Those Poor, Abused TSA Workers....

[Darwin333]

Are you saying you oppose ALL anti-terrorism measures that place any burden at all on U.S. citizens?

Nope. Just the ones that violate the Bill of Rights. That would include most if not all of what you previously listed (which like Bamacre, some of us actually opposed those at the time too).

 

[nick1985]

Are you saying you oppose ALL anti-terrorism measures that place any burden at all on U.S. citizens?

Oh please. Under Bush you were against every terror measure of his. From the Patriot act, to wiretaps, to everything else he did. Now under Obama you are all for people rubbing your genitals and taking naked pictures of you.

HIPPO----CRIT to the extreme

 

[waggy]

i was reading a article that said less then 3% of people go through the pat down.

soo...with all the stories we are hearing and only 3% are getting the pat down? what happens if they up it to 5%? 10%? my god the amount of stories will need a 24 hour news channel dedicated to it.

 

[nobodyknows]

I cant believe that lefties that were so vehemently against the patriot act are in favor of this.

That blows my god damn mind.

It seems to me that once we as a people have agreed that TSA can pull aside and search anyone they want who is going through their security then we have already given them implied consent to search anybody and everybody.

This is mostly political grandstanding by the right.

 

[shira]

Oh please. Under Bush you were against every terror measure of his. From the Patriot act, to wiretaps, to everything else he did. Now under Obama you are all for people rubbing your genitals and taking naked pictures of you.

HIPPO----CRIT to the extreme

I've never made a single post in the past indicating I had a problem with airport security measures - not under Bush and not under Obama.

It's clear that SOME level of checking is necessary. Checked-baggage scans, carry-on baggage scans, and metal-detectors all seem to be well accepted by the public, and I don't think a credible case can be made that those measures violate the constitution.

But it's also clear that those measures haven't prevented several terrorist attempts at airports in the past few years, and that a further level of checking is therefore warranted. The new measures - body scans or (at your option) pat-downs - are in the open, of short duration, and intended for a known, very specific purpose - it's not like the government is carrying out covert, open-ended investigations of your private actions and communications.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Probably. We need to secure them better as well. Id rather spend money here though then on the airport security if i had the choice.

Agreed.

 

[nonlnear]

I've never made a single post in the past indicating I had a problem with airport security measures - not under Bush and not under Obama.

It's clear that SOME level of checking is necessary. Checked-baggage scans, carry-on baggage scans, and metal-detectors all seem to be well accepted by the public, and I don't think a credible case can be made that those measures violate the constitution.

But it's also clear that those measures haven't prevented several terrorist attempts at airports in the past few years, and that a further level of checking is therefore warranted. The new measures - body scans or (at your option) pat-downs - are in the open, of short duration, and intended for a known, very specific purpose - it's not like the government is carrying out covert, open-ended investigations of your private actions and communications.

You meant that the body scans and groping are not part of the completely separate ongoing covert, open-ended investigations of our private actions and communications, right? That's as opposed to denying the existence of covert, open-ended investigations of our private actions and communications - which would be ludicrous.

 

[shira]

You meant that the body scans and groping are not part of the completely separate ongoing covert, open-ended investigations of our private actions and communications, right? That's as opposed to denying the existence of covert, open-ended investigations of our private actions and communications - which would be ludicrous.

I mean that - unlike what John Yoo and the Bush administration advocated - it is illegal for the government to covertly engage in an open-ended investigation of our private actions and communications, except when approved by a court of law on probable cause grounds.

By comparison, I consider body scans at airports a trivial intrusion on our personal privacy; you, apparently, think body scans are a giant imposition.

 

[nonlnear]

I mean that - unlike what John Yoo and the Bush administration advocated - it is illegal for the government to covertly engage in an open-ended investigation of our private actions and communications, except when approved by a court of law on probable cause grounds.

Except the law has been considered pretty much irrelevant (insofar as it protected the citizens, that is) for many investigating authorities int his country for a while now. I give you three words: National Security Letter.

By comparison, I consider body scans at airports a trivial intrusion on our personal privacy; you, apparently, think body scans are a giant imposition.

Not so much a giant imposition as a giant boondoggle which is a waste of my money and accomplishes precisely nothing (No, not a very little bit that isn't enough to justify the cost or inconvenience. I really mean nothing.) to enhance air travel security from any likely severe threat.

 

[SirStev0]

In America we have a right to not have our genitals rubbed on by random people, to make other people feel a little bit safer. If you don't like that you should move to China.

I am not against airport security, I am against the body-scanners and the very invasive pat downs. I am not against the bomb sniffers, K-9s, etc. But as soon as you do virtual strip searches and invasive pat downs without cause, you have crossed the line.

Um... Don't fly then?
Last time I checked no one is forcing you.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

You have been watching too much Dark Knight. If it was that simple it would have been done already...

Just because something is not easy doesn't mean it cannot be used. It's a rarely used drugs smuggling method, but it has been used for that too.

 

[nick1985]

Um... Don't fly then?
Last time I checked no one is forcing you.

What if they bring these screenings to train terminals, bus stops, and other forms of public transportation?

Would you stop traveling because nobody is forcing you?

 

[shira]

Except the law has been considered pretty much irrelevant (insofar as it protected the citizens, that is) for many investigating authorities int his country for a while now. I give you three words: National Security Letter.

Not so much a giant imposition as a giant boondoggle which is a waste of my money and accomplishes precisely nothing (No, not a very little bit that isn't enough to justify the cost or inconvenience. I really mean nothing.) to enhance air travel security from any likely severe threat.

Fortunately, Doe v. Mukasey and Doe v. Ashcroft have significantly limited the insidious nature of NSLs, but I agree with you that the use of NSLs is still being abused. Hopefully, Congress can get its act together and pass additional, meaningful controls:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/14/AR2008041402664_pf.html

As to whether airport body scans are a boondoggle, how could you or anyone else possibly know that? Some explosives are not caught by metal detectors, so it seems obvious that additional countermeasures are required. Maybe bomb-sniffing technology (or dogs) is the answer, but I'm guessing that there are limitations to their effectiveness right now or else we'd be seeing their widespread use. Furthermore, non-metal weapons can't be detected by bomb sniffers.

I'll say it again: When the first plane is brought down by a terrorist who got through security wearing a bomb, everyone is going to second-guess why the culprit wasn't caught. And if it turns out the culprit wasn't body-scanned, the anti-Obama crowd is going to have a field day.

 

[drebo]

I'll say it again: When the first plane is brought down by a terrorist who got through security wearing a bomb, everyone is going to second-guess why the culprit wasn't caught. And if it turns out the culprit wasn't body-scanned, the anti-Obama crowd is going to have a field day.

Nope. The only thing I'll be wondering at that point is why the government isn't doing more to combat terrorists at the source.

But, the likelihood of what you said happening is not even slim-to-none...it's none-to-none. Never happened before, and isn't likely to happen any time in the future.

Why? Because if that's what the terrorists wanted, the underwear bomber would have detonated himself in the terminal.

Which is still mostly beside the point. I refuse to give up my freedoms and liberties for the illusion of safety. Not going to happen. Not no way, not no how.

 

[shira]

Nope. The only thing I'll be wondering at that point is why the government isn't doing more to combat terrorists at the source.

But, the likelihood of what you said happening is not even slim-to-none...it's none-to-none. Never happened before, and isn't likely to happen any time in the future.

Why? Because if that's what the terrorists wanted, the underwear bomber would have detonated himself in the terminal.

Which is still mostly beside the point. I refuse to give up my freedoms and liberties for the illusion of safety. Not going to happen. Not no way, not no how.

I don't see submitting to a body-scan or pat-down as giving up my freedom in any appreciable way, and it's not a slippery slope. And I don't believe that you "refuse." Or are you saying you'll never fly again?

 

[drebo]

I don't see submitting to a body-scan or pat-down as giving up my freedom in any appreciable way, and it's not a slippery slope. And I don't believe that you "refuse." Or are you saying you'll never fly again?

Being forced to let the government virtually strip search me is absolutely giving up my freedoms and liberties.

It is the government telling me that THEY have jurisdiction over my personal self, not me. And that is not right.

And by "refuse" I mean that I have been writing my congressman and senators expressing my distaste with the administration's unconstitutional abuses of power. The legislature can fix this mess without the SCOTUS being involved. Or, the SCOTUS can fix the mess.

Either way, it needs to change because it's not acceptable, and it accomplishes absolutely nothing.

 

[Darwin333]

Fortunately, Doe v. Mukasey and Doe v. Ashcroft have significantly limited the insidious nature of NSLs, but I agree with you that the use of NSLs is still being abused. Hopefully, Congress can get its act together and pass additional, meaningful controls:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/14/AR2008041402664_pf.html

As to whether airport body scans are a boondoggle, how could you or anyone else possibly know that? Some explosives are not caught by metal detectors, so it seems obvious that additional countermeasures are required. Maybe bomb-sniffing technology (or dogs) is the answer, but I'm guessing that there are limitations to their effectiveness right now or else we'd be seeing their widespread use. Furthermore, non-metal weapons can't be detected by bomb sniffers.

And the scanners do not detect bombs hidden in body cavities, a technique that has already been used by the terrorists. They knew how to defeat the new and improved security before it was even implemented.

I'll say it again: When the first plane is brought down by a terrorist who got through security wearing a bomb, everyone is going to second-guess why the culprit wasn't caught. And if it turns out the culprit wasn't body-scanned, the anti-Obama crowd is going to have a field day.

Please forgive me if I don't take into account Obama's political liability when discussing the issue of stroking peoples dicks (literally and figuratively) to get on an airplane while making them no safer.

 

[Darwin333]

I don't see submitting to a body-scan or pat-down as giving up my freedom in any appreciable way, and it's not a slippery slope. And I don't believe that you "refuse." Or are you saying you'll never fly again?

I noticed that you didn't add the "in order to fly" part. You really have no problem with TSA style checkpoints virtually everywhere that more than 100 people might gather?

 

[shira]

Being forced to let the government virtually strip search me is absolutely giving up my freedoms and liberties.

It is the government telling me that THEY have jurisdiction over my personal self, not me. And that is not right.

And by "refuse" I mean that I have been writing my congressman and senators expressing my distaste with the administration's unconstitutional abuses of power. The legislature can fix this mess without the SCOTUS being involved. Or, the SCOTUS can fix the mess.

Either way, it needs to change because it's not acceptable, and it accomplishes absolutely nothing.

First of all, the procedures may be modified, but they're not going to change appreciably. Body scans and pat-downs are here to stay, coming to an airport near you. And we haven't even started with train stations and metros yet.

Second of all, where is this "it accomplishes nothing" propaganda coming from? Do you think repeating it enough times makes it true? Please show us the secret memos wherein a consensus of experts concludes that body-scans and pat-downs have no value, yet the government pushes forward with its highly cynical plan to provide the flying public with nothing more than warm fuzzies, at a cost of billions.

I'm the last person to deny that politicians preach to the lowest common denominator among us. And I've seen plenty of evidence of cases where politics trumps science. But engaging in a multi-year, multi-administration, multi-billion-dollar boondoggle to con the American public into a false sense of safety is tin-foil-hat material. Again, where's the evidence?

 

[nick1985]

Body scans and pat-downs are here to stay, coming to an airport near you. And we haven't even started with train stations and metros yet.

I bet you are excited just thinking about it

 

[shira]

I bet you are excited just thinking about it

I bet you get excited when you post mindless quips.

 

[Zorba]

Um... Don't fly then?
Last time I checked no one is forcing you.

Show me where in the constitution says the 4th amendment only applies to activities you are "have" to do? And then tell me what things anyone actually "has" to do. You don't have to live in a house, so is it okay for the government to search your house whenever?

Also I do have to fly for my job, so yeah I could quit my job. But that is like telling a women who is being sexually harassed at work that she is free to quit.

 

[Darwin333]

First of all, the procedures may be modified, but they're not going to change appreciably. Body scans and pat-downs are here to stay, coming to an airport near you. And we haven't even started with train stations and metros yet.

Second of all, where is this "it accomplishes nothing" propaganda coming from? Do you think repeating it enough times makes it true? Please show us the secret memos wherein a consensus of experts concludes that body-scans and pat-downs have no value, yet the government pushes forward with its highly cynical plan to provide the flying public with nothing more than warm fuzzies, at a cost of billions.

I'm the last person to deny that politicians preach to the lowest common denominator among us. And I've seen plenty of evidence of cases where politics trumps science. But engaging in a multi-year, multi-administration, multi-billion-dollar boondoggle to con the American public into a false sense of safety is tin-foil-hat material. Again, where's the evidence?

Ask and ye shall receive:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/28/eveningnews/main5347847.shtml

Completely defeats the new scanners and pat downs and once he is on the plane all he has to do is go to the bathroom, remove it (so his body doesn't absorb a good portion of the blast) and boom.

That means we either need cavity searches before you get on a plane or we accept the insanely low risk that some nutjob might have a bomb shoved up his ass. Or in other words, YOU ARE NO SAFER FROM THE NUTJOBS.

Anything else I can help you with?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Ask and ye shall receive:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/28/eveningnews/main5347847.shtml

Completely defeats the new scanners and pat downs and once he is on the plane all he has to do is go to the bathroom, remove it (so his body doesn't absorb a good portion of the blast) and boom.

That means we either need cavity searches before you get on a plane or we accept the insanely low risk that some nutjob might have a bomb shoved up his ass. Or in other words, YOU ARE NO SAFER FROM THE NUTJOBS.

Anything else I can help you with?

Now you went and gave the Government/TSA more ammunition to increase security procedures/steps even further.

I'm waiting for the next shoe to drop that causes you to have a mental breakdown.

 

[Darwin333]

Now you went and gave the Government/TSA more ammunition to increase security procedures/steps even further.

I'm waiting for the next shoe to drop that causes you to have a mental breakdown.

Your argument is that I know more about terrorist tactics than the government, who is running the TSA? Really? If that is the case then we are truly fucked.



And since I won't fly with the current absurdity I sure as hell won't be flying when you have to get a finger stuck up your ass by a $12/hour highschool dropout in order to get on a plane. You are welcome to enjoy it, for your sake I hope they use lube. I have no doubt that you will submit either, it appears that you have gotten really good at bending over when the government tells you to.