TSA Airport Screening

[SeductiveNun]

Cops have the random DUI checkpoints all over the place. They've had them for years. Where have the protests been?

That varies by state. Minnesota State Supreme Court declared them unconsitutional here.

[Clubfoothead]

That varies by state. Minnesota State Supreme Court declared them unconsitutional here.

 

True.

 

They have them here in Texas and 30 other states. No protests that will impede my ability to egress and regress that I'm aware of.

[untateve]

If I may.... You people making a big deal about the pat downs, the scans, etc... are insane, sorry, just how I see it. What you are saying is akin to demanding that police not patrol the highways and roads looking for reckless drivers and drunks. You would then be the first group to scream about the sheer incompetence of the police as soon as someone you knew were killed by said drunk or reckless driver.

 

But, back to the point. Are you really asserting that you do not want to have security at airports that will check the passengers for contraband prior to getting on the airplane. That we should not have to walk through metal detectors, that we should not have security pat down people, that we should not have narcotic/bomb sniffing dogs? Everyone should simply be on the honor system, hey, no, we're not going to check any of you people, we're just gonna let any person who can afford a ticket freely board an airplane without any safety checks? K, got ya, makes sense, perfectly rational and good sense. Especially considering that terrorists and nut bags have been using airplanes as a favorite target for hijackings, moving contraband, and projectiles over the past 30 or so years...

 

The same people complaining now are the same people you didn't hear a peep from when a Republican congress and president decided it would be a grand idea to catalogue the books you checked out at a local library. The same people that championed the tough measures and simplicity of getting a wire tap based on a hunch from a federal agent. But, now, a democrat congress and president want to subject you to a body scan prior to getting on a plane and all of a sudden the government is violating your god given rights to freely carry what ever the fu(k you want to on a plane by checking your person, really, ok, got it... Oh, no, it isn't that you say, they are taking graphic images of your naked body and they make take those images home and jerk off to them, hell they may even be sitting in the booth at the very moment, eyes rolled back in their head, drooling on the video screen, wanking it right there in their monitoring room, oh, the humanity. Believe me, if they want to get their jollies, they can find much more graphic things on the internet enabled computers in that room.

 

THis isn't about freedom, this isn't about the big bad government invading your rights, this is about a bunch of nutjobs (many who championed the patriot act) complaining about a minimally invasive search prior to getting on a 70 ton tube, loaded with fuel, that will ascend to 30,000 feet at speeds approaching 600MPH... Hell, if the cops suspect you of DUI they can pretty much force you to give them a sample of your breath, urine or blood... or you don't drive until the case is adjudicated. If they feel you have hung around a street corner too long talking to random passerbys they can pat you down. So, here is the way I see it. YOu don't want your "rights" violated before getting on a plane. Fine, they set up a court date and once it is adjudicated you are allowed to fly again, but only if you subject yourself to a full body cavity search prior to the next flight. Either that or drive and take your chance with the overzealous cops in Laurens County, GA.

 

Show me where in the constitution that it is detailed that the government can use full electronic body scans prior to my getting on an airplane. If the founding fathers didn't think the government should be doing this, who are you to question their wisdom?!?

[SEC=UGA]

Show me where in the constitution that it is detailed that the government can use full electronic body scans prior to my getting on an airplane. If the founding fathers didn't think the government should be doing this, who are you to question their wisdom?!?

 

I am the all knowing being with a direct line to at least 10 of the most important framer's of the US constitution souls.

 

Don't toy with me, I'll start a movement to have all psychologists/psychiatrists/counselors pass a rigorous psych exam and licensing test prior to being certified.

[redrumjuice]

Can we put screeners at the door to stores and allow them to grope your childrens genitals for underwear bombs?

 

Why not? It's all in the name of safety, right?

[TimC]

Seriously, when will you let them stick a flash light up your opie-hole?

 

If you get caught with something, don't bend down and pick up the sopie.

[Hugh 0ne]

If you get caught with something, don't bend down and pick up the sopie.

 

Or you may wind up hanging from a ropie.

[bushwacked]

Cops have the random DUI checkpoints all over the place. They've had them for years. Where have the protests been?

 

 

It's all just one big random coincidence.

[Yukon Cornelius]

It's all just one big random coincidence.

[Square]

In the last 40 years, 3227 people have died of terrorism in the US (2,752 from 9/11 which happened 9 years ago). This year alone ~40,000 people will die in a car crash. Do the math, and you are about 500 times more likely to die in a car crash than a terrorist attack in the US. This might add some perspective on why some people might reject the current practices of the TSA.

 

 

Philosoraptor thinks about the situation.

 

 

ETA: Body scans and genital fondlings would save more lives if our Government was paying to have them done in hospitals rather than airports.

Edited November 23, 2010 by Square

[untateve]

Can we put screeners at the door to stores and allow them to grope your childrens genitals for underwear bombs?

 

Why not? It's all in the name of safety, right?

 

You seem overly focused on adults "groping" children. I am concerned for you but I will not allow you to babysit my children.

[Clubfoothead]

In the last 40 years, 3227 people have died of terrorism in the US (2,752 from 9/11 which happened 9 years ago). This year alone ~40,000 people will die in a car crash. Do the math, and you are about 500 times more likely to die in a car crash than a terrorist attack in the US. This might add some perspective on why some people might reject the current practices of the TSA.

 

 

Philosoraptor thinks about the situation.

 

 

ETA: Body scans and genital fondlings would save more lives if our Government was paying to have them done in hospitals rather than airports.

 

So we should ban seatbelts? I'm not getting your point.

 

There is no perspective there. What about the full body scan violates the 4th Amendment?

[redrumjuice]

You seem overly focused on adults "groping" children. I am concerned for you but I will not allow you to babysit my children.

 

I already posted one TSA worker who raped little kids, here is one who likes older.

 

TSA employee accused of kidnap, assault

 

You have people who couldn't get a job working for an airline, rubbing down your children to use the airline. Are you ignoring all the stories and outrage?

 

Here, let me save you some time:

 

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/news/vi...own-nov-19-2010

 

http://www.wbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13534628

 

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/22...ed-misbehavior/

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/travel/2010/11/...on_camera_.html

 

And my personal fav: TSA search leaves man flying to Orlando soaked in his own urine

 

Again, you rail against the NSA listening to you ordering pizza from kabul, but have have no problem with child molesters working as TSA agents. Wacko dude, they must not require a license to be a brainfart the-rapist where you live.

[Big Country]

In the last 40 years, 3227 people have died of terrorism in the US (2,752 from 9/11 which happened 9 years ago). This year alone ~40,000 people will die in a car crash. Do the math, and you are about 500 times more likely to die in a car crash than a terrorist attack in the US. This might add some perspective on why some people might reject the current practices of the TSA.

 

 

Philosoraptor thinks about the situation.

 

 

ETA: Body scans and genital fondlings would save more lives if our Government was paying to have them done in hospitals rather than airports.

 

How many have died from a plane based terrorist attack since 9/11?

 

Maybe that's because, except for 9/11, the TSA is doing a kick ass job of keeping terrorists off of our planes.

 

I can play the faulty logic game too.

[SEC=UGA]

You seem overly focused on adults "groping" children. I am concerned for you but I will not allow you to babysit my children.

 

You're supposed to take the bait... why didn't you take the freaking bait...

[redrumjuice]

the TSA is doing a kick ass job of keeping terrorists off of our planes.

 

Well, the current number is zero, how that is a kick ass job I'll never know.

[JoJoTheWebToedBoy]

I'll be opting out of any body scan machine.... The phrase "Low Level Radiation" combined with the Government saying it's safe is enough for me to keep clear of these devices.

 

Also, from here on, the night before I fly, cheap beer and Quickie Mart Frozen Burros. Squat down and get a little too personal, I will be cutting loose.

[Square]

So we should ban seatbelts? I'm not getting your point. There is no perspective there.

I guess I just don't get your logic. Ignoring the privacy issues, the government is going to spend half a billion or so dollars to keep you safe from something that is well, safe. Now, we'll just be extra extra safe (while politicians line their pockets because the American public is gullible).

What about the full body scan violates the 4th Amendment?

If you don't understand how government enforced low radiation scan machines or forced pat downs has nothing to do with the 4th amendment against unreasonable search and seizure than I can't help you. I'm not trying to argue, I'm just saying that if you can't put those to together than nothing I say is going to get you to understand my side of the debate on this.

 

How many have died from a plane based terrorist attack since 9/11?

 

Maybe that's because, except for 9/11, the TSA is doing a kick ass job of keeping terrorists off of our planes.

You know the TSA hasn't caught any terrorists. I mean, ever. You know that right? So the only argument I can really understand is that they have kept terrorists off of planes as a deterrent. Basically, the terrorist either can't figure out how to get passed security or they have given up. If the current TSA kicks so much ass, why would you support another half a billion dollars going towards an additional layer. If they are batting a thousand, why are we beefing up the system? The other point is that if you look at the average TSA agent and think they are "kick ass" than we have different views of what that phrase means.

 

We have larger threats to this country happening in Mexico but people complain that there isn't enough money to patrol and enforce the border. Some politician found a way to make some extra money on the apathetic and fearful American public and most are... well, proving them correct. Chertoff (former Secretary of Homeland Security) and a company called Rapiscan (although I find the name incredibly funny for a company who makes machines to see underneath clothes) are getting away with a Washington "business as usual" where a former Capital Hill guy forms a company that is hired as a "consultant" than pushes his companies products to a bunch of people he may have hired or done business with before. Tom Blank, former Deputy Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, is essentially lobbying the same federal department where he was boss.

 

If the government was actually serious about saving lives there are far more necessary things than these scanners. So my main points are that there are smarter, better, more effective, less intrusive ways to actually make an airport safe (like the example in the article I posted). Or there are better things to be done with the money that will actually save lives or improve our security (as in Mexico). I haven't seen any post here yet to make me change those views.

[bpwallace49]

You know the TSA hasn't caught any terrorists. I mean, ever. You know that right? So the only argument I can really understand is that they have kept terrorists off of planes as a deterrent. Basically, the terrorist either can't figure out how to get passed security or they have given up. If the current TSA kicks so much ass, why would you support another half a billion dollars going towards an additional layer. If they are batting a thousand, why are we beefing up the system? The other point is that if you look at the average TSA agent and think they are "kick ass" than we have different views of what that phrase means.

 

We have larger threats to this country happening in Mexico but people complain that there isn't enough money to patrol and enforce the border. Some politician found a way to make some extra money on the apathetic and fearful American public and most are... well, proving them correct. Chertoff (former Secretary of Homeland Security) and a company called Rapiscan (although I find the name incredibly funny for a company who makes machines to see underneath clothes) are getting away with a Washington "business as usual" where a former Capital Hill guy forms a company that is hired as a "consultant" than pushes his companies products to a bunch of people he may have hired or done business with before. Tom Blank, former Deputy Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, is essentially lobbying the same federal department where he was boss.

 

If the government was actually serious about saving lives there are far more necessary things than these scanners. So my main points are that there are smarter, better, more effective, less intrusive ways to actually make an airport safe (like the example in the article I posted). Or there are better things to be done with the money that will actually save lives or improve our security (as in Mexico). I haven't seen any post here yet to make me change those views.

 

 

Very very good points.

[Azazello1313]

I guess I just don't get your logic. Ignoring the privacy issues, the government is going to spend half a billion or so dollars to keep you safe from something that is well, safe. Now, we'll just be extra extra safe (while politicians line their pockets because the American public is gullible).

 

If you don't understand how government enforced low radiation scan machines or forced pat downs has nothing to do with the 4th amendment against unreasonable search and seizure than I can't help you. I'm not trying to argue, I'm just saying that if you can't put those to together than nothing I say is going to get you to understand my side of the debate on this.

 

 

You know the TSA hasn't caught any terrorists. I mean, ever. You know that right? So the only argument I can really understand is that they have kept terrorists off of planes as a deterrent. Basically, the terrorist either can't figure out how to get passed security or they have given up. If the current TSA kicks so much ass, why would you support another half a billion dollars going towards an additional layer. If they are batting a thousand, why are we beefing up the system? The other point is that if you look at the average TSA agent and think they are "kick ass" than we have different views of what that phrase means.

 

We have larger threats to this country happening in Mexico but people complain that there isn't enough money to patrol and enforce the border. Some politician found a way to make some extra money on the apathetic and fearful American public and most are... well, proving them correct. Chertoff (former Secretary of Homeland Security) and a company called Rapiscan (although I find the name incredibly funny for a company who makes machines to see underneath clothes) are getting away with a Washington "business as usual" where a former Capital Hill guy forms a company that is hired as a "consultant" than pushes his companies products to a bunch of people he may have hired or done business with before. Tom Blank, former Deputy Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, is essentially lobbying the same federal department where he was boss.

 

If the government was actually serious about saving lives there are far more necessary things than these scanners. So my main points are that there are smarter, better, more effective, less intrusive ways to actually make an airport safe (like the example in the article I posted). Or there are better things to be done with the money that will actually save lives or improve our security (as in Mexico). I haven't seen any post here yet to make me change those views.

 

I'm more on the "what's the big deal" side of this debate, but this is a pretty solid argument.

Edited November 23, 2010 by Azazello1313

[Clubfoothead]

If you don't understand how government enforced low radiation scan machines or forced pat downs has nothing to do with the 4th amendment against unreasonable search and seizure than I can't help you. I'm not trying to argue, I'm just saying that if you can't put those to together than nothing I say is going to get you to understand my side of the debate on this.

 

 

Give me a break. There is nothing unreasonable about a full body scan coupled with the pat down option. The article about how Isreal handles security was a joke, they have 12 airports.

 

As an aside, I find it amazing that a full body scan represents an abuse of government power but invading, occupying and liberating the wrong country is a justififed response to terrorism. But by all means, anyone who thinks the fed is finally overreaching with a 20 second body scan, please f*ck up my vacation and my relatives' vacation becuase you want to make a point about efficiency. Maybe I can get you your blankey and passy while you throw your f*cking tantrum instead of driving. But if you want me to listen to your bit about efficiency and good use of money, making me miss a non-refundable flight is probably not the most persuasive method.

[Azazello1313]

The article about how Isreal handles security was a joke, they have 12 airports.

 

they also have about 10 times as many terrorists trying to blow them up.

[Clubfoothead]

they also have about 10 times as many terrorists trying to blow them up.

 

Prove it.

[untateve]

I already posted one TSA worker who raped little kids, here is one who likes older.

 

TSA employee accused of kidnap, assault

 

You have people who couldn't get a job working for an airline, rubbing down your children to use the airline. Are you ignoring all the stories and outrage?

 

Here, let me save you some time:

 

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/news/vi...own-nov-19-2010

 

http://www.wbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13534628

 

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/22...ed-misbehavior/

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/travel/2010/11/...on_camera_.html

 

And my personal fav: TSA search leaves man flying to Orlando soaked in his own urine

 

Again, you rail against the NSA listening to you ordering pizza from kabul, but have have no problem with child molesters working as TSA agents. Wacko dude, they must not require a license to be a brainfart the-rapist where you live.

 

Nope--you aren't allowed near my children. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

[Azazello1313]

Prove it.

 

well, about as close as anyone could come I guess would be to point to this terrorism risk index, which has israel as one of 16 countries in the "extreme risk" category, while the US is classified as a "medium risk".