Slashdot Mirror
National Opt-Out Day Against Virtual Strip Searches
An anonymous reader writes in about a protest called for the busiest airline travel day of the year. "An activist opposed to the new invasive body scanners in use at airports around the country just designated Wednesday, Nov. 24 as a National Opt-Out Day. He's encouraging airline passengers to decline the TSA's technological strip searches en masse on that day as a protest against the scanners, as well as the new 'enhanced pat-downs' inflicted on refuseniks. 'The goal of National Opt-Out Day is to send a message to our lawmakers that we demand change,' reads the call to action at OptOutDay.com, set up by Brian Sodegren. 'No naked body scanners, no government-approved groping. We have a right to privacy, and buying a plane ticket should not mean that we're guilty until proven innocent.' The US Airline Pilots Association and other pilot groups have urged their members to avoid the scanners and have also condemned the new pat-down policy as humiliating to pilots. They've advised pilots who don't feel comfortable undergoing pat-downs in front of passengers to request they be conducted in a private room. Any pilots who don't feel comfortable after undergoing a pat-down have been encouraged to 'call in sick and remove themselves from the trip.'"
Please provide a list of all terrorists caught by TSA to date. Thanks.
Keeping what safe? A gaggle of meekly surrendering sheep, or a nation of free people?
I have friends on both sides of the political spectrum, far to the left and far to the right. Everyone can (and should) agree that this is a gross violation of privacy and should not be tolerated. The only people that I have heard even come close to defending this procedure are the faux conservatives that put "security" (read: invading the privacy of citizens to expand the power of the state) over liberty.
Social Engineering Expert: Because there is no patch for stupidity.
As soon as you provide a list of terrorists discouraged from boarding planes in the first place because of elevated security policies.
and take off your belt while going through the scanner, my plan is to wear loose pants and go commando.
Best Slashdot Co
Any pilots who don't feel comfortable after undergoing a pat-down have been encouraged to 'call in sick and remove themselves from the trip
An uncomfortable pilot is a distracted pilot. As a passenger I put my full trust in the folk up front to do their job safely and efficiently and I'd rather they weren't getting distracted. It's not like they need any extra tools or equipment to crash a plane.
This article by Jeffrey Goldberg is both sad, hilarious, and informative. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-first-time-the-tsa-meets-resistance/65390/ "We have to search up your thighs and between your legs until we meet resistance," he explained. "Resistance?" I asked. "Your testicles," he explained. "That's funny," I said, "because 'The Resistance' is the actual name I've given to my testicles."
Why just do this on one day only when you can make this your default choice? I'd rather be safe than sorry when it comes to cancer. And I dont much like being treated like a naughty child by the TSA or whoever either.
Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
Am I cynical to think that the government will want to paint this as inciting an act of terrorism?* I'm just hoping that Joe Public isn't that stupid. Yet.
* I imagine that such a protest will cause the system to slow to a crawl, harming the law abiding citizen's ability to travel or somesuch.
Don't take the above poster too seriously. He doesn't.
Most people have a "grab there, get hit" policy (well, less formally acknowledged than that) in their daily lives. I don't think there'd be too much fuss if people applied it to the manual search.
"Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
We have policy discussions to find a balance between the two. Which protects us better and is more fair: electronically 'strip-searching' everybody or doing random checks? I would rather have everyone scanned and be able to have likely culprits scanned as well than pull aside the would-be offenders and have them scream civil liberties bloody murder.
Opting out of the body scanner is opting in to the invasive pat-down. "Opting out" merely validates the false dichotomy put forth by the TSA.
I don't think its the lack of a terrorist attack as much as the utter uselessness of this technology relative to the risk of attack. I think people are tired of being treated like criminals just because they want to take their family on vacation. I think people of tired of having their children treated like criminals and then having to explain to them why it's okay for the government to touch them inappropriately. Furthermore, if we were serious about security we wouldn't be so lax about it everywhere else. In October 2001 you couldn't cross a bridge or tunnel into NYC by truck without having the contents of the truck searched by police. I can't remember the last time I saw one truck stopped traversing a river crossing. I guess the threat of dirty bombs just magically went away, right? Terrorists only care about airplanes I suppose. I ride the commuter rail and subway every day. Do you know how many times I've seen even one cop on a rail platform in the 4 years I've been commuting? ZERO. There are times in Penn Station that the subway platform is lined with cops. Do you know what they do? They poke their head into the subway car, look both ways, and then back away and it proceeds to the next stop. That's security? This country is a fucking joke when it comes to security yet for some reason the airport is treated like the holy grail. If we don't give up our rights and dignity a great calamity will befall us. Give me a fucking break. I'll take my chances getting on a plane with just a metal detector. If it's my time to go, then it's my time to go.
Trying to annoy the TSA for a day will do absolutely nothing. If you want to end these policies, refuse to fly until they're gone. If airlines see their bank accounts turn red with no hope of them being profitable unless the TSA is removed, you better believe they'll start doing everything imaginable to get rid of the TSA.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures.
This is a prime example of where "if you do nothing wrong; then you have nothing to worry about" is shown to be bullshit.
These airport scanners and pat downs dishonor our troops and everyone who has ever died fighting for our country!
We are supposed to be the home of the free and the brave, let's act like it! The Europeans don't do this. They don't even allow the scanners! Are they braver and more free than we are?! It sure looks like it!
I think everyone on both sides can agree, this is just too much!
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
I'm willing to bet that list is smaller than the list of terrorists who didn't get on a plain for fear of having their ass kicked by Joe Public when they attempt something.
Excessive forking causes un-wanted children.
Who is making money on not installing body scanners at the airports ?
Who is making money on not installing cameras everywhere ?
Who is making money on not waging wars ?
Also known as "National Get-Added-To-The-No-Fly-List Day"
People from simply removing all of their clothing when they are "hand searched"? Or demanding that a LEO be present at the search? Or demanding that the search be video'd? If the search is "public", then can someone tape it? Or getting the name of the employees who search you?
By the way, where did that 'bagger come from from up thread? What a parrot.... Prove a negative, indeed....
Republican leadership = Idiocracy
Please provide a list of all terrorists caught by TSA to date. Thanks.
There have been several people who boarded planes with live bombs who were NOT caught. To most people, this would seem to mean the TSA needs to be MORE thorough, not less.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Hi, I'm an Aviation Security Professional. It's my job to make morons like you safe, this shit does not fix the vulnerabilities the international aviation transportation system has and wastes my time and yours when idiot bureaucrats enforce this reactive bullshit on us.
Discouraged from boarding planes and encouraged to bomb subways. Bombing subways can in fact be even more harmful since it can disable an entire subway line until the damage to the subway can be fixed and the train removed. And with the high volume of traffic that subways get, any kind of security (beyond fare control) is impractical. Given this, protecting planes seems like reinforcing the door with steel while the windows are open.
As much as this is so very much needed in the U.S., and other countries that practice this farce of security, in reality I doubt the call to refuse won't be in the minds of the majority that only think of getting to point B. I'm sure that the powers that be realize this and know that is what is going through most peoples minds as they get ready to board a plane. "Gotta get to point B, no matter what the cost or seemingly minor inconvenience of the loss privacy.". If it was me, and I was a U.S. citizen, I would be having all sorts of fun making their job as unpleasant as possible. Soon as they start screaming "Opt-out!!", I'd do that too. "Hey everybody I'm an opt-out! I'M AN OPT-OUT! Look at me, I don't want to go through the scanner!" As a man, I'd ask for a woman to pat me down. I know how well that will go over with the goons. So, I'd probably get a guy. Since he's going to be touching me in places he shouldn't may as well ask him to milk my prostate while he's at it. Make it more uncomfortable for him than it is for me. Just some suggestions for those who have to go through this bullshit.
I bet there won't be more than 5% that refuse the scanners, and insist or refuse the pat down. Any takers? Place your bets now as to the % of people who refuse scanners
Although I am against the full-body scanner and more "intimate" pat-downs, your argument does nothing to strengthen our case. Suppose that on Sep. 8th, 2001 a new directive would have gone out telling all the pilots to lock the cockpit door at all times (during the flight, obviously). Would any terrorist be caught by such a measure? Would we see any benefit from it directly? Would people raise hell over it?* OTOH, in retrospect, we know that such a directive would have prevented a major terrorist attack that still affects our life today.
Who is more of a hero, the person who catches a terrorist in the middle of an attack (AKA Rambo) or the unknown official that wrote directives that prevented the terrorist attack in the first place? Or to put it differently: Smart is someone who gets out of trouble; Wise is someone who does not get into trouble in the first place.
I know, if we give up freedom for temporary security, etc. etc... And I agree with that sentiment, I just don't agree that "list of terrorists caught by TSA to date" is a useful endpoint.
* - BTW, the answers to these questions are no, no and yes, respectively.
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
People are already screaming civil liberties bloody murder. Except this way there will be naked pictures of everyone involved. Yay!
People, just because you do not agree with a post, does not mean it is Flamebait. On the contrary, while I do not completely agree with the parent's post, he does have a point: The new regulations would have been approved much easily on October 2001.
Remember, while we love to hate the TSA, they have a terrible job: If something happens, then they did not do enough and someone gets the boot; If nothing happens, then they harass the passengers needlessly. It's a lose-lose situation.
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
I'm a student. I write iPhone apps.
Keeping what safe? A gaggle of meekly surrendering sheep, or a nation of free people?
It's flock you insensitive clod.
that is the stupidest argument i have or will ever hear in my entire life. scared people do irrational things. they let incorrect things be done. greedy people take advantage of this. 'laws' that were created by these greedy people shouldn't be respected, they should be torn out of the books and shat on, then burned, then force-fed to the people who passed them in the first place. oh, and to you.
weinersmith
Want to get the TSA screeners begging to get the policy changed? Have as many people as possible ask for the pat down and act like they're enjoying it when the agent gets to the "right spots". Might as well make them as uncomfortable as they're making everyone else. Just don't move much or do anything to prevent the pat-down.Nothing wrong with a few involuntary sounds, right?
Hello. I have no fear of terrorists whatsoever. The country I live in have never been a target of terrorists.
We also do not make war on other contries, that might have something to do with it.
In about 10-20 years there will be people in Iraq and Afghanistan who saw their friends/parents/family killed by foreign soldiers. Many of them will want revenge, some of them will be willing to die for it.
I think the best way to protect oneself against terrorists is not to create them in the first place.
Hope this helps.
Thank you, I appreciate it. You're right, no one wants to be harassed needlessly, but the bombs sent in packages on election day make it abundantly clear that al Qaeda is still looking for vulnerabilities in our system. It would be a huge mistake for us to become lax in our enforcement.
Keeping what safe? A gaggle of meekly surrendering sheep, or a nation of free people?
I'd feel a lot safer if every passenger was given a sap or a combat knife and instructed to deal with any terrorist by everyone rushing them at once. Of course that doesn't follow the pattern of passively waiting for government to rescue you which is why no media outlet or authority figure is ever going to promote it. So punches and kicks it is then.
I'd just like to point out that the last post of yours that got down-moderated was a "The State knows best" - type post, which is probably more associated with the Far Left than the Right. My own feeling is that Slashdot moderators tend towards individual responsibility and freedom from excessive regulation, rather than any right/left dichotomy. And really, what do you expect of people most of whom have built their careers on the Internet? That's exactly the attitude you would expect.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
I believe what truly created the environment of American resentment in Iraq and Afghanistan was our abandonment of both countries after the Iran/Iraq wars and the Afghanistan/Russia sovereignty conflict in the 80s. This created poverty and despair, which in turn lead to extremism.
they'll hit us up for some more bail out money because everyone knows in Corporate America companies can capitalize the profits and socialize the losses.
This will do about as good as refusing to buy music from the RIAA, you're a pirate no matter how primly you refuse to buy their products or download their albums.
Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
Vitriol isn't going to keep our country safe from attack. the only things that can are sound policy decisions free from the debasement of emotion...
The issue isn't whether security is needed. The issue is what security is proportionate and effective.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
There will be special tours to watch pat-down in US airports. Complete with actresses in Sailor Moon outfits undergoing pat-down with eye rolling, blushing and moaning before videorecording tourists.
If they're terrorists they should be arrested, not "refused permission to fly".
It shows the system is bullshit. Strip-searching or groping all passengers offends millions for very little if any gain. If the terrorists were discouraged from boarding planes with bombs, they haven't stopped being terrorists and they will find some other way to cause terror.
The problem is the existence of the terrorists. The police, FBI need to be looking for and catching them before they blow up shit. Strip searching everybody at the point of entry to a plane will only cause the terrorist to move their attack to something else. Traditional police and FBI work is geared toward finding the terrorist no matter what their plot is, while the TSA's "enhanced" pat-downs and full body viewing of passengers works only against a single plot, and the terrorists know it. The passengers know that terrorists may want to destroy the plane, so the passengers will fight back. The terrorists know this too.
As Bruce Schneier said, the only useful airline security innovation since 9/11 was the reinforcement of cockpit doors.
People tire of invasive security methods? I never even stood for it to begin with. I've never travelled where it's enforced to such a degree as described here. I wanted to go to the US at one point in my life, keep it up and I'll never go.
Jonathanjk.com
When traveling this holiday season, opt out of any porn scanners. Opt out LOUDLY. Say “I OPT OUT” while you smile at the nearest TSA agent. Be polite and move on to step two, the Pat Down. Getting a hand pat down. Teach your children to shout LOUDLY, “STOP TOUCHING ME in a SEXUAL MANNER!”. Adults shout LOUDLY, “Stop TOUCHING ME in a SEXUAL MANNER!”. Smile and be polite as you do this. Children are allowed and encouraged to cry. Video the whole escapade with sound and as clearly as possible. Post to youtube.com Behold the power of the Internet. Game on Janet!
I believe what truly created the environment of American resentment in Iraq and Afghanistan was our abandonment of both countries after the Iran/Iraq wars and the Afghanistan/Russia sovereignty conflict in the 80s. This created poverty and despair, which in turn lead to extremism.
I always assumed it was the way we like to use our secret agencies to overthrow democratically elected leaders and replace them with dictators favorable to our interests, something the USA has a *long* history of repeatedly doing especially in the Middle East but also in South America and elsewhere. But no, they hate us for our freedoms, yeah, cuz we feel noble and innocent when we say that.
You're correct. That it what it would meant to _most_ people.
To _rational_ people, it means the TSA approach is not working, We should try something else, like psychological screening. Israel uses it with relatively great results. I have no problem answering a few questions about where I was and where I'm going
http://www.japantoday.com/category/commentary/view/psychology-not-just-technology-needed-for-airport-security
An 'adult' would recognize the value of safety policies when it cost almost 3000 Americans their lives. And don't kid yourself; this IS a left-right issue, if only for question of timing. Bush put in place these policies and the left has been using them to their political advantage ever since. If Obama or Clinton were in office in 2001 they would have done the same thing and the right would have had a field day with it too. We can call each other names all day long but when it comes down to the hard reality of saving lives we rely on policymakers to make the best decisions. And they have performed admirably.
One commercial airliner spiralling into the ocean, or worse, into a civilian target, will pop them into line quick-smart, and won't hear about their violated rights again to the end of their self-centred days.
Here's one: replace "random" searches with "searches of people most likely to be terrorists".
Heaven forbid!
I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
I think I'll start manufacturing a line of undergarments that have metal threads woven into them with sayings like "I do not consent to invasive searches", "TSA scanners are a violation of my 4th Amendment rights", etc.
I wonder what the TSA response would be if they started seeing people wearing underwear, etc. that effectively blocked the scanners from seeing ones "naughty bits" and possibly also included slogans like these?
See, THIS is the kind of thing I like to see...rational solutions. I have no desire to see anyone groped, but unless viable alternatives are in place it's the best we have.
Our support for Israel has generated lots of resentment in the Muslim world.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
I'm willing to bet there are no terrorists whatsoever, this is all just mass hysteria, induced by opportunistic politics, grabbing of attention and votes, selling tons of security equipment, services, jobs, contracts, news, etc. And much of the world is just laughing or terrified of the dangers of the spiraling growth of such mass insanity, based on mass fear, encouraging state violence, the erosion of rights, and reactionary, aggressive politcs on all levels and numerous countries. I left the US, and although I miss many things, the news often reminds me I am relieved to be far from this utter madness.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
Well, there's the attitude that leads to us "morons" having to get felt up and strip searched just to go home for Thanksgiving.
Fuck you. I may not like dealing with my customers, but I at least realize they indirectly pay my salary and have some fucking respect, even for the less knowledgeable of them.
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
"We haven't had a genuine terror attack in a long time".
A genuine terror attack is one that fills you with terror. It has very little to do with the convictions of the perpetrator.
There's no such thing as a "terrorist".
Not a single one on the planet.
Terrorism is a stratagem, not a political philosophy.
It's like calling the WW II Germans "Blitzkriegers", or the Americans "Amphibians".
"respecting laws that were put in place to keep us safe"?
But what if I think these laws address the wrong issue's, and only serve to create an illusion of safety against an ill-defined opponent?
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Yes. They have another word for that; it's also known as "racial profiling."
Thought crime?
This created poverty and despair, which in turn lead to extremism.
Yeah, the place was paradise before all that, right? Our hand picked dictators were such little angels. I'm not impressed with your astroturfing of propaganda. Though others are taking you seriously, which is unfortunate, I can't. You sound like some kind of "minister of truth" in the face of a public that is just starting to see through the lies and government power grab.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Today, no terrorist would be able to repeat 9/11, because no pilot, crew or passenger would allow a hijacker to control a plane: The best a team of terrorists can get is to blow up the plane in the air.
So what you are really risking is the loss of less people than we lose to traffic accidents any given week, all in exchange of a bunch of money, a loss of privacy, and a lot of lost time. Would you lower every road's speed limit to 30mph to save deaths in the country's highways?
If the new scanners saved one plane every year (which they don't, since we don't get anywhere near one hijacking a year today) I'd still be against the scanners anyway. With not one blown airplane since 9/11 on US airspace, choosing anything else is being so ridiculously risk averse, you might as well never leave your home.
pilots & flight crews go on strike, customers quit buying airline tickets, drive your own car, hit them where it hurts the most = in the wallet.
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Ah, cool... Now we know where you're coming from. Liberal "permissiveness" is evil..
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
War is for profit, it's just business. It is planned that way. It has a cost in blood, but that's not relevant. That people are killed or disturbed or dedicate their lives to heroism, country, courage, revenge, anger, madness or family has no relevance to the numbers on the bottom line.
The world economy is now in and out of crisis. I'm positive it will only get worse. The money-based labor and product society is becoming obsolete, it was once useful, but has been trouble for a while. The true enemy is the money-based society, and it infiltrates everyone's daily life, work, relations, and thoughts, on all sides of the erroneously-placed battle lines.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
Why don't you Americans just file a class-action suit against the TSA for sexual harassment?
Both the naked photography and "enhanced patdowns" are ridiculously invasive. What they're doing is useless, absurd and completely unacceptable.
What's wrong with the USA? By allowing this to happen and continuing to allow it, you guys are allowing the terrorists to win: Mission accomplished, you guys are living in terror.
Start a country-wide movement, get major media coverage and support. Stop this madness.
http://www.object404.com
Hey it doesn't have to be by race, they could also do it by lets say beards, search everyone with a facial hair covering some part of their lower face. or everyone wearing hats, there are more ways to profile for terrorists than just race.
I mod here frequently, and although I tend to have a right/libertarian streak, I try my best to mod based purely on the merits of the comment - does it offer insight or information I didn't have before? Does it pose an interesting perspective I hadn't considered before? Or is it designed to elicit a certain aggressive response? If it is the latter, it falls into the flamebait/troll category. I seldom give those mods, since I think that adults should be able to ignore such bait, and I prefer not censoring others. Yes, lots of mods here award points as political agree/disagree popularity points, and I agree that the sentiments here tend to lean left. Keep in mind, this is an international group, and politics outside the US tend to lean in the direction we would call left, and they would call center, and that despite all that, most mods are pretty fair.
That said, I can understand why a) you got modded that way, and b) why you think it was unjust. I'm pretty sure that you were voicing your true opinion, but you did so in a way that mimics the tactics of someone trolling the forum for angry responses. You may have gotten the flamebait mod from someone who disagrees with you, but more likely you got it from a mod who thought you were trying to yank someone's chain.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Agreed - and do you call public, mandatory pornography a sound policy decision, in the complete absence of any independently funded, unbiased studies indicating benefit from said policies in reducing risk of *spooky voice* terrorism?
weinersmith
1) Stop flying. I realize this may be hard, but in most cases it is possible. If it is truly impossible, like your work requires it, ok fine but then you just kinda have to roll with what happens. However for just about anyone else you can stop flying. Doesn't mean you can't vacation or visit family, just means you will have to drive. It'll work, really it will. When I was a kid, my parents almost always drove us out to the grandparents place because of cost. I didn't enjoy it, but it was fine.
2) Let the airlines know you have stopped flying, and why. You may have noticed the government thinks the airline industry is rather important. They have bailed them out in the past. This could be because they consider it of strategic importance, could be because the airlines have good lobbyists, etc. Whatever the reason or combination of reasons, they listen and that's what matters. So if you make it clear to them that you are refusing to fly because of the TSA, they'll take notice. One person won't do anything alone, but if more than a few do it, they'll care. Make sure to include things like your frequent flier number and dates you traveled last year so they know you do use their service, and can see you aren't.
3) Write your senators and representative and let them know you find this unacceptable, and that this is an issue that will decide your vote. Write a well reasoned letter explaining why this is not ok, and ask what they intend to do about it. You will very likely get a reply (from a staffer of course but it is still their position). Again, what one person says doesn't matter a whole lot but a bunch of people will make them take notice since politicians have to care about being reelected first and foremost and if their constituency is pissed, they have to deal with it. Goes double if they have pressure from the airlines as well.
4) Actually vote on it. If your representatives say "We think the TSA is fine we aren't doing anything," vote for their challenger. Perhaps when they are running even make a campaign contribution, doesn't have to be large $20 should suffice, along with a letter expressing your support for them so long as they will work to fix/get rid of the TSA.
You cannot expect change over night. However if people who are pissed off start doing this, change will come, one way or another. The TSA gets away with its stupidity due to apathy more or less. People just go along with their shit so it is an issue congress doesn't have to care about. If people tell congress it is a problem, then it will become a problem for congress.
Not only can you opt out of a full body scan, but you can also request a private screening room. It is your right! I am an airport employee, I would know.
>Would people raise hell over it?
No, because it won't annoy the people. Pilots? Maybe, but not passengers. Ok, some politics would cry foul about how the USA is copying old USSR flying security rules (which the USA ultimately did) but that's about it.
If this measure would be combined with less annoyances at the airports it would be outright welcomed by most people who fly regularly.
>Would any terrorist be caught by such a measure?
No, such measure would just render plane attacks useless which is exactly the point.
It's only 'propaganda' if you don't agree with it; otherwise it's just telling it like it is, right? Somebody has to stand up for the actions of people who had our best interests at heart when they created these laws. I don't have time to research your assertions, but the fact is we more or less ignored Afghanistan until September 11th happened. I call bullshit on you.
by the way, sorry for being a dick earlier. i strongly disagree with you (very strongly. ok, VERY strongly), but i shouldn't have resorted to schoolyard insults. i apologize.
weinersmith
Congratulations, America.
Osama Bin Laden has won.
Read the ridiculous treatment of this upstanding citizen who stood up to the TSA. He wrote a very interesting account of the abuse the TSA is doing.
An excerpt: 'I looked him straight in the eye and said, "if you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested."'
http://www.object404.com
This change by the TSA was not to made to improve safety. The TSA has decided that these machines are cheaper than hiring the appropriate number and quality of employees and training them properly.
The best thing to do is to have two sets of flights. One set where no one gets body scans, and other flights where everyone get body scans. Let evolution solve this problem.
I don't see why there is a security check for pilots at all. I mean we want to carefully check their identity, we want to make sure that they are who they say they are of course. However after their ID has been established, they should be allowed to go on about their business with no more check. Why? Because such a check is totally worthless. Pilots have hands on the controls of the aircraft, they could crash it and kill all aboard if they wanted. Further, many of them have guns that they carry. Since 9/11 they have been allowed to get certified and have a gun in the cockpit. Many opt to because you get paid a bit extra if you do.
You have to trust the pilots, that is just how it goes. As such once you've identified them as the pilots who should be on the flight, other security checks are worthless.
That pilots are subject to the same arduous security checks as passengers just proves that it is security theater, and nothing that is really useful. They aren't concerned with actual security, just a theater that justifies their jobs, and that they like being the tough guys who get to be in charge.
The 9-11 hijackers were trained how to fly the planes. That takes money and time. If you've got money and time you can train pilots... AND BUY A PLANE. You could fly out of some rinky-dink private airport in Rock-Pile Arkansas and wreak the same havoc as the 9-11 attacks without getting within a mile of a scanner, x-ray or otherwise.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Keeping what safe? A gaggle of meekly surrendering sheep, or a nation of free people?
Jeremy Clarkson could turn this into a new expression. The french being cheese-eating surrender monkeys, the americans are cheeseburger-eating surrender sheep :)
Remember, while we love to hate the TSA, they have a terrible job: If something happens, then they did not do enough and someone gets the boot; If nothing happens, then they harass the passengers needlessly. It's a lose-lose situation.
So the fuckers are losers -- all the more reason to stop this horseshit.
I am reminded of a magazine article years ago about the ten worst jobs. One had a picture of a guy sniffing people's armpits to judge the efficacy of deodorants.
I'm in my late 60s. If some jerk has so little self esteem that he has to take a job groping me, let him have at it. (He's right down there with telemarketers.) I hope he feels dirty as hell when he gets home at night and wants to play with his wife.
Yeah, I can really visualize people in places who don't speak English, have no idea where the US is, have little education or food or water, thinking "I'm going to combat equal rights and freedom of speech. The United States stands for that. So I'll start my war against them. That's the best use of my time. That's the future for my people and family. Combat freedom of speech. When speech is gone, then we will have food." And I'm sure it is just a coincidence these people sit on the largest oil reserves of the world. Don't be naive, no government represents people, they represent business. People are only important as supplies for business needs -- of ideas, labor, buyers, suppliers of voters or soldiers, confirmations of lies.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
The airports have been constitution-free zone for over a decade. Our failure to defend against the first incursion of our constitutional rights a decade ago has lead to this. If we're looking for someone to blame, we need not look further than the bathroom mirror... (Yeah, I lifted that from V for Vendetta)
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
So they take their hats off and shave off their beards. In fact, I clearly remember hearing that the September 11 hijackers shaved before they boarded the planes...
people start getting indignant about security again
People aren't indigant over security - They're indignant over "security theatre," with billions spent for questionable returns.
For me, the big deal is not that some poor security guard has to look at my fat gut or grope my privates. For me, the issue is that this is a *tremendous* waste of money for little return - Money that desperately needs to be spent elsewhere. The days of terrorists smuggling explosives onto planes on their body is over. The recent "Yemen" incident points to this - The threat to airlines is the same issue that security experts have been telling us about for 20 years: Air freight. If you're on a plane, chances are you've been screened 100X more than what may be in the cargo hold under your feet. These nude-o-scopes do nothing to address that. However, addressing the issue of air freight is very complex and expensive and doesn't easily demonstrate to Ma and Pa Kettle that goshdarnit, the government's doing something - Whereas visibly putting a brown man in a turban into a scanning phonebooth thingamajiggy does.
Finally, if you *are* legitimately concerned about items being smuggled onto a plane on a passenger's person, you only need to talk to a prison guard or Israeli security expert to learn how useless these nude-o-scopes are, as they don't look *inside* the body, which is where most contraband is hidden these days anyway.
Ha. We can't call this one "trolling" or "flamebait," so we'll call it "offtopic." There are loopholes in everything...
the US is just an easy scapegoat. islam cannot survive, in its current form, in the modern world. THIS is the elephant in the room. its not the US or the west or how badly 'the west treats the middle east'.
its about how islam is weak at its base and just cannot adapt to a moving modern world.
see their excuse for what it is: a scapegoat. cowardly because they refuse to accept the fact that their religion is what keeps them back. they are conflicted: the benefits that the west give them yet they are told the west is evil and must be converted or destroyed. of course being taught that doublethink will drive you mad. its understandable, actually.
you do hear a lot of 'well, if the US had not done this or that to arab countries...' - but its just a scapegoat. at what point do you take responsibility for your own bad leaders and stop blaming everyone else?
of course, in the US we have our own smaller version of 'bad leaders' and we can't seem to sheik ours off us, either.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
This is not about security but about getting YOU used to the full police state. It doesn't have a DAMN thing to do with terrorism. IF terrorists REALLY wanted to have a HIGH body count, HIGH property damage all it would take is some well placed dynamite along the san andres fault. And half of California would fall into the ocean. Hijack planes, blow them up - PULEASSSSE! That is for government stooges to do to get you scared. Even the "underwear bomber" didn't have to go through security and was ESCORTED onto the plane by a government agent. Even the State Department ADMITTED they directed that he be allowed onto the plane. There were SEVERL witnesses to this including people who saw a man VIDEOTAPING the whole damn thing on the plane! Yeah this is all about terrorism - what a HUGE crock of SHIT!
Tyranny is in this land - and in the guise of fighting terrorists!
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
- James Madison
The Truth is a Virus!!!
Apology accepted. I have no desire to provoke people, except in the case it causes them to challenge their previously-accepted notions. If I can do that, I'm happy.
scapegoat alert.
easy excuse but its bullshit. the muslims can't even get along with themselves; they don't need to (and should not be) blaming others when they need to fix major problems in their own culture.
its just too easy to blame 'the outside'. their leaders use this excuse to their own people but we're supposed to be more enlightened in the west and more free in our thoughts. why, then, do we also fall for the obviously-bogus exuse of 'its all israel and the jews' faults!' ?
muslims have been taught to hate jews. its somewhat like southerners back 100 years ago in US history. we know race hatred in the US. just think of this when you hear about arab countries blaming 'the infidels'. its just another version of scapegoating just like the deep south did in the US.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
The holiday traveller is focused on one thing only - making it home on time.
The geek and his causes are no more welcome an obstruction than the Hare Krishna.
When did sitting in a thin metal tube surrounded by barely controlled raging fires and flammable liquid whilst travelling thousands of miles at 30k feet become some kind of basic human right?
Where in the constitution is the government permitted to prevent this?
I carry a magic yeti-repelling stone around with me. I haven't seen a yeti in years so that proves it works!
No sig today...
Technically speaking, we're not his customers. We`re just cargo. His customers would be the airlines and/or aircraft companies. That is of course if he is what he claims to be.
I agree that there are more troublesome procedures than "locking the door", but it was just an example for something that does not appear to have any direct benefit, can annoy (some) people and only with the knowledge we have now do we understand its importance. I was just illustrating the point that the OP's request for a "list of terrorist captured by the TSA" is not a useful benchmark for the effectiveness of a procedure, because, as you pointed out, the "lock the door" directive is very helpful while not catching any terrorist.
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
How will anything they're currently doing prevent somebody stuffing their rectum with C4 and boarding an aircraft?
Seems to me like they're really training the population to get used to government invasions of their intimacy.
No sig today...
Flying isn't a right but being secure in our persons from unwarranted and intrusive searches is.
All of the people who have ever died on a plane, from mechanical problems and pilot error as well as terrorism, doesn't even add up to a single years worth of drunk driving fatalities. I would bet that you still willingly get in a private car so you're only fooling yourself. Airline security is already good enough that further encroachments to our actual, enumerated, rights are not necessary.
Just no arguing with an adolescent political fanboi.. You just call it as you're told. I see no critical thought from you at all. The only question is if you're really that innocent, or if you're actively trying to fool people.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
You should really try to understand the meaning of "lose-lose situation". It does not mean that the person working there is a loser. And I wasn't talking about the minimum-wage person working at the boarding gates, but about the people at the head of the TSA that need to both protect the people whilst not disturbing them in the least. How's that for a nice balancing act?
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
Flamebait, seriously? This is the only logical comment I've read so far!
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
How about a former liberal who used to watch Michael Moore movies and talk at coffee shops who accepted everything he was told because it was an expedient way to vent his frustrations at the time. I grew up, I started reading and I started being more positive and appreciative of the luxuries my country affords me...and started seeing the holes in the arguments of the left. I believe it's better to act the best and most responsible way we can, rather than to do nothing in fear of upsetting people. I'm all for improvement...but I'm against abandonment. Same holds true of my feelings about Iraq and Afghanistan.
I general I agree with what you say and your point make sense. However, your analogy is not apt. You do not catch anyone by locking a cockpit door, but the claim is that pat downs WILL/do. Thus asking the TSA to quantify the voracity of this statement seems very sensible as it is certainly quantifiable. If your point is that this will discourage people from taking any such action instead of stoping such action then I fail to see how where the end point of such a line of argument. If those in power assert that this stops terrorist acts and we blindly accept those assertions then we get what we deserve. But I would prefer to sacrifice a little safety on a plane for a great bit of personal freedom on the ground.
"Uselessness of the technology relative to the risk of attack ..." you got it. Well said, and someone mod this guy to +7.
One problem is that the government has to do something to appear proactive. The second problem, though, is that it's limited
1. By intelligence -- most government drones aren't the brightest lights, and politicians are even worse (background concept: imagine that we've placed the guy who thinks the Internet is "a series of tubes" in charge of security). (Or here's a better one, ideal for Slashdot readers: we've put the US Patent office, who can't even decide whether clicking a Web link is a "new and unique invention," in charge of it.)
2. By thousands of restrictions on what it CAN do -- for example, profiling is out, selecting "likely" passengers to be dangerous based on statistics, etc., etc.
My wife works for the government, and we don't know whether to laugh or cry. Every time there's an incident (shoe bomber, underwear bomber, or the most recent, the toner attempt), they go into Code Orange. They have a guy watch me as I wait for her out front at the end of each day (she's unable to drive due to her vision), even though they know me. Why? Because he was Told To Do So(sm). They are Taking Steps(r). They are proving that they are Serious About The Terrorist Threat(c).
(I've often said that, if the government bureau-crazy really had its way, they could stamp out terrorism overnight: they'd simply choke it with paperwork. "Before you may crash this plane into that stadium, you must fill out these forms assessing the environmental impact ...")
Better yet, whenever we go to Code Orange, security carefully checks credentials at the employee's entrance.
At the EMPLOYEE'S entrance. Even though they recognize each other. "Good morning, sweetie! How's your husband?" "Just fine" [hands over id card, puts purse on belt to go through the scanner] ...
Meanwhile, a milling mass of ordinary citizens wraps around the block, waiting in line at the public entrance, some wearing backpacks and carrying large suitcases .. . .. but no one dares do more than a cursory check of these folks, because they'll start screaming and next thing you know, you'll have An Incident(tm) that makes the news.
There you go. A Crisis occurs, government hurls paperwork, makework and completely (and inexplicably) ineffective procedures in place to give the APPEARANCE that they're doing something. They're the drunk who looks for his keys a block away from where he dropped them because "the light is better" -- writ large.
Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
I wonder how well this would've gone over in October 2001. We haven't had a genuine terror attack in a long time, so people start getting indignant about security again. Do we really need to have another international calamity for us to start respecting laws that were put in place to keep us safe?
Do you know anything at all about 9/11? The hijackers did not carry their weapons (boxcutters) through airport security. Someone (whose identity has never been determined) smuggled the boxcutters onto the planes for them. So these scans and patdowns would not have helped AT ALL. Learn some history before you start taking my freedoms away from me.
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
How about instead of restricting and violating our own citizens over this, we go out and find al Queda wherever they happen to be, and kill them all? I mean, supposedly the US is this horrible imperialistic country which thinks nothing of killing poor innocent foreign civilians... how about we start taking advantage of that? Quit tiptoeing around the Pakistani government and send the entire US army into the border area with an ROE of "shoot anything that moves that ain't ours". If there's caves, fill 'em with poison gas (remember supposedly the US violates the Geneva conventions all the time ANYWAY). If there's objections from the Pakistani government, nuke Karachi. Same for anywhere else terrorists might be hanging out, and that includes Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria.
No? There are some things that the US government shouldn't do, even for the laudable goal of stopping terrorist attacks? Well, then perhaps invasive airport security scans are one of them too.
Although I am against the full-body scanner and more "intimate" pat-downs, your argument does nothing to strengthen our case. Suppose that on Sep. 8th, 2001 a new directive would have gone out telling all the pilots to lock the cockpit door at all times (during the flight, obviously). Would any terrorist be caught by such a measure? Would we see any benefit from it directly?
Just because one additional security measure is sensible does not mean all additional security measures are sensible. Fallacy of logic.
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
Have you traveled in Israel? The security procedure works perfectly (so far), but it requires at least 45 minutes more than the US system and would cost a lot more. The questions are also extremely probing and personal.
If you can't handle the thought of someone seeing you nude, then I'd fully support having the option of an Israeli-style interrogation. I have a feeling you'll feel a lot more "invaded" after the interrogation than the body scan, though. You'll forget the body scan in a few minutes, but you'll never forget your travel through Israel.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Someone (whose identity has never been determined) smuggled the boxcutters onto the planes for them.
And presumably they had to go through airport security as well? Security measures are designed to be comprehensive; they're not to specifically counteract the exact procedures that made the attack possible. If everyone gets scanned, including your non-determined friend, then presumably we'd find something like that.
Well, before 1978 Afghanistan was a monarchy slowly moving towards emancipation in spurts and stops, with world powers rewarding its growth and neutrality by helping the nation to experience some of the modern conveniences of the West. In 1978 a flawed revolution seized power that was nonetheless very committed to equal rights for women, continued policies of available education, etc. Of course, the revolution was tied up in international Cold War politics but without those influences and the decade of strife that they inflicted on the country it might have been described as a place that was clumsily moving in a positive direction. Had the US and USSR encouraged that sort of development instead of helping Afghans to kill each other, things might have looked considerably different by 2001.
Iraq has a very different history, being established by the British colonial machine following WWI, a previous generation of international nationalist conflict.
What about my rights?
Your rights went out the fucking window when they started stepping on MINE. End. Of. Story.
supposedly the US is this horrible imperialistic country which thinks nothing of killing poor innocent foreign civilians...
I'm wondering who you're getting your information from. In any case, your ideas would probably lead to our expulsion from NATO and the UN, and would effectively cause the rest of the world to treat us like North Korea.
Every few years, the government pushes something along until the people won't have it anymore. We're not quite there yet, but I think it's getting close, and while threatening to have arrested a TSA officer who is clearly legally empowered to perform the pat-down is a bit much, the principle expressed here is more important, and I'm glad to see it being carried out to such a wide degree.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
The TSA has yet to catch a single terrorist before they attempted to commit a crime. Shoe-tosses, liquid bans, enhanced pat-downs, body scanners, and all the other reactive measures implemented by this agency ignore the simple fact that the FAA red teams still have no problems whatsoever to penetrate airport security zones at will. Why would a determined terrorist be any less able to do so?
Given that neither scanners nor pat downs can detect body-cavity contraband, the argument that terrorists cannot carry enough contraband into aircraft at this point to be dangerous is simply absurd. Plus, the TSA has not allocated any additional space to open up more parallel lines of entry into airports. So, all these scanners do is slow down the rate of passage to the point where massive security lines have become more inviting targets than aircraft themselves (Remember Rome/Vienna 1985?).
Lastly, please consider the very real situation in most airports where the so-called porno-scanners are regularly shut down during peak travel periods for the reasons given above. If it's that simple to bypass a scanner, then having the scanners there in the first place is completely pointless. Any terrorist worth his/her salt would simply observe the usual travel/security patterns and plan accordingly.
I always elect for a pat-down screening simply because I do not trust the statements made by the TSA re: the radiation levels being safe and some radiologists seem to agree. What I found particularly interesting in the context of one screening experience is the language used by the TSA - "opt-out". No, I didn't opt-out of security screening, I opted for an alternative screening procedure that is arguably safer since the gloves that the TSA folk wear are also tested for explosive residue. Language is important and the way the TSA is using it is contrary to what is actually going on.
Given the extremes that the TSA has gone to lie to the public (example: we don't save the pictures, except for the 35,000+ we sent to a private contractor), the arrogance that they treat the flying public with (the constant yelling at checkpoints), and the sheer ineffectiveness of the agency at meeting its objectives makes me conclude that the better approach is to scrap the agency, return its employees into the pools of privately-contracted companies that used to do airport security, and accept that 100% safety in flying is simply not possible.
They are prepared, after the shoe-bomber people had to remove their shoes, after your ass-bomber they'll be hiring people with extra-long middle fingers.
Neal Boortz went through this a groping at the airport. He says TSA stands for Touching Sensitive Areas.
Yeah, I can really visualize people in places who don't speak English, have no idea where the US is, have little education or food or water, thinking "I'm going to combat equal rights and freedom of speech. The United States stands for that. So I'll start my war against them. That's the best use of my time. That's the future for my people and family. Combat freedom of speech. When speech is gone, then we will have food."
Could I interest you in this flyer, it shows you how to get money and food - since you know little to nothing let me tell you about these insolent swine's in a place called America. And don't worry your family will be provided for!
Right, and they could cram the explosives up their ass as well. At some point you have to admit that there's no way of making things 100% secure. The scanners and procedures in place aren't going to detect ass based explosives.
"There's not much money in the Revenge business."
Inigo Montoya
For my job, once I was charged with putting together war game scenarios. In one imaginary game I created, I had a 'terrorist' group completely controlled by another 'imaginary country'. In the situation, the terrorist group destroyed a target of supreme U.S. importance. Our country spent the next 10 years fighting this 'terrorist' group. In the process we virtually bankrupted the country, and eroded all the freedoms that we were supposedly fighting for. In the end it was revealed who the real country controlling the terrorist group was. However at that point the imaginary country in question had just had 10 years of incredible economic and technological expansion. It was literally too strong to fight. The scenario planned to be kind of like the "Kobayashi Maru" scenario in Star Trek 2 the wrath of Kahn, where our little ship puts up a last ditch noble fight in the face of sure death in the hands of overwhelming odds.
However, at the time my superiors decided that my scenario was too unrealistic. Instead we had to keep fighting the imaginary terrorist organization.
--All wars are at their heart economic wars, and sometimes the enemies are not always overseas.
Seriously, mod this guy and the parent up! This is the best thing I've *ever* read amidst all the opinions on this topic.
Let's do this and keep track of which is which in the air. If the lesser-security flight deviates from it's course, shoot it down. Have the passengers agree that they're willing to die and forfeit any right of their families to get reparations.
at what point do you take responsibility for your own bad leaders and stop blaming everyone else?
That is a good point. The Arab world has been hampered by their own poor leadership. One of Al Qaeda's points, though, is that the incompetent, corrupt leaders have been put in place and supported by the West. This is not the whole story, of course, but they have a point. The West often supports poor leaders who seem willing to work with them. It becomes difficult for a competent leader to get a foothold when the local government is supported by wealth foreign powers. This is the whole basis for Al Qaeda's fight against the West. They feel that without foreign backing they could overthrow the corrupt leadership and install good leadership.
It is easy to see how this argument can win a lot of hearts and minds in the Muslim world. I think it is obvious to most of us that the oppressive religious culture that Al Qaeda wants is even worse than a corrupt, modern dictator, but that is not how religious zealots see things. You see similar rhetoric from the religious conservatives in the US.
I really want to get a t-shirt made with this brilliant image:
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/12/odds-of-airborne-terror2.jpg
Unfortunately, this kind of rational analysis (of what a staggering waste of time and energy is our collective terrorist freak-out) will always be trumped by stupid panicky human emotion. Our policies have rarely been dictated by logic or evidence after all.
And here's where this moronic paranoia is headed:
http://cartoonnewsmagazine.com/Daily/plane500px.jpg
Ask me about my sig!
You don't enter a country you want to bomb and THEN try to board an airplane in that country. If you entered, you leave the bomb in a major intersection (times square). And if you want to use an airplane, you sneak on in a different country from which you fly to your target.
Think 2 steps ahead before you post? Fail.
Please provide a list of all terrorists caught by TSA to date. Thanks.
The UK head of Terror. That's all I know offhand.
Even if you happen to own a private jet, it may not be enough.. Just do a quick search on Steve Jobs' recent security problems.
If they did, and it was one terrorist who otherwise would have successfully brought down one plane, would you then vote this measure up or down?
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
If we don't give up our rights and dignity a great calamity will befall us. Give me a fucking break. I'll take my chances getting on a plane with just a metal detector. If it's my time to go, then it's my time to go.
I completely agree with this and think that less security would actually be a much better thing. We, however, appear to be in the minority. Immediately after 9/11, the major question was "Why didn't we stop it?". This always made me cringe because it presumes that our government is positioning itself to prevent crimes. In a democracy, the government will respond to people's expectations and if people expect the government to stop crimes before they happen, the government will put on a show. Effectiveness doesn't matter. This is why right after 9/11 you had national guardsmen standing around in airports with automatic weapons but no ammunition. They have no real power, but it looks good.
The security that we have now is spread so thin trying to stop all sorts of absurd attacks (oh, maybe someone can use a 2 inch pocket knife to kill hundreds on a plane), that they really can only stop certain narrow attacks. Huge swaths of our public infrastructure are left completely unprotected because all of the money goes into a few special cases. Eliminating much of the useless stuff would allow a smaller security force to be more nimble and effective.
This has nothing to do with the constitution. A good few people died in a little town called Lockerbie, a hundred miles away from where I'm typing. It was a US aircraft flying from England (different legal system to Scotland), over Scotland, brought down by what appears to have been a Libyan originating bomb. That's outside the influence of the US constitution on almost every count. Bringing an aircraft down does not just affect the country that the flight originated in. If the US removes security scans and planes start coming down then they may find themselves unable to fly through foreign airspace...again, the system evolves around the problem.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
Better yet, whenever we go to Code Orange, security carefully checks credentials at the employee's entrance.
At many government buildings in DC, you have to present an ID to be allowed in. It seems to escape everyone's logic that this does nothing to help security. Just because the state of Texas has given me a card with my name and picture on it that says I am allowed to drive does not mean that I am trustworthy. They don't check my name against a list or enter it into a database for data mining. So what the heck is the point? I guess it employs a few guards which helps the unemployment numbers, though.
Yeah, but technically that meant he went to hell (even according to his own worldview) so there's definitely a hurdle there, you need someone religious enough to commit suicide, yet willing to go to hell for their political views.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Actually, in terms of hard numbers, there are far better ways they could have spent the same amount of money, but this is the way that makes people FEEL safer.
If it's admirable for your leadership to target feelings rather than risks, please let me opt out of your organization.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
There's a difference between being able to afford flight training and a plane, and being able to afford a 747 class plane. It's in the ballpark of two-three zeros!
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Let's face the facts that people primarily likely to be terrorists - these days - are young muslim males.
There is absolutely nothing racist about that. It's simply fact. The racist part is when you start asking the 'why' questions....and answering them un-intelligently.
I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
The terrorist definition is usually attached to warfarers who intentionally target civilian targets, in an effort to promote fear (terror), with the hope that said fear will cause the target to come to the bargaining table.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Honestly is seems rather easy to initiate some sort of terrorism. The fact that these things just don't ever happen to me is evidence that either these people just don't exist or that there is massive surveillance. It could be both. The Beltway sniper, allegedly John Allen Muhammad, and one minor, Lee Boyd Malvo, successfully terrorized the entire DC region. Two guys with a rifle and an old car. Oklahoma City Bombing, supposedly McVeigh - one guy with a truck and fertilizer. In real war people are immensely creative and can figure out several kinds of attacks even against a fully armed, alert and trained army, as Iraq shows anyone. How easy is it to simply scare millions of civilians in the US, who are constantly being warned, scared, and made paranoid by the media and government anyway? I think the fact that it is never done is simply evidence there are no such people. There are no terrorists. What there is, is OIL and money, and a global financial crisis of this system that just does not work, and some excuses to shore up the US Dollar with lots of free oil supplies is desperately needed. This was foreseen long ago, that is why Iraq has been wanted since Bush Sr.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
And how many terror attacks were there in North Korea in the last decade?
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
I have to agree with you. And I will one up you - TSA continues to show they are the ones with no logic, no cost benefit, and possibly a lack of integrerity. They even think the pilots need to be screened. But are they not the one's whom are flying the damn planes? Why would they need to smuggle something aboard? We need to recognize the real truth, and that is yes there are terrorist, but TSA is looking more and more like fools. Fools who should have command over no one.
This has nothing to do with the constitution.
It's US policies in US airports. If they want to stop people from flying, or if they insist on searching people then they need a constitutional justification. Other countries having issues are beside the point. The constitution still gives the US government no right for unconstitutional searches. There's no exception for flights to other countries.
If the US removes security scans and planes start coming down then they may find themselves unable to fly through foreign airspace...again, the system evolves around the problem.
Given that it's the US insisting on this security, I don't understand how that's likely. More to the point, terrorist attacks aren't very common.
Not enough people care to change this ethos. There's a large amount of people here who would do anything to fight the "terrorists". That's how this happened in the first place.
Agreed, but it might be that terrorist will decide that security measures on planes are too tough and will focus on other targets? From the TSA's standpoint, their mission is accomplished.
I know, it's a stretch, but obviously "people caught" is too rough a measure. The sad fact is that we can't have a good enough measure for the effectiveness of security measures because of the scarcity of the attacks.
In Israel we had periods of many terrorists attacks, so when we saw a drop in them, we knew that all the different approaches to the problem (intelligence, army and Shin Bet operations, enhanced security) all contributed.
Since terrorist attacks on planes are rare, it's hard (and even impossible) to assess the effectiveness of TSA's measures.
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
If you have to strip naked when you go to the doctor, there's something wrong and you should get another doctor.
That depends entirely on what the doctor is doing. A dermatologist might very well need to see every inch of you. If you have a surgery under general anesthesia, I can almost guarantee you are going to be naked on the operating table because the last thing you want while coding is a doctor trying to remove clothing instead of actually saving your life. If you are female and going to the OB/GYN, you are certainly going to be naked from the waist down. Same for a guy who gets a prostate exam.
Would you like to come up with another stupid sounds bite? Oh wait...
The US hasn't really had any significant experience of terrorism. ... We didn't find it necessary to strip-search everyone who went into a hotel, or onto a train.
I'd like you to point out even a single example of anyone being strip searched to board a train or enter a hotel in the US. What exactly is your point?
The politics that would come up as a consequence to Israeli-inspired interrogations to all US passengers would be quite an event.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
And what do you call not reading/understanding what I wrote?
I did not claim that because one security measure is good, all other are the same. I just said that "a list of terrorist caught due to the new protocols" as a measure of the protocols' effectiveness is foolish, because it is not a good measure of a preventative measure, such as security.
Please re-read my post and try to understand it.
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
Perhaps you would be wise to more clearly state whom it is that you believe to be morons. Posting A/C does not help your cause.
I just want a list. God I love lists!
People and the media are so scared and jumpy of everything, blowing up two balloons on a plane and a video of the reactions could become a terrorist scare.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
If a terrorist successfully impersonates a pilot, they don't need to have anything on their person. They have hands on the flight controls and thus can crash the plane. Your life is, in a very real way, in the hands of the pilots on a plane. If they steer the plane to crash, it'll crash the automated systems can't override them. As such it doesn't matter if they also have a knife or something like that because they have control of the plane anyhow.
So the security check for pilots isn't the same as regular people. For them it is an identity check, you need to make sure they are who they claim they are. That makes sense, and is done as far as I know, probably by the airlines themselves. However once identity is established, further checks are stupid.
It would be like the Secret Service checking the Marine guards for weapons. Of COURSE they have weapons, that's the point. What you check isn't if they have a gun, you check to make sure they are who they are supposed to be.
So check the pilot's identity in any way useful, do whatever is needed to make sure they are the person they claim to be. However don't be stupid about the rest. They are the pilot, you have to trust them. If they cannot be trusted, I don't want their hands on the yoke no matter how sure you are they don't have nail clippers or shampoo on their person.
My understanding is that the TSA does not have law enforcement capabilities. IOW, they're not LEO's. They're basically rent-a-cops.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
Nuh-uh it's up to you to prove that God DOESN'T exist!
Please provide a list of all the successful air terrorism acts since these albeit invasive and annoying searches have started.
It's not a conspiracy theory. In fact during the cold war, the US supported the Taliban (despite their apparent barbarism) so that they could resist the communist regime of the USSR. So it's a little different than as noted above, but it is funny today because the US is fighting the regime they previously helped to stay in power.
Overthrowing democratically elected leaders and installing a brutal dictator...that would be Chile in the 70s. They overthrew the government because it was too socialist for their tastes.
Extremism probably is bred out of poverty. Pre-Holocaust Germany was left fairly poor from losing the first world war and they were ripe for becoming radicalised. Today, 80% of the world's resources are controlled by 20% of the world's population. Nice, you might think, for the rich people on the one hand, but on the other hand it leaves the poor people feeling pretty hungry for a fight, and we make for a fine target for that anger.
And the guy below me? "I can't be bothered to fact check but I'm just going to disagree." Well said, sir!!!!
Nobody ever got groped for driving a Ford.
You my friend, have never driven a sweet, tricked out Mustang.
How about a list of pilots who turned out to be terrorists! That would be best!
Why are we scanning pilots!!!! If they wanted to fly the plane into a building, they are already the freaking pilot!!! Why would they need a bomb!!! Exclamation marks!!!
The day millions of morons miss their flight!
You're kidding yourself if you think struggling against these policies screws over the TSA. Joe Numbskull will still be paid for his 8 hours. If you miss your flight because you decided to revolt, well that's your fault too. I have never had to fly anywhere yet, but im being rational here. Reading about these horror stories makes me just as against these policies as the next guy. However, i am not going to fight them the day of my flight. The airline doesnt care if im in my seat or not. They will leave without me. I probably wont be entitled to a refund either if im found to be "revolting against procedure." Be smart people...attack the policy maker not the enforcement/messenger.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but checking an employee's ID even if you recognise him or her is good practice. When someone is laid off or quits they should have their ID taken and will be removed from the database of employees; checking ID therefore allows you to avoid letting people in who have been allowed in in the past but are no longer allowed, possibly for a reason that would make them a potential threat.
Someone here suggested that "people need to get over being seen naked". I can't find that comment to respond to it because it has (rightfully) been modded into oblivion, so I'll post this as a general response: some of us don't care about being seen naked. Hell, if people are so concerned that I might be smuggling a bomb under my penis (it's not *that* big), I'd go naked all the time; I don't care. The only thing that would bother me is the cold. What *does* bother me is that there are serious health concerns with the scanning machines. I don't know about you, but I've known cancer patients. I've seen some die. It's not pretty, and we shouldn't have to sacrifice our liberty or our health just to FEEL "safe". If anyone needs to "get over" something, the original poster needs to grow a pair and stop being so scared that he's willing to sell out his own country and sacrifice his health to FEEL "safe".
Nathan's blog
An Israeli security expert like Rafi Sela, who told the Canadian Parliament that the strip search machines are "useless".
"Sela, former chief security officer of the Israel Airport Authority and a 30-year veteran in airport security and defence technology, helped design the security at Ben Gurion."
I always politely but firmly decline the "offer" to use the scanner.
Technical issues aside, security is based on people, on human intelligence. The person doing the pat down can talk to me all they like and if they have any common sense at all will quickly conclude I'm harmless.
Long before 9/11, I took a memorable trip to England. My passport had a woman's name on it, the picture was of a woman, but it still had an M on it. The person carrying it looked like a tall, skinny girl (with a funny-looking little thing between her legs if she took her clothes off). Nobody gave me a second glance.
The trip back could have been interesting, since my passport still said M, but my body was now right. I was still sitting down very carefully, so I got stinking drunk on the flight back and slept most of the way...
At rush hour in my city, the subway entrance at some stations has multiple people going through it per second. They have to open up the gates and let people rush in with a person sitting there trying to make sure that everyone pays. It is not too difficult to sneak through at these times without even paying. How exactly is it possible to put in security measures without creating a 10 minute lineup?
...I'm not saying things that devalue conversation...
The moment you started puking up that "left/right" bullshit, you reduced the value of the conversation to zero.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
...opting out by not flying? http://www.amtrak.com/ or, 1-800-USA-RAIL
Meh, It just means the hijackings weren't really religiously motivated. But it does show the lengths people will go to distract any investigation from the people who financed the operation. Only there will you even approach the real motivation.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Anyone want to buy a lead codpiece? It protects you against the scanner *and* the TSA gropings!
"checking an employee's ID ... is good practice."
Of course it is. I never said otherwise. What I was contrasting, though, was the treatment meted out to employees and their families vs. ordinary "folk" coming in through the public entrance. They pass through scanners, of course, and are told that certain items are prohibited, but that's about it. But the government can't do truly invasive searches on these people because it would cause an outcry.
That's why I used the example of the drunk looking for his keys "where the light is better." Government boffins take the path of least resistance.
There are a number of ways in which security could be enhanced at airports, but many of them are Politically Unacceptable. As a result, honest, ordinary folks like yours truly must suffer. These invasive scanners are a good way to demonstrate that the government is doing something. Obviously, someone (perhaps Napolitano herself) ruled that they were Politically Acceptable -- certainly far more so than stopping and searching a passenger named "Achmed" from Yemen or Iran.
On the "path of least resistance" principle, by the way, it should come as no surprise that Napolitano and her boffins seem to be genuinely puzzled and dismayed by the outcry. I guess they routinely subject themselves to high-radiation scans that render them naked, and figure, "what's the big deal?" :)
By the way, the best example of political correctness run amok is the idea of completely random searches. Every "nth" entrant must be stripped to the bone, regardless of the likelihood that they might actually be carrying something nefarious. I guess the idea is that terrorists (who doubtless are capable of instant, high-level math calculations in their heads) realize that there is a small, but finite, chance that they'll be searched. In real life, what happens is that Richard The Shoe Bomber makes it onto the plane, whilst granny is spread-eagled on a steel table being probed by government boffins wearing latex gloves.
(In case you missed that, the intelligence of the average terrorist is approximately equivalent to that of a small pet. If the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing repeatedly, expecting a different result, then they truly are insane. One almost wishes they'd try something different; the "attack the air travel industry!" angle has been worked to death by these geniuses.)
So, even though my wife and I will be flying over Thanksgiving, I just take all of this in stride. I'm Hawkeye, jibing and joking with Trapper John when the next batch of government lunacy comes down from above. My life goes on, and one's best response is just to laugh at it. (When possible. If they start groping my wife, however, I shall become famous. You will read about ME on the evening news.)
Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
...Bush put in place these policies...If Obama or Clinton were in office in 2001 they would have done the same thing...
And that's precisely why there is no "left/right" issue outside of mass media propaganda. Also note there is no "left" in the American government. There is only power and authority and various methods of acquiring it.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Your argument is sound, but the locked door deterrent not only involves zero encroachment on passengers' liberty and convenience, but it is much stronger than the pat-downs, since vaginal/anal transportation is a classic method, and there is already intel of that surgical implants could be used. At some point security becomes as good as it can be, since public transportation can never be 100% secure without excluding the public. More attention should then be paid to aircraft survivability.
IMHO involved parties in a conflict should be named after their goals, not (one of) their of tactics.
Your definition applies to almost every participant in armed conflict in history, and
certainly to the armed forces of all the major powers. As a mental exercise, imagine asking everybody in the world (anonymously/confidentially) if they considered themselves to be "terrorists".
I don't think anybody would consider themselves so.
External labeling and over-simplification will lead us no nearer to real solutions.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Honestly, I really don't care if some stranger I'm never going to know sees a scan of my body. I would, however, be put off by a physical pat down. Sadly, there are some sick and angry people out there who do try to blow up planes from time to time. I have no desire to either die in a terrorist attack or endure a lot of hassle just to fly, from the airlines, the TSA, or passengers pissed off at the TSA. I'll be doing a lot more driving I think. Once you factor in all of the time for security, driving doesn't take all that much more time for most of my travels. Bye bye friendly skies...
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
Careful when you throw such statements around eg "muslims have been taught to hate jews." I certainly wasn't. I also know plenty of Muslims who grew up in jewish neighborhoods of Brooklyn. Maybe you could be more specific, such as "Saudis have been taught to hate jews" rather than imply that the billions of Muslims are all that way
look this guys name up. He and his buddies are benefiting financially from the naked scanners and prison security additions.
I love the idea, but question whether these national boycott days actually do anything. People tried it for gasoline, walmart, etc.
Instead, how about telling your representative in Congress how much you hate the idea of scanning under the clothes? They are the only people who have power over this stuff. Just send them a quick email using the form: http://www.house.gov/writerep/
I don't think the GP and his ilk are even serious at this point. Perhaps this argument made sense when they were merely asking us to remove the shoes. There is no defense for irradiating the nutsack.
I just emailed my airline expressing my concern of the scanners. If enough of their customers start telling them they don't want these, the airlines, who are in a relatively high position of authority to negotiate with the TSA, will try to change policy. People being annoyed, humiliated, and pissed off is not good for business, and the airlines know it will hurt their bottom line.
Only if they can figure out after the plane comes down, exactly how the explosives got on board.
We seem to be concentrating on the threats that failed.
if the government wants the airlines to fail so badly then why not let them?
don't fly if your job doesn't demand it. drive, take a bus or a train if your lucky. let the airlines die.
again there is no one holding a gun to your head telling you that you must fly.
> I have no problem answering a few questions about where I was and where I'm going
I do.
Where I've been, where I'm going, and why; are my business, not yours. And unless I, myself, am a suspect of a specific crime; it's no business of law enforcement* either. And if I AM a suspect in that crime, they damn well better cough up a lawyer for me before asking their questions. You remember things like "probable cause" and "presumed innocent until proven guilty" and your Miranda rights?
(*And let's not forget that the airport security goonsquad aren't even real law enforcement officers. They're just glorified rent-a-cops wearing a fake uniform.)
Imagine all the people...
Why would they pat down the pilots? If the guy flying the plane wants it to crash, it will just crash. He doesn't need nail clippers.
Decaffeinated coffee is kinda like kissing your sister.
That's what I was thinking. The CIA had its hands in destabilizing the governments, and oddly enough, they were in the towers, too.
testing out my trending skills
Well, building and settling on occupied land is against the international conventions for warfare. At least until the occupied lands are merged into the occupying country (e.g. the areas lost by Mexico to the U.S. or the Anschluss which merged Austria and parts of Czhecoslovakia into Germany).
You have no right to force the rest of us to accommodate your irrational, pants-shitting, reason-crippling terror of statistically irrelevant outcomes, especially when the mechanisms you would adopt do nothing to actually prevent those outcomes.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
I agree that poverty and despair, and let's not forget oppression, are what lead to extremism. For example, you don't see the muslim population of Singapore producing many terrorists. But until dubya decided to get his jollies by launching himself a couple o' wars; Iraquis and Afghans were not, by and large, killing Americans. The 9/11 crowd were all Saudis.
Sure... they were hiding out in Afghanistan so you can make the argument that we had to go there to get them. But they could just of easily been in Yemen or Somalia, or Syria or wherever. But Iraq? They were safely contained and no threat. (The WMDs turned out to a lie, remember?)
Imagine all the people...
Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber say "hi".
This type of activity will only hurt ourselves as it will make one of the busiest traveling days of the year even slower for us. The TSA employees are there the same number of hours regardless. Talk to your elected representatives, instead.
I guess I should get one of these for the enhanced pat-downs: http://www.nuttybuddy.com/
I'm not scapegoating anybody. I'm not trying to start a flame war. I am not trolling. I stated a simple, objective fact in neutral, non-judgemental terms. Many Muslims resent the US because we are perceived to be the friend of their enemy. In no way does that mean it is the Israelis' fault, or in any way judges their actions.
This predates the Afghani/Iraqi causes of resentment that the GP refers to. My point was simple - our relationship with the Islamic world has been poor for a long time, for reasons that existed prior to the Soviet-Afghan and Iran-Iraq conflicts.
As for your statement that they can't even get along with themselves, consider the Christian-on-Christian violence in Northern Ireland which is only now subsiding. Political violence along sectarian lines is nothing unique to Islam.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Yes, and all those terrorists saw the TSA policies, and decided to instead live out the rest of their lives peacefully, instead of simply plotting to commit terror in other ways against the thousands of other possible targets.
Come on, really, imagine you were a terrorist, and wanted to destroy the infidel, do you really honestly think you'd be incapable of imagining anything other than an aeroplane as a target? Really? You would just give up, and say "oh dear, the TSA has foiled us completely, praise Allah"?
The fact is there aren't that many terrorists. If there were, there would be trains and malls and e.g. tourist hotspots exploding every other month in the US. But, terrorists do exist and always will. The primary question is finding an appropriate balance of safety (true additional safety, not security theater) versus the cost (both financial, and in terms of public inconvenience and humiliation etc.). If money were infinite we could have the luxury of adding as many security policies as we want, the reality is not only is money not infinite, but we are in difficult times.
Article 1, section 8?
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
I'm sick about hearing how 3,000+ people died. It was TEN FREAKING YEARS AGO! More people commit suicide each year than were killed in the twin towers, but are we mandating backscatter scans at everyone's home to find contraband pills and razor blades? I sympathize with the families of the victims. I flew the American flag like everyone else did for two years after the event, observed the moments of silence, and attended remembrance ceremonies, but there comes a time when you have to MOVE ON. That time came five years ago - I just don't think anyone else got the memo. We're destroying our country's freedoms in the name of 3,000 innocent civilians. Do you think they want to be remembered as the people who killed America?
The Taliban as an organized group didf not exist during the cold war. We supported the Mujahideen Fighters against the Soviets. But then when the Ruskies pulled out so did we, leaving a war torn country to fend for itself. Thus allowing the Taliban to form, and to seize power.
The U.S. did not fund/help the Taliban during the cold war. and we tended to back the Northern Alliance in the 90s until 9/11 when we put our full strength behind the NA, helping them to throw out the Taliban Regime.
Iraq and Iran were a whole different story, I'll grant you that, but don't lump Afghanistan in with them.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Thanks for the lovely reply. I will refrain from using the same adjectives you have used.
I will reply according to my original questions:
1) Of course a locked door doesn't catch a terrorist, but contrary to popular notion, the pat-down is not about catching terrorists. It's about deterring them. I mean, do you see a scenario where a terrorist is carrying a bomb and sees the security guy scanning people and "feeling" them up and he just stands in line to await his turn? Of course not. The purpose of all those security measures is to prevent the terrorist from even approaching the plane in the first place.
2) If you will read carefully you will see I wrote the word "directly". Of course a locked door will foil the 9/11 plot. This is the basic premises of my post. But for someone who does not know about 9/11 (which is the entire population before it happened), the prevention of the plot will not show up anywhere. You would not see the benefit of this directly. Not having a terrorist attack cannot be subscribed to this directive.
If you have a heart attack and then the doctor gives you Baby-Aspirin for secondary prevention, how do you know if it is effective? If you didn't have a second heart attack it is either because the Aspirin worked or because you would never have had one in the first place. No way to know. You cannot see a direct benefit of a preventative measure unless you know what to look for, and I believe no one had statistics of planes used as anti-building missiles before 9/11.
3) I agree that door-locking would cause less problems than pat-downs, but still some people would be annoyed, mostly the crew, but also some people who are sure it is their "right" to see the cockpit if they want to or talk to the pilot. I have worked in customer support long enough to know that with enough people (and a 747 Jumbo Jet has enough people), you are sure to find someone who wants everything the company can or should offer.
Like I said, it is not as disruptive as pat-down, but as an example it is fine, IMHO.
Please try to understand the basic idea I am trying to articulate before criticizing and insulting.
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
There are ways to do that. They don't act like "not disturbing them" is a goal. The TSA's actions look more like they are supposed to disturb people in order to make it appear like they are doing lots. There are ways to have more effective security measures that are less intrusive. They are ignored for those with a higher profile, even if less effective and more disturbing.
What's the point of security theater if it isn't on display?
Learn to love Alaska
Unfortunately, such a measure would not have prevented the World Trade Centre attack. At least one of the perpetrators was already on the Flight Deck before departure.
Who says it couldn't be one of the security people themselves? I mean, look at the security screeners we hire to watch us. Heck, I'd put money on some of the guys I've seen being felons.
There's undoubtedly A TON of ways to get contraband into an airport. Just like getting things into prison--they routinely get drugs, weapons and all kinds of crap in so-called secure areas of prisons... And that's a place where your 'customers' are locked up most of the time, and are subject to even more invasive searches. Screw the cliched file-in-a-cake shit! Who wants to bet this contraband most often comes from prison guards?
It all comes down to Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, as usual. For every wall they put up, where's there's a will, there's a way to get around it.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Good point above. I do not think it is a good idea to protest during Thanksgiving travel days. It is probably by design, but that might have an opposite effect.
As much as I would like to protest myself, I would not do that that particular time -- I would have to deal with TSA first, and then in-laws at Thanksgiving dinner... I'm not sure what would be worse.
With this I agree completely. In a different post I said that I do not think the new rules are OK, and I still think so. Like you said, sometimes people do prefer a high-profile fucked up job than a low-profile well-done one. Sad but true.
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
But what if the more-security plane does so? Anyone sitting on a plane are already "willing to die" in the sense that the plane is more likely to crash due to malfunction than the theoretical possibility of a hijacking.
"probable cause" and "presumed innocent until proven guilty" and your Miranda rights
And let's not forget that the airport security goonsquad aren't even real law enforcement
Isn't this the truly despicable part of TSA agents? They aren't "real" law enforcement, and aren't bound by the same laws. They aren't curbing your rights - you're free to walk to your destination.
Anyway, that's my understanding - I hope it's flawed. I hate this system so much. The American public just bought into what the terrorists were selling, and the country will take many years to recover its senses.
Liberty is risky! Freedom is dangerous! Embrace the consequences, because the price is more than fair.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
You're playing their game when you call it a "virtual strip search". It isn't a "scanner", it isn't "virtual", it's an honest-to-goodness strip search. There isn't some computer looking for contraband, there is a real live, flesh-and-blood high school dropout looking at your actual naked body.
All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
So, where are you going and doing today?
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
What is the most powerful explosive that can be shoved into someone's ass or vagina or implanted into breasts?
What is the maximum practical volume of said explosive that could fit into a typical ass, vagina or pair of breasts?
What damage could be done to an airplane from that amount of explosive?
If it's enough to destroy a plane then there is ZERO point to the naked body scanners OR the invasive pat downs. A determined terrorist could "load up" so to speak, and go for a trip.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-first-time-the-tsa-meets-resistance/65390/
The above story reports that the grope searches are just to encourage people to use the naked body scanners.
Flappinbooger isn't my real name
We do still have freedom of speech right?
Why? Because the hole in our security that the terrorists identified and used was that heavy aircraft make excellent kinetic strike warheads. In order to exploit this, they must obtain control of the aircraft. If we isolate the flight crew, this is no longer possible. The button further ensures that no relationship with the pilot can be used to leverage control, even to the point of flying over a certain area at a certain time.
The end result would be a security state not unlike that prior to 9/11; very low risk of hijacking, because the rewards are also very low.
What pisses me off the most is the government's presumption not that the best solution would be found in crushing the liberties of US citizens, but that their idea is that any solution was to be found there.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Missed the bit where it says that Congress shall have the power to restrict air travel.
An excerpt: 'I looked him straight in the eye and said, "if you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested."'
I wonder if the guy was referring to his genitals or his Asus laptop.
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
I do not fly anymore, because from what my friends tell me, if a TSA agent did some of the things that are patently criminal to half the guys crotches and ladies breasts, I would give the individual a knuckle sandwich.
After which they arrest me, I would try to do the same to the pompous judge who fined me.
There is absolutely no way I am going through a body scanner, unless they put a bullet between my eyes.
Then they can willy nilly my corpse through the thing as many times as they want.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Well, at least now we can opt-in to get a 'reach around' while good old Uncle Sam is continuing to bugger us all!
Were he alive today, even Johnny Wadd would have to be impressed by Uncle Sams performance and staying power.
Hhmmm...I think I just figured out were all of that blocked/filtered 'male enhancement' spam gets rerouted to...Washington, D.C. ;-)
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Are you allowed to just walk naked through the metal detector?
Here's the scenario I'm picturing. Since I'm already being asked to take off my shoes, belt and other metallic items and put them into a bin that goes through the x-ray, why not just all my clothes?
It should then be fairly easy for security to tell if I'm hiding something. And since I'm 6'4", 450 lbs[1], haven't showered for a month (not to mention the areas I can't quite reach), it'd make one hell of a statement at the airport.
Go on - you lift up my slabs of flesh and fat and examine between them. I suspect you might find my long dead hamster, Dino, and some left over pizza from yesterday. Also, I'm gay[2] and a knismolagniac[3], I'll make sure I've taken plenty of Viagra before getting in line.
[1] Not 450 lbs
[2] Not gay
[3] I hate being tickled
Oh please, the US is the country that forces its security theater on the flights of foreign nations that land in the US. It's not the other countries who want to force their security requirements on us. I think it's a reasonable expectation to place on these flights that they have the same security as domestically originating flights, though I happen to think that the security for a domestic flights is largely a farce.
In a tit-for-tat move, Brazil now fingerprints visiting US citizens (only US citizens mind you) because this is what the US does to visiting Brazilians.
The US is one of the most paranoid countries in the world when it comes to flight security, though not all of the security measures increase security in a meaningful way.
We need volunteers to:
1) stand at the TSA line and hand out leaflets explaining why the TSA is sucks.
2) get interrogated by TSA officers and removed from the airport.
3) try to fly and find they're on the no-fly list.
4) sue.
And people to fund this effort.
How we know is more important than what we know.
It's more than a stretch. It's comically naive. The same terrorist groups that attacked U.S. aircraft on 9/11/2001 have put explosives in body cavities before and were nearly successful. The only reason it didn't work is that the person who blew up absorbed most of the explosion. That problem was highly specific to the circumstances (a screening right before walking up to the target of the attack) and is not an issue when talking about flying. Couple the same methodology with a little time in the toilet, and you would have a nearly foolproof workaround for everything the TSA is doing (except in airports that use bomb sniffing dogs).
Billions of dollars of extra equipment, and a terrorist can work around it just by planning ahead and leaving for the airport a couple of hours early---that's why we think these schemes are idiotic. The only people significantly harmed or inconvenienced by the new security practices are the innocent passengers. The extra effort required by the bad guys is negligible. It's basically akin to stopping escaped criminals from Alcatraz by nuking San Francisco every time there's a jailbreak. Sure, a few bad guys might get caught if you're lucky, but most people will just start swimming to Oakland instead, at which point you'll be nuking a lot of innocent people without hurting the criminals in the slightest. It's clearly absurd in any sane universe.
Worse, these schemes are provably no better than other, less invasive screening techniques. One of the better suggestions I've heard is using thermal imaging cameras instead. A significant pack of anything below your clothes will show up as a dark spot. At that point, removal of the foreign object or appropriate hand searching would be needed for people who fail that screening, but because it is a thermal image, there's no detail to be had, eliminating the privacy concerns. Best of all, you can get thermal cameras for mere hundreds or single-digit thousands of dollars compared with $170,000 apiece for the so-called "advanced" imaging scanners, the scanning takes a tiny fraction of the time that the overpriced TSA toys take (you don't even have to stop walking), and it is entirely passive, thus posing no increased health risk.
In short, anyone with basic common sense and an understanding of the technology available should be able to see that this is a giant waste of money at taxpayer expense that provably provides no benefits over cheaper, less invasive techniques. The only real questions left to ask are which prominent senators and/or Presidents took the bribes, and how big the bribes were.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Next Wednesday, the US Senate's Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security is holding a hearing. Contacting a congresscritter can sometimes be more useful than ranting on the Internet (only sometimes, of course).
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=AviationOperationsSafetyandSecurity
The chair is Sen. Byron Dorgon (dorgon.senate.gov; ph: 202 224-2551) - I suggest you call and suggest that this issue show up on the agenda, no?
For DC locals:
Jena Longo - Democratic Deputy Communications Director, (202) 224-8374
Nov 17 2010 10:00 AM
Russell Senate Office Building - 253
Actually I'm betting the next terrorist will go OKC and use a Ryder truck. Lets face it folks, the southern border is a REALLY bad joke, and any terrorist could sneak a bomb through just as easily as those thousands of tons of drugs and illegals pour through. Have a Ryder truck waiting on the other side, load her up, and park it next to what you want to go boom! Add in the fact that after the fall of the USSR there is plenty of radioactive materials floating about (hell they used to power their lighthouses with RTGs, and now they don't even know where half of them are located) and you could cook up a seriously nasty dirty bomb that will cause a hell of a lot more problems than crashing a plane.
The post 9/11 TSA has always been security theater at its worst, and is likewise trying to fight the LAST battle while any terrorist will simply choose an easier attack vector like the one I just pointed out. The TSA is just another SNAFU by our ever wasteful bureaucracy.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I'm flying next week and intend to go for the pat-down.
When they start groping me, I'm going to moan like I'm REALLY enjoying it. When whoever is doing the groping is done, I'm going to ask the person if I can see them again and tell them how cute they are.
Sexual harassment goes both ways.
At the risk of giving anyone ideas, how would these pat downs and skin level x-rays stop a bomber who has swallowed his bomb? He's presumably a suicide anyway, so why wouldn't he/she? And when the TSA thinks about this, do we get full CAT scans and invasive body cavity searches next?
Exactly!
I was just reading about a guy who had to endure TSA agents dusting his 4 year old kid's cast for explosive residue on a recent flight.
All of this is beyond insane, and they just keep adding more rules and regulations - as though it's really all just a test to see how much American citizens will endure before they find our "breaking point". (I believe now, they just outlawed bringing inkjet printer cartridges on International flights! Really? Printer ink??)
Meanwhile, I've been on flights myself (and so have my friends) where we accidentally brought along clearly banned items like straight razors or box cutters/utility knives because we forgot or didn't realize they were stuck in the bottom, or in some small side pocket of a carry-on bag. The items went right on through multiple security checkpoints..... Makes you wonder if ANY of this is really effective at all.
The latest thing I heard is that the TSA is about to get assigned to do security screenings (with full body scanners and all) for Amtrak train trips too.... Govt. has been using the airports as a "test bed" for a lot of this stuff and to acclimate people to accepting their authority over you. I imagine it's only a matter of time before they proceed to do random car checkpoints too -- if people don't protest things NOW.
The average worker would take home more money if his government didn't have to finance the scanners/cameras/wars with his tax dollars.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
We nerds have a responsibility to keep this quiet so that the wonderful future will happen. One where the metrics off all Hollywood stars and public figures body metrics are public knowledge through leaked files online and the metrics of anyone you want to know more intimately are available for $200 a pop.
Imagine all the websites that will pop up comparing peoples bodies. You know there will be sites comparing male stars packages and the T&A of women. Every time they get on a flight people will be comparing images and noting who is gaining and losing weight and who has had augmentation surgery. Who was pregnant and now no longer is... natural or abortion, I can already hear the gossip...
The government can't even design and adopt a proper electronic voting system (conflict of interest for political people selected for their ability to lie and cheat), they sure as heck won't be able to keep this data private very long. There will be leaks. Then the job will be subcontracted to the lowest bidder. Then the government will have budget trouble and relax the rules allowing this data to be sold. Then it's only a matter of time until the prices go down.
Imagine all the virtual reality sex, and the robot sex that is going to happen. There is no way to use this technology and prevent that future so it's unpatriotic to alarm the pubic. And if you don't care about keeping the public calm then your an anarchist and should think of the sex bots! For the sake the of the future sex bots we need to keep all this quiet...!!!!
You could probably find out by looking on Facebook or Twitter.
How? It's anonymous. :P
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
I'm sorry, I missed a solution in there somewhere. All I hear is rambling negativity about how no system works. I'm glad in the knowledge that our government at least does the best it can to protect us. Not to say it couldn't be improved, but considering its track record over the last nine years, I'd say it's doing a pretty good job.
The best way to honor their memory is to accept small inconveniences in the name of collective safety. Keeping people safe on planes does not equal civil liberties violations if all people are treated equally upon boarding. And it was nine "freaking" years ago, though I'm sure it doesn't seem that long for the families you claim to sympathize with.
But until dubya decided to get his jollies by launching himself a couple o' wars
Bush invaded Iraq on the information he had at the time. That information turned out to be false (my money says someone grabbed the warheads and bolted before/during the initial invasion given the ridiculous amount of warnings they were given, but the fact is I don't know). 9/11 was a rude awakening for him and made him take a good look at the world's preeminent threats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dujail_Massacre
http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/iraqfocus1.pdf
http://www.c-span.org/Content/PDF/hrdossier.pdf
Let's hope those will convince you what an evil scumbag he was and how the world is better off without them. And if you're still wondering about the al-Qaeda connection, they had a base in Anbar province.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Anbar_Governorate
If I were him, I'd have invaded sooner, with or without WMDs. Nevertheless, I believe that Bush is a good and honorable man and I will defend him until I'm dead.
Also note there is no "left" in the American government. There is only power and authority and various methods of acquiring it.
And how did you come to this conclusion, exactly? Keep your cynical platitudes to yourself. Unless you've convinced yourself that there's only the hard-right and the right, which indicates you might be having trouble coming to terms with sanity...
There are fundamental differences between the left and the right in this country. Whether you chose to acknowledge it is your own business.
Point 1: If a terrorist can't blow up a plane, he'll surely try blow up something else instead, right? Elsewhere in the world, other types of targets are equally common - night clubs, hotels, etc. Anywhere where there are lots of people.
Point 2: So even if we made planes 110% safe from terrorists, you still would not be any more safe 'in general', because the same terrorists would just kill you while you were somewhere else. You can just keep on spending more and more on airline security, with no increased safety, because you would also have to add that security to every nightclub, every mall, every other place where there are lots of people.
Point 3: 9/11 aside, the number of terrorist attacks in the United States are extremely low. Where are they? Name three major terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11. I can think of .. hmm .. Fort Hood? And the odd foiled attack, like the printer cartridge.
So where are these terrorists then?
Now yes, there are some terrorists out there, and some have been caught thanks to intelligence, but there simply cannot be terribly many, or else we would see attacks regularly. There are thousands of unprotected public targets all over the US. It's a terrorists wet dream. He can pick his targets. So where are the regular bombings?
I don't think they're out to humiliate anyone, I think they just like spending more and more money to create lots of pointless bureaucracies that look like they're doing something useful, because otherwise all these useless folk would be on the street.
That's entirely possible, but there is no measurable difference in their love of power and money, only minuscule differences in their methods. So while you wallow in trivialities, the psychopaths that set you against each other are pillaging everything you have. And because you are asleep at the wheel, they get to the rest of us also. Thanks for all your support!
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Keep your cynical platitudes to yourself.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Sure, will work out awesome. I would say that any subway system around the world gets tons of people every weekday in the morning rush hour. Any kind of security would completely useless.
"Freiheit ist immer auch die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden" - Rosa Luxemburg, 1871 - 1919
Could you cram enough explosive up your ass to bring down a plane?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Is that feasible?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
The American public just bought into what the terrorists were selling, and the country will take many years to recover its senses.
Liberty is risky! Freedom is dangerous! Embrace the consequences, because the price is more than fair.
I really wish people would stop saying "America has succumbed to fear!" when in reality it's not the majority of Americans, it's just the elected and unelected officials in the Federal government that have succumbed to fear, the fear of responsibility. Airlines are afraid of being sued into the ground by families of airline-related terror attacks, and so the Government puts these security theatrics in place to allay those fears. Most Americans are now of a mindset to take out anyone who tries to take over a plane, even if it's only because they don't want to be held up from getting to their destination any more than they already are. We won't get any change in the security theatrics anytime soon, at least not until we start electing adults to the governments, Federal and state.
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
In my original post I said that I am against the new scanners and I do believe them to be a gross infringement on people's privacy. I was just making the point that when trying to assess the effectiveness of any measure the TSA does, "terrorist caught" and probably any other statistic will not be sufficient. We will probably have to resort to... *gasp* Common Sense (which, as you hinted, is not so common).
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
When a virtual strip-search or an alternative ball-grabbing is a "small inconvenience", I begin to think you're skewing the picture a little.
What makes you think that search and seizure without a warrant isn't a civil rights violation? The fact that everyone's equally violated doesn't make it okay - it makes it worse!
In the racist days of the deep south, was it okay to segregate black and white people, as long as all the black people were treated equally poorly?
You're right, the victims' families are still grieving, and it was a terrible loss for them. It's also a terrible loss for the families of 2001 car accident victims, or 2001 lightning strike victims - why is it so much more horrible for the families if their loved ones died in a terrorist attack vs. dying violently some other way? Why do we put these people up on a pedestal and ignore the hundreds of thousands of people that die every year from other less-sensational causes?
I'll tell you why. It's because it's politically expedient to USE these poor victims to further the agenda of those in power, namely, to reduce civil liberties and increase the power of people in the government.
If not one person, then two or three who take turns using an airport bathroom stall and remove the triple-saran-wrapped components. The third person assembles it and carries it aboard a plane.
In the aftermath, I expect bathrooms will have a screening station to re-enter the terminal, or removed from the secure area entirely.
Interesting. I don't think I lumped Afghanistan with Iran/Iraq though?
So I guess it would be more appropriate to say that the Taliban grew out of the rubble left from the Soviet/US conflict in Afghanistan. A quick wikipedia review says that the US decided not to help rebuild the country and instead left the job up to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the former making relations with warlords and the Taliban so that they could exploit the land (which they did). So not quite as direct as actually giving the Taliban money, but these actions were pretty helpful for the Taliban (assuming wikipedia is right, of course).
We will never know the answer to that.
Let's look at the major terror attacks that has been carried out and see if the new screenings would have prevented them.
Let's start with the biggest one of all: 9/11. The answer is 'NO'. Neither backscatter screening, nor metal detectors, x-ray machines or enhanced pat-downs would have stopped the carbon fiber box cutters which were used to kill the pilots on the four 9/11 hijacked airplanes. Sure, the air marshals and the locked cockpit doors would make it harder to take over the planes but it is still possible, especially if you are 4 hijackers.
How about Lockerbye? - A bomb in the cargo hold? - Well, sure they screen checked luggage but do they screen the airport employees well enough? - Here's an example: Heathrow in London did an extra screening and found no less than THREE employees who were illegal aliens, i.e. working without proper papers and permits. None used false documentation; they just didn't check anything when they were hired. All three had access to both checked luggage and the secured areas around the planes. It would be childsplay for one of them to place a bomb on a plane. Oh, and all three were from 'high risk countries' in the muslim world... Oh, and recently Al-Queda tried the simple thing of sending the bombs as air freight and it worked like a charm...
So much for the security theater at the airports...
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Your right to freedom os speech steps on my right not to be offended.
Your right to your property steps on my right to take your property.
Your right not to be searched arbitrarily steps on my right to personal safety.
For years, people flying to the USA have been treated as criminals when they entered the USA, with questioning at the home airport, scanners, photos taken, fingerprints taken, several times questioning by assault-rifle carrying border patrols what the F*** you're doing in the USA, laptops searched (and taken), camera's searched, shoes that have to be taken off, belts that have to be taken off, no water you could take with you on board, you have to register on a website which costs 14 euros if you want to be left in....do I need to go on?
Now, the USA citizen gets what others have been punished with for years. I'm glad the USA citizen finally experience this and hopefully they'll realize what kind of crap they have forced upon foreigners for years. Because, make no mistake: we in europe now have to get new passports because the USA demands passports with biometrical information. The USA demands that people boarding for the USA in europe are questioned by a security officer who asks questions like "Who packed your bag" and if you answer "My wife" he'll respond with "Do you trust your wife?". What the **** is that kind of shit?.
I do remember the days when I was boarding for Amsterdam on a greece island and all passengers were in a single hall, security was as tough as "Oh is that your bag? Looks ok, carry on!" and everyone had a great time. Did anything ever happen on one of those flights? no.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
You make it sound feasible, but I imagine there's more to bombmaking than the average suicide bomber can handle in a bathroom stall with only the tools available in his rectum. Each person you add also increases the odds of something going wrong considerably. Even just the skill level jump is a significant obsticle... apparently they are having trouble recruiting people who can set off a pre-made bomb, let alone assemble one from pieces found in each other's asses.
Each hoop improves safety. The pool of people who want to hurt the US is very large. The pool who want to kill themselves in the process is much smaller. The people in that pool with the means to find a competent bombmaker even smaller in number. The people in the pool who can keep their cool under stress... shrinking. The people with the ability to get on a plane with a US visa... even smaller. Now you've added two more pool-shrinking criteria: some technical skill and that you need multiple individuals at the same time!
But all that aside, you could stick a bomb sniffer in the bathrooms - if this is not already done.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I'm willing to bet that list is smaller than the list of terrorists who didn't get on a plain for fear of having their ass kicked by Joe Public when they attempt something.
So a suicide bomber is going to be put off by the fact that he may get his ass kicked?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The fact is there aren't that many terrorists. If there were, there would be trains and malls and e.g. tourist hotspots exploding every other month in the US.
I'm going to call you on that one. Please tell me how you've come to this conclusion...or are you just telling yourself what you want to hear? My money says you don't really know.
GP made a very sensible deduction from the facts available. I would ask you, if there are in fact a lot of terrorists around, what the fuck exactly are they all doing?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
> I have no problem answering a few questions about where I was and where I'm going
I do.
As mentioned in a post above, FFS don't go on holiday to Israel then.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Could you cram enough explosive up your ass to bring down a plane?
This is surely one of the few times when a goatse link would be appropriate.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Hello. I have no fear of terrorists whatsoever. The country I live in have never been a target of terrorists It wasn't just American citizens in the Twin Towers, you know.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
islam cannot survive, in its current form, in the modern world
Just like Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and all other religions?
Sadly, that seems unlikely.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I'm sorry, I missed a solution in there somewhere.
That's the point. There is no solution, other than to stop giving nutjobs a reason to sacrifice themselves (and anyone who happens to be in their vicinity)--and we likewise fail hard on that issue.
Security is like the layers of an onion. The more secure you make the center of the onion, the more you neglect the outer layers. I'm going to make a prediction here: There will not, I repeat, will never be an attack on a single airliner the magnitude of 9/11, ever again.
We've already made it to the point of diminishing returns. Metal detectors and bomb sniffers will catch 99.9%+ percent of the external threats against aircraft, and I feel sorry for that 0.1% who actually make it on the plane to cause a scene. They'll have their lights snuffed out by their fellow passenger in a blink.
The center of the onion (aircraft) is/was so well guarded, even without x-rays and groping that the chances of a successful, conventional attack against an airliner is absurdly low. Mission accomplished. There simply is no further justification for throwing money at this perceived problem, no less for violating people with personal x-rays and unwarranted physical contact to their private parts.
But what have they done in the process of eliminating the risk to the aircraft? They've pushed the outer layer of security out into the airport terminals. Where there's lines of dozens, perhaps hundreds of people waiting to chose their poison of high-energy photons or gonad groping. There is no meaningful way to stop even the stupidest, least creative of attackers. Do you really need to have it spelled out further?
TSA's track record? Yeah, they've done a pretty good job. Lord knows they're great at catching nail clippers and tiny bottles of fluid. And the things which could have been improved have been improved.... Namely the presence of explosive sniffers--which would have caught the retarded "shoe bomber" were they installed in 2001, and had the flight originated in the US, anyway.
But the other way to look at it: there really hasn't been a significant terrorist op against US soil since 2001. The shoe & underwear bombers have been their best tries so far (that we, the public, know about) and those were both haphazard, poorly executed attacks, with little chance of success--originating at foreign airports! And then you have the retards in Times Square. On the whole, it just doesn't seem like the bad guys have their shit together, and thank $deity for that.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Hey, I think you're onto something here!
1. What the TSA is doing only helps to humiliate Joe Public, and does nothing to hinder terrorists.
2. This will lead to Joe Publics avoiding flying alltogether if there's any way to help it
3. There will now be fewer Joe Publics on board to stop terrorists from taking over the plane
Conclusion: Terrorists are in charge of the TSA.
Nah, it's more like installing bullet proof windows but leaving the door propped open.
Oh, I'm well aware of the reputation for utter bastardry of the airport securitygoons in Israel. It's not the only, or even the main, reason I don't ever plan on visiting (I simply have no interest in the region.), but it's no mark in their favor.
Imagine all the people...
You can cram at least as much up your ass as you can hide in your shoe and we were told that the shoe bomber could have brought down his flight, so......
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
In any case, your ideas would probably lead to our expulsion from NATO and the UN
So what's the downside? We can stop subsidizing Europe's national security and clear up traffic congestion in Manhattan. I'm not seeing the problem ;)
BTW, he wasn't seriously suggesting any of those things, he was trying to make a point that was apparently lost on you.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
On the whole, it just doesn't seem like the bad guys have their shit together, and thank $deity for that.
I guess it's hard for the Al Quada HR department to find good human capital when one of the job requirements is "blow yourself up."
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
As soon as you provide a list of terrorists discouraged from boarding planes in the first place because of elevated security policies.
I'd say as a liberty-minded fiscally conservative citizen, it's DHS (and the scanner mnfrs) that have the burden of proof.
We *the taxpayers* are paying their bills, we're not subjects. Where is their proof of efficacy and justification for existence?
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
BTW, he wasn't seriously suggesting any of those things, he was trying to make a point that was apparently lost on you.
I knew damn well he wasn't suggesting any of those things; I just wasn't going to let him prod me into reacting like he wanted. You really need to learn to read into things better...
And then you have the retards in Times Square.
"Retard." Singular. This word really speaks more about your views on the subject than your seven paragraphs; you're just a spoiled child that isn't getting what he wants. If you dislike the state of airport security in our country, get out there and push your lawmakers to do something more effective. After all, you and you alone have all the answers...
Seems to me we have our passenger "bill of rights" (not about this, but about not being bumped, delays, etc.) primarily because the folks who make the laws fly a lot.
But they're all OK with this (naked/radiation vs grope)?
What if scanner pictures of congresscritters started appearing on the web? Or even convincing fakes.
I don't have much body modesty, but would feel pretty invaded (and pissed off) if it happened to me. I would guess that most congress folks have more body modesty, and would be even more pissed off - and they make the laws.
So, given that the TSA isn't actually deleting all the photos, and there are already incidents of TSA agents snapping photos of the screen with their cellphones, isn't it just a matter of time until something like this happens?
"Retard." Singular....Clip.
You're forgetting the 12k Shahzad received from someone in Pakistan, ostensibly to facilitate the 'attack'. You don't care to include that person, or persons as part of his asinine plan? How about the Pakistani training camp he admitted to attending? These people were somehow not a part of his operation, even though they weren't present, weren't charged and weren't convicted?
How convenient.
As for you-you're just a sufferer of rectal-cranial inversion syndrome. You're not creative, nor smart enough to counter anything I said in those small collections of words you call paragraphs, and instead choose to toss out a grade-school quality derision for the same reason a cephalopod squirts out ink; as a decoy, so that he may scurry away from whatever creature he deems a superior force.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
I will quote from a previous post of mine:
"Of course a locked door doesn't catch a terrorist, but contrary to popular notion, the pat-down is not about catching terrorists. It's about deterring them. I mean, do you see a scenario where a terrorist is carrying a bomb and sees the security guy scanning people and "feeling" them up and he just stands in line to await his turn? Of course not. The purpose of all those security measures is to prevent the terrorist from even approaching the plane in the first place."
Remember, the pat-down (or the scanners, for that matter) isn't a surprise measure. People know about it beforehand. Still, don't get me wrong, I don't think the new procedures and the new scanners are OK - i do think they are infringing on people's privacy - but asking TSA to show people that have been caught as a measure of their effectiveness is not logical, IMHO.
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
and instead choose to toss out a grade-school quality derision for the same reason a cephalopod squirts out ink; as a decoy, so that he may scurry away from whatever creature he deems a superior force.
ur gay lol.
You are totally correct. In another post to another story, I used a different example from his book, but in that case I remember to reference him.
Sorry.
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
What these people are really after is some attention. How pitiful the lives of these juvenile attention seekers must be! That they would prefer to take their chances and allow terrorists wearing explosives to board an airplane rather than submit to a full body scan (the pat down is just the alternative to the scan) says it all. Obviously they must not have much of a life so that is why they want to inconvenience others who do. How sad!
1) Subways can't be aimed at any building they want (WTC/Pentagon)
2) Subway bombings have been a common theme in movies, this idea isn't new. However some reason it is rare, possibly because:
3) Subways are uncommon all over America, while big cities certainly have them, most places don't sadly. So "no one is safe" fears cannot be introduced.
But because of #1, this analogy has flaws. It was a WTC bombing, and not a plane bombing. They went for the most "devastating" and largest of targets. Bombing a subway would merely kill hundreds, no falling towers.
A Hijacked plane is far scarier than a hijacked subway train.
Disclaimer: I am not god.
We may not be created equal
But we can be treated equal.