 Phan Rang, Vietnam Air Vietnam Detonation of two hand grenades in the passenger compartment by a hijacker.
05/23/1976 Zamboanga, Philippines Philippine AL A hijacker set off grenades in the cabin.
06/27/1976 Entebbe, Uganda Air France Seven passengers were killed during a commando raid by Israeli forces.
12/04/1977 Kampung Ladang, Malaysia Malaysia AL Hijacked with both pilots shot.
06/14/1985 Athens, Greece Trans World AL U.S. Navy diver Robert Stethem was murdered aboard by hijackers.
11/24/1985 Luqa, Malta Egyptair Several hand grenades were thrown into the cabin causing a fire.
09/05/1986 Karachi, Pakistan Pan American AW Hijackers opened fire on the passengers and crew and threw grenades among them.
12/25/1986 Ay, Saudi Arabia Iraqi AW Two hand grenades exploded in the cockpit causing the plane to lose control & crash.
07/24/1987 Geneva, Switzerland Air Afrique A hijacker killed one passenger before the plane was stormed by troops.
12/07/1987 San Luis Obispo, California Pacific Southwest AL David Burk, a fired employee, shot the pilot and first officer.
04/05/1988 Combi, Cyprus Kuwait AW Two hostages killed on the ground by hijackers.
10/02/1990 Guangzhou, China Xiamen/China SW AL After a struggle in the cockpit with a hijacker the pilot hit three parked planes.
08/28/1993 Khorag, Tajikistan Tadzhikistan Nat. AL The crew was coerced into taking off with an overloaded plane by armed hijackers.
12/26/1994 Algiers, Algeria Air France Three passengers and four hijackers were killed when the plane was stormed.
11/23/1996 Moroni, Comoros Islands Ethiopian AL The plane was hijacked and ran out of fuel crashing in the ocean.
07/23/1999 Tokyo, Japan All Nippon AW The plane crashed after the pilot was stabbed by a mentally ill passenger.
12/24/1999 Amritsar, India Indian Airlines One crew member was killed after the plane was hijacked.
05/25/2000 Manila, Philippines Philippine Air Lines A hijacker was killed after jumping out of plane with a homemade parachute.
03/15/2001 Medina, Saudi Arabia Vnukovo Airlines Three people were killed after the hijacked plane was stormed.
09/11/2001 New York, New York American AL Hijacked and flown into the twin towers in New York.
09/11/2001 New York, New York United AL Hijacked and flown into the twin towers in New York.
09/11/2001 Arlington, Virginia American AL Hijacked and flown into the Pentagon.
09/11/2001 Shanksville, Pennsylvania United AL Hijacked and flown into the ground in Pennsylvania.
http://planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm
That kind of proves what we're saying, doesn't it?
To begin with, that's not a very extensive list considering it spans some 63 years. Compare that tiny number to the number of flights operated worldwide on a daily basis and you'll see my point about just how infinitessimally small the risk really is. Secondly, following the additional security measures implemented after 9/11, there have been zero. What we have in place is already effective. The most effective two things we've done are A: Reinforcing the cockpit so that it's no longer possible to break in and take over the plane, and then B: Arming the pilots. That solved the 9/11 scenario right there.
The rest of this B.S. is just the TSA not knowing when to stop, and lobbying on behalf of equipment manufacturers subverting decision making so the government spends a ton of money on the machines.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 20, 2010, 03:01:40 PM
That kind of proves what we're saying, doesn't it?
To begin with, that's not a very extensive list considering it spans some 63 years. Compare that tiny number to the number of flights operated worldwide on a daily basis and you'll see my point about just how infinitessimally small the risk really is. Secondly, following the additional security measures implemented after 9/11, there have been zero. What we have in place is already effective. The most effective two things we've done are A: Reinforcing the cockpit so that it's no longer possible to break in and take over the plane, and then B: Arming the pilots. That solved the 9/11 scenario right there.
The rest of this B.S. is just the TSA not knowing when to stop, and lobbying on behalf of equipment manufacturers subverting decision making so the government spends a ton of money on the machines.
One of the few time that I'm not arguing the point. I don't fly nearly enough (once or twice a year) to be inconvienenced by this, so in all reality, it doesn't pertain to me, but I can understand the frustration from people who travel almost on a daily basis. That's why, in my eyes, it's a no win situation. There are too many people, like myself, who feel the need for all of the security 24/7/365 so that I feel safe when I fly during the holidays, but on the flip side, there are a lot of people such as uptown who fly regularly and it just becomes a hassle.
There was talk about frequent flyers getting special ids, passes, something that would let them skip the TSA BS, but how long would it take for someone to get the same pass that has less than desirable intentions. Once again, Catch 22.
So, while I can sympathize with those of you who have to deal with the daily BS, I can't empathize with you, because I only have to deal with the hassle a few times per year and it does make me feel safer.
On another note, if you check out the website, there were more crashes with fatalities because of planes running out of fuel opposed to being hijacked. Just a thought.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 20, 2010, 06:45:04 PM
because I only have to deal with the hassle a few times per year and it does make me feel safer.
That is pretty disturbing, "it makes you FEEL safer" but that is about it because the molestation of your fellow citizens is certainly not MAKING you safer. Based on that line of thought, some would FEEL safer if we just locked up all african american males between the ages of 18-25, but no one would actually BE safer. So where does this abuse of rights in order for the majority to feel better stop?
Crazy people on a religious mission will not stop, so what is left for them? Storing bombs on little children? Would you FEEL safer if 2yr olds had body cavity searches done?
Quote from: uptowngirl on November 20, 2010, 08:16:02 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 20, 2010, 06:45:04 PM
because I only have to deal with the hassle a few times per year and it does make me feel safer.
That is pretty disturbing, "it makes you FEEL safer" but that is about it because the molestation of your fellow citizens is certainly not MAKING you safer. Based on that line of thought, some would FEEL safer if we just locked up all african american males between the ages of 18-25, but no one would actually BE safer. So where does this abuse of rights in order for the majority to feel better stop?
Crazy people on a religious mission will not stop, so what is left for them? Storing bombs on little children? Would you FEEL safer if 2yr olds had body cavity searches done?
Unfortunately, this country actually did something like that a few times. The most famous one being the Japanese Americans during WWII.
(http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/5589/image010ot.jpg)
Maybe I'm a bit different, but I've never minded the full pat-down a the airports in Colombia!
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: Ocklawaha on November 20, 2010, 10:00:23 PM
(http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/5589/image010ot.jpg)
Maybe I'm a bit different, but I've never minded the full pat-down a the airports in Colombia!
OCKLAWAHA
Unfortunately, Ock, this isn't Bogota. Welcome to Cowford.....
(http://my.project-jk.com/data/500/Fatgirls.jpg)
TSA rubdown leaves traveler in tears, covered in urine:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40291856/ns ... ?GT1=43001
TSA forces cancer survivor to show and remove prosthetic breast, feels it up:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40278427/ns ... ravel-news
Young boy strip searched in front of other travelers by TSA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skkCpnCm7iM
Three year old girl forcibly searched by TSA (I would KILL someone if they tried to put their hands on my daughter):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFoa0Lsq ... _embedded#!
Rape victim has panic attack during TSA patdown:
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/17/tsa- ... ivors.html
Citizens face $11,000 fine, arrest if refusing nude scans/patdowns:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/sf ... 4032.story
Congress allowed to skip TSA screening:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201011 ... them.shtml
Woman with artificial knee left in tears after TSA agent sticks hands down her underwear and pats her vagina:
http://www.kmov.com/news/mobile/Woman-s ... 14934.html
Biochemist says X-Ray Scanners may be unsafe, cause increased risk of cancer to children:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20022541-281.html
Former head of TSA now runs the company selling airport scanners:
http://www.rcreader.com/commentary/tsa-commonsense/
TSA worker plants cocaine on college student as a "prank":
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/tsa-employ ... id=9635647
Woman left in tears after TSA employee reaches up her skirt and grabs her crotch hard enough to lift her off the ground:
http://www.wzzm13.com/news/news_story.a ... 3&catid=14
4 Year old Disabled Child Forced by TSA to remove leg braces and stumble through scanner:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvNNks_m ... re=related
Obama says pat downs are necessary, though he and his family are exempt. Change we can believe in:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40289750/ns/travel
Ron Paul, blasts the TSA on the House floor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vjrNmlU9is
+1 KenFSU..............you have given this some research I see...................I concur!
What is interesting about this issue is the diversity of political thoughts mixing in uncommon ways... liberals and conservatives coming together as allies on both sides of this issue. Some might be horrified to find themselves on the same side as Ann Coulter... :D ;D :o
http://www.anncoulter.com/
QuoteNAPOLITANO: THE BALL’S IN MY COURT NOW
November 17, 2010
After the 9/11 attacks, when 19 Muslim terrorists -- 15 from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates and one each from Egypt and Lebanon, 14 with "al" in their names -- took over commercial aircraft with box-cutters, the government banned sharp objects from planes.
Airport security began confiscating little old ladies' knitting needles and breaking the mouse-sized nail files off of passengers' nail clippers. Surprisingly, no decrease in the number of hijacking attempts by little old ladies and manicurists was noted.
After another Muslim terrorist, Richard Reid, AKA Tariq Raja, AKA Abdel Rahim, AKA Abdul Raheem, AKA Abu Ibrahim, AKA Sammy Cohen (which was only his eHarmony alias), tried to blow up a commercial aircraft with explosive-laden sneakers, the government prohibited more than 3 ounces of liquid from being carried on airplanes.
All passengers were required to take off their shoes for special security screening, which did not thwart a single terrorist attack, but made airport security checkpoints a lot smellier.
After Muslim terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab of Nigeria tried to detonate explosive material in his underwear over Detroit last Christmas, the government began requiring nude body scans at airports.
The machines, which cannot detect chemicals or plastic, would not have caught the diaper bomber. So, again, no hijackers were stopped, but being able to see passengers in the nude boosted the morale of airport security personnel by 22 percent.
After explosives were inserted in two ink cartridges and placed on a plane headed to the United States from the Muslim nation of Yemen, the government banned printer cartridges from all domestic flights, resulting in no improvement in airport security, while requiring ink cartridges who traveled to take Amtrak.
So when the next Muslim terrorist, probably named Abdul Ahmed al Shehri, places explosives in his anal cavity, what is the government going to require then? (If you're looking for a good investment opportunity, might I suggest rubber gloves?)
Last year, a Muslim attempting to murder Prince Mohammed bin Nayef of Saudi Arabia blew himself up with a bomb stuck up his anus. Fortunately, this didn't happen near an airport, or Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano would now be requiring full body cavity searches to fly.
You can't stop a terrorist attack by searching for the explosives any more than you can stop crime by taking away everyone's guns.
In the 1970s, liberal ideas on crime swept the country. Gun owners were treated like criminals while actual criminals were coddled and released. If only we treated criminals with dignity and respect and showed them the system was fair, liberals told us, criminals would reward us with good behavior.
As is now well known, crime exploded in the '70s. It took decades of conservative law-and-order policies to get crime back to near-1950s levels.
It's similarly pointless to treat all Americans as if they're potential terrorists while trying to find and confiscate anything that could be used as a weapon. We can't search all passengers for explosives because Muslims stick explosives up their anuses. (Talk about jobs Americans just won't do.)
You have to search for the terrorists.
Fortunately, that's the one advantage we have in this war. In a lucky stroke, all the terrorists are swarthy, foreign-born, Muslim males. (Think: "Guys Madonna would date.")
This would give us a major leg up -- if only the country weren't insane.
Is there any question that we'd be looking for Swedes if the 9/11 terrorists, the shoe bomber, the diaper bomber and the printer cartridge bomber had all been Swedish? If the Irish Republican Army were bombing our planes, wouldn't we be looking for people with Irish surnames and an Irish appearance?
Only because the terrorists are Muslims do we pretend not to notice who keeps trying to blow up our planes.
It would be harder to find Swedes or Irish boarding commercial airliners in the U.S. than Muslims. Swarthy foreigners stand out like a sore thumb in an airport. The American domestic flying population is remarkably homogenous. An airport is not a Sears department store.
Only about a third of all Americans flew even once in the last year, and only 7 percent took more than four round trips. The majority of airline passengers are middle-aged, middle-class, white businessmen with about a million frequent flier miles. I'd wager that more than 90 percent of domestic air travelers were born in the U.S.
If the government did nothing more than have a five-minute conversation with the one passenger per flight born outside the U.S., you'd need 90 percent fewer Transportation Security Administration agents and airlines would be far safer than they are now.
Instead, Napolitano just keeps ordering more invasive searches of all passengers, without exception -- except members of Congress and government officials, who get VIP treatment, so they never know what she's doing to the rest of us.
Two weeks ago, Napolitano ordered TSA agents to start groping women's breasts and all passengers' genitalia -- children, nuns and rape victims, everyone except government officials and members of Congress. (Which is weird because Dennis Kucinich would like it.)
"Please have your genitalia out and ready to be fondled when you approach the security checkpoint."
This is the punishment for refusing the nude body scan for passengers who don't want to appear nude on live video or are worried about the skin cancer risk of the machines -- risks acknowledged by the very Johns Hopkins study touted by the government.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that we need to keep the government as far away from airport security as possible, and not only because Janet Napolitano did her graduate work in North Korea.
See what happens if everyone is subjected to the same thing? They unify! The TSA doesn't discriminate against liberals or conservatives. They only discriminate against fliers and non-fliers. The non-fliers don't see them!
I'd say the best way to get rid of the TSA is to expand the TSA. Make TSA a requirement in entering any public building which holds more than 50 people. Malls, Sports Arenas, City Hall, Court Houses, Schools, Colleges Everywhere! Put TSA in front of everything and make it a daily occurrence for everyone in the country.
Before going to work? TSA Search. Eating out at The Landing? TSA Search. Picking up kids at school? TSA Search. Going to Little Jonny's Little League Baseball Game? TSA Search.
When that happens, hide! The riots the frequent filers are having now will be the mass public about ready to overthrow the government.
Yes, exactly why the TSA has just exempted all members of congress from these new procedures.
Kind of tells you they know they're doing wrong, no? Like sucking up to teacher to avoid getting in trouble.
Now here's a law we can all get behind:
"All elected officials and all government employees shall be subject to all laws and regulations that apply to all citizens."
He sure looked like Al Qaeda to me...
You mean like this?
(http://demotivatorsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/121.jpg)
Well, I mind it very much.
Especially having been unknowingly molested in a matter of seconds. I went though the metal detector and I forgot to take off my sweater. No one asked me to remove it. I was asked to put my arms out to my sides. I thought she was going to use the wand however the next thing I know...full on groping began. I didn't know what to say or think. I was dumbfounded. This was before all the controversy.
Since then, I've been terrified to go to the airport for fear of being grabbed again. I sure as he&& don't want to stand around "naked" for the TSA and I don't want to be touched either. I have to fly so....
I will say this...if they ever touch my child...I will need bail money. They will not see my kid "naked" either.
I guess I'd better invest in a good car. Sons of beotches.
+1000
I braced myself Saturday morning as I was taking my seen yr old to the airport as an unaccompanied minor. Luckily they did not ask for the naked pictures nor touched her (or myself for that matter), but I did ensure I had bail money set aside just in case.
Quote from: cityimrov on November 21, 2010, 09:20:35 AM
I'd say the best way to get rid of the TSA is to expand the TSA. Make TSA a requirement in entering any public building which holds more than 50 people. Malls, Sports Arenas, City Hall, Court Houses, Schools, Colleges Everywhere! Put TSA in front of everything and make it a daily occurrence for everyone in the country.
Before going to work? TSA Search. Eating out at The Landing? TSA Search. Picking up kids at school? TSA Search. Going to Little Jonny's Little League Baseball Game? TSA Search.
We joke, but this is exactly the type of slippery slope that atrocties like the TSA screenings can lead to. People either obliviously believe that stuff like this is for their own good, or they become conditioned to accept it.
What scares me is that the head of the TSA, John Pistole, wants to do exactly what you joke about, and expand the TSA into all forms of travel.
From USA Today:
Quote
TSA Chief John Pistole to put Priority on Subways, Rail
ARLINGTON, Va. â€" Protecting riders on mass-transit systems from terrorist attacks will be as high a priority as ensuring safe air travel, the new head of the Transportation Security Administration promises.
In his first interview since taking over the TSA, former FBI deputy director John Pistole told USA TODAY that some terrorists consider subway and rail cars an easier target than heavily secured planes. "Given the list of threats on subways and rails over the last six years going on seven years, we know that some terrorist groups see rail and subways as being more vulnerable because there's not the type of screening that you find in aviation," he said. "From my perspective, that is an equally important threat area."
Pistole, 54, took over the TSA on July 1 after 26 years at the FBI. He said he wants to make the agency a full partner in U.S. counterterrorism efforts.
The attempted bombing of a flight over Detroit last Christmas indicates "al-Qaeda and affiliates are still interested in doing some type of attack involving aviation," Pistole said.
Members of Congress, including House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., have pressed the TSA to put more money into mass-transit security. Thompson met with Pistole on Thursday and said the two agreed.
Thompson said he was "impressed with Pistole's knowledge of security" and with his experience at the FBI as a manager. "From that, I am confident he won't pass on making difficult decisions," Thompson said.
Deputy FBI director from 2004 until taking over the TSA, Pistole brings an extensive security and counterterrorism experience to the 60,000-person agency that was created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. He was deeply involved in high-profile terrorism investigations, including the Christmas Day bombing attempt and the attempted car bombing in New York City's Times Square in May.
Pistole said he wants TSA workers, including 47,000 screeners at 450 airports, to operate as a "national-security, counterterrorism organization, fully integrated into U.S. government efforts."
"I want to take TSA to the next level," Pistole said.
Pistole is President Obama's first TSA chief. Two Obama nominees withdrew during the confirmation process.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-07-16-tsa16_ST_N.htm
I think he meant, albeit unintentionally, the next level...DOWN
For a different take on all this...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-22/tsa-body-scan-pat-down-policy-sparks-media-frenzy/2/
In all reality, what happens to the TSA will be determined by the next terror attack. If people act in a calm, rational way and not point fingers everywhere, then the TSA role is going to be smaller. If people blame the government for not doing everything they can to stop it, the TSA will expand or it's ugly stepchild will appear making life miserable.
Right now, if TSA reduces ANY screening method, the terrorist will more likely attack - not really because there is less security but they know if they attack when TSA is being shrunk, there's a chance the people will panic. This will make them smile since they have to do very little work to get the results they want. The government with the request of the people will do it for them.
At work, people call this "Cover Your Ass". Whenever people start doing that, nothing useful get's done since everyone is so worried about protecting themselves from the "boss".
What happens next is completely up to us! If we turn into the finger pointing, blame government "why didn't you do everything you could to stop it?" crowd, the TSA won't go away anytime soon. If we don't turn into that, TSA has a chance of being gone.
Security at Isreal's Ben Gurion Airport
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Gurion_International_Airport#Security_procedures
QuoteSecurity procedures
All cars, taxis, buses and trucks go through a preliminary security checkpoint before entering the airport compound. Armed guards spot-check the vehicles by looking into cars, taxis and boarding buses, exchanging a few words with the driver and passengers. Armed security personnel stationed at the terminal entrances keep a close watch on those who enter the buildings. If someone arouses their suspicion or looks nervous, they may strike up a conversation to further assess the person's intent. Plainclothes armed personnel patrol the area outside the building, and hidden surveillance cameras operate at all times.[39]Inside the building, both uniformed and plainclothes security officers are on constant patrol. Departing passengers are personally questioned by security agents even before arriving at the check-in desk. This interview can last as little as a minute, or as long as an hour if a passenger is selected for additional screening. Luggage and body searches may be conducted. After the search, bags are placed through an X-ray machine before passengers proceed to the check-in counters. Occasionally, if security have assessed a person as a low risk, they will pass them straight through to the check-in desks, bypassing the main x-ray machines.
Until August 2007 there was a system of color codes on checked luggage but the practice was discontinued after complaints of discrimination.[40]
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 24, 2010, 07:35:58 AM
Security at Isreal's Ben Gurion Airport
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Gurion_International_Airport#Security_procedures
QuoteSecurity procedures
All cars, taxis, buses and trucks go through a preliminary security checkpoint before entering the airport compound. Armed guards spot-check the vehicles by looking into cars, taxis and boarding buses, exchanging a few words with the driver and passengers. Armed security personnel stationed at the terminal entrances keep a close watch on those who enter the buildings. If someone arouses their suspicion or looks nervous, they may strike up a conversation to further assess the person's intent. Plainclothes armed personnel patrol the area outside the building, and hidden surveillance cameras operate at all times.[39]Inside the building, both uniformed and plainclothes security officers are on constant patrol. Departing passengers are personally questioned by security agents even before arriving at the check-in desk. This interview can last as little as a minute, or as long as an hour if a passenger is selected for additional screening. Luggage and body searches may be conducted. After the search, bags are placed through an X-ray machine before passengers proceed to the check-in counters. Occasionally, if security have assessed a person as a low risk, they will pass them straight through to the check-in desks, bypassing the main x-ray machines.
Until August 2007 there was a system of color codes on checked luggage but the practice was discontinued after complaints of discrimination.[40]
All of that also takes place at US airports. Notably, I see no mention of nude searches and rubbing people's crotches. Most people sail through after having their low risk level accurately assessed, instead of this "hassle everyone" approach. Frankly, we should subcontract security out to the Israelis. Despite being the most targeted country, they don't have the issues we have with airline-based terror attacks, and it's because of their national intelligence services, which actually use the information available to them, and their intelligent secutiy protocols.
+1000 Chris. I doubt they would stand for the molestation of children and women if they protested color coding of their luggage......
'Accurately assessing' risk levels is the same as 'profiling', racial or otherwise; and when mentioned in the states, causes nearly as much uproar as grabbing people's crotches.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 24, 2010, 11:35:55 AM
'Accurately assessing' risk levels is the same as 'profiling', racial or otherwise; and when mentioned in the states, causes nearly as much uproar as grabbing people's crotches.
Since when are terrorists a protected class?
Just a theory...
White Male, 6'2", Typical Business Class looking fellow is boarding a plane in Israel. One of their 'profilers' asks a few introductory questions, feels the need to further their inquiry in a back room, and after a few hours pass, let's said man go. Will this make the front page of Israel Today? No. Will Rev. So-and-So and Representative Horsegobble and the ACLU come crashing down on that airport with the fury of the Apocolypse? No. It's just another routine Q&A with someone who 'appeared' out of place.
If the same happened here, all of those outlandish things could very likely happen.
Not saying that it isn't a better way of doing things, because it is if done correctly, but we, as a country, have kinda tied our hands behind our backs on this one.
It all boils down to one simple question for me:
What kind of man is such a terrified wimp that he allows a government employee to see his wife undressed, or to place their hands on her vagina and breasts?
What kind of mother is so petrified by overblown "terror" threats that she allows the government to place their hands on her child?
Is this really how sniveling and cowardly we have become as a nation?
Mindlessly submitting to the most personal of physical invasions without a single second thought about it?
It's embarrassing.
Your characterization of the TSA employees as a bunch of Perverts getting off Looking at anonymous pictures of passengers and gleefully copping feels is way off base. I know a manager at the Jacksonville TSA and none of the employees wants to work the pat down line. The pat downs are not molestations and you are free to not have them.
BTW I have come to believe that most of the enhanced security we have invested in is a big waste of money. The best upgrades we have made are secure cockpits and passengers who will resist.
Quote from: JeffreyS on November 24, 2010, 01:42:13 PM
Your characterization of the TSA employees as a bunch of Perverts getting off Looking at anonymous pictures of passengers and gleefully copping feels is way off base. I know a manager at the Jacksonville TSA and none of the employees wants to work the pat down line. The pat downs are not molestations and you are free to not have them.
BTW I have come to believe that most of the enhanced security we have invested in is a big waste of money. The best upgrades we have made are secure cockpits and passengers who will resist.
He's not charachterizing the TSA employees as perverts, he's criticizing the whole approach. And rightly so.
I don't think they want to grab my balls anymore than I want them grabbed. The process is the problem.
Quote from: KenFSU on November 24, 2010, 01:09:08 PM
It all boils down to one simple question for me:
What kind of man is such a terrified wimp that he allows a government employee to see his wife undressed, or to place their hands on her vagina and breasts?
What kind of mother is so petrified by overblown "terror" threats that she allows the government to place their hands on her child?
Is this really how sniveling and cowardly we have become as a nation?
Mindlessly submitting to the most personal of physical invasions without a single second thought about it?
It's embarrassing.
Swingers? Cuckolds?
Quote from: JeffreyS on November 24, 2010, 01:42:13 PM
Your characterization of the TSA employees as a bunch of Perverts getting off Looking at anonymous pictures of passengers and gleefully copping feels is way off base. I know a manager at the Jacksonville TSA and none of the employees wants to work the pat down line. The pat downs are not molestations and you are free to not have them.
BTW I have come to believe that most of the enhanced security we have invested in is a big waste of money. The best upgrades we have made are secure cockpits and passengers who will resist.
I agree Jefferey. Constantly referring to "crotch grabbing" "breast fondling", "ball groping/grabbing," "nude photos", "vagina touching" and all the other hysterical terms used for an full body pat down certainly do not add any gravitas to their concerns. The poor bastards who now have to perform these checks because someone is opposed to the scan certainly do not relish the scorn and disdain being heaped upon them. They are everyday folks... happy to have a job... even if they have to deal with people who are upset with the "process".
In addition... I find the people who may be planning "protest searches" on the busiest travel day of the year designed to gum up the system extremely selfish.
According to the news today air travel is proceeding smoothly and normally for such a busy day. The "Opt Out Day" protest doesn't seem to be having any impact.
That is good news... :)
If what TSA is doing is molestation, then Doctors are the biggest class of molesters around. They are doing their job, just as a Doctor is. Cops and correctional officers would be next in that category.
How many men have died of Prostate Cancer because they refuse to have a routine exam performed by a professional doing his job? They have every right to decline one, but they don't need to complain about having an undetected Cancer before it is to late to do anything about it either.
If you allow the groin area to be completely unchecked, you can bet your last dollar that is exactly where/how the next weapon will get onboard. Thousands of lives are at stake and we know for a fact that bring weapons onboard a plane is the Al Queda's M.O.
These 'pictures' everyone is so concerned about are actually infared images that are merely outlines of the body contours. They are no more lust-inducing than an x-ray. Sure, you can tell the sex of the person scanned, but did you really need an infared image to know that? The person viewing the image nevers sees the person scanned either.
I can understand the objective to pat downs, but they are not required unless something suspicious is shown in the scan.
Quote from: JeffreyS on November 24, 2010, 01:42:13 PM
Your characterization of the TSA employees as a bunch of Perverts getting off Looking at anonymous pictures of passengers and gleefully copping feels is way off base. I know a manager at the Jacksonville TSA and none of the employees wants to work the pat down line. The pat downs are not molestations and you are free to not have them.
BTW I have come to believe that most of the enhanced security we have invested in is a big waste of money. The best upgrades we have made are secure cockpits and passengers who will resist.
On your second point, I most definitely agree.
And listen, I have no personal problem with the individual TSA screeners. They are simply following the orders that are handed down to them from above and doing what it takes to put food on their family's table. I never characterized them as gleeful perverts.
After what Ive been seeing I am so glad I dont fly. Havent been a plane and definately dont plan on it now. From what Im seeing, people dont have a problem with the screenings, but how they have been conducted. For crying out loud, this old guy had a piss pouch on him (for his bladder), after being ruffed up by TSA he had to get on the plane with piss going down his leg! He said he tried to tell them but they were so aggressive and would not listen to him.
I think they simple need to stop being so aggressive and remember that we are human beings and the majority are citizens of this country. I feel that the screenings are a good thing, but are being done wayyyyy wrong. They might as well tell you to get naked. I dont see how TSA does not see that they need to re-evaluate the process.
Boy I tell you good ole America! ::)
Quote from: JeffreyS on November 24, 2010, 01:42:13 PM
The pat downs are not molestations and you are free to not have them.
We are free to not have them? Really?
Just a select few of the overly dramatic hyperbole...
Quotebut this seems to be an excuse to touch and fondle breasts.
to be patted down and fondled?
these guys feel empowered to feel up women
When you are pulled to the side and a man fondles your breasts
the absolute losers TSA seems to attract.
and have some disgusting dood pull you to the side, wand your boobs for five minutes,then reach out and pat them,
but not because TSA is hassling people and grabbing dicks.
and are not targeting terrorist, just women with large breasts and dry hands.
It would have been interesting to see what Thomas Jefferson thought of a rectal exam while he was trying to cross from Virginia to Pennsylvania.
The dick grabbings aren't accomplishing anything
These molestation pat downs
the TSA is instructed to grab your crotch
the TSA fondling your nuts in the name of security
that I should be groped by a TSA goon.
Quote from: Burn to Shine on November 24, 2010, 02:46:32 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on November 24, 2010, 01:42:13 PM
The pat downs are not molestations and you are free to not have them.
We are free to not have them? Really?
You can be scanned or not walk past the little sign that states passing this point is consenting to be searched.
Here's a good opinion piece on this subject:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/safety/TSA-security-scanners-and-the-public (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/safety/TSA-security-scanners-and-the-public)
At least one of those comments was mine and YES the disgusting fat dood wanded my boobs for fie minutes and then grabbed them aggressively. It was awful, intrusive, and he smiled the WHOLE time. FELT like I was being molested. Now do most of these TSA agent NOT want to grope you? Probably.... but the issue is not with whether they want to or not, the issue is they ARE and it is not acceptable. If you pulled up to McDonalds and order a Big Mac, would you mind if the greasy, sweaty cook in the back grabbed your crotch before giving you your burger?
They are doing their JOB! They are NOT molesting, fondling, grabbing, giving rectal exams, etc. Nor are they goons, thugs, or getting their jollies. There are specific procedures on what and how they can touch people.
Now... you AND I may FEEL like we are being molested... I and MOST people understand that, but that is nothing more than an emotional reaction to what is an unpleasant experience and as an adult you should be able to see the difference.
These are just people doing what they are told and collecting a paycheck doing a job that on an ordinary day everybody hates them... but on that extraordinary day that "disgusting fat dood" may save many lives.
so were the Germans soldiers BT! I tell you right now, if one of these people "just doing their job" grabbed my daughter this way all hell is going to break loose. Doctors to not cup little girls whoo hoos.... it is sick and disgusting. But it must be OK, cause it is a job and they are being paid to do it, just like those Nazi soldiers....oh and that was all for a "better world" too right?
Ah... I see... now they are just like nazi's... ;) :o ::)
Well if your only valid defense is that they were "just following orders" then that does sort of beg the comparison, no?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 24, 2010, 09:07:17 PM
Well if your only valid defense is that they were "just following orders" then that does sort of beg the comparison, no?
Following orders, taking orders - the TSA guy/girl doing the screening isn't much higher up the employment food scale than the guy/girl handing you your McBiscuit in the morning. They aren't there to pick and choose how and when they're supposed to do the job assigned, they are just gettting through the day - like most of us.
Just like when your Sausage McGriddle is F'd up, it's usually no more the guy in the window's fault than it is the guy in the car behind you - direct your anger in the proper direction - the person in charge and quit shooting the messenger.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 24, 2010, 09:31:10 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 24, 2010, 09:07:17 PM
Well if your only valid defense is that they were "just following orders" then that does sort of beg the comparison, no?
Following orders, taking orders - the TSA guy/girl doing the screening isn't much higher up the employment food scale than the guy/girl handing you your McBiscuit in the morning. They aren't there to pick and choose how and when they're supposed to do the job assigned, they are just gettting through the day - like most of us.
Just like when your Sausage McGriddle is F'd up, it's usually no more the guy in the window's fault than it is the guy in the car behind you - direct your anger in the proper direction - the person in charge and quit shooting the messenger.
Everyone here was shooting the message, not the messenger, from the beginning. Not sure where you got lost?
Calling the agents goons, doods (sic) and losers kinda sounds like an attack on the messenger to me.
I'll have to check my Garmin and make sure I'm not too lost.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 24, 2010, 09:49:50 PM
Calling the agents goons, doods (sic) and losers kinda sounds like an attack on the messenger to me.
I'll have to check my Garmin and make sure I'm not too lost.
I never said goon or anything like that. The policy is what I'm opposed to, and has been from the beginning.
'stop shooting the messenger' is across the thread - no one in particular.
Based on both sides of the story that I've read, people are angry with the screeners because of what they're doing, the screeners don't want to do it but have no choice - it's their job (finding another job isn't really a choice in this case) The anger, warranted or not, needs to be directed at the powers that be.
I think you even said something to the effect of, "make the politicians go through the same scrutiny", but that's never going to happen.
Yep..as this escalates more and more people are slipping "Above The Law" 8)
For the simple reason of assuring safety to a country that never asked for it....When will people start getting Uppity again and get their head out of the sand?
Get off the pain pills,Turn off the 115" Plasma Screen and get a Spine and formulate a basic plan to be aware and defend yourself and your property.
Many Aftermath headlines are popping up. The losers at the airport were either laughed at or got funny looks from normal americans, they slowed down NOTHING!! More anti Obama foolishness.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 13, 2010, 07:37:15 PM
What right is being taken away?
You are the most horrible kind of hypocrite! Seriously, yeah SERIOUSLY! To paraphrase your zillions of wasted words 'Its security if it doesn't negatively impact me.' 'Its not a government take over if I say its not'
Personally I don't fly unless I absolutely have to. I think its a hassle and I surprise myself by how unpredictable I can be at times. I might just cause a scene and to prove a point if someone fondled me I may go all Meg Ryan in When Harry Met Sally with a faux orgasm. I may even go as far as to ask for a happy ending and tip the TSO.
Quote from: Coolyfett on November 24, 2010, 11:18:10 PM
More anti Obama foolishness.
?? ?? ??
This is pretty clever:
http://cargocollective.com/4thamendment
Quote from: Coolyfett on November 24, 2010, 11:18:10 PM
The losers at the airport were either laughed at or got funny looks from normal americans.
70% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was personally behind 9/11.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm
90% of Americans can't find Afghanistan on a map.
60% of Americans can't identify the three branches of government.
http://www.newsweek.com/photo/2010/08/24/dumb-things-americans-believe.html#
Call me crazy, but I don't exactly put much weight on the opinion of
normal Americans.The
normal American (58%) hasn't read a book since
high school.These are the people that you suggest should be used to gauge approval?
Really?
REALLY?
While comparing the TSA agents to Nazis is obviously extreme, the intent of the comparison is to ask yourself when does the madness stop? When do normal everyday people draw the line about what they are willing to do to their fellow citizens so they can collect a paycheck and buy a plasma TV at Best Buy?
The Germans thought Hitler was going fix Germany's economy, make it a safer, cleaner grand country. Hitler started out small, and kept adding to his attrocities, until eventually there were interrment camps were fellow citizens were kept until they (the guards and soldiers who were just doing their jobs) could get around to murdering them, all in the name of making Germany a better place. Normal citizens allowed this to happen, normal citizens actively particpated, because jobs were scarce, the economy was not too hot, and it was a job after all.
It is a valid comparison, based on your defense of "these people are just doing their jobs", most "normal" Americans do not mind the intrusion. Do I think the TSA agents will start killing people? No, not really. But I do think you walk a very dangerous path when you let people molest you and your children just because they are doing their job.
molest - To sexually abuse, especially regarding a minor; To annoy intentionally; To disturb or tamper with
fondler - a molester who touches the intimate parts of the victim; "the woman charged that her jailer was a fondler"; "not all fondlers are sexual perverts"
Really? Hitler?? :D Happy Thanksgiving Uptown! I'm glad you did not have to travel by air for the holiday. The vast majority breezed through without problem...and understand what is going on.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 25, 2010, 08:10:20 AM
Really? Hitler?? :D Happy Thanksgiving Uptown! I'm glad you did not have to travel by air for the holiday. The vast majority breezed through without problem...and understand what is going on.
Yeah, if by understand you mean like how a cow understands when it goes down the shoot to be slaughtered.
Oh the drama... :D
Quote from: JC on November 24, 2010, 11:23:54 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 13, 2010, 07:37:15 PM
What right is being taken away?
You are the most horrible kind of hypocrite! Seriously, yeah SERIOUSLY! To paraphrase your zillions of wasted words 'Its security if it doesn't negatively impact me.' 'Its not a government take over if I say its not'
Personally I don't fly unless I absolutely have to. I think its a hassle and I surprise myself by how unpredictable I can be at times. I might just cause a scene and to prove a point if someone fondled me I may go all Meg Ryan in When Harry Met Sally with a faux orgasm. I may even go as far as to ask for a happy ending and tip the TSO.
You know, I can't understand it either.
For years, he's argued with me and everyone else that the constitution doesn't allow whatever he doesn't like, usually anything that might actually help people, like healthcare reform. He finds language that vaguely supports his position and then argues strict construction to the hilt. And though we do not share the same political ideology, I at least always respected him for his consistency.
But now here we are, with an issue that's plainly prohibited by the 4th amendment, I mean this one's not even questionable. No construction of the language is needed, the words are clear and this is just flat out prohibited. And to get around that, the government has devised this flimsy consent argument whereby everyone is deemed to have somehow waived their constitutional rights just by buying a travel ticket. And completely inexplicably, Mr. Strict Constructionist around here, a/k/a BridgeTroll, is all in favor of it. I just don't get it?
I think the bottom line for these conservatives is if the government helps people in some way, then it's unconstitutional. But as long as the government is harassing people, starting illegal wars, running secret prison camps, or sidestepping the constitution entirely by hiring "subcontractors" to do its dirty work, well then that's all kosher, especially if some conservative somewhere is profiting off it.
So I now present you with BridgeTroll's Guide to Constitutionality in a Nutshell:
Helping People: Unconstitutional
Harassing/Arresting/Searching/Killing People: Constitutional
Quotewith an issue that's plainly prohibited by the 4th amendment, I mean this one's not even questionable.
I wonder why no judge has halted the practice as unconstitutional yet? Hmmmm... why could that be?
I going with a kilt next time full Scottsman style.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 25, 2010, 09:05:17 AM
Quotewith an issue that's plainly prohibited by the 4th amendment, I mean this one's not even questionable.
I wonder why no judge has halted the practice as unconstitutional yet? Hmmmm... why could that be?
WOW....
Just for you JC... since we discussed constitutionality back on page 7 or 8...
QuoteThe Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the most obvious context in which the legality of airport security searches is determined. Like airport security searches, the role of the Fourth Amendment is to balance privacy and law enforcement. The Fourth Amendment protects "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures" by stipulating that any search conducted must be made on reasonable grounds. In addition to the reasonableness of the grounds, the courts commonly weigh three aspects of a search to determine whether the search is reasonable: the degree of intrusiveness of the search procedure; the magnitude and frequency of the threat; and the sufficiency of alternatives to conducting a search. Courts also consider the effectiveness of the search in reducing the threat and whether sufficient care has been taken to limit the scope of the search as much as possible, while still maintaining this effectiveness.
So while Chris above says...
Quotean issue that's plainly prohibited by the 4th amendment, I mean this one's not even questionable.
Up to this point... it IS NOT prohibited by the fourth. Perhaps it will be but somehow I do not think it will be. Again... certainly not a lawyer. If this is "clearly unconstitutional" as some claim... a judge would have stepped in long ago and halted the practice.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 25, 2010, 09:30:14 AM
Up to this point... it IS NOT prohibited by the fourth. Perhaps it will be but somehow I do not think it will be. Again... certainly not a lawyer. If this is "clearly unconstitutional" as some claim... a judge would have stepped in long ago and halted the practice.
A judge can step in and hault the practice? Wow, I never knew a judge could do that. Can you show me some other cases where "a judge would have stepped in long ago and halted the practice" out of the blue? I don't know of any.
Here is a very recent one...
http://thepage.time.com/2010/10/12/federal-judge-halts-dadt-enforcement/
Quote
District Court Judge Virginia Phillips orders military to "immediately suspend" investigations related to imposing the ban on openly gay service members.
True... I assume lawsuits have been filed and I along with everyone else is awaiting a decision. I would guess it will come quickly as it is "a clear violation of the fourth."
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 25, 2010, 09:05:17 AM
Quotewith an issue that's plainly prohibited by the 4th amendment, I mean this one's not even questionable.
I wonder why no judge has halted the practice as unconstitutional yet? Hmmmm... why could that be?
Because they just started doing these new procedures in the last couple weeks. What do you expect?
Exactly... ;)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 25, 2010, 09:58:40 AM
Exactly... ;)
That doesn't mean it's not unconstitutional, BridgeTroll. That only means that this hasn't been around long enough for a court to have time to declare it unconstitutional.
What strange bedfellows... Here I am defending the Obama adminstrations actions in this case while other traditional supporters are condeming their actions... What a great country!
It is Bizarro World... :D
The odd thing I'm curious about is why there isn't more protest about TSA, not really for the body scanners but what they represent. If a bomber blew up a train, I'm sure the public will clamor for TSA to be at train stations and subways and so forth till it's a part of every one of our lives.
At the same time, what prevents the TSA from following an order (under a correct leadership) that let's say "The United States has banned Bibles"? The TSA can be quickly switched to an agency that enforces that rule.
I hear arguments all the time about "Death Panels" and how "Obamacare" can be used to deny health care access to everyone. The TSA could then be used to deny transportation if you carry a Bible - even possible enforcement of the law. They are already there, how long would it take to give them enforcement powers for other parts of the law. What is limiting their power?
Ya, this has a low chance of happening but if people are willing to argue about "Death Panels" why are they enthusiastically supporting an agency like the TSA which is even more intrusive and risky since it has a possibility of doing the unlikely scenario above?
You can no longer ride the train anymore. You could no longer fly. You can forget about any type of public transportation if you don't comply with a certain FEDERAL law. The same arguments used against health care can be used against the TSA - and they make more sense there!
I don't get it, if people are willing to use these arguements against health care, why can't see the same thing applies to TSA?
The sky is NOT falling, the protesters got OWNED lol, mission FAILED the world keeps spinning. Checkmate.
Quote from: Coolyfett on November 25, 2010, 11:24:15 AM
The sky is NOT falling, the protesters got OWNED lol, mission FAILED the world keeps spinning. Checkmate.
Until it doesn't.
Give up your rights when you find it convenient, a day will come when you'll need them and you won't have any left.
Quote from: Coolyfett on November 25, 2010, 11:24:15 AM
The sky is NOT falling, the protesters got OWNED lol, mission FAILED the world keeps spinning. Checkmate.
I don't think this is suppose to be a sports game.
Quote
Until it doesn't.
Give up your rights when you find it convenient, a day will come when you'll need them and you won't have any left.
Actually, for most people, this doesn't apply. They don't care since what they want do is what the majority does. It's easy to live in any government from a dictatorship to democracy if you do what the majority does (hoping your ethnicity, gender, birth, etc is the right one in some places). Most people in the world don't prefer rights, they prefer "safety" (i.e. perceived safety) and will pretty much work around anything to get it as long as it doesn't interfere with their daily lives
and everyone else is doing it. I mean, isn't safety the reason most people have fight wars since the beginning of the human race?
Also, how else did you think the founding fathers sold the idea of the creation of the United States to the rest of the country way back then after the Revolutionary War? The states were more then happy to go on their own but the sales pitch of a stable and safe country is how they sold the Constitution to the states.
Quote from: cityimrov on November 26, 2010, 01:11:54 AM
Quote from: Coolyfett on November 25, 2010, 11:24:15 AM
The sky is NOT falling, the protesters got OWNED lol, mission FAILED the world keeps spinning. Checkmate.
I don't think this is suppose to be a sports game.
Quote
Until it doesn't.
Give up your rights when you find it convenient, a day will come when you'll need them and you won't have any left.
Actually, for most people, this doesn't apply. They don't care since what they want do is what the majority does. It's easy to live in any government from a dictatorship to democracy if you do what the majority does (hoping your ethnicity, gender, birth, etc is the right one in some places). Most people in the world don't prefer rights, they prefer "safety" (i.e. perceived safety) and will pretty much work around anything to get it as long as it doesn't interfere with their daily lives and everyone else is doing it.
That perfectly describes BT and a number of other posters...
How perfectly imperceptive of you... It does not describe me at all... ::)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 26, 2010, 08:59:04 AM
How perfectly imperceptive of you... It does not describe me at all... ::)
Buddy... I might just take the time to show how much of a hypocrite you are when it comes to issues of government overreach.
I just went through airport security yesterday in Atlanta, world's busiest airport, and it was a breeze. There was nothing new, and I didn't even have to go through the body scanners. I was in and out in 5-10 minutes (I thought I was going to be there for at least an hour so I arrived really early). As I was sitting at a bar getting drunk for 2 hours waiting for my flight, I chatted with a few other patrons about the "added security". Everyone that I talked to thought it was fine and better a grope than a bomb or hijacking midway through flight. I agreed.
This added security which I did not even see yesterday has been in place overseas for a long time, and anyone who has traveled extensively overseas knows that other countries have been doing this already. The lady who had to remove her prosthetic breast underwent embarassment, but frankly there was apparently a Jihadist doctor in the UK who was outfitting prosthetic breasts with explosive material. And frankly these TSA people don't want to do this any more than we do, but they have to live with themself if they let a terrorist through who ends up at least attempting something.
Thanks for the report... this matches the experience of the vast majority of people who have travelled via airline since the new procedures have been in effect.
All news reports I have read and seen confirm simms experience... across the nation.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40355090/
QuoteHoliday travel smooth despite new security
.By Michelle Nichols and Bernd Debusmann Jr.
Reuters
updated 11/24/2010 5:34:30 PM ET 2010-11-24T22:34:30
Share Print Font: +-NEW YORK â€" Millions of Americans took to the skies on Wednesday for the start of the Thanksgiving holiday but air travel flowed smoothly as passengers largely ignored calls to protest more invasive security procedures.
The enhanced screening methods that have drawn complaints from some Americans and lawmakers in Congress involve revealing full-body imaging scanners and physical patdowns for travelers who opt out of the scans or raise security concerns.
By Wednesday evening -- traditionally one of the busiest U.S. travel days -- there were no reports of wide-scale protests or disruptions at major airports. The Federal Aviation Administration website also showed few weather delays.
"I'm going to ask for a (body) scan. Like that guy said, I don't want them touching my junk," said Nick Mazzanti, 36, who works in public relations in New York, referring to an Internet video that fueled protests against more invasive security.
The video captured audio of a California man telling an airport security official, "If you touch my junk, I'm going to have you arrested." Critics also waged an Internet campaign urging passengers to refuse having their bodies scanned.
But a post on a Transportation Security Administration blog, http://blog.tsa.gov/, said, "We're receiving reports of minimal wait times across the entire country -- from Honolulu to Myrtle Beach and everywhere in between -- and no disruptions."
Music student Emile Trisfith, 19, was traveling home to New York City from Chicago's O'Hare International Airport for Thanksgiving and said he had been prepared for the worst. "There is always a long line but today there wasn't," he said.
.Thanksgiving travelers were also expected to throng Amtrak rail service and highways to reach family for the holiday.
24 MILLION AIR TRAVELERS EXPECTED
The new airport security follows attempted attacks on airliners. Last month, authorities thwarted the bombing of U.S.-bound cargo flights. Last Christmas Day, a man tried to set off a bomb in his underwear on a flight to Detroit.
The Yemen-based group al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula claimed responsibility for both plots.
Airlines expect 24 million people to fly during the Thanksgiving holiday period. Many U.S. families come together for Thanksgiving, which marks the European Pilgrim settlers' first successful harvest in 1621 shared with American Indians.
The TSA estimates that fewer than 2 percent of the 2 million passengers screened daily, or 40,000, are given the patdowns.
"I'm glad they take the extra precaution," said Stacy David, 46, at Orlando International Airport in Florida. "I feel sorry for the guy who has to look at (the body scans) all day."
But a handful of patdowns made headlines recently. The TSA apologized after a bladder cancer survivor's urostomy bag opened during a security patdown and covered him with urine.
TSA chief John Pistole told CNN on Wednesday he believed the full-body scanners and patdowns were necessary but that officials were trying to work out if there were less invasive ways of ensuring airline security.
At least half of Americans say the airport patdowns go too far, recent polls showed. Yet most support the full-body scanning machines at airports and give more priority to preventing terrorism than protecting their privacy.
I might add this is not the norm travelling overseas, unless you are travelling to say Mynamar. I love it when someone travels twice a year and all of a sudden becomes an expert on security procedures! Mules have carried drugs hidden in their anus for years, it would be a prime spot for a bomb, perhaps everyone should bend over and have a rectal exam prior to getting on a plane, train, or hell even entering a prime target like the Everbank stadium?
It is A.O.K. to humiliate and belittle your FELLOW citizens because of some jihadist Dr in the UK??!! What is wrong with you people? Using your logic it should be OK to just shoot down on spot anyone wearing a read bandanna no? I mean they MUST be a Crip right....
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/wireStory?id=11979353
European Airlines Say US Security Goes Overboard
European air officials say US security goes overboard; British Airways calls demands excessive
The Associated Press
116 comments By ROBERT BARR Associated Press
LONDON October 27, 2010 (AP)
PrintRSSFont Size: Share:EmailTwitterFacebookMoreFarkTechnoratiGoogleLiveMy SpaceNewsvineRedditDeliciousMixxYahoo
More Video European air officials accused the United States of imposing useless and overly intrusive travel security measures, calling Wednesday for the Obama administration to reexamine policies ranging from online security checks to X-raying shoes.
British Airways' chairman made the first in a wave of complaints, saying in a speech to airport operators that removing shoes and taking laptops out of bags were "completely redundant" measures demanded by the U.S.
He was joined less than 24 hours later by British pilots, the owner of Heathrow airport, other European airlines, and the European Union. The EU submitted formal objections to a program that requires U.S.-bound travelers from 35 nations to complete online security clearance before departure. It called the system burdensome and said it could violate travelers' privacy.
The EU said the U.S. Electronic System for Travel Authorization would process some 13 million registrations from Europeans in 2009 alone. The program applies to Europeans who don't need visas to travel to the U.S.
now this is really BS, so if you are from/travelling from a terrorist country you are treated better and allowed more rights than a US citizen?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/02/airport-security-checks-r_n_522694.html
Airport Security Checks Revamped For Travel To U.S.
EILEEN SULLIVAN | 04/ 2/10 09:23 PM |
Airport security rules are being revamped for travelers flying to the U.S. Get World Alerts
WASHINGTON â€" The U.S. government is refining its terror-screening policy to focus on specific terror threats and not travelers' nationalities. The new policy replaces a security requirement put in place after the attempted bombing of a jetliner en route to Detroit on Christmas Day that singled out people from 14 countries that have been home to terrorists. It also expands the pool of foreign travelers targeted for extra screening beyond those whose names are on a U.S. terror watch list.
The changes, announced Friday by the Homeland Security Department, come after a three-month review of counterterrorism policies ordered by President Barack Obama in the wake of the near-miss attack.
Officials hope the new procedures will close a dangerous security gap that that allegedly allowed Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to board a Detroit-bound airplane in Amsterdam with a bomb hidden in his underwear.
It should also significantly decrease the number of innocent travelers from the 14 countries who have been inconvenienced by the extra screening, said a senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive security issues.
The countries that had been affected include Afghanistan, Algeria, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
Under the refined policy, a person traveling to the U.S. would be stopped if he or she fits a specific description of a potential terrorist provided by U.S. intelligence officials â€" even if the suspect's name is unknown.
Currently, passengers' names are compared to names on U.S. terror watch lists. If air carriers have a potential match to a watch list, the passenger is either banned from flying to the U.S. or subjected to extra screening such as a full-body pat-down before boarding the airplane.
For example, if the U.S. has intelligence about a Nigerian man between the ages of 22 and 32 whom officials believe is a threat or a known terrorist, under the new policy all Nigerian men within that age range would receive extra screening before they are allowed to fly to the U.S.
If intelligence later shows that the suspect is not a terrorist, the extra screening for others matching the description would be lifted.
One of the reasons Abdulmutallab was able to board the flight in Amsterdam was that his name was not on a U.S. terror watch list. However, officials intercepted a conversation in Yemen about a Nigerian man being trained for a special mission.
If officials in Amsterdam had known to screen passengers who fit the profile, it is possible Abdulmutallab would have been caught, the senior administration official said.
Mohammed Albasha, spokesman for the Yemeni Embassy in Washington, called the changes a good step for U.S. diplomacy.
"Smart intelligence will provide good security," he said.
One of the biggest challenges in keeping terrorists off U.S.-bound planes is that the U.S. does not have the authority to screen passengers in foreign airports.
In the past three months, senior U.S. security officials have been meeting with foreign countries to discuss how to improve aviation security, and many countries have adopted enhanced screening methods, including the use of body-scanning machines.
"Anytime we can make better and more sophisticated use of intelligence, that's a step forward," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. King is the top Republican on the homeland security oversight committee and a member of the intelligence committee. "This should have been done before."
Ok Uptowngirl...you are the travel expert, sorry. Since you know how often I travel via air and all... Many countries overseas have actually had much stricter security measures than the US for a while, and I have been a user of this stricter security for a while (when you have family in Sweden, Colombia, Cyprus, and live in a family that likes to travel...you kinda get the swing of things). India certainly has had quite a security process since the 70s.
I am working on getting a job that will require 80% travel time. If I get the job, I will let you know my experiences then, but I'm sure that if they are not what you want to hear I will still not be a travel expert.
If I had my way, I would actually profile and screen more Muslims than WASPY grannies and northern European 15 year olds. Adding pressure and stigmatizing terrorism as largely being due to extremist Muslims would hopefully get more Muslims to speak out and help stop the terrorists themselves. Saying that an 80 year old Quaker grandmother from PA traveling with her family has the same probability of carrying a bomb as a 25 year old Muslim male traveling by himself is beyond me and part of the reason why it's so easy for certain activities to take place. Sounds like the new procedures attempt to do just this, so I am happy. If enough Muslims from the Middle East/N Africa/SE Asia are inconvenienced, maybe they will get as upset at the extremists that have taken over their religion as we in America have. I also believe in stigmatizing mothers who have kids out of wedlock, and I believe in stigmatizing other devious behaviors, but then again I am an extremist in the eyes of extreme liberals.
Quote from: stephendare on November 26, 2010, 09:11:46 AM
Quote from: JC on November 26, 2010, 09:08:54 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 26, 2010, 08:59:04 AM
How perfectly imperceptive of you... It does not describe me at all... ::)
Buddy... I might just take the time to show how much of a hypocrite you are when it comes to issues of government overreach.
Whats stopping you?
Oh, I dont know, a wife, three kids, a job and the simple fact that such a project would be only for the amusement of a few and would not change the way BT thinks in any way shape or form.
Quote from: simms3 on November 26, 2010, 11:39:46 AMIf enough Muslims from the Middle East/N Africa/SE Asia are inconvenienced, maybe they will get as upset at the extremists that have taken over their religion as we in America have. I also believe in stigmatizing mothers who have kids out of wedlock, and I believe in stigmatizing other devious behaviors, but then again I am an extremist in the eyes of extreme liberals.
This is off the topic but have we actually gotten control of the extremist in this country? We're upset, in a way yes, but have we actually done anything about it other than grandstanding? How exactly do we get control over them without violating any of their civil & moral rights? Our extremist span more then religious ones.
Bashing the Middle East, Africa, Asia which population composes most the world about their problems is hard to do when we ourselves have similar problems in our country. We too, as a country, have people dying in our streets every day. We have people who attack each other and our police force. We are fighting an internal war and from the various reports, we are loosing - badly. I'm not sure we actually have controlled our extremist who are wrecking not only parts of this country but various other countries around the world.
From what I see, we haven't even controlled our own problems.
Yeeeaah, umm I don't believe we have the same degree of problems or even the same problems over here. That's not to say we don't have our fair share of problems, but we don't really export many of them, and aside from some drug smuggling most of our internal problems are separate from airports. All of the major problems we have had in the last decade with our air travel aside from the geese that brought down the one airliner are extremist Muslims trying to hijack or bomb our planes.
Quote from: uptowngirl on November 26, 2010, 10:31:20 AM
I might add this is not the norm travelling overseas, unless you are travelling to say Mynamar. I love it when someone travels twice a year and all of a sudden becomes an expert on security procedures! Mules have carried drugs hidden in their anus for years, it would be a prime spot for a bomb, perhaps everyone should bend over and have a rectal exam prior to getting on a plane, train, or hell even entering a prime target like the Everbank stadium?
It is A.O.K. to humiliate and belittle your FELLOW citizens because of some jihadist Dr in the UK??!! What is wrong with you people? Using your logic it should be OK to just shoot down on spot anyone wearing a read bandanna no? I mean they MUST be a Crip right....
FYI...
Crip = Blue, Blood = Red or if you meant the bandana = "'read' that bitch like a crip" but WTFE, why should all of us non-travelers know more than someone from NOLA about gangs, their colors, TSA and such as those of you who are so well travelled and versed.......
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 26, 2010, 07:37:02 PM
Quote from: uptowngirl on November 26, 2010, 10:31:20 AM
I might add this is not the norm travelling overseas, unless you are travelling to say Mynamar. I love it when someone travels twice a year and all of a sudden becomes an expert on security procedures! Mules have carried drugs hidden in their anus for years, it would be a prime spot for a bomb, perhaps everyone should bend over and have a rectal exam prior to getting on a plane, train, or hell even entering a prime target like the Everbank stadium?
It is A.O.K. to humiliate and belittle your FELLOW citizens because of some jihadist Dr in the UK??!! What is wrong with you people? Using your logic it should be OK to just shoot down on spot anyone wearing a read bandanna no? I mean they MUST be a Crip right....
FYI...
Crip = Blue, Blood = Red or if you meant the bandana = "'read' that bitch like a crip" but WTFE, why should all of us non-travelers know more than someone from NOLA about gangs, their colors, TSA and such as those of you who are so well travelled and versed.......
that was the point, but I guess you missed it. I find it interesting that you are more upset about the fact that Europe and India actually do have less invasive security than America despite the comments posted here, but feel no outrage over grandma or grandpa being throughly humilated, or that people travelling from a terrorist country do not have to go through what you or I going on business trip do in a security line.
(http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/files/2010/05/SWISS_SFO_A3431.jpg)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7e2Of4yLtgA/ScRws-CzPoI/AAAAAAAAAv0/7Q99RTmkHKk/s400/HIpNakedHippies.jpg)
HAPPY DAY'S ARE HERE AGAIN!
OCKLAWAHA
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/26/AR2010112603025_pf.html
QuoteIsraeli air security experts insist their methods better than U.S.
By Janine Zacharia
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, November 26, 2010; 10:29 PM
JERUSALEM - Israel has long held the reputation as home to the world's most stringent airport security procedures. But most passengers aren't frisked, there are no intimately revealing body-imaging scanners, and security experts dismiss as misguided the new, more intrusive American approach that requires pat-downs or highly detailed scans of every passenger.
"Taking the bottle of water from the 87-year-old woman at JFK, you will never find an explosive material that is coming from bin Laden," said Shlomo Harnoy, head of the Sdema Group, an Israeli security consultancy that advises airports abroad. "You are concentrating on the wrong thing."
Israel's approach allows most travelers to pass through airport security with relative ease. But Israeli personnel do single out small numbers of passengers for extensive searches and screening, based on profiling methods that have so far been rejected in the United States, subjecting Arabs and, in some cases, other foreign nationals to an extensive screening that comes with a steep civil liberties price.
"I know personally of people who came to Israel for a conference and were asked if they had met an Arab. After that, they were stripped and their laptop was confiscated," said Ariel Merari, a terrorism expert at Tel Aviv University who has researched aviation security. "There is a lot to be improved in this approach towards innocent, foreign citizens. Also, the attitude towards Israeli Arabs has to be reevaluated.
"The profiling system is good," Merari said. "But it has to be done with more sensitivity.''
Pini Shif, a founder of the security division at Ben Gurion International Airport outside Tel Aviv, estimates that about 2 percent of passengers flying from the airport are subject to the more intensive screening. For the others, the air-travel experience can be a delight, compared with flying in the United States.
"The security here is far more professional," said Sandy Kornhauser, who arrived with her daughter at Ben Gurion from Philadelphia on Wednesday to attend a wedding.
"I think they know who they are looking for," she added. "In the States, they don't know."
Israeli airport security authorities don't disclose the methods by which they single out passengers for extra scrutiny. They say only that they have a list of suspicious signs that they look for.
Sometimes a Muslim-sounding name is enough. Donna Shalala, a 69-year-old American of Lebanese descent who was President Bill Clinton's secretary of health and human services and is now president of the University of Miami, was detained and questioned for 21/2 hours at Ben Gurion in July. The Israeli news media said she was subject to a humiliating security debriefing because of her Arab last name.
In another incident that made headlines here this fall, Heather Bradshaw, an Indiana University professor, was subjected to a body search and forced to turn over her bra to authorities as she tried to board an El Al flight from Britain's London Luton Airport to Tel Aviv to attend an academic conference. All her belongings except her passport and credit cards were taken from her before she was allowed to board. She got them back three days later, after friends in Israel intervened.
Israeli Arabs, who make up about one-fifth of Israel's population, are regularly subjected to a more intensive questioning that goes beyond the routine queries, such as "Where did you just arrive from?" and "Who packed your bags?" They also are subjected to body and bag searches more frequently than Jewish passengers.
"They began with my hair, even though it is only two centimeters long. They began feeling through it, then examining behind my ears, the neck, the shoulders. They began feeling me under my bra, and then continued on to my tummy. I felt as though I was under a sexual assault," Hunaida Ghanem, an Israeli Arab resident of Jerusalem who has a PhD from Hebrew University in sociology and a postdoctoral degree from Harvard, said as she recalled an incident at the airport in June 2009.
"I have been through searches in the U.S. But what they did here was very different. It was very humiliating," she added.
Since then, Ghanem has declined six invitations to attend conferences abroad, saying she finds it emotionally difficult to go to the airport.
Israeli civil rights organizations have repeatedly appealed to Israel's High Court of Justice to end the alleged discrimination against Israel's Arab citizens. The court is scheduled to hear another appeal Dec. 22.
"If you are a Jew, you can celebrate your journey. You can go to the duty-free," said Amnon Be'eri, co-executive director of the Abraham Fund, an organization that works to advance coexistence between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs. "If you are an Arab, you are discriminated against, separated, humiliated."
Be'eri says he believes that in addition to violating basic equal rights, Israel is feeding a longer-term security problem by "creating generations of citizens who feel alienated from the state."
However uncomfortable the procedures are for some, Israeli security experts insist that Israel's methods are better at preventing terrorist attacks than the U.S. Transportation Security Administration's reliance on technology or pat-downs. Israeli experts say that even advanced scanners can fail to detect explosives.
Profiling may be too politically controversial and time-consuming to implement at much busier American airports. Still, Israeli experts say they believe it is inevitable that the United States will move in their direction, rather than continuing to evaluate millions of passengers as if they are potential threats.
"The profile system gives you the right, logical way to know who to check," Shif said.
Special correspondent Samuel Sockol at Ben Gurion International Airport and in Jerusalem contributed to this report.
I have to say I have been through the airport four times over the holiday, and I am guessing travel was not bad, and security lines smooth because the TSA agents are going out of their way to be not only polite, but almost cheery. It makes a HUGE difference, this new attitude. Perhaps all it took was some American's standing up for their rights to be treated as fellow citzens and human beings? Whatever it is I like the new attitude, I never once saw anyone being forced into the porno picture scanner (in fact they appeared to be turned off), or anyone being aggressively patted down.
I think TSA laid low to be able to say "Told you, nothing to see here...".
Let's see what happens when they think they're back out of the national spotlight...bet it's a whole different tune then.
This thread gives rather good arguments for cars and against mass transit.
Subways and trains are dangerous to ride on since terrorist can attack them while cars are safer since it's hard for a terrorist to harm us there. Maybe building mass transit is a bad idea?
Quote from: cityimrov on November 28, 2010, 02:07:23 AM
This thread gives rather good arguments for cars and against mass transit.
Subways and trains are dangerous to ride on since terrorist can attack them while cars are safer since it's hard for a terrorist to harm us there. Maybe building mass transit is a bad idea?
You are joking right?
How many people die in mass transit terror attacks as opposed to car crashes and pollution related illnesses?
[/quote]
You are joking right?
How many people die in mass transit terror attacks as opposed to car crashes and pollution related illnesses?
[/quote]
Exactly. Traveling by automobile is the most dangerous thing that the average person does each day. Comparatively, air travel is almost miraculously safe. This is the main reason why I think the cost of the TSA (in money and privacy) far exceeds the greatly exaggerated benefits.
http://gothamist.com/2010/04/21/yes_the_tsa_is_doing_subway_bag_che.php
http://www.dnainfo.com/20100421/manhattan/tsa-joins-nypd-subway-baggage-screening
If they aren't a threat, why is the TSA there? People in this thread has made strong arugments. A large portion of this county agrees with them as to why the TSA should have a strong presence in our mass transportation system. The safety of the system is paramount and must be prefect otherwise they won't travel and will just take their car.
http://sharing.kypost.com/sharewcpo//photo/2010/11/24/sign_20101124163408_320_240.JPG
Accidents? According to most people, they are good; knowledgeable; and safe drivers. Their license even says they are a "Safe Driver". Dangerous accidents only happen to those dumb drivers.
Fatalities as a result of car crashes is equivalent to approximately one 737 crashing every single day. No one seems to mind though.
And that doesn't even include injuries.
The numbers are pretty insane actually:
QuoteCar Crash Stats: There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes.
In 2003 there were 6,328,000 car accidents in the US. There were 2.9 million injuries and 42,643 people were killed in auto accidents.
In 2002, there were an estimated 6,316,000 car accidents in the USA. There were about 2.9 million injuries and 42,815 people were killed in auto accidents in 2002.
There were an estimated 6,356,000 car accidents in the US in 2000. There were about 3.2 million injuries and 41,821 people were killed in auto accidents in 2000 based on data collected by the Federal Highway Administration.
I think it's just crazy that some of you people out there know for a fact that people would love to use a plane as a missile...and you're upset about our system making sure this doesn't happen again...you people are insane..you are guaranteed absolutely no privacy once you step out of your home..you want a bunch of privacy..then stay home. i want our skys and family safe...screw modesty and such.
"You are guaranteed absolutely no safety once you step out of your home..you want a bunch of safety..then stay home."
The steps we already had in place eight years ago are enough to guarantee that we will never have another 9/11 style attack. Armored pilot's cabin doors, armed pilots, and most important a change in policies about hijackers have insured that hijacking for making airplanes a missile won't work again. That's why they did four planes at once in the first place.
Box cutters and pocket knives were NOT prohibited before 9/11 and did not have to be smuggled on board. They were allowed on board. I carried a pocket knife with a 3" blade for millions of miles of air travel.
What TSA is trying to prevent now is someone blowing a hole in an airplane and bringing it down. Saying that the current enhanced searches and scans is to prevent another 9/11 attack is muddy thinking or inflated rhetoric.
The argument is whether or not the enhanced searches and scans are the most effective, economical and unobtrusive method for stopping explosives from being taken on an airplane.
I'm sorry but i see things different....flying missiles slamming into our cities seems to me to be one area of our oh so private world we all like to live in and throws it out the window. I think you'd change your mind if it were to happen again while you were flying whereever it is you go. There's alot of not so nice people out there if you haven't heard. Times are changing and getting nastier for our lonely planet and anything we can do to thwart anything like 9/11 or anything similar is OK. And if you'd like you can take other methods of transportation.
Quote from: cityimrov on November 28, 2010, 11:53:37 AM
http://gothamist.com/2010/04/21/yes_the_tsa_is_doing_subway_bag_che.php
http://www.dnainfo.com/20100421/manhattan/tsa-joins-nypd-subway-baggage-screening
If they aren't a threat, why is the TSA there? People in this thread has made strong arugments. A large portion of this county agrees with them as to why the TSA should have a strong presence in our mass transportation system. The safety of the system is paramount and must be prefect otherwise they won't travel and will just take their car.
http://sharing.kypost.com/sharewcpo//photo/2010/11/24/sign_20101124163408_320_240.JPG
Accidents? According to most people, they are good; knowledgeable; and safe drivers. Their license even says they are a "Safe Driver". Dangerous accidents only happen to those dumb drivers.
When I was a carpenter in Manhattan I would carry
(http://www.hobuk.co.uk/acatalog/74pbsr-lg.jpg)
(http://www.walltools.com/store/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/265x265/8a02aedcaf38ad3a98187ab0a1dede95/M/T/MTT-998.jpg)
(http://www.duluthtrading.com/services/image.aspx?path=/media/images/products/82305/82305.jpg&width=312&height=312)
(http://images.drillspot.com/pimages/299/29997_300.jpg)
Among a few other various weapons of drywall destruction/construction!
That said TSA should not be searching anything on the subway, without probable cause. There is no flimsy agreement where travelers wave their rights on PUBLIC! transportation. What happens is NYPD uses that bullshit terrorism overreach to search "other" suspects and to profile brown people.
So can you opt out of searches by TSA on the NYC subway?
Quote from: Lunican on November 28, 2010, 08:01:13 PM
So can you opt out of searches by TSA on the NYC subway?
Yes, walk...
NYPD can search any bag without any justification.
http://www.securityinfowatch.com/root+level/1279518
Quote from: stephendare on November 28, 2010, 04:38:40 PM
Nothing prevents a terror minded person from taking a private lear and smashing it into the Independent Square Building.
You'll never get all the senators, congressmen, political donors, corporations, banks, and every other politically-connected user of all the (just as deadly) private planes to submit to the kind of absolute asinine bullshit that the TSA has foisted upon the plebian class of the American public. The TSA knew better than to even try that, the outcry would be far less public but far more effective.
What do all you teabaggers think would happen the first time Dick Cheney got his balls grabbed trying to get on the Halluburton 737 a/k/a "BBJ"? The head of TSA would have been out of a job. WTF happened to equal protection? Or is that another constitutional concept these alleged "strict constructionists" have conveniently forgotten?
"TSA chief John Pistole to put priority on rail, subways"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-07-16-tsa16_ST_N.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tsa-chief-john-pistole-put-priority-rail-subways/story?id=11175996
Stopping TSA is going to be hard since the majority of the general public seems to love them and the rich powerful minority don't care since they ride private planes and cars.
I guess if you can't beat them, join them? So, what's the best way to earn $100 Million so I can buy my own private jet with pilot?
In other news: http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/ct-met-thanksgiving-travel-1118-20101118,0,4519617.story
This sums it up: "Next week, 94 percent of Thanksgiving travelers nationally are expected to drive â€" up from 86 percent in 2008 and 80 percent in 2000, according surveys conducted by AAA.
The air-travel share is projected at 3.8 percent this Thanksgiving, the lowest figure in a decade. Air travel accounted for 13 percent of Thanksgiving travel in 2000, AAA said."
With that said, I'm sure the majority of TSA "agents" do not enjoy it anymore than we do, however no matter how intensive the training...there has to be a personal disdain, a moral intuition against the spontaneous deflowering of American citizens going home to see grandma for Thanksgiving.
I mean there has to be a collective brain somewhere within the organization that knows deep down (no pun intended) that groping people at will is not right. It's not making anyone any safer. It isn't even constitutionally fitting. The TSA "agents" should be just as humiliated and outraged at the goings on in our "post 911" airports as anyone who is subjected to demoralizing gate rape.
Maybe I'm giving the employees too much credit, considering their job recruiting tactics have been advertised on the likes of pizza boxes...but by God we are not all criminals or terrorists guilty before proven innocent. A little bit of common sense and empathy is necessary. One cannot just follow the rules implicitly. The power trips and hard line tactics of these modern day rent a cops is not helping the situation run any smoother. Breaking colostomy bags and demanding to see prosthetic breasts is not something smart, free thinking people should be doing. Lemmings cannot possibly make anyone feel any safer.
I'm not afraid of terrorists...I am afraid of being molested at the airport...because I have been poked and prodded without cause, without warning, and without explanation. It does not make me feel safe one bit. It makes me feel horrible, degraded, gross, disgusted, mistrusted, misguided, upset and ticked off. I do not intend to be further subjected to being touched inappropriately or set to be scanned naked by strangers in order to enjoy my vacation. It's just not part of my itinerary. I may be one person who doesn't make a bit of difference in the grand evil scheme of things but I will stand up for myself and for my rights as an American however small my voice may be.
And most of the people who read this, or any other disdain for the process will be thinking it's no big deal...until you are the one being felt up in the name of safety. To the people who joke about it and say they like it...I think that is very sad. IMHO.
I haven't been poked by the TSA yet, though I have flown twice since the new procedures. I feel safer. The more security they have, whether effective or not, at least calms my nerves and probably thwarts more attacks. Look for a more advanced shoe screening measure to be in airports within a year. We soon won't have to even take our shoes off...we will step on mats. Sounds like an improvement to me.
The main arguments for the TSA's current practice is about Peace of Mind isn't it?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/business/media/29carr.html?_r=1
QuoteThe Media Equation
A Media False Alarm Over the T.S.A.
By DAVID CARR
Published: November 28, 2010
If a squadron of mad scientists surrounded by supercomputers gathered in a laboratory to try to conjure a single news topic that would blow up large, they could not touch the T.S.A. pat-down story.
It began with a Drudge Report link to a video on Nov. 13 of an intrusive pat-down, and then leapt to social media and the rest of the Web. Twitter lighted up, flashing 4,000 posts an hour with cheeky hash tags, and in just the first two days of last week, there were 60 million Google queries for information on the change in the Transportation Security Administration protocol, according to Trendrr, a social media measurement company.
Soon enough, an online protest calling for a National Opt-Out Day popped up, with a call to refuse to submit to scans and to clog airports on Wednesday, one of the busiest travel days of the year.
Cue the media mushroom cloud: by Tuesday, there were print reports about the new scanning technology, heavy-breathing blog posts about the government using the technology to alter or gather DNA (yow), and every cable channel featured wall-to-wall speculation about what would happen when people got to the airport on Wednesday and how many would be carrying lanterns and pitchforks.
“This story tapped right into the central nervous system of the collective consciousness,†said Mark Ghuneim, chief executive of Trendrr. “It was huge.â€
But then, in the real world, nothing happened.
A few passengers opted out and, if anything, lines were shorter because airport security was staffed up and people arrived early just in case.
The occasional protester was surrounded not by angry crowds but eager reporters. Under all the buzz, 80 percent of Americans traveling were still encountering the same procedures that have been in place for years.
By midday Wednesday, a forlorn CNN correspondent was wandering around during a live shot with nothing to report, with a nearby keening baby the only indication of terminal rage. No word on whether the diaper was breached.
The pat-down story was the equivalent of vaporware â€" it seemed as if something huge was about to happen, but it turned out that it was a story about a story, the noisy, fervent sound of a news system feeding on itself.
What made the T.S.A. story so sticky and irresistible, a nearly perfect Perfect Storm?
TIMING
It arrived during a news season slowed by holidays (how many stories can you do speculating about which turkey will be pardoned by the president?) in the midst of the busiest travel weeks.
EXECUTION
The government’s below-the-radar rollout of the new protocol (Memo to the T.S.A.: never sneak up on the American public) gave it a conspiratorial sheen.
MYSTERY
The screening technology seemed ominous, yet cool â€" like the X-Ray specs advertisements on the backs of comic books that promised to allow you to see through clothing.
DISTRUST OF GOVERNMENT
At a time of incredibly fractionalized politics, the pat-down was a single issue we could all rally around. For liberals, it was Big Brother grabbing liberties (with both hands) and conservatives once again felt the intrusive touch of Big Government in their pocket.
Just in case it didn’t seem wasteful enough, YouTube came through with a video of a shirtless child being patted down by a burly security guard.
RELEVANCE
Many people hate, yet need, to travel by air. And now, once we get through security, we can expect a host of new indignities on the plane (even longer delays, $5 pillows, flights packed like a Japanese subway). By the way, you know who travels a lot? Reporters.
NOTHING. AND EVERYTHING.
These incremental changes in technology and intimacy of searches may be a step toward the Big Brotherification of American life, but it is just not that big of a deal outside the media bubble. But the issues at hand were momentous: liberty, security and the American way.
DISPLACEMENT
Deep in their hearts, Americans know that the country has spent almost a decade on a two-front war that has made them feel no safer. Rather than dwelling on the blood and lucre that have been spilled, it’s a little easier to hate on the guy in the blue uniform wearing a cheesy badge and making $15 an hour. Beats thinking the terrorists have won.
RACE AND CLASS
Even though air travel is far from luxurious, it is a still a big expense during a time of significant economic upheaval, so the people affected tend to be a little better off and more entitled. While many nonwhite Americans have grown up in a country where they are sometimes searched while merely going about their business â€" unwarranted stop-and-frisks have gone on for decades â€" white people aren’t used to having the hands of the state on them without cause. Unfamiliarity breeds outrage.
GOOD VISUALS
The story has crowds, people in uniforms, conflict and a familiar backdrop, so TV loved it. And the story kicked out all sorts of juicy links to video, umbrage and polemic, so it was more viral than a sneezing passenger in 16E.
In a story like this, the crowd of reporters â€" in this instance, anybody at an airport with a smartphone â€" is already deployed. If they hit the sweet spot, like the kid who went through Salt Lake City security in a Speedo, millions will see it via YouTube.
GENDER
The issue of personal searches and enhanced visibility on scans would seem to be a more acute one for women, given the objectification of women in general and greater history of assault. But discussion on Twitter included two times as many men as women, according to Trendrr. Something primal is at work here, that speaks to both machismo â€" boys don’t touch boys â€" and certain male insecurities about being visible to strangers. You thought that dream of being in high school in your underwear was bad.
I could go on, but you get the idea. A mainstream media that has been run over in the past â€" the rise of the Tea Party comes to mind â€" has begun to understand that the Web is a great place to listen as well as publish.
“NewsHour†on PBS was among the throngs, with an embeddable widget that let people post to Twitter their experiences in the security lines â€" so the mainstream media are now on a hair trigger, reacting, and sometimes overreacting, to social media and Web-borne protests.
In a sense, the pat-down is a test of a new kind of emergency broadcast system, a hybrid contraption of old and new media, call and response, a place where protests are lodged, articulated and commenced. No one can argue that this episode made us any safer, but then I’ve yet to hear anything that suggests that the scanners and pat-downs do either.
QuoteCue the media mushroom cloud: by Tuesday, there were print reports about the new scanning technology, heavy-breathing blog posts about the government using the technology to alter or gather DNA (yow), and every cable channel featured wall-to-wall speculation about what would happen when people got to the airport on Wednesday and how many would be carrying lanterns and pitchforks.
QuoteThe pat-down story was the equivalent of vaporware â€" it seemed as if something huge was about to happen, but it turned out that it was a story about a story, the noisy, fervent sound of a news system feeding on itself.
Tempest in teapot? Subject not worthy of a thread?
It most certainly IS bollocks...
From what I can see, the TSA intentionally took action to sidestep the issue, both to avoid further media scrutiny, and so they could sit back and say "See, we told you, nothing to see here." The TSA chose not to utilize the new screening procedures at most of the busiest airports. Over on Flyertalk, many are reporting the new machines weren't even turned on. Additionally the TSA brought in significant levels of extra staffing, despite this holiday travel season not having been particularly busy. The TSA simply pulled a CYA move while they were the subject of media attention.
IMO, what happens when national attention isn't focused on the issue is what matters. And that remains to be seen.
I am pretty conservative even a registered Republican, and have had many a debate here with our more liberal friends. I think I may owe some an apology. I too, like BT and some of the others argued over the original implementation of the patriot act, and TSA regulations. I felt we needed this to be "safe". People like Stephendare told me it was the gateway to losing even more rights, and like BT and Simms I felt this was just crazy talk, we needed the ability to track, monitor, and catch these terrorist. I now see that was wishful thinking in most cases. The government I mostly respect, and felt confident in has perverted the power we gave them in the name of safety and are taking more and more rights away from us and people are still marching to the drumbeat of "it is all to make us safer", never even bothering to look at "whats next". I would never have supposed they would install naked picture takers, nor invasive pat downs in the airport when they first introduced taking your damn shoes off. Now it is not such a small jump to rectal exams of small children is it?
Stephen I bet you could find a lot of those old conversations (along with my rebuttals)... it might be an interesting recap....to see how far we have gone compared to what was predicted back then :-)
There has to be limits of some sort.............my question is "Who decides the limits"? I will not fly anymore, I set the metal detectors off due to metal in my carcase, wish I could ride rail but will drive to where ever I need to go! TSA is stepping over the boundaries of good taste as well as personnel rights and there has to be some guidelines and TSA should not be setting those guidelines! If I had to fly, the first sucker that does a rectal exam on me, is going to be missing teeth and probably going to be hurting........them and their buddies! I will not stand for it and that is why I will be driving! Just for additional info........Congress members do not have to be subjected to cavity searches/body scans nor do people higher in the government agencies go through what the public goes through!They need to be subjected to the same thing that the taxpayers go through and maybe this invasion on personnel rights would be halted?
This should give everyone some insight into how the TSA controlled the information and the media bought it hook, line, and sinker. It is truly hilarious that many newspapers were already publishing the TSA's press release regarding there having been no protests by 7 or 8am, when most airports had only been open an hour or two;
This is some seriously interesting reading:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1152419-media-reports-nood-no-show-merged-threads.html
So as I stated before, "National Opt Out Day" was a dud because the TSA turned the machines off for the day, instead using traditional walk through metal detectors, and then lied to the media in advance, stating there were no opt-outs, when in reality there was nothing to opt out of. It was a calculated PR dis-information campaign. And FWIW, I predicted that is exactly what they would do. And I'll say it again, this won't be settled until we see how TSA behaves after it believes the media attention has shifted elsewhere.
I disliked the idea of a "national opt out day" from the beginning. It's counter-productive. If you truly believe that the TSA's new policies are invasive and unconstitutional, then every day should be opt-out day. Focusing all efforts on one particular day of travel kind of puts you in an unwinnable situation.
Quote from: KenFSU on November 29, 2010, 03:15:29 PM
I disliked the idea of a "national opt out day" from the beginning. It's counter-productive. If you truly believe that the TSA's new policies are invasive and unconstitutional, then every day should be opt-out day. Focusing all efforts on one particular day of travel kind of puts you in an unwinnable situation.
Well, naturally, because the TSA sees it coming and just won't act up on that one day. Duh. Then they sit back and say "
See, told you, nothing to see here" and score a win by manipulating the media, before going back and doing whatever they wanted to do to begin with, having dodged the bullet. The way this was handled gave the TSA an opportunity to pull the exact stunt they pulled, and was extremely counterproductive in terms of finding a balance between civil liberties and actual (not illusory) security. I am disappointed that the organizers did not foresee this obvious outcome.
But, all in all; I really enjoyed the video of the young lady going through security in her speedos!
Wow!
the majority of the people making and posting videos of their so called tsa experiences are just looking for their 15 minutes of fame and should be ignored.
granted, there may be several tsa employees overstepping their boundaries, but do you really think all tsa employees objectives are to see you naked, touch your body and try to humiliate you? Also, I’m sorry but the body scans do not produce porn quality images of you standing there naked like everyone wants you to believe. If you think you are being singled out to "be seen naked" or "groped", get over yourselves, must likely you’re not as physically appealing as you think you are.
If you looked at some of the body scan images that were saved, leaked and then posted it would erase all doubt that we have a national obesity epidemic. The images may be gross but they aren't pornographic (unless you have a really weird fetish!).
Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 01, 2010, 05:19:10 PM
the majority of the people making and posting videos of their so called tsa experiences are just looking for their 15 minutes of fame and should be ignored.
granted, there may be several tsa employees overstepping their boundaries, but do you really think all tsa employees objectives are to see you naked, touch your body and try to humiliate you? Also, I’m sorry but the body scans do not produce porn quality images of you standing there naked like everyone wants you to believe. If you think you are being singled out to "be seen naked" or "groped", get over yourselves, must likely you’re not as physically appealing as you think you are.
Really?
(http://www.fredoneverything.net/Panty-scanners.jpg)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6WSTYpSuKf0/TN6QSN_WLFI/AAAAAAAAAi8/pGfZwokZsZc/s400/tsa_scanner.jpg)
If you don't consider that pornographic, you and I (and Webster's apparently) must have different definitions.
Did you even bother to look at the images being generated before going off with your little screed?
I could be wrong, but from what I remember about the Fourth Amendment, where does the government get the right to do personnel searches of anyone? I don't care about what TSA has to say about much of anything......is the next step going to be government searches before entering a store to conduct business, or buy gas or enter an eatery? There has to be limits and TSA has no call to set them. If they do, then those should apply to all and not exempt a select few!
Quote from: Dog Walker on November 29, 2010, 10:05:49 PM
But, all in all; I really enjoyed the video of the young lady going through security in her speedos!
Wow!
DW..do you mean the fine looking late 30ish Brunette in the Black Bikini? she did that with class..walking in with a trench coat, taking it off and slinging it onto the conveyor belt. She then "Vogued" quite nicely I might add.
No Box Cutters here TSA..... ;D
If you consider that porn, then you have some fetish! :D
Who is going to search leaked TSA scans when anyone can look at real porn for free?
And CS, there is language and interpretation with the 4th Amendment. There are also exceptions, and international airports/ports/border entries are within the exceptions. There does not need to be probable cause in these places.
I'm sure Chris can answer everything you want to know about the 4th Amendment :)
Quote from: simms3 on December 01, 2010, 09:15:32 PM
If you consider that porn, then you have some fetish! :D
Who is going to search leaked TSA scans when anyone can look at real porn for free?
Hey the best site just closed down this year, I'll take what I can get! (jk)
And I didn't mean that I think the TSA is back there j/o'ing to the body scanner images or emailing them to their buddies, that was never the point, although if this goes on long enough you can bet that kind of shenanigans will eventually happen. My point was just that the things clearly do show everyone "full-Monty" and that seems rather invasive when the machines aren't really accomplishing anything that couldn't be accomplished with metal detectors or with the explosive detector puffer machines. It's an awfully long way to fall in terms of civil rights, for no real benefit.
That's the one! The little turn with her hands in the air was to show the TSA people that she wasn't concealing anything.
Im in STX right now heading back to ATL, I was trying to bring some Rum as a carry on becausE I was told by a relative, bringing booz or tobacco was fine, While I picked up my boarding pass and headed to TSA, TSA, said because I was bring in RUM to the mainland I had to check in my bag! Doh!!!
Went back to the desk to check in my bag for 30 bux, because I had a certain Brand of RUM my fees were waived! My bag is now check in for free. THANKS TSA. I cant be mad at em.
Quote from: Coolyfett on December 07, 2010, 02:49:03 PM
Im in STX right now heading back to ATL, I was trying to bring some Rum as a carry on becausE I was told by a relative, bringing booz or tobacco was fine, While I picked up my boarding pass and headed to TSA, TSA, said because I was bring in RUM to the mainland I had to check in my bag! Doh!!!
Went back to the desk to check in my bag for 30 bux, because I had a certain Brand of RUM my fees were waived! My bag is now check in for free. THANKS TSA. I cant be mad at em.
You should thank your airline for waiving the fees, TSA had nothing to do with it.
If TSA won't let me on my flight so I'm walking back to my car and get run over by a bus and sue for a million dollars, should I split the money with them? I mean, come on, this is kind of scraping the bottom of the barrel for anything positive to say about them isn't it?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 01, 2010, 06:00:42 PM
Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 01, 2010, 05:19:10 PM
the majority of the people making and posting videos of their so called tsa experiences are just looking for their 15 minutes of fame and should be ignored.
granted, there may be several tsa employees overstepping their boundaries, but do you really think all tsa employees objectives are to see you naked, touch your body and try to humiliate you? Also, I’m sorry but the body scans do not produce porn quality images of you standing there naked like everyone wants you to believe. If you think you are being singled out to "be seen naked" or "groped", get over yourselves, must likely you’re not as physically appealing as you think you are.
Really?
(http://www.fredoneverything.net/Panty-scanners.jpg)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6WSTYpSuKf0/TN6QSN_WLFI/AAAAAAAAAi8/pGfZwokZsZc/s400/tsa_scanner.jpg)
If you don't consider that pornographic, you and I (and Webster's apparently) must have different definitions.
Did you even bother to look at the images being generated before going off with your little screed?
No I do not. Stop worrying about your unit size, nobody at TSA cares!
Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 07, 2010, 03:07:55 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 01, 2010, 06:00:42 PM
Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 01, 2010, 05:19:10 PM
the majority of the people making and posting videos of their so called tsa experiences are just looking for their 15 minutes of fame and should be ignored.
granted, there may be several tsa employees overstepping their boundaries, but do you really think all tsa employees objectives are to see you naked, touch your body and try to humiliate you? Also, I’m sorry but the body scans do not produce porn quality images of you standing there naked like everyone wants you to believe. If you think you are being singled out to "be seen naked" or "groped", get over yourselves, must likely you’re not as physically appealing as you think you are.
Really?
(http://www.fredoneverything.net/Panty-scanners.jpg)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6WSTYpSuKf0/TN6QSN_WLFI/AAAAAAAAAi8/pGfZwokZsZc/s400/tsa_scanner.jpg)
If you don't consider that pornographic, you and I (and Webster's apparently) must have different definitions.
Did you even bother to look at the images being generated before going off with your little screed?
No I do not. Stop worrying about your unit size, nobody at TSA cares!
It doesn't matter whether you do, that's the point. The images speak for themselves.
I'm not worried about dick size, I'm worried about the 4th Amendment. Glad you have perspective.
Why do think there are Amendments? No documents drafted (no matter how good they sound at the time of conception) can stand the test of time and the ways the world changes. Amendments are made to be ... amendended. Where do you think they get their name?
I have plenty of perspective, but TSA body scans aren't at the top of my pecking order. I was asked to walk through one earlier this year, and did so without argument. I actually found it amusing, because the Sienfield airport wanding episode and Marc Marion "where is the room where you people are laughing at me" standup routine ran through my mind when I was standing inside the little glass cylinder with my hands over my head.
I would personally find the people stripping down and exposing themselves while trying to make a uneffective point more offensive when travelling with my very young children.
Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 07, 2010, 03:57:12 PM
Why do think there are Amendments? No documents drafted (no matter how good they sound at the time of conception) can stand the test of time and the ways the world changes. Amendments are made to be ... amendended. Where do you think they get their name?
I have plenty of perspective, but TSA body scans aren't at the top of my pecking order. I was asked to walk through one earlier this year, and did so without argument. I actually found it amusing, because the Sienfield airport wanding episode and Marc Marion "where is the room where you people are laughing at me" standup routine ran through my mind when I was standing inside the little glass cylinder with my hands over my head.
I would personally find the people stripping down and exposing themselves while trying to make a uneffective point more offensive when travelling with my very young children.
You evidently have very little understanding of the US Constitution. The first ten amendments are actually not 'amendments' as you're implying at all, rather, numbers 1-10 are the original Bill of Rights. And if the constitution were as flexible as you seem to believe, there wouldn't really be much point in having one, would there?
And my perspective comment was directed towards your turning a constitutional law issue into one about penis size, which isn't the point. Plenty of women object to the new screening machines as well.
Actually the bill of rights wasn’t part of the original constitution but added roughly five years after the constitution was adopted. My point being, no matter how iron clad the constitution seemed to be when drafted, there is always a need for amendments for prior unjust and for future world environment changes. This was understood by the original drafters of the constitution, thus it has Article Five, describing how future amendments are to be ratified. While you look up the constitution, try looking up the work sarcasm as well.
The protesting women just have issue with breast and vulva size :) I added the smiley so it is understood that this sentence was added for humor.
Also I never stated the constitution as being "flexible". If it were, there would be no need for amendments would there?
Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 07, 2010, 04:52:01 PM
Actually the bill of rights wasn’t part of the original constitution but added roughly five years after the constitution was adopted. My point being, no matter how iron clad the constitution seemed to be when drafted, there is always a need for amendments for prior unjust and for future world environment changes. This was understood by the original drafters of the constitution, thus it has Article Five, describing how future amendments are to be ratified. While you look up the constitution, try looking up the work sarcasm as well.
The protesting women just have issue with breast and vulva size :) I added the smiley so it is understood that this sentence was added for humor.
Also I never stated the constitution as being "flexible". If it were, there would be no need for amendments would there?
The Bill of Rights was formally added in 1789 and has served us well for the past 221 years, and my point is that you'd apparently now scrap that just to feel safer in an airport? Come on. That's what I meant when I questioned your view of the constition's flexibility, if it is that flexible to allow for scrapping the bill of rights over airport security, then what's the point in having one at all?
The constitution wasn't meant to be a dinner napkin that can be torn whichever way by opposing political views, it serves as the guiding principles for the governance of this country. If someone doesn't like it, they should find a new country rather than taking rights away from others to satisfy their need for a false sense of security. I do not favor constitutional amendments for every little thing, including whatever foreign threat we happen to be facing at the time. That all can, and does, always wind up changing, and altering the constitution to account for every change defeats the point. If something violates the bill of rights, the government shouldn't do it. Period. The harm in going down that road of constantly caving in to every social whim and desire is far greater than anything bin laden has done.
If the original late 1700’s documents were so effective today, why were amendments 11 thru 27 added?
Also I never stated 'scrapping" the constitution or bill of rights for airport security. I like the way you change people's statements to fit your argument. btw, airplanes weren't invented when the constitution or bill of rights were drafted and adopted and security consisted of inaccurate muzzle loaders, derringers and swords. but I bet the original constitution creators knew jet airliners and ak-47's were around the corner.
Can you tell me what the year 2200 will be like? I need to get my future family tree prepared.
Quote from: stephendare on December 07, 2010, 05:26:41 PM
Actually the Constitution wasnt ratified by the states without the guarantee of the passage of the Bill of Rights, to speak accurately.
and if I remember correctly, the bill of rights wasn't intended for the states.
Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 07, 2010, 05:29:35 PM
Quote from: stephendare on December 07, 2010, 05:26:41 PM
Actually the Constitution wasnt ratified by the states without the guarantee of the passage of the Bill of Rights, to speak accurately.
and if I remember correctly, the bill of rights wasn't intended for the states.
Yes, it most certainly was intended by the framers to apply to the states. However, there was this little disagreement thingy called the civil war that intervened, I'd think you may have heard of it, when certain states rejected federal power and decided they were free to continue slavery and secede from the union if they felt like it. Congress then went back and passed the 14th amendment, specifically incorporating the bill of rights against the states, so there was no longer any argument. Again, that amendment was brought about by slavery and the potential dissolution of the union. And you apparently want an amendment to cover airport scanners? And you really don't see the point?
Once again you make an argument by putting words in my mouth to fit your response. And you are wrong, the original bill of rights was not intended to apply to the states. And you made my argument for me, the gov't changed that due to the civil war. Why did they change that, and why did they add additional amendments? Once again, the world changed in a way they didn't foresee and that original document didn't stand the test of time in less than a century. Not to mention they added three additional amendments prior to the one you speak of. Any more words you wish to put in my mouth before I insert my own foot?
Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 07, 2010, 09:19:05 PM
Once again you make an argument by putting words in my mouth to fit your response. And you are wrong, the original bill of rights was not intended to apply to the states. And you made my argument for me, the gov't changed that due to the civil war. Why did they change that, and why did they add additional amendments? Once again, the world changed in a way they didn't foresee and that original document didn't stand the test of time in less than a century. Not to mention they added three additional amendments prior to the one you speak of. Any more words you wish to put in my mouth before I insert my own foot?
Well I disagree.
George Washington had 14 handwritten copies of the Bill of Rights made, one for Congress and one for each of the original thirteen states:
http://www.usmarshals.gov/history/north_carolina_bill_of_rights.htm
Why do that if it were irrelevant? It was intended from the beginning to apply to the states, but not to override the states' own constitutions if they had granted anything more substantial than the basic rights contained in the BOR. I doubt it truly occurred to the original authors that some states would outright reject federal authority after ratification.
Also, read the original Article VI, Section 2, which states, “
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.â€
That was plainly the founders' original intent. They wrote it. The founders simply didn't anticipate state rejection after ratification. An 1833 SCOTUS opinion during the run-up to the civil war,
Barron v. Baltimore, provided the stretched logic by which people have argued the constitution and BOR didn't apply to the states. However, the founders never stated that they intended to exempt the states, and indeed their own words indicate the opposite.
It was intended as national law, while still allowing the states to govern themselves. Each state having their own legislative body, governor and court system.
I believe we are both argueing the same point, but from different angles. We have agreed that amendments have been made due to unforeseen circumstances or oversights of individual equality. Our true disagreement is the original intent of the document. There were many different versions of the constitution based on many different pre-existing governing documents of many pre-existing countries, from the British to the Romans, which in my opinion makes it very hard to distinguish original intent. I'm going to agree to disagree about original intent.