Are we losing our rights in the name of safety?

[Jumpinjack]

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!

[Dog Walker]

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.

[BridgeTroll]

Well since then they have been trying to blow them up. 

[ChriswUfGator]

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.

[uptowngirl]

Thanks Chris +1000

[cityimrov]

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.

[Ernest Street]

Subdued with an entire scalding carafe of coffee...should include a victory "Blue" swirly in the lavatory afterwards.

[BridgeTroll]

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.

[uptowngirl]

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.

[BridgeTroll]

to 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.

[uptowngirl]

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.

[uptowngirl]

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?

[BridgeTroll]

  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?

[uptowngirl]

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.

[ChriswUfGator]

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.