Airport body scanners violate Jewish law, Rabbis say

[Vic]

Tough doodoo. Don't get on the plane.

My work is done here.

 

[Infohawk]

The right to travel is inherent and protected in the Constitution. Your argument is akin to a saying that your employer should be able to strip-search its employees whenever it wants to because no one "has" to go to work.

It's a little different. It's an employer that says upfront that they will strip-search you. You certainly could refuse to be employed with them.

And the right to travel, like most rights, is not absolute. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. You have very few rights when you drive a car.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Lesser of 2 evils we all have to deal with on a daily basis? Do you mean the odds of getting killed in a terrorist attack or in a car accident?

Something like that. Most people lock their doors at night. Chances are slim that your home will be invaded, but most people lock their doors anyway. A car accident can be an example too. There's a very small chance you'll be in one but the law says you have to buckle up. If you have small children the law is very specific about car seats.

Where did I agree with any Muslim scholars? Oh wait, I get it, you're just trolling now...

Trolling? Really now. You did state the following:

Personally, I think it says something impressive about the Muslims who object that they aren't distracted by strip searches being dressed up in impressive technology with a fancy user interface.

 

[Jaskalas]

I don't know how others interpret this but to me it say volumes about organized religion.

They'll stand up for their rights more than you?

 

[shadow9d9]

The amount of fear and paranoia in the US has gone over the deep end. Scanners will protect no one.

Anyone could go to a mall, bus, train, etc and blow themselves up.

 

[Vic]

Something like that. Most people lock their doors at night. Chances are slim that your home will be invaded, but most people lock their doors anyway. A car accident can be an example too. There's a very small chance you'll be in one but the law says you have to buckle up. If you have small children the law is very specific about car seats.

Apples and oranges comparison and you should know it. Locking my doors or putting on my seatbelt does not invade my privacy. While at the same time, both are actually effective and necessary solutions, while these body scanners are neither.

Trolling? Really now. You did state the following:

I didn't say that, Rainsford did. Try to keep up, eh

 

[nobodyknows]

They'll stand up for their rights more than you?

No, they will tell their herds of sheep what to think because they apparently can't figure things out for themselves. And if you dissent they'd burn your sorry ass at the stake if they could.

 

[Jaskalas]

No, they will tell their herds of sheep what to think because they apparently can't figure things out for themselves. And if you dissent they'd burn your sorry ass at the stake if they could.

I'm finding it difficult to believe you're connecting the dots between "Airport body scanners violate Jewish law" and what you're saying. What we have here is a unique case of religion on the side of privacy and it seems you take great offense to such a thing.

Is the very notion of the Bill of Rights so contrary to your beliefs?

 

[nobodyknows]

I'm finding it difficult to believe you're connecting the dots between "Airport body scanners violate Jewish law" and what you're saying. What we have here is a unique case of religion on the side of privacy and it seems you take great offense to such a thing.

Is the very notion of the Bill of Rights so contrary to your beliefs?

Two religions say that, what does the Christian religion say? Or are you like the stupid Muslims who wake up everyday and decide to follow a diffferent fatwa?

Me, I think for myself and make my own decisions and I don't need some dumb ass with a white collar, a turban, or a funny hairdo telling me what to think, thankls so much.

 

[sandorski]

I still say we should just Ban Clothing.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Let me on a plane without any screening at all. It could lead to anal probing, who knows?

On second thought some might like that.

 

[sandorski]

Let me on a plane without any screening at all. It could lead to anal probing, who knows?

On second thought some might like that.

AP Airways---We're Anal about your Security

 

[lothar]

If one doesn't want to go through a scanner they're able to do request a full patdown as an alternative, so what's the uproar?

Go through a simple scanner (in which the person looking at the image won't even see you at all because he's in a separate room) or allowing a TSA employee to touch your tits, package, and tush?
The choice is obvious.

 

[lothar]

The amount of fear and paranoia in the US has gone over the deep end. Scanners will protect no one.

Anyone could go to a mall, bus, train, etc and blow themselves up.

A bus attack would only kill 30-50 people.
A plane attack could kill anywhere from 150-600 depending on what aircraft it is.

A mall, bus, or train attack won't create the same psychological effects to the American people as using a plane would which is what Al-Qaida wants.

 

[Argo]

Being able to board a plane is a privilege and not a right. As such, I have no freaking problem with them putting whatever scanners they want.

For all I care they can make it mandatory for passengers to blow the pilot before you can get on the plane. A lot less people will fly then - but it's still fully within their rights.

 

[BeauJangles]

A bus attack would only kill 30-50 people.
A plane attack could kill anywhere from 150-600 depending on what aircraft it is.

A mall, bus, or train attack won't create the same psychological effects to the American people as using a plane would which is what Al-Qaida wants.

Are you kidding? If these guys just walked into malls around this country and started blowing themselves up or shooting the places up, we'd definitely be shitting our pants even more than them hijacking airplanes.

The whole notion of investing hundreds of millions into these scanners is dumb. Airport security (and any point-based security) should be the LAST line of defense. This money should be funneled into helping us identify our attackers before they've put their plans in motion.

 

[lothar]

Are you kidding? If these guys just walked into malls around this country and started blowing themselves up or shooting the places up, we'd definitely be shitting our pants even more than them hijacking airplanes.

The whole notion of investing hundreds of millions into these scanners is dumb. Airport security (and any point-based security) should be the LAST line of defense. This money should be funneled into helping us identify our attackers before they've put their plans in motion.

Following up on your absurd theory, why do you think Bin Laden didn't plan the 9/11 attacks on a bus or at a shopping mall instead of hijacking airlines which is clearly harder to do?

Whatever it is that Israel does on it's El-Al flights, we clearly need to do the same. When was the last time a terrorist successfully hijacked an El-Al flight?

 

[tvarad]

Are you kidding? If these guys just walked into malls around this country and started blowing themselves up or shooting the places up, we'd definitely be shitting our pants even more than them hijacking airplanes.

The whole notion of investing hundreds of millions into these scanners is dumb. Airport security (and any point-based security) should be the LAST line of defense. This money should be funneled into helping us identify our attackers before they've put their plans in motion.

The analogy does not fit. First, people can run for cover if a guy starts shooting up malls, unlike in a tube 30000 feet in the air. Second, cops, ambulances and other defensive and protective methods can be rushed to the spot in very little time. If you bring down a plane, you can potentially kill hundreds of people at one go. And there's a certain cachet to it for terrorists; it's almost as if they go through so much trouble just so that they can brag about how they got through even the most extensive security.

That said, I agree with your last point. Terrorists like the Nigerian fellow would never have cleared security in the first place had his background automatically triggered a full body search at the airport, as it should have.

 

[Lizardman]

Are you kidding? If these guys just walked into malls around this country and started blowing themselves up or shooting the places up, we'd definitely be shitting our pants even more than them hijacking airplanes.

The whole notion of investing hundreds of millions into these scanners is dumb. Airport security (and any point-based security) should be the LAST line of defense. This money should be funneled into helping us identify our attackers before they've put their plans in motion.

I would rather have a pat down search then go into one of these new full body scanners. I am atheist and feel that this a invasion of privacy. Any patriotic citizen of the USA would not want such a machine searching his daughter or his wife. I call complete bullshit in the need for these machines. An oz of prevention is worth a pound of defenese or what ever the fuck the saying is I dont know.


Any way question why this is so good for you and think what the future holds if such intrusivce measure can be passed off so easily into your daily life. What happens when your full DNA sample is needed just to start your car. It is a slipperly slope such measures treaspass on. Be prepared for the worst if you expect full protection from all external influences.

 

[lothar]

I would rather have a pat down search then go into one of these new full body scanners. I am atheist and feel that this a invasion of privacy. Any patriotic citizen of the USA would not want such a machine searching his daughter or his wife. I call complete bullshit in the need for these machines. An oz of prevention is worth a pound of defenese or what ever the fuck the saying is I dont know.


Any way question why this is so good for you and think what the future holds if such intrusivce measure can be passed off so easily into your daily life. What happens when your full DNA sample is needed just to start your car. It is a slipperly slope such measures treaspass on. Be prepared for the worst if you expect full protection from all external influences.

Can someone explain to me why the full body scanners are an invasion of privacy but a full patdown by a TSA employee touching my nutsack, your wife/girlfriend's tits and ass is not?

Either they're both an invasion of privacy or they're both not.

 

[Rainsford]

Being able to board a plane is a privilege and not a right. As such, I have no freaking problem with them putting whatever scanners they want.

For all I care they can make it mandatory for passengers to blow the pilot before you can get on the plane. A lot less people will fly then - but it's still fully within their rights.

That's great, but please realize that not everyone is as willing to behave like sheep as you apparently are. You're not just giving away YOUR personal space and privacy, you're giving away the personal space and privacy of everyone else as well.

Again, just because someone has the "right" to do something doesn't make it a good idea. I would disagree with your assessment that the TSA has unlimited authority to do whatever they want (read the Supreme Court decisions regarding arbitrary searches and traveling sometime), but even if they did, that doesn't mean the best course of action is to exercise it as much as possible.

That said, I think the biggest reason people are OK with these kinds of measures is that they really haven't thought about it very hard. Appropriately enough, the people OK with being treated like cattle are the folks who think like that to begin with. When did we convince ourselves that it's alright to suffer any indignity in the name of security?

 

[Rainsford]

Can someone explain to me why the full body scanners are an invasion of privacy but a full patdown by a TSA employee touching my nutsack, your wife/girlfriend's tits and ass is not?

Either they're both an invasion of privacy or they're both not.

If you ask me, they both are, and the TSA shouldn't be doing either without a reason specific to the person in being searched.

 

[MagickMan]

I don't go through those scanners, I just ask for a pat-down. Mostly I just do it to be an asshole.

 

[Rainsford]

Let me on a plane without any screening at all. It could lead to anal probing, who knows?

On second thought some might like that.

Personally, I'd get on a plane with no security between the parking garage and the gate beyond maybe a rent-a-cop making sure I wasn't wheeling a cannon behind me.

Terrorist attacks are incredibly rare and difficult to protect against in any case, as the TSA's frequent "closing the barn door after the horse has left" reactions so amply demonstrate. So we're spending a ton of money, wasting untold hours of travelers' time, and invading the privacy of every single person who just wants to get from point A to point B. And for what? An ineffective protection against a threat that poses little danger in the first place?

I got to ask...how stupid are we? And we want to make security MORE invasive? Yeah, no doubt it'll make me as safe as taking off my shoes and throwing away my bottle of water before going through a security checkpoint that the majority of the time fails to notice if I don't take my laptop out of my carry-on. Except the most dangerous part of flying is still getting hit by an SUV driving, cell phone talking moron on my way to the airport.

Face it. Airport security, from the creation of the TSA to the "body scanners", is driven largely by scared people with poor risk assessment abilities, and bureaucrats trying to look like they are doing something. Which is fine, security theater has its place. But let's try to keep it within reason, shall we? If we're just engaging in a pointless show to make people feel better, why not make it cheap and convenient? We'll be basically as safe with full body scanners as we'll be with some guy in a wizard hat waving a pointy stick at everyone, so why don't we just do the latter?

 

[lothar]

If you ask me, they both are, and the TSA shouldn't be doing either without a reason specific to the person in being searched.

I fully agree.
I was just wondering why people would prefer a patdown over going through one of these machines and why there has been zero uproar about them.

So far we've got "...just to be an asshole" as one of the reasons which could be okay or bad anyway you look at it, but it's clearly not a good enough reason.
Any other reasons anybody?