Slashdot Mirror


TSA Has 95-Year-Old Remove Her Diaper For Screening

wjcofkc writes "The Transportation Security Administration stood by its security officers Sunday after a Florida woman complained that her cancer-stricken, 95-year-old mother was patted down and forced to remove her adult diaper while going through security. 'While every person and item must be screened before entering the secure boarding area, TSA works with passengers to resolve security alarms in a respectful and sensitive manner,' the federal agency said. 'We have reviewed the circumstances involving this screening and determined that our officers acted professionally and according to proper procedure.'"

582 comments

  1. PROFILED by rainmouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Clearly she fits the terrorist criminal profile.

    1. Re:PROFILED by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, ya know, she might be trying to knit an Afghan. *rimshot*

    2. Re:PROFILED by michelcolman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obviously. Intelligence has determined that all the younger terrorists must have blown themselves up already. This means the likelihood of elderly suicide bombers has increased tremendously. It's only logical. Keep up the good work, TSA!

    3. Re:PROFILED by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Terrorists use eight year old kids as vessel for their explosives, precisely because security is sometimes lowered for obviously innocent types. Not to say I appreciate the security bloatfest of the past decade, absolutely not... but being old or disabled is not a "get out of security checkpoints free" card and never should be. Can't respond on the individual case, I wasn't there.

    4. Re:PROFILED by drolli · · Score: 1

      The profile of an intelligent, dangerous, hidden sleeper terrorist waiting for a long time for a chance, using her age as a disguise.

    5. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey. She's about to die of cancer. Clearly she has nothing to live for and is therefore an ideal Al Qaida recruit.

    6. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Terrorists use eight year old kids as vessel for their explosives, precisely because security is sometimes lowered for obviously innocent types. Not to say I appreciate the security bloatfest of the past decade, absolutely not... but being old or disabled is not a "get out of security checkpoints free" card and never should be. Can't respond on the individual case, I wasn't there.

      oh PULEESE! You just want a chance to check out some nice 95-year-old cooter

    7. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Clearly she fits the terrorist criminal profile.

      Terrorists aren't complete morons.

      A white, pregnant Catholic Irishwoman doesn't fit the terrorist profile either.

      And yet, there was a bomb in her luggage, placed by her Jordanian fiancee:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_affair

    8. Re:PROFILED by Volante3192 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And to that I say... 'so?'

      People die every day, and in the US it's more likely to be from bee stings than terrorist activity.
      Yet we've determined to spend billions to make that a zero percentage. What about those terrorist bees!?

    9. Re:PROFILED by erroneus · · Score: 2

      If they were [allowed to use] profiling we wouldn't have these sad incidents.

    10. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you saying someone would hide a bomb in this woman's DIAPER without her knowing it? :)

    11. Re:PROFILED by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 1

      I think Wanted takes the trophy for terrorist animals. Not bees as such, rats, but they do a whole lot more damage too...

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    12. Re:PROFILED by hedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This.

      We shouldn't be granting exceptions we should be scrapping the program entirely. 9/11 would not have succeeded had the airline industry not been so cheap as to not pay for the kind of reinforced doors that had been in place in planes flown in other parts of the world. Additionally, had we not banned knives on planes, it's unlikely that the plot would have succeeded either as the terrorists would have been outnumbered.

      It's astonishing to me how many people think that another 9/11 style kamikaze jet liner attack could happen that way given the awareness that the hijacker hostage deal has changed and that being quiet no longer guarantees that the situation ends in the inconvenience of being flown to Libya or Cuba. At this point, they're going to just bomb the security check points like they do in other parts of the world, much easier to succeed doing that and definitely enough bloodshed to keep people terrorized for years to come.

    13. Re:PROFILED by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      People do not like the reality that all this "security" has no benefit. Were already allowing the things that were used to hijack planes on-board (razors and lighters/matches classic jail house weapon and they can not stop them there either). Security was improved the moment that the passengers figured out it was in there own interest to stop the terrorists and not wait to be rescued. Governments hate an empowered populace it reduces there control.

      Want to stop terrorism, eradicate the potential threat, it's rather nasty business and nearly impractical at this point. Give repercussions to people willing to kill themselves for there cause, group punishments again rather nasty business to punish the people that the terrorists cared for.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    14. Re:PROFILED by Mr.+Foogle · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Terrorists aren't complete morons.

      This is true. Which is why TSA has never caught one.

      Perhaps we should re-think this whole airport security thing.

      --
      Display some adaptability.
    15. Re:PROFILED by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Armed criminals often conceal weapons under clothing, precisely because their weapons would otherwise be obvious.

      Clearly the only way we could ever feel safe enough to walk down the street is to outlaw all clothing. Makes sense to me. Do you see a flaw in this thinking?

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    16. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, I thought most people here considered profiling to be a very bad thing, and the appropriate action would be to screen a completely random subset of passengers, with no exceptions?

    17. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A white, pregnant Catholic Irishwoman doesn't fit the terrorist profile either."

      Yep, no Irishmen or women were ever in the IRA, provisional or otherwise.

    18. Re:PROFILED by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 1

      This guy will be the scapegoat: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/canada/8113296/Asian-man-boards-plane-disguised-as-old-white-man.html

        'We have reviewed the circumstances involving this screening and determined that our officers acted professionally and according to proper procedure.'

      If we don't like the procedures we need to change them. Profiling is seen as discriminatory in this country (US). What country(ies) are we using as a case study for our procedures anyway? How is Europe's TSA equivalent standards? Are we closer to them than Israel?

      Not to sound insensitive, but a decade out from the only real major foreign non-war attack on the US in decades do we really need to base our TSA security on the scale of a country that gets rocket attacked and suicide bombed on a weekly, if not daily, basis.

      --
      by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
    19. Re:PROFILED by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      And it got a Wikipedia page called the "Hindawi Affair". Hmm a few nights ago someone had a car crash, I wonder what the wikipedia page for that car crash is called..... oh right.... they only do that for events that are incredibly rare. So rare as to... not be worth talking about. Seriously, if this is what airport security is supposed to protect us from, then we can fire them all....totally unneeded.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    20. Re:PROFILED by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      Yeah you'd have planes blown up my non-brown people instead.

      Well, OK, so terrorists very rarely try to get bombs on planes, and if they did, the passengers would probably stop them from setting it off, but you'd be creating a huge vulnerability by focusing on a certain profile. Same reason security software doesn't only scan files handled by Java, Flash, IE and Autorun.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    21. Re:PROFILED by rubycodez · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Terrorists use eight year old kids as vessel for their explosives

      Your basis for this is that airplanes are falling out of the sky like hail from children rigged to explode? or that the TSA catches all kinds of children wired to blow? Or, are you a coward living in fear, willing to give up your rights to not be molested and humiliated by TSA who have never, ever caught a terrorist?

    22. Re:PROFILED by Wovel · · Score: 1

      A lot has been said in reply to your post, but one word in one post sums it ip nicely:

      So

    23. Re:PROFILED by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      <advocacy=devil>Bees provide a service necessary to life as we love it. What service do terrorists provide?</advocacy>

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re:PROFILED by Ihmhi · · Score: 2

      I imagine knitting an Afghan would look something like this.

    25. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Small children are more widely available and more easily manipulated than 95 year old women. If you have evidence of a consistent, effective effort to use old women as suicide bombers then we can work out the costs and the risks of combating that and decide on the best course from there. Otherwise, I see no reason why we shouldn't show the elderly and vulnerable the respect and humanity they deserve.

    26. Re:PROFILED by erroneus · · Score: 1

      You're preaching to the choir, but there has to be a balance and trade-off in there somewhere. It's very much like security on business networks. There are always "more secure ways" but we reject them because they represent too much complication and too much inconvenience. All the warm-fuzzies generated by a feeling of being secure is over-ridden by dank-nasties of annoying inconveniences. And that's pretty much what we are seeing here.

      However, if there were profiling, there would still be a high percentage of good catches and a far lower percentage of false-positives.

    27. Re:PROFILED by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Do you see a flaw in this thinking?

      Every time I look in the mirror, pal!

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    28. Re:PROFILED by InsertCleverUsername · · Score: 1

      Can somebody show me where these campaigns of harassment have actually worked? Seriously... It seems like every plot that's been thwarted has been through better intelligence (or a lack of intelligence on the part of the would-be terrorist), not random gropedowns or pornoscans. And each silly new piece of security theater comes AFTER the horse is out of the barn (e.g. post-shoe bomber, post-idiotic liquid explosive plot, etc.).

      Am I suffering from selective memory here or are these just impotent attempts to make the dumb masses FEEL secure? Exhibit A: Google results for "terrorist caught by TSA".

      --
      Ask me about my sig!
    29. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a sad state of affairs. The 'security checks' should not be there in the first place. If the government did its job properly, the bad guys should be catched WAY before they get into an US airport, without having to recourse to groping children and the elderly.

    30. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see the marketing now. "Got a cancer or another deadly disease? Wasting away and near death? Short term temp work available, no skills required!"

    31. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course not. Which is why all elderly and children should also be subjected to randomly-selected cavity searches, just like the rest of us regularly experience already.

      Oh, wait, we're not quite there *yet*.

      At some point you've got to say "So fricking what? Good enough" unless you have specific reasons to screen someone more thoroughly than normal. I mean, one unsuccessful asshole puts explosives in his underwear and we all have to tolerate groping of our genitals? Sorry. This has already gone too far, and attitudes like yours will lead logically to the next surrender for the sake of "security". You think that terrorists will stop at putting explosives in underwear? Of course not. They'll put them inside their bodies. And when easily-accessible body cavities are randomly searched they'll start surgically implanting them, and we'll all be getting CAT scans at the airport and chocking it up to "the price we pay for security".

      You're right that there should be no "get out of security screening free" card that can be played, but the present level of intrusion in screening for the sake of very little security gain is the problem. A lot of this is irrelevant security theater. That's what this case is highlighting, by showing just how ridiculous the situation is. The fact that it was an elderly woman cancer patient wearing a diaper emphasizes it, but it is not the real problem. The problem is: everybody is being subjected to this, whether they are elderly grandmothers or not.

    32. Re:PROFILED by KermodeBear · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Bees also don't billions in economic damage.

      A single blown-up airplane would cause many people to cancel their flights, causing a lot of damage to the flight and travel industries. It would also scare the populace. A scared populace is less likely to spend money on anything. If the people aren't willing to spend money, then investors likewise will be tighter with their purse strings. The general populace and investors not spending money is bad for the economy.

      The security theater is about money and little else.

      --
      Love sees no species.
    33. Re:PROFILED by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      Terrorists use eight year old kids as vessel for their explosives, precisely because security is sometimes lowered for obviously innocent types.

      Can you cite one example of the TSA catching a child being used by terrorists? One old woman? Hell, How many Muslims extremist with evidence of terrorist intentions have been caught by the TSA?

      What is the TSA actually accomplishing, aside from trying to justify the loss of our privacy, convenience, and freedom in exchange for false security?

      Are the terrorists, who are willing to die in order to cause mayhem and terror, suddenly afraid they might get caught?

      The threat of terrorism is wasting our money and time, eroding our rights, and leading to us groping and violating the privacy of our women, children, and elderly.

      At least there is money to be made by at least some people off all this, right?

    34. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TSA screenings at airports are not only to reduce deaths, it's also to avoid a complete financial collapse of the airline industry. The financial strain on airlines after 9/11 was not insignificant. Another downed airplane by a terrorist would cause major challenges for most airlines to keep operating in the same capacity.

    35. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the real terrorists in that fiasco were the Protestant oppressors

    36. Re:PROFILED by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The problem is the false-positive and good catch rates would quickly reverse themselves. Terrorists would soon get recruits that don't match the high-security profile, reducing the number picked up by the profile. The overall false positive rate might be lower in this case since the group you're profiling is relatively small, but the false negative rate would definitely increase as the low-security profile is exploited.

      And none of this touches on the social issues.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    37. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Israel disagrees.

    38. Re:PROFILED by bberens · · Score: 1

      Not all profiling is based on skin color. The Israelis, for example, deal with a LOT more terrorism than we do and they profile based on where you have traveled previously. So, for example, if a country like Jordan is flagged as a "terrorist training" country then you will be more highly scrutinized if you've traveled to Jordan recently. While I agree with you that color-based profiling would ultimately be fruitless, I do think there's a place in "the system" for some types of effective profiling.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    39. Re:PROFILED by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Israel, at least on paper, uses behavioral profiling and a short interview process. Still flawed in theory but in practice it's harder to defeat.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    40. Re:PROFILED by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      You're right. Terrorists will use any person of any type that they can. So you need to ask yourself some questions: Is it ok for people to be subjected to this level of humiliation so that you get some illusion that you're perfectly safe? Or do you prefer that things go as far as they must go for you to actually be that safe?

      First, you're not perfectly safe and you never will be. Getting a bomb on a plane might be difficult, but getting chemicals over the US border is not. It happens by the ton on a daily basis (drug trafficking), despite the fact that we have multiple agencies whose duty it is to prevent it. There are a myriad of methods that could be used to kill or sicken tens of thousands of people without crossing a single checkpoint.

      Second, when is enough enough? Where is the line? This woman is 95 years old with end-stage Luekemia. She was forced to remove her soiled adult diaper for a patt down. The TSA is starting to show up at bus stations, and there's rumor of plans for them to start showing up at other locations. If it's ok for the Transportation Safety Board to go to these lengths, how long will it be before other law enforcement agencies start using the same philosophy. While it might be possible to better secure every possible location where groups of people meet, do you really want to live in a world where you have to get x-rayed to go to a ball game? Are you willing to have your children "patted down" so that you can take them to a movie? How about metal detectors and bomb sniffing dogs at your church, or synagogue, or mosque?

      Even the most draconian of the methods will not ensure that you cant get hurt. It's time people start to realize that they can live free and with some degree of danger, or they can live in a police state and fear only those keeping them 'safe'.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    41. Re:PROFILED by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Umm... Also, Irish Catholics have been blowing shit up since well before the days when Bin Laden and his Jihad buddies were still CIA contractors in the war against the Evil Empire. They did tend to avoid suicide bombing, preferring a mixture of rifle attacks, the occasional RPG, and mortar and bomb attacks of varying degrees of sophistication...

    42. Re:PROFILED by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

      This is true. Which is why TSA has never caught one.

      I do believe you owe me a new mind sir. That realization - after all of the money spent on the TSA - blew my mind.

      Stay frosty my friend.

      --
      The game.
    43. Re:PROFILED by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 1

      Terrorists use eight year old kids as vessel for their explosives

      I can imagine that, actually. Given a good enough reason, anyone devoted enough to a cause may do something like that. But even Islam fundamentals don't seem to be that devoted or deperate, as we haven't seen a single instance of this, at any time. The same goes for the elderly and disabled (the latter has a very nice depiction in the Da Vinci Code, when Professor Teabing is allowed through a checkpoint with a gun, just because of his mechanically assisted legs make it too awkward for the guards to check him properly).

      However, none of this makes a single inch of difference. Terrorists no longer really want to blow up planes, it's just too much hassle. Instead, what we might see in the near future are attacks on the checkpoints themselves: lots of expensive equipment and people queuing up, and all it takes is a backpack full of C4/semtex/whatever, and a load of nails and other scrap metal for shrapnel. Even better if they leave several of these 'surprises' in several key points: the ticket counters, the duty-free shop (is that still outside the secure area?) the luggage check-in counters, the café, etc. Bonus points for making some home-brew shaped charges and leaving them next to support columns, maybe in one of those huge, 200-l backpacks. That way, a small team of, say 20 people, acting coordinated, moving as separate agents to avoid suspicion, can cause hell of a lot more damage than any airplane bombing. Both in lives lost, injuries, and material damage. Hell, with luck, they may even take down the whole freakin' terminal building if they hit just the right spots.
      And the best thing? None of them have to die to do this! Timers, remote controls, mesh networking the bombs: the possibilities for coordination are endless, elegant, and undetectable.

      Why they haven't done this before is beyond me, actually...

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    44. Re:PROFILED by hamburgler007 · · Score: 1

      Ever wonder what the root of that threat is? Ever wonder why they hate us so much? Perhaps hundreds of years of western imperialism has something to do with it. Maybe if we stop fucking around in their affairs they will leave us alone.

    45. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think these measures aim to protect the people, and not the property? It's relatively cheap to rebuild a security check point, airplanes on the other hand are very expensive. Loss of life = no loss at all to a corporation. Loss of property on the other hand..

    46. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A single blown-up airplane would cause many people to cancel their flights, causing a lot of damage to the flight and travel industries. blah ... blah ... blah

      Which lasts a few months and then people forget about it.

      The TSA damages the airline industry forever.

    47. Re:PROFILED by autocracy · · Score: 2

      Hell, I miss the days when the pilots would sometimes just leave the door open, and I'm a pretty young guy. It weirds me out whenever I get on a bus service that has the driver behind a plexiglass cage. I won't say the cockpit door isn't a reasonable security measure, but the bus thing is asinine.

      I don't think box cutters were ever a credible threat. The thing we had all learned is that unless John McClane is involved, you'll be a few days late getting home and see another country should your plane get hijacked. Hijackers weren't resisted because nobody feared they were going to die -- why risk injury? Aware that the goal of the hijacking is death, there will always be enough motivated passengers on a plane to fight back with anything they have. You can hit pretty hard with a metal Macbook.

      Before the September 2001 attack, you could have hijacked an airplane with a herring. While some hijackings still happen in modern day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings), it's more common for passengers to overpower hijacking attempts.

      --
      SIG: HUP
    48. Re:PROFILED by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Do you see a flaw in this thinking?

      Yeah, at peopleofwalmart.com.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    49. Re:PROFILED by Spykk · · Score: 1

      True as that may be, what do you think would happen to the senator who championed lowering airport security after the next attack? Security theater is an inevitable product of our system of governance.

    50. Re:PROFILED by mSparks43 · · Score: 1

      <advocacy=devil>Bees provide a service necessary to life as we love it. What service do terrorists provide?</advocacy>

      Lip Service?

    51. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, ya know, she might be trying to knit an Afghan. *rimshot*

      (source: Robin Williams http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0330829/quotes?qt0460240).

    52. Re:PROFILED by kaiser423 · · Score: 1

      Considering that some other person has to change it, and put it on for her, it actually wouldn't be that terribly hard.

      TSA is still dumb though.

    53. Re:PROFILED by wile_e8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This.

      We shouldn't be granting exceptions we should be scrapping the program entirely. 9/11 would not have succeeded had the airline industry not been so cheap as to not pay for the kind of reinforced doors that had been in place in planes flown in other parts of the world. Additionally, had we not banned knives on planes, it's unlikely that the plot would have succeeded either as the terrorists would have been outnumbered.

      It's simpler than that. 9/11 succeeded more due to the mindset at the time than anything that wasn't allowed on planes. Ten years ago, the standard operating procedure for a hijacking was to give in and deal with it on the ground. The 9/11 attackers went after the flaw in this plan, which assumed the hijackers weren't suicidal. Today, even if we didn't have reinforced doors and still banned knives on planes, any would be hijackers with box cutters wouldn't make it two steps up the aisle before half the passengers would take them down.

    54. Re:PROFILED by fuzznutz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not sure if I would mod you funny or troll..

      The security theater is all about control. Do you think for one second that the administration could have gotten away clean with wireless wiretapping if not for the security theater drumbeats and foolish sycophants claiming they are doing a great job protecting us? We (the US citizenry) are being slowly inundated into total surveillance, control, and servitude by the minions of the government who just can't get enough of that security theater.

    55. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, from the sound of the article, she did leave a bomb in her diaper for TSA to find.

    56. Re:PROFILED by zildgulf · · Score: 1

      Also you have to remember that the American flying public was trained to go along with the hijackers since most hijackers at that time wanted a free trip to Cuba or Libya or Lebanon.

      That is why the plane was brought down in PA. The passengers realized that the hijackers were doing something different than wanting free travel.

      So now that the Cockpit doors are locked the Government swoops in and uses the TSA as a front for their war on drugs.

      Sounds bizarre? Think of why Napolitano wants to use the scanners and the 4th Amendment violating pat-down (as defined by most reasonable people, not SCOTUS) and not use the Israeli model of airport security. They are not looking for explosives. Any terrorist can get explosives to the checkpoint and detonate them inside the scanner causing terror and fear in the flying public the likes not seen in 10 years. They are really looking for drug mules. That 95 yr old is no terrorist and they know it. No explosive that would practically work would be in her diaper. Her underwear could've been used to carry drugs very easily. Imagine how much meth and weed she could've smuggled on board!

      It is all about the war on drugs, both legal and illegal that is driving the expansion of Government control over us. It appears to be more profitable and easier to control the public via the "War on drugs" instead of preventing abuse and treating drug abusers.

      The next logical step for TSA will be true strip searches and body cavity checks. It looks like the terrorists are winning by giving out Federal Government the ammo to strip away our rights. I foresee the end of this republic and going into a Roman style empire, with modern hi-tech, within 10-50 years if we keep following this path.

    57. Re:PROFILED by rainmaestro · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The likelihood of another suicide mission on a plane ever succeeding is very unlikely. The passengers know that you can't just sit back anymore.

      My plumber was out last week, and he was telling me about a flight he was on a few years ago. Some guy (mentally unstable) freaked out and started running around the plane screaming. Three passengers tackled him and beat the shit out of him. That's the reality nowadays. 9/11 was a one-shot deal, you don't get to pull that off twice.

    58. Re:PROFILED by drolli · · Score: 1

      Medical insurance included.

    59. Re:PROFILED by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Umm... Also, Irish Catholics have been blowing shit up since well before the days when Bin Laden and his Jihad buddies were still CIA contractors in the war against the Evil Empire. They did tend to avoid suicide bombing, preferring a mixture of rifle attacks, the occasional RPG, and mortar and bomb attacks of varying degrees of sophistication...

      We Irish were also smart enough to get good PR and have a party time holiday in our honor. Never underestimate the power of marketing.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    60. Re:PROFILED by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      "Terrorists use eight year old kids as vessel for their explosives,"

      How many citations can you find? That is, how many instances of prepubescent children blowing themselves up have there been? One? Six? A hundred?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    61. Re:PROFILED by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Boxcutters are only a credible threat in a population of thoroughly cowed citizens. A nation that teaches children that "it is never right to fight" can expect their children to grow into pansies who are bullied by anyone, and everyone who grows up fighting.

      Boxcutters. Yes, of course, in the hands of a trained killer, ANYTHING will become a weapon. But, that boxcutter is simply not a weapon of choice among killers, because it's so easy to defend against. Presuming, of course, that the target has a mindset which permits him to think in terms of defense and offense.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    62. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you saying someone would hide a bomb in this woman's DIAPER without her knowing it? :)

      An elderly woman who maybe can't take care of herself and relies on an assistant from a local agency that does no "Are you a terrorist" screening on their employees? I'm, not saying it's probable, but it would make for a nice movie at least...

    63. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      targets

    64. Re:PROFILED by acoster · · Score: 1

      For this kind of thing, Israeli/El Al security are always extra cautious (or annoying, depending on which side of the stick you are) with women travelling alone.

      --
      "Go forth, and be excellent to each other" --Bill & Ted
    65. Re:PROFILED by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I only have six points left so I think I'll respond (even though I wouldn't have moderated your comment either way and left it at 1).

      This is indeed a religious war. The US is fighting to protect its national religion -- the worship of money. Most "Christians" would probably denounce God and Christ if you offered them a hundred million bucks to do so, despite the fact that that's the worst sin a Christian could possibly commit (worse than mass murder). Most money worshiping Christians don't even realize that they love money more than they love Jesus.

      Hypocrites. How many of these so-called "Christians" call for the death penalty, when the man they call their lord and savior said to love those that hate you, do good to those who harm you, and forgive your enemies? No wonder there are so many athiests, considering how hypocritical most "religious" people are (that includes Muslims and Jews as well as Christians).

      The TSA is about instilling fear among the populace so the government can take away what few rights you still have. It should never have been started, and neither should DHS have been. Homeland security should be the military's job. If there is a TSA their job should be to make sure our deteriorating bridges don't collapse and the airliners don't have mechanical defects or drunken pilots.

    66. Re:PROFILED by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      If you have evidence of a consistent, effective effort to use old women as suicide bombers then we can work out the costs and the risks of combating that and decide on the best course from there.

      So what you're saying is that we should only respond to threats and not anticipate them?

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    67. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the greatest comment I've ever read on Slashdot. Thank you.

    68. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yah, they found a flaming bag of poop under her. Just like the ones the kids leave on their [TSA agents] doorsteps every Halloween. Which is what made them bitter enough to join the TSA in the first place. "I'll get those kids and thier poop..."

    69. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, are you a coward living in fear, willing to give up your rights to not be molested and humiliated by TSA

      Why the false dichotomy? For those who are into that kind of thing, shouldn't they get to be molested and humiliated by TSA without giving up any rights?

    70. Re:PROFILED by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Yet the airline industry survived the 80s. I'm not going to bother listing all the hijackings and bombings. There's a metric fuckton.

      So your logic only holds water if you apply the assumption that we're pussies now.

    71. Re:PROFILED by Huckabees · · Score: 1

      You're close to a good point raised by another person in the replies, that another hijacking attack is unlikely to occur with all the new safeguards, but you're supporting your argument with all the incorrect reasons.

      The primary culprit that allowed such events to occur was a policy of cooperating with hijackers. That policy had been tested and proven effective dozens upon dozens of times before to counter act plane hijackings. The problem wasn't that the airlines were "trying to save a buck" by not reinforcing their doors or that "the patrons weren't all packing some sort of weapon" it was the very simply policy of cooperation. I mean heck a couple guys with box cutters stand no match against a mob of people - whether they're packing knives or not.

      Now the correct people (air marshals, pilots, flight crew, etc) are trained to deal with situations like these. That's why it won't happen again.

    72. Re:PROFILED by houghi · · Score: 1

      A white, pregnant Catholic Irishwoman doesn't fit the terrorist profile either.

      To some Protestants, she does. (yeah, I know)

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    73. Re:PROFILED by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      There's also the fact that, since the US received a major slice of the most discontented(economically, politically, or both) Irish available, purged most of the British loyalists to Canada after the revolutionary war and didn't receive nearly as many brits thereafter, it isn't as though obtaining popular support was a terribly difficult PR coup on the IRA's part... The US has long been a major source of funds, and a steady stream of politicians who need votes in norther industrial cities and law-enforcement guys named "Agent Murphey" had a completely surprising amount of difficulty cutting off the funding of this foreign terrorist organization.

      Although we have been Official Best Trans-Atlantic Buddies with Great Britain, home of the Europeans most likely to speak an endearingly accented dialect of American, for a long while now our support in the fight against the IRA has been practically Pakistani in its... er... somewhat variable... enthusiasm.

    74. Re:PROFILED by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      That said, and I'm too lazy to look up numbers, but "traditional" airline hijackings were very uncommon already in the years before 9/11. I recall some 20-30 years ago it was quite regularly on the news that an airplane had been hijacked. After that, well it just stopped happening. Until 9/11 that is, of course.

      And since then... my memory may fail me but I do not recall a single case of (successful) hijacking.

    75. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that many people knew this, but prior to 9/11, *unserrated* knives with blades less than... I think it was less than 1 or 1.5 inches... were legal to carry onto airplanes. One of the reasons the boxcutters were allowed.

      Now...I want to be clear--I don't think this was a regulatory failing... but to be honest, I think people should be allowed to carry firearms onto aircraft. If they want to screen--just screen for bullets. Let people keep their guns and give them one damned bullet (reduced pressure soft core hollow point. Doesn't even have to be powerful enough to cycle the gun...) in the spirit that there's more good guys than hijackers...

    76. Re:PROFILED by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      The difference being that files don't complain about pat-downs. Even when done regularly. It seems they just don't really care.

    77. Re:PROFILED by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      And somehow airlines survived the 80s.

      Look up the history of hijacked and blown up planes in the 80s...if one terrorist attack now can destroy an industry, I guess we were just ballsier in the 80s.

    78. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No problem. Just have bomb detectors that you have to go through before you can get in line for security!

      dom

    79. Re:PROFILED by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      The US has long been a major source of funds, and a steady stream of politicians who need votes in norther industrial cities and law-enforcement guys named "Agent Murphey" had a completely surprising amount of difficulty cutting off the funding...

      The Irish learned that to get Power you needed to be in the 4th P, Politics, along with the Priesthood, Police, and Prison.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    80. Re:PROFILED by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2

      Beaten up for scaring the shit out of everybody on a plane.

      FTFY.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    81. Re:PROFILED by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      Do you think she would be treated the same at an Israeli airport, a country that is under constant real threat of terrorism?

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    82. Re:PROFILED by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The difference being that files don't complain about pat-downs.

      Actually they do, in the form of taking forever to load and tying up system resources.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    83. Re:PROFILED by element-o.p. · · Score: 2

      Do you think TSA actually helps the economy? After finding out about TSA's grope/nudie scan policies last fall, I took exactly one airline flight, an already scheduled business trip, and that only after verifying that there were no x-ray scanners at either airport I was flying to. My wife and I planned to take a trip to Hawaii this year, but it's not gonna happen until the TSA backs off a bit on their policies. I know I'm not alone, because I've heard similar comments from many, many people in various on-line forums. I haven't researched the stats for hard numbers, but based on comments I've heard and what I've witnessed in my home state -- which has an economy heavily driven by tourism -- I'd guess that TSA is roughly equivalent to 9/11 in terms of how much economic damage they can do to the airlines and tourism in general.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    84. Re:PROFILED by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the odds are what? you are more likely to get hit by a bus or win $1000 in Vegas than you are actually getting injured or killed by a terrorist in the USA and that has NOTHING to do with the incredible black hole of money that is the TSA.

      Frankly reinforced cockpit doors and one USMC MP with a 9mm loaded with low grain bullets solves the chance of another 9/11 and doesn't strip us of our rights or cost us out the ass. Of course that is if the goal was to actually stop terrorism, when in actuality the goal is pretty obviously another way to skim and pay off the friends of Sen Porker and Con Graftenburger. It is just another $600 hammer deal, only scanners replacing building implements and lets Sen Porker say he is bringing jobs into his area by hiring local yokels to be TSA goons.

      Stupid, pointless, liberty infringing, and a total waste of money, but then again do we expect any different when we have a POTUS claiming with a straight face that dropping bombs from drones isn't hostile and have three wars going on, none of which the American people want? Frankly as much as I hate to agree with that guy on anything I have to agree with Glenn Beck, you want to cut down on terrorism? Then it is time for us to Be Switzerland, stop pissing around in third world hellholes and propping up El Presidente types and go the fuck home.

      Frankly I'd vote for Bozo the Clown or Caribou Barbie if they were an isolationist. I'm so damned tired of "American interests" as a codeword for some corp that wants to exploit some shithole so we have to go in there and muck about. It is time for us to Be Switzerland and go the hell home. Let the EU waste their money mucking about if they want, it is time to quit being the world's policeman when all it does is make everyone hate us.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    85. Re:PROFILED by Volante3192 · · Score: 2

      I'd work on their campaign is what I'd do.

      Being a politician *should* mean having to make the hard decisions people will hate you for in the name of a strong union. We used to have diplomats. Now we have politicorporations. John Adams killed his shot at a 2nd term by not going to war with France (XYZ Affair). Now we call those with anti-war views in bed with Saddam Qadaffi. How far we've fallen...

    86. Re:PROFILED by eleuthero · · Score: 3, Informative

      As a Christian, I would agree that we are unfortunately hypocrites in the sense that we do not live up to a model of perfection that we claim is the standard--and I include myself in that. We are imperfect. Our claim is that because of that imperfection, Christ took our punishment on himself. We don't instantly become perfect after this, though we are called to look for ways to change thereafter. This quickly brings up the issue of justice (how could one man be killed on behalf of others?)--but Christianity affirms that the guy that made the rules took on the punishment. It would be kind of like if I were working with a friend with a torch and my child came out running under our legs towards the pretty light after having been told to remain inside. I would be responsible for the rule, for the scenario behind the rule, etc. Breaking the rule could cost him big (life, use of a limb... sight, at the least, a trip to the hospital for burns). If the timing were such that either he took the fall or I did, it would be an easy decision--I would step between my child and the flame... even if it caused fatal damage. Christianity claims that this is what God did for man through Jesus.

    87. Re:PROFILED by houghi · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we should. Or better we must. Terrorists are indeed not stupid. They see that many people enter the country illegally, so if they really want, they can get in.

      They already have experience in other types of bombing. Public transport or a market are often great places. Take any place where people are together and they could easily form a stampede as described here and that was 63 people, just because somebody yelled 'Bomb'. Put somebody there with a REAL bomb and Fox News will spread the panic better then anybody could do.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    88. Re:PROFILED by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of the IRA? They are a terrorist organization (although they have been mostly inactive for a few years now). They were composed almost exclusively of Catholics from Ireland, both men and women.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    89. Re:PROFILED by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      What's more, in the last decade 3,000 people were killed by terrorists (in that ONE act) while 45,000 people die on the American highways EVERY SINGLE YEAR. The only terrorist I'm afraid of is the one yakking on his cellphone (or worse, texting) while driving his SUV like it's the only sports car on the road. Lack of respect for life, anyone?

      The most dangerous part of your trip is the drive to the airport.

    90. Re:PROFILED by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Terrorists use eight year old kids as vessel for their explosives

      Citation please. The best Google could come up with is Michael W. Hicks, who is apparently on a TSA watchlist because his name is confusingly (to TSA agents) similar to David Michael Hicks, the Australian who was imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay for most of the time the boy was being patted down by TSA agents.

    91. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a foreign terrorist can get INTO the U.S. past the 10's of BILLIONS we spend on intelligence, and security, and only to be looked over because the TSA is searching a 95 yro elderly woman to extreme lengths, we deserve every bit of whatever is thrown at us! Domestic terrorists know it's far easier to blow something up on the ground than in the air. Or, go around shooting people from the trunk of a car. Most DC residents are well aware of this fact, but those inside the beltway tend to let their neckties cut off the blood supply to the rational parts of their brain.

      There are more efficient, and proven methods to keep air travel safe, and what the TSA is presently doing doesn't even come close to those procedures. The only reason I can fathom that DHS and TSA don't want to implement these methods is that the Government doesn't want to foot the bill (i.e. re-organize its current Corporate money distribution), and forcing the airlines and airports to make the necessary changes costs too much politically. There's also the insurance industry to think about if the Corporations DID take any responsibility for air travel safety. 1 event would be enough to bankrupt an airline if passengers or their families were allowed to sue!

      Point? This is, and has always been, about money!

    92. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But now they ask you "Did you pack you own luggage?" See, problem solved!

    93. Re:PROFILED by Combatso · · Score: 2

      Armed criminals often conceal weapons under clothing, precisely because their weapons would otherwise be obvious.

      Clearly the only way we could ever feel safe enough to walk down the street is to outlaw all clothing. Makes sense to me. Do you see a flaw in this thinking?

      I see a flaw, anyone with a concealed weapons permit would have to insert the weapon into an orifice.. If all guns are inserted in to assholes, only assholes will have guns.

    94. Re:PROFILED by Coward+Anonymous · · Score: 1

      And yet she was CAUGHT. Profiling does work.

    95. Re:PROFILED by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Add to this the fact that every terrorist since 9/11 has been foiled by the passengers. See shoe bomber, underwear bomber, etc. These people are still getting past security! So it is clear that the changed relationship between hijacker and hostage is the real deterrent, not the TSA. Leave Granny alone.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    96. Re:PROFILED by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      Can you cite one example of the TSA catching a child being used by terrorists? One old woman? Hell, How many Muslims extremist with evidence of terrorist intentions have been caught by the TSA?

      While I certainly don't agree with the current TSA situation this is a poor argument. How many trespassers/terrorists are stopped by the fence and guards that surround nuclear power plants? Should we remove these security deterrents unless people are actively throwing themselves upon them?

      Are the terrorists, who are willing to die in order to cause mayhem and terror, suddenly afraid they might get caught?

      Of course they are. First of all, they want to accomplish their mission, nobody likes to fail. Second of all, someone that ready to die is generally far more afraid of living, especially in the hands of their enemies where they'll be forced to endure questions and hardships and eventually betray their friends to the same fate and then spend out the remainder of their years in a small cell, alone, unknown and forgotten rather then dying in a blaze of glory.

    97. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, I can't imagine a better breeding ground for true terror than the security lines at most airports. They zig-zag lines in such a way that you have an extremely high concentration of people in a perfect pattern for an area of effect weapon. A terrorist doesn't need to get *through* the checkpoint, they only need to get into the line, wait until they are in the middle of the mass of people, then explode their device. For creating sure terror and anxiety there couldn't be a better situation ... hundreds of people crammed together against their will, with their focus on the oncoming embarrassment by a TSA screening, now wanting to get through a line before the next bomb goes off.

    98. Re:PROFILED by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      I would rather die in a fiery plane crash then subject our citizens to this. Im not kidding.

      --
      Good-bye
    99. Re:PROFILED by frosty_tsm · · Score: 1

      +1. Better put than I could ever have written.

      The one thing I'll add is that we are too unaware of modern-day Pharisees.

    100. Re:PROFILED by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      A single blown-up airplane would cause many people to cancel their flights, causing a lot of damage to the flight and travel industries.

      More than making them take their underpants off and get felt up by strangers would?

    101. Re:PROFILED by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      The TSA's actions have ensured i will never fly a commercial flight again. Period, end of discussion. IMHO the TSA have done far more harm to the travel industry then TEN blown up flights could. And your conclusion is lol.

      --
      Good-bye
    102. Re:PROFILED by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      Because it doesn't have the same effect on people. You have to understand people are not rational. It's not just a numbers game. Nobody is that afraid of getting blown up at a checkpoint with their feet on the ground where they can control the situation and escape. They think they can survive that, because they have some measure of control. They'll be the guy in the movie with the ringing ears and slow motion wobbly view and the blood on their face standing up and then helping people. Nobody thinks of themselves as the guy who turned into the pink dust when the artillery shell came down. We all like to think of ourselves as the main character. But the main character isn't sitting in the middle seat of a fully packed airplane thousands of feat in the air with no escape and no control. People feel extremely vulnerable then, and so attacks to them in this state are magnified in an irrational manner and there is really nothing your going to be able to do to change that.

    103. Re:PROFILED by INT_QRK · · Score: 1

      "Profile" is the operative word. Anyone who might otherwise fit a "profile" based on a statistically significant list of common traits ascribable to the vast majority of historical incidents of terrorism over the last 60 years, might also be members of a set of individuals for whom being singled out for attention may be considered as "racial-" or "religious-profiling." Therefore, TSA is constrained by policy to applying only those practices and procedures which are blind to any application of adult human judgment, or in this case, common sense, in order to avoid charges of bias or "discrimination," an otherwise neutral term which has wholly acquired the negative connotation of its worse case application. We see this line of government "reasoning" played out in other areas of public policy, leading to equally interesting, if not nearly as dangerous, outcomes. One example includes elementary schools enforcing "zero tolerance" to behaviors ascribed as "sexual harassment," wherein six year olds might be expelled for hugging his teacher in "suggestive" ways (see the article at: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AsSeenOnGMA/story?id=4585388). At some point the proliferation of self enforced prohibitions against governmental applications of reason and judgment in order to effect the otherwise admirable goal of avoiding unwanted bias may have dangerously negative unintended effects. Such effects may be ultimately corrosive to our ability to self govern, including, but not limited to, eroding public confidence towards government authority overall as these repeated incidents of cognitive dissonance between reason and policies begins to accumulate in the national psyche. At some point, large segments of society become decoupled from participation in citizenship, as evidenced by declining election participation, or in extreme cases may explode in outright rebellion. One problem with the worse case is that rebellion against excess nearly always leads to excesses in the opposite direction, the French revolution being but one extreme example. In short, our government really needs to stop being such G.D. f-king imbeciles or risk consequences none of us want.

    104. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your basis for this is that airplanes are falling out of the sky like hail from children rigged to explode?

      I assume his basis is that it is true (which it is).

      Or, are you a coward living in fear, willing to give up your rights to not be molested and humiliated by TSA who have never, ever caught a terrorist?

      Wow. Are you a reactionary asshole fighting ghosts or are you just horrible at reading comprehension?

    105. Re:PROFILED by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but how many terrorists has the TSA stopped. I haven't heard of a single one being stopped by a backscatter machine or a "freedom grope." Meanwhile, terrorists that get by the "impenetrable" TSA security get stopped by the passengers on the plane. The Underwear Bomber? Shoe bomber? All taken down by the passengers and flight attendants. I'm definitely not saying we should do away with the TSA entirely, but we could move the security line area back to pre-911 levels without any measurable drop in security.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    106. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure she wouldn't notice if someone who had access to her house silently placed an additional diaper in the box.

    107. Re:PROFILED by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      People die every day

      That's great and all, but human nature being what it is, no politician would ever get elected saying that.

      So high-profile targets like airplanes will always get undue attention, and low-profile things like tens of thousands of highway deaths will always be on page 5.

      I suggest accepting this and trying to be pragmatic about it, rather than being frustrated that human nature isn't logical. It's going to drive you nuts.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    108. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No wonder there are so many athiests, considering how hypocritical most "religious" people are (that includes Muslims and Jews as well as Christians).

      I'm following the rabbit trail, but whatever...

      I whole-heartedly agree with this, with one modification: all people are hypocritical, not just religious people. Hypocrisy is the norm for humans, not a special exception that comes from religion. It's just that when you actually are willing to publicly state concrete principles that you believe you should be living by, everyone gets to point and laugh when you inevitably fail.

    109. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, if she had the Karan in her hand, shouting rhetoricals this would be more believable. The TSA, why for years the Airlines got away with the poorest possible security world wide, is a mystery, but they have clearly crossed into new territory here, I should think.. Someone with some sensible authority should step up to the plate here and defend American rights.

    110. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of idiot would be clever enough to load a person up as a bomb, and then target the plane instead of the massive herd of people waiting to get past security? If any of the people screened by TSA were terrorists, the other passengers would already have been dead.

    111. Re:PROFILED by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's because the threat of terrorism is completely overblown. Maybe there are not all that many people with the means and motive to kill a lot of people, and we are actually not in much real danger. Maybe keeping the populace in fear serves the interests of the media, law enforcement, government and the military/industrial complex. No conspiracy is needed, since interests are aligned.

      As you have described, planning and executing a terrorist event is not that difficult for a motivated person or organization. Since we know that the TSA and others are not really doing a whole lot to actually keep us safe, the logical conclusion is that the threat isn't real.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    112. Re:PROFILED by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 1

      That's true. But in this case, the goal isn't to frighten those around you. The goal is to send a message to the government and population of the country in question, or even the world, that says "WE did this. We CAN do this, again and again. We can outlast you, outman you, outsmart you. You have no chance to stop us. You WILL comply, or we WILL NOT stop."

      If you take out enough people with one attack, nobody's going to think about whether they're the Hero or the Bystander. All they're going to think about will be "We're fucked."

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    113. Re:PROFILED by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 1

      Hated double-reply:
      "Nobody is that afraid of getting blown up at a checkpoint with their feet on the ground where they can control the situation and escape."
      Which is precisely why it hits so hard on the human psyche, as the single remaining safe ground is yanked out.

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    114. Re:PROFILED by Rynor · · Score: 1

      And why do you think the bees are disappearing?

    115. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A scared populace is less likely to spend money on anything. If the people aren't willing to spend money, then investors likewise will be tighter with their purse strings. The general populace and investors not spending money is bad for the economy.

      Remember, there is a world outside your borders. There's a hell of a lot of us out here that would happily bring in lots of money to spend in the USA, but won't submit themselves to the TSA. I have friends in the USA that I really want to visit, but I simply won't travel there at the moment.

    116. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not just his rights, the rights of every other person just because he's a coward. As they say, it's either liberty for all, or liberty for none.

    117. Re:PROFILED by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I foresee the end of this republic and going into a Roman style empire, with modern hi-tech, within 10-50 years if we keep following this path.

      Too late, we're already there. The republic was over years ago. It's just not so obvious.

      However, unlike the Roman Empire which survived for centuries, we don't have the economic power left to do that. This country is going to collapse in a matter of years or maybe a decade or two.

    118. Re:PROFILED by treeves · · Score: 1

      Sure. Obviously we should anticipate and try to prevent all possible threats. So, no more going to a movie, or the mall, or a baseball game without a full-body scan. I think we'll have to scan all vehicles entering parking garages for explosives. And don't even think about bringing that water bottle with you to the theme park, etc. etc. etc. Where does it end?

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    119. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, someone should distribute adult diapers and wet wipes in front of airports.
      then tell the people to "use" them just befor security screening and dump them afterwards ...
      soon all the employees will be pissed and hopefully quit :)

    120. Re:PROFILED by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      > -I would step between my child and the flame...
      > even if it caused fatal damage.

      After you took the flame for your child, would you still lovingly let your recalcitrant child burn too?

      I think Christianity claims the sacrifice only counts for some children, with the rules varying somewhat by sect, but generally involving asking nicely and obeying some subset of rules from ancient Hebrew traditions.

    121. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The TSA agents are the terrorists, scaring the populace into not flying, killing the air travel industry completely.

      Perhaps airline security officers ought to start walking up to TSA agents with "This airport ain't big enough for the two of us!", then blast em with their super soakers.

    122. Re:PROFILED by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      Oh, great justification. Now you can not live up to ANY of the Christian ideals and have a clear conscience.

    123. Re:PROFILED by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      So your logic only holds water if you apply the assumption that we're pussies now.

      Seems like a safe assumption, actually...

    124. Re:PROFILED by toriver · · Score: 1

      If the British suddenly must take the blame for Omagh etc., does it not follow that Americans must take the blame for 9/11? After all, would Osama had financed Al Quaida's attack if not for Desert Shield/Desert Storm? Remember, Osama did not care one iota for the secular dictator of Iraq, he got angry because the U.S. use of bases there meant "infidels" were allowed entry to Saudi-Arabia by what he considered a corrupt dynasty.

    125. Re:PROFILED by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 1

      Do you think for one second that the administration could have gotten away clean with wireless wiretapping if not for the ...

      So we're talking about some type of quantum wire then?

    126. Re:PROFILED by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      If all guns are inserted in to assholes, only assholes will have guns.

      Best comment all day.

    127. Re:PROFILED by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      You mean the great pissing match that started when the Muslim spur of the Judeo-Cristian religion was formed? I do not subscribe to the fantasy of religion so I do not really care, I am pretty sure we could glass over the whole place and idiots would be in there worshiping the radioactive glass. As religion is inherently irrational (believing in something that can not be proven is irrational) there is no good solution.

      I do believe that disproportionate response works as a deterrent it's also something I can not morally stomach. Genocide works as well but it's even more abhorrent. Giving in is never a solution as easy as it may seem. So were left with no good solution's growing a pair and not being swayed by terrorism would be our best start.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    128. Re:PROFILED by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      How are they supposed to know he was mentally ill, rather than intending to take down the plane? On an airplane, everyone's lives hang in the balance as the plane travels through the sky, and it doesn't take that much to make it all come crashing down, along with the lives of everyone aboard. As long as everyone is seated and not doing anything wrong, planes are perfectly safe, far more than auto travel. However, one nutcase can cause a lot of havoc. If he manages to grab a weapon (which can be anything, like a piece of glass or a Macbook used as a bludgeon), he can hurt many people before being restrained, if not much worse if he can get into the cockpit.

      Don't forget that someone on certain drugs, or just out of their mind on adrenaline, can have the strength of 6 men. There's a reason police use metal batons, which have the ability to break bones: they need them to stop people who are out of control and are dangerous.

      How do you think the gun-less police in England would have dealt with someone like this? They would have used their clubs and beat the shit out of him. This is a perfectly appropriate response to someone who is a serious threat to so many peoples' safety.

      Sorry to break it to you, but society isn't perfect. No one's invented a "mental illness detector" that the airports can use to screen people. Maybe you could start working on that.

    129. Re:PROFILED by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      That is the problem. They are not allowed to profile out of fear of being called racist. I swear this is an actual conversation I had with someone at my office that considers themselves a liberal.
      "It isn't being racist it is just just logical that you would check a young person from the middle east more closely than an 80 year old grandmother from Idaho that has never left the US."
      Reply "No that is raciest and then the terrorists will just start recruiting 80 year old grandmothers from Idaho!"
      I kid you not and this is from a college educated person.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    130. Re:PROFILED by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      A single blown-up airplane would cause many people to cancel their flights, causing a lot of damage to the flight and travel industries. It would also scare the populace. A scared populace is less likely to spend money on anything. If the people aren't willing to spend money, then investors likewise will be tighter with their purse strings. The general populace and investors not spending money is bad for the economy.

      The security theater is about money and little else.

      All of that applies equally to suicide bombers blowing themselves up in the queue for the airport scanner.

      --
      No sig today...
    131. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no "worst" sins in Christianity. All sins are equal.

    132. Re:PROFILED by Vegemeister · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah! I can anticipate far more threats than we can afford to defend against. We can only assume that potential terrorists can as well. This is why a social solution is required.

    133. Re:PROFILED by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 2

      Or perhaps the GP was simply dismissing the implication of this story being news: that if we only had profiling, we could all cower in fear but instead of it being a 95-year-olds with diapers being molested and humiliated, we'd limit the molestation and humiliation to minority, brown-looking people. After all, if molestation and humiliation by the TSA is such a horrible thing, shouldn't it be a daily story in the news that another (short/medium/tall) (black/brown/white) (young/middle-age/old) (fat/thin) (male/female) was molested and humiliated by the TSA just to get on a plane? Shouldn't that inherently be news worthy?

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    134. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever known anyone that was 95 and senile?

    135. Re:PROFILED by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      He is probably referring to this recent event, which does indicate that some terrorists take no pride in their work anymore.

    136. Re:PROFILED by cavreader · · Score: 1

      I agree with the idea of hypocrisy being too prevelant in todays society. People want security and those in charge of providing that security are afraid of what might happen to them personally if despite all their precautions and procedures the security is breached. This has led to the government pushing and sometimes exceeding the limits on their powers. This then creates a group of people who protest the governments actions and then the real threat becomes the government actions instead of the terrorist actions that started the whole process in the first place. The government and it's citizens need to realize nothing is 100% risk free and demanding someone create a risk free environment and then complaining about the manner in which the risk was lowered just generates animosity and conflict which increases the risk of someone commiting a terroist act in response to the governments attempt to provide security. It's a vicious and expensive circle.

    137. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The woman may have planted a bomb in her own diaper without knowing it!

    138. Re:PROFILED by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      It doesn't work quite like that. People understand logically that attacks on the ground can and do happen, they just don't care as much. The human psyche doesn't suffer more when they are attacked while in a position of strength and control then it does when they've voluntarily surrendered control and trust to others. It's like the difference between getting mugged on the street in broad daylight vs assaulted by your dentist as he puts you under. The end result is the same but the latter is far more frightening because you've already put yourself in a vulnerable position out of trust.

    139. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not trying to defend TSA, but "TSA has never caught one" is not a reason to bash TSA (although I do remember that some airport at Florida caught one with explosives in his shoes yeara ago - which led to us having to take off shoes at the checkpoint). On the other hand no plane has been blown up after 911 either. Maybe the strict security check has some use after all?

      Now, there are two possibilities that this could happen:
      1. TSA's strict check scared off terrorists
      2. Terrorists aren't trying to blow up airplanes anymore

    140. Re:PROFILED by rockout · · Score: 1

      Thank you for articulating this succinctly, better than I could have.

      For years now I've only gone on vacations I can drive to. I've had it with airports; I still have to fly 3 or 4 times a year for work and that's plenty enough to make me avoid airports at all costs when I'm supposed to be relaxing on vacation. I don't know how many people are spending thousands less per year on flights, but I'm pretty sure I'm not alone.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    141. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      goatscaping.

    142. Re:PROFILED by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      Terrorists use eight year old kids as vessel for their explosives, precisely because security is sometimes lowered for obviously innocent types. Not to say I appreciate the security bloatfest of the past decade, absolutely not... but being old or disabled is not a "get out of security checkpoints free" card and never should be. Can't respond on the individual case, I wasn't there.

      Really? When and where was this?

    143. Re:PROFILED by Jstlook · · Score: 1

      I hate finding interesting comments when (I have mod points) AND (I have a comment to add).

      The worst part is the mindset that TSA is trying to breed - complacency. I'd rather have a little less security (and by less, I mean go back to screening activity that doesn't skirt the intent of the constitution), and a little more freedom.

      Admittedly the other behavior that I find abhorrent is when flight attendants take a minute to recognize military in uniform. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the work they do for our country. The airlines behavior makes me feel like the military is on the flight to protect / police us. I don't know about you but I don't like working off the clock, and I can't imagine they do either. I'd rather not encourage them to put in free labor on my behalf, much less the complacency it supports.

      I know it's irrational and a bit self-centered. I just don't see the passengers today being overly encouraged to react the way they did in the fourth plane.

      --
      ---jstlook ---For that is the way of Elves, for they say both yes AND no, and mean every word of it. --- J.R.R.T.
    144. Re:PROFILED by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      Yeah, she'd probably just think she dropped that huge load in her pants before it was put on, and think nothing more of it.

    145. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "9/11 would not have succeeded"... idiot.

      9/11 'succeeded' (sic) (I think you mean 'the allegedly terrorist attacks on 9/11' succeeded) because the American GOVERNMENT were behind it, and were being told what to do by Zionists. Don't you have the internet where you come from?

    146. Re:PROFILED by ne0n · · Score: 1

      It's a good thing the TSA is there to protect you guys. Imagine if they didn't exist, where would you go to get gate raped? On the other side of the coin, where would the perverts go to take undergarments off nonagenerians or feel up kids, or suckle on illicit breast milk of unknown strangers, or steal iPads in plain sight?

      This is the best of all possible worlds, really: the rinky-dink facade of security to appease the average idiots (that's most of y'all, obviously) while keeping the perverts in plain sight AND employing the otherwise-unemployable.

      Win win. Go America!

      --
      $ :(){ :|:& };:
    147. Re:PROFILED by Groghunter · · Score: 1

      His basis would be the news story today about a 8-year old girl being forced to be a suicide bomber. Just tried to post it, but I'm not apparently savy to the correct tags.

    148. Re:PROFILED by eleuthero · · Score: 1

      If after taking the flame for my child (having received the punishment, as it were), my child were then to jump past me to touch the flame anyway, despite warnings against it as I stand there with a burned hand, there would be a natural consequence... I would also agree that there are unfortunately a number of sects that are entirely focused on rule-following. This is not, however, what is traditionally considered normative Christianity.

    149. Re:PROFILED by hamburgler007 · · Score: 1

      Nope, I'm referring to the Crusades, the English occupation of India, the French invading Egypt, the construction of the Suez canal and retaining control over it for nearly a century, creating the state of Israel and then dramatically expanding its borders, invading the Middle East numerous times, exploitation of their oil reserves, stationing soldiers in Mecca, interfering in their internal conflicts, and most recently, engaging in a war under false pretenses resulting in casualties of innocent people several orders of magnitude greater than the United States suffered during the September 11th attacks.

    150. Re:PROFILED by eleuthero · · Score: 2

      On the contrary, Christians are called to live changed lives. The impact of failing to do so on the community and on the individual is huge. The claim is not that Christians are not to do good actions (we are), but rather that no amount of good action can make a person "good" - the world has too many problems to ever stop. The standard is not lower but higher (even though the price has already been paid).

    151. Re:PROFILED by djdanlib · · Score: 1

      Aw, don't paint all of us with the same brush, okay? I realize you said "most", but that word gets lost in the comment. The loudest, most boisterous, most palm greasing people get to be politicians and news makers. There are some of us, though, who try to live a humble life doing things by the book, not by a bunch of hokey rules that people made up over the centuries.

    152. Re:PROFILED by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      Sorry

      s/wireless/warrantless/

    153. Re:PROFILED by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      I suggest accepting this and trying to be pragmatic about it, rather than being frustrated that human nature isn't logical. It's going to drive you nuts.

      Already nuts, but it does drive me to drink.

    154. Re:PROFILED by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      High five for people protecting themselves and not relying on the nanny state to protect them!

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    155. Re:PROFILED by moortak · · Score: 1

      Human psychology is a lot more complex than that. Look at the stats in World War 2 for the percentage of soldiers who never fired when in battle. These were armed men raised in a culture where bullying was far more acceptable than it now is, facing likely death if they froze. Some decent chunk, even if the specific numbers are disputed, froze. There is also the fact that most hijacking didn't end in fiery death, but rather sitting on a tarmac while your release was negotiated.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    156. Re:PROFILED by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Indeed, I haven't flown in years and I won't be flying anytime soon. I'm considering moving overseas, but instead of catching a plane here, I'm planning to take the train to Canada and catch my flight there.

    157. Re:PROFILED by SeeSp0tRun · · Score: 1

      I hope the only one dropping bombs in her diaper is her...

      --
      Something witty.
    158. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My wife works for a big box store. When we last flew, the TSA harassed her about a small, decorative metal ring that was attached to her shirt. It could be a remote detonation device, they said. Meanwhile, she'd forgotten to remove five replacement box cutter blades from her purse before leaving the house. The purse, with the blades, went through screening without a hitch.

      TSA screenings are theater and nothing more. Perhaps people can pretend to be safe after a screening, and maybe that helps prop up the airline industry, but I seriously doubt TSA could stop a concerted effort to attack the airports.

    159. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christians are the most charitable people on the face of the Earth, despite being out numbered. Christian charities give more money away each year than any other faith. The gall you have to say they worship money is astounding. People like you are why Atheists are laughed at. You're a complete joke. You have more "non faith" in people than logic. You are a disgrace to yourself. Congratulations on being a hate filled teenager.

    160. Re:PROFILED by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Just know that the only time military are supposed to be in uniform while traveling is coming home on leave or returning to a combat zone. So there is a reason for recognizing them. Otherwise traveling in uniform is highly discouraged as it makes you a target for any hijackers.

      And you can be sure that if some lowlife scumbag decide to try to hijack a plane, those military personnel will be most glad to go to work on that lowlife scumbag. Even though they are on leave.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    161. Re:PROFILED by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Hey hey... Us white males are also getting violated... The TSA doesn't discriminate remember?

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    162. Re:PROFILED by Syberz · · Score: 1

      The best security feature to come out of 9/11 is the fact that passengers won't stand by idly anymore and will mob the would-be terrorist.

      --
      ~Syberz
    163. Re:PROFILED by __aajfby9338 · · Score: 1

      Ditto.

    164. Re:PROFILED by BroomSweep · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you wrote a pretty good comment, based on its score, but the fact you started it off with a "sentence" composed entirely of "This." precludes me from reading it since you are obviously a know-it-all dick.

    165. Re:PROFILED by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Perhaps hundreds of years of western imperialism has something to do with it. Maybe if we stop fucking around in their affairs they will leave us alone.
      Hundreds of years? The U.S. government has only been in business for a little over 200 years, and up until the middle of World War I, the U.S. was considered isolationist. It was only after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor that the U.S. sat up and started getting involved. I do agree with you that we should butt out in general, I would prefer the U.S. to be isolationist as well. Unfortunately, being isolationist doesn't always stop people from messing with you, ie Japan.
      However, if we were to stop messing around in middle east affairs, people would still hate us. Only this time for NOT getting involved. Part of Osama's beef with us was that after our objective of ending the cold war, we stopped being involved in Afghanistan's affairs.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    166. Re:PROFILED by Jstlook · · Score: 1

      Why they haven't done this before is beyond me, actually...

      Perhaps that's the wrong question then: How about 'What did terrorists achieve by hijacking planes?'

      Simply, they got a really big missile. They used those to attack extremely high value targets - Western societies' center of commerce, government, and military operations. Even prior to that, blowing up a plane wasn't the point of hijacking a plane. The point was to make some statement, usually political, and use the plane (and its' hostages) as a bargaining chip. Blowing up the plane? Not so much.

      What value is in attacking some checkpoint? It will pretty much just cause the US to tighten down how they police airports, and how much money they spend on 'protecting' their citizens. That's not terrorism, sadly .. it's just obnoxious, and it will make US Citizens hate whatever group takes credit for the act. The government will get encouragement to lead some war in the land that the terrorists supposedly inhabit on some pretense of our freedoms. The terrorists get to hide in a hut in the middle of a pile of sand, continually explaining how important their cause truly is to their brethren, while fighting for *their* 'freedom'.

      So really - what DO terrorists gain?

      --
      ---jstlook ---For that is the way of Elves, for they say both yes AND no, and mean every word of it. --- J.R.R.T.
    167. Re:PROFILED by eyecorporations · · Score: 1

      Whoops accidentally modded you Redundant _

    168. Re:PROFILED by AJH16 · · Score: 2

      While I agree with you that there are many individuals who call themselves Christian that are not in the US, I would challenge some of your examples. I'm not sure why you brought the death penalty thing in to the discussion, but I do not believe it to be inconsistent. Jesus' teachings were fairly clear that there was a difference between personal justice and governance. If someone was to murder my loved ones, I would forgive them, but unless they were to be repentant of what they did, I would not want them to legally be given the option to kill again. I might not personally wish to see the death penalty for them, but I wouldn't want to tell someone else they can't have that if the court finds it just. The point of the whole loving your enemies thing is the idea that we are not judge over those who wrong us. (God is ultimately the judge) but he never said anything that would remove the government's authority to have legal consequences for an action, including death.

      If you think of the death penalty as vengeance, then I agree with you it should not be, but if you consider it as a disincentive for taking an action or a legal consequence for that action, then I do not see it being inconsistent with Biblical teaching. That said, I don't personally have strong opinions on either side of it, if the majority wanted to get rid of the death penalty I'm fine with that and if the majority wanted it, then I'm fine with that too. I don't think I would ever care to see someone who wronged me in such a way as to get the death penalty executed.

      --
      AJ Henderson
    169. Re:PROFILED by IICV · · Score: 2

      Well, not really.

      If the passengers on the planes had known that the hijackers were suicidal and were going to kill them all, they would have acted.

      In fact, we know this is true because besides the planes that hit the Twin Towers and the plane that missed the Pentagon, a fourth plane was hijacked; the passengers on that plane had news of what happened to the other three planes, and knew that the terrorists were going to kill them all. It ended up crashing in the middle of Pennsylvania after the passengers attacked the hijackers.

      The thing is, before 9/11 hijackers would eventually land the plane and make their demands. A true warrior picks his (or her) battles, after all, and fighting the terrorists in the air was not a winning proposition based on previous experience. Sure, the terrorists only had box cutters, but if you just wait a few hours they'll land the plane and get distracted by making their demands, at which point taking action is more reasonable. Unfortunately, this time the terrorists were suicidal, which was unknowable to the passengers until it was too late.

      So no, you can't blame it on the USA being "a nation that teaches children that 'it is never right to fight'". The passengers on those airplanes did fight, once it became apparent that fighting was the proper course of action.

    170. Re:PROFILED by AJH16 · · Score: 1

      Oh also, while I agree that the TSA is a horrible waste of resources and is going about security in completely the wrong way, I have to disagree completely on the whole thing about DHS. The military is not allowed (for good reason) to operate on US soil. Intelligence gathering is the ONLY means to successfully prevent attacks and the original purpose of the DHS (not as it stands now, but as it was originally intended on paper at least) was to facilitate information sharing between intelligence gathering agencies with differing jurisdictions. This is a vital and significant need, just the implementation has been horribly misguided by an overbearing bureaucracy and fear mongering.

      If DHS stuck to just facilitating exchange of information between agencies and each agency stayed within its proper legal and constitutional bounds, there would be no reason to have issues with DHS and it would be a great benefit.

      --
      AJ Henderson
    171. Re:PROFILED by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

      Add me to the list, too.

      I utterly detest Congress's choice of security theater over actual SECURITY, and refuse to fly until they stop playing pretend cop.

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    172. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem was not that people were unable to defend themselves on 9/11. If the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber taught us anything, it is that alert but defenseless passengers can stop a terrorist attack. (For those of you keeping score at home, it is Passengers 2, TSA 0.) On 9/11 terrorists hijacking a plane would generally take the plane to somewhere and hold it for randsom. Not a great thing to happen, but usually everybody lives. On 9/11, that changed. No longer did the terrorists hijack planes to make randsom, they hijacked planes to crash them into buildings. This is why the 4th plane on 9/11 never reached its destination. Once people knew this wasn't a "run of the mill" hijacking, they sought to protect their lives.

      The TSA hasn't ever caught a terrorist, despite the fact that terrorists have gotten on planes. For all the molestation and embarrassment, we have nothing to show for it but a lot less money. Meanwhile, a vigilant populace has done far more to stop terrorism without spending all that money or wiping their ass with the constitution.

    173. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But until the non-elderly get asked to remove their underwear for a security scanning, I'll say this was going overboard on the elderly. (At that point it will be back to going overboard on everyone to an equal level)

    174. Re:PROFILED by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 1

      The way I see it, they get to make one hell of a statement. Granted, your point has its merits too, attacking strategic targets to make a statement and an impact, while mine would only make the statement, but not make as much impact as yours.
      In the end, it might incite civil disobedience in the target country, in response to the increasing policing. {rhetoric}But does civil disobedience still exist?{/rhetoric}

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    175. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another 10 years and people will have mostly forgotten and will be too scared of a hijacker to try to take him down. But, locking the cockpit door should still be sufficient to keep a plane from being used as a missile. They may still blow some planes up, but that won't cause the mass terror that 9/11 did.

    176. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Terrorists have no conspirators?

    177. Re:PROFILED by hamburgler007 · · Score: 1

      By hundreds of years of imperialism I was referring to the western world, not just the US. The US has been around for a little over 200 years, but we have pretty much been imperialistic from the get go. Here are a few examples: manifest destiny (Native Americans), the slave trade, Mexican-American war, Japanese expansionism, annexation of the Hawaiian islands, Spanish-American war. All of these things happened before WWI. It is ironic you mention Japan in the context of isolationism for 3 reasons: 1. The US broke Japanese isolationism 2. The Japanese attacked us for much as the same reason we are currently in the middle east, that is oil. 3. The US (justifiably) went to war with Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor, where most of the casualties were military. Do you think that it is unreasonable for a people who are being attacked, where the intentional casualties are primarily innocent civilians, to respond aggressively? At any rate, Japan was hardly considered isolationist by WW2. I am not condoning Osama or any terrorist attacks for that matter, and I think military intervention in Afghanistan was justifiable. I'm just pointing out why that region hates us so much, and if we stop interfering in their territory eventually hostilities will quell down.

    178. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most "Christians" would probably denounce God and Christ if you offered them a hundred million bucks to do so, despite the fact that that's the worst sin a Christian could possibly commit (worse than mass murder). Most money worshiping Christians don't even realize that they love money more than they love Jesus.

      Hypocrites.

      Wow. You really are the classic atheist douche: Christians are hypocrites because they earn more money than you think they ought, and because you speculate that they'd "probably" behave like hypocrites in some hypothetical scenario.

      But Atheists really are hypocrites. They claim that no matter what shit life throws at them, they will always survive by their reason alone. They don't need God, they don't need faith, they don't need any of that and they don't need any of those annoying church people.

      But they are also fully aware that they live in a society that has a massive, human safety net made up by the voluntary actions of Christians. Whatever you think of God, the fact is, and you can test this, if any atheist ever needed to they could walk into any church, anywhere, any time, and there would be someone who would offer compassion and fellowship. They wouldn't even have to accept Christ.

    179. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Relative strapped for cash on a fixed income? Senile? Drugged? Do you suppose the woman inspected the diaper prior to putting it on herself? Gee, maybe she didn't know who put the diaper on her? Seek an education, talk to some people over 80 years in nursing facility this week.

    180. Re:PROFILED by malsbert · · Score: 1

      This.

      Damn, I'm getting to cynical :(

      --
      "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot.
    181. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about you, but this security theatre scares me, and is one of the reasons I don't use commercial aviation for anything other than shipping unless I absolutely have to.

    182. Re:PROFILED by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      All that should tell us is that the whole thing is pointless. If we have to cavity search every geriatric and infant that goes through the screening process to have a 0.01% chance of having a positive hit that 99.99% of the time ends up being a false positive, the whole process is a huge waste of time and resources.

      If we really wanted to save lives, we could instead maybe use some of these billions of dollars to install better guard rails on highways or something.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    183. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Applaude*

    184. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this measured in absolute USD or relative to purchasing power?

    185. Re:PROFILED by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Like I said the great pissing match that started when the Muslim spur of the religion was formed. Everybody claims bits and pieces as there holy sites because they all worship religions from the same base.

      As far as our western "exploitation" of the middle east, your missing the core issue it's a pissing match between various splinters of a religion. Have a fix for people with differing delusions about fantasy beings aka religion?

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    186. Re:PROFILED by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      Sure, but nobody really gets upset about what happens to us, so why even bother mentioning us?

    187. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think the pat down is looking for a bomb so much as a knife or other weapon.

      For sure you can't give the pregnant/disabled/incapacitated etc a free pass through security, but the process could easily be made less troublesome for everyone. For example, is there a reason why they can't lay on all-plastic wheel chairs and wheel people though the metal detectors on those?

    188. Re:PROFILED by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      A single blown-up airplane would cause many people to cancel their flights, causing a lot of damage to the flight and travel industries.

      More than making them take their underpants off and get felt up by strangers would?

      When you consider the number of terrorists that have been caught by the TSA, then you might reconsider their underwear searches. Or maybe not.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    189. Re:PROFILED by ajs · · Score: 1

      I'm not flying either, and it's not because I'm afraid a plane will be blown up. Security lines were already onerous before 9/11 and oddly, they only got really awful in the past 3-5 years.

      Until the U.S. can learn to do real risk assessment, I don't think there's any value in our attempts to curb risk.

    190. Re:PROFILED by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      While I certainly don't agree with the current TSA situation this is a poor argument. How many trespassers/terrorists are stopped by the fence and guards that surround nuclear power plants? Should we remove these security deterrents unless people are actively throwing themselves upon them?

      Can you seriously not make a distinction between overly invasive security procedures with little to no proven effectiveness to reasonable security procedures which, whether effective or not, don't involve so much loss of privacy, rights, and dignity?

    191. Re:PROFILED by ajs · · Score: 1

      Hell, I miss the days when the pilots would sometimes just leave the door open, and I'm a pretty young guy. It weirds me out whenever I get on a bus service that has the driver behind a plexiglass cage.

      There are different kinds of threats.

      Bus drivers are probably more concerned about being attacked by passengers who are not terrorists.

      In planes, I think we need a graduated policy. I think we need to have a very firm policy about shooting down planes that don't communicate and veer off of established flight plans toward heavily populated areas. Yes, that will kill many people (probably on the ground as well as in the plane), but that's something we need to have in place and make very clear to make hijacking a plane NOT worth it.

      Also in planes, I think it makes sense to radically ramp up the security when the plane is full of fuel. A plane that takes off with just enough fuel to get from Boston to NY is a moderate threat, but one that takes off with enough fuel to fly non-stop from Boston to LA is another order of threat entirely.

      If we could perform risk analysis and take appropriate measures to prevent the kinds of incidents that can harm thousands of people, while not making 95 year old ladies take off their diapers, perhaps we could go back to being a nation that enjoys travel.

    192. Re:PROFILED by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      ...or you were pussies way back then but the government hadn't figured it out yet.

      --
      No sig today...
    193. Re:PROFILED by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      ...or some nice biological agent. Contaminating a few airports with some unseen horror would be even more effective at shutting down the entire country.

      --
      No sig today...
    194. Re:PROFILED by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      > my child were then to jump past me to touch the flame anyway

      Would you physically protect your child again if you could? Would you stop your child from burning herself just that once, or just twice, or would you have a different limit for each child?

      Me, I'd forcibly remove either my child or the danger.

    195. Re:PROFILED by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      OK, someone has to say it.

      1. Collect underpants.
      2. ???
      3. Profit.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    196. Re:PROFILED by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      While I certainly don't agree with the current TSA situation this is a poor argument. How many trespassers/terrorists are stopped by the fence and guards that surround nuclear power plants? Should we remove these security deterrents unless people are actively throwing themselves upon them?

      Can you seriously not make a distinction between overly invasive security procedures with little to no proven effectiveness to reasonable security procedures which, whether effective or not, don't involve so much loss of privacy, rights, and dignity?

      You've certainly added a lot of new qualifiers there. I was merely commenting on the weakness of your first argument of "how many cited cases did it prevent?" which is an impossible metric to gather information for or judge the effectiveness of a security deterrent by. It's essentially as bad as claiming that since we haven't had another attack that the TSA policies are working. If people want to argue effectiveness of a deterrent one way or the other for low-likelihood events that don't occur often enough to come up with statistically significant data then it's asinine for either side to bring up the question of number of catches in opposition of, or lack of events in support for the system.

    197. Re:PROFILED by brkello · · Score: 1

      Or it acts as a good enough deterrent that it has prevented attacks from occurring. Also, you don't know if they take someone quietly in to custody.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    198. Re:PROFILED by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Clearly she fits the terrorist criminal profile.

      This community seems to have forgotten the MIT paper showing that profiling is more easily defeated than random screening.

      Article: http://tech.mit.edu/V122/N48/48secure.48n.html
      Paper: http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/student-papers/spring02-papers/caps.htm

      Short version: An organized adversary could probe, model, and defeat a profile, while random screening maintains a constant success/failure rate.

      Disclaimer: I'm in favor of minimal pre-"9/11"-style security, combined with reinforced cockpit doors. Refuse to be terrified.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    199. Re:PROFILED by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      No, I'm not painting Christians with a broad brush -- I am one myself. I'm not perfect, far from it, but I don't scream "hang him" as so many do. The ones who bomb abortion clinics and call for the death penalty give the rest of us a bad name. So do the ones who go to church on Sunday and evict an out of work family on Monday. There are far too many of them, and not nearly enough of us.

      The worst, I think, are the "gay bashers", especially the ones (some you alluded to in your comment) who later turn out to be adulterors -- adultery is one of the "big ten", far worse than homosexuality. Newt Gingrich is another, he's an especially bad hypocrite, chastising Clinton for adultery when he was doing the same thing under worse circumstances (his wife was dying of cancer) and saying he did it out of patriotism.

      Some are indeed saints. I remember a news story a long time ago about a woman who visited the man who murdered her son to tell him that she forgave him for it. I remember thinking "now THERE'S a good Christian!" It changed the murderer's life, he's a preacher now. I can't hold a candle to that woman, she's a far better Christian than I am.

    200. Re:PROFILED by cffrost · · Score: 1

      [R]einforced cockpit doors and one USMC MP with a 9mm loaded with low grain bullets solves the chance of another 9/11 and doesn't strip us of our rights or cost us out the ass.

      Reinforced cockpit doors combined with a populace aware of the updated hijacking protocol is sufficient.

      Bruce Schneier wrote about arming pilots: https://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0208.html#8

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    201. Re:PROFILED by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      God never said "thou shalt not imprison for life". The whole point of "love your enemies" is they are no worse than you or I am; none of us are perfect. My house was burglarized not long ago, and even though I forgive the burglar (I could have taken personal vengeance), I'm glad he went to jail. That's probably wrong of me, but I'm not perfect. I can only try my best.

      I think probably the worst sin I ever committed was being part of the government war machine in the Air Force during Vietnam, even though I only hauled ground equipment to the B-52s and didn't personally kill anyone, I was an accomplice. I helped kill. That was wrong of me.

    202. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WOW!!!!! it happenned once! One time out of how many BILLION passengers since 1986?

      yeah that is totally worth abrogating EVERYONE's civil rights and dignity and abandoning common sense and spending how many billions of dollars to find a black swan.

      yeah. moron.

    203. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly she fits the terrorist criminal profile.

      Terrorists aren't complete morons.

      A white, pregnant Catholic Irishwoman doesn't fit the terrorist profile either.

      And yet, there was a bomb in her luggage, placed by her Jordanian fiancee:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_affair

      I guess you never heard of the Irish Republican Army using white irishwomen as mules......................

    204. Re:PROFILED by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      You can try. Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven. But, you kow, you SHOULD feel bad about your shortcomings. The only people with clear consciences, Christian or not, are sociopaths who have no conscience.

    205. Re:PROFILED by Imrik · · Score: 1

      That would only be a good analogy if the dams were full of holes, had never stopped a flood, and generally got in everyone's way.

    206. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The worst part is the mindset that TSA is trying to breed - complacency. I'd rather have a little less security (and by less, I mean go back to screening activity that doesn't skirt the intent of the constitution), and a little more freedom.

      No worries. The current security theater doesn't *skirt* the intent of the constitution. It tramples it like a stampeding herd of wildebeest.

    207. Re:PROFILED by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Jesus, you're EXACTLY what I was talking about. Quick to anger, quick to judge. I'm not an athiest, you hypocrite, I was in church yesterday morning and Eddie (my preacher) made some of the same points as I just did in my post.

      It's not about how much money you make, it's about WORSHIPING money. The bible doesn't say money is the root of all evil, it says the LOVE OF MONEY is the root of all evil. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" and brother, if you worship money you're worse than an athiest; that little green god makes you a heathen whether you think you're Christian or not.

      Now read your bible and stop jumping to conclusions.

    208. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Riiiight so the IRA uses Arabic women instead of white irish women?

      They fit terrorist profiles just fine skip.

    209. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Based on incidents like the Underwear Bomber, I'm inclined to think that (most?) terrorists ARE complete morons.

      Under that assumption, it's an even sadder commentary on the ineptitude of the TSA that they haven't managed to catch any.

    210. Re:PROFILED by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I hope you're logged in and just hit the "ac" button, because like another poster you made the mistaken assumption I'm an athiest. I'm not. I'm saying when I go to church, half the congregation (or more) love money more than they love God.

      My own church is doing tremendous charity work, both here in Springfield and in Africa (link)

      I'm priveledged to have Eddie Lowen as my pastor; he's the best preacher I've ever heard in my 59 years on earth (he gets the congregation laughing, he could have been a stand up comedian). I was baptised at WSCC.

      Don't take my comment as bashing Christians, take it as a call to look closely at yourself.

    211. Re:PROFILED by cvtan · · Score: 1

      Agree completely that the next "novel" terror gem will be setting off explosives at the security check point. Makes perfect sense to set it off at the place it will be detected. Plus you get to blow up a million dollar scanner as a bonus!

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    212. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean other than you?

    213. Re:PROFILED by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      carrying packages with bombs in them in Afghanistan

      Child soldiers in Sri Lanka, in Iraq, and in Israel/Palestine.

      I looked for, but did not immediately find, references to children (or women) serving as bomb carriers (or proxy bombers) in Vietnam, though I recall hearing of such specifically in the Israel conflict (women wired with remote-detonated vests).

    214. Re:PROFILED by E.I.A · · Score: 1

      And to that I say... 'so?'

      People die every day, and in the US it's more likely to be from bee stings than terrorist activity. Yet we've determined to spend billions to make that a zero percentage. What about those terrorist bees!?

      Shhh. If you pretend you're afraid, maybe the government wont have to make any more terrorists. And plus; bees are good for arthritis - terrorists only write and file FOIAs.

      --
      Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made. - Otto von Bismarck
    215. Re:PROFILED by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      Old report from the year 2000, but Bees are more important for economics than I think you're willing to attribute to them.

      http://www.utahcountybeekeepers.org/Other%20Files/Information%20Articles/Value%20of%20Honey%20Bees%20as%20Pollinators%20-%202000%20Report.pdf

    216. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's ok. I Believe you guys have the bee's under control. Soon you won't have any to worry about bee stings anymore........

    217. Re:PROFILED by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Hell, I miss the days when the pilots would sometimes just leave the door open, and I'm a pretty young guy.

      I'll bet you're not that pretty.

    218. Re:PROFILED by shermo · · Score: 1

      I flew through Vancouver instead of LA. It was slightly more expensive, but I got to avoid travelling through America. Good news for Canada's economy at least...

      --
      Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
    219. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At this point, they're going to just bomb the security check points.

      i am surprised that no one has blown or shot up one of these places yet, based solely on their mistreatment at said places. it'll happen soon enough, i'm sure.

    220. Re:PROFILED by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      As long as "isolation" includes not giving money or selling armaments to other countries, and the countries that we refuse to get involved with includes Israel, then I would agree with you.

    221. Re:PROFILED by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

      despite the fact that that's the worst sin a Christian could possibly commit (worse than mass murder).

      with the exception of catholics, i'm pretty sure sin is binary.

      --
      ...
    222. Re:PROFILED by wiedzmin · · Score: 1

      reinforced doors

      That's all it would take. Reinforce the doors and give pilots a handgun. Or put a marshal on board of every plane... FFS, what's next, are they going to start searching pads and tampons now?

      --
      Bow before me, for I am root.
    223. Re:PROFILED by raedeon · · Score: 1

      Due to all the feminine hygiene products and such in our drinking water, we have actually all become more feminine and therefor we are all pussies now.

    224. Re:PROFILED by towermac · · Score: 2

      These were armed men raised in a culture where bullying was far more acceptable than it now is,

      Um, no; you've got that backwards. Bullying is more accepted now than it was back in the day. Which is why we've got national anti-bullying campaigns, increases in teen suicides, and stuff like the TSA. People aren't allowed to stand up for themselves anymore.

      Back in the day, you picked up a board or a chair or whatever and you whacked the bully over the head and you stood up for yourself. And, it was quite common for the parents of the bully (who almost always spoiled the kid) to complain that their kid got beat up at school the one time some twerp stood up to them. But then again, back in the day, the school didn't freak out over such things; both the bully and twerp would probably get licks/detention hall and that was the end of it. Except that now that particular twerp was no fun to pick on anymore, so the bully would move along. Or sometimes, he might just quit bullying altogether because it ceased to be fun when the whole school heard about how the twerp stood up to him. That's how all the other twerps in the school could be saved by a single heroic act. But the zero tolerance rules nowadays ensure that the good kids won't risk expulsion, which includes parents possibly losing their jobs, and so do what they can to live with the bullying.

      Without that "natural" bully control (there's always gonna be bullies), bullying runs unchecked (bullies always get away with it as far as adults knowing) and you've got kids so scared they feel the need to bring a gun to school, or just skip it altogether. And it's the same epiphany that causes both confrontation of bullies and suicide: "I'd rather die than continue living like this." But when kids are allowed, encouraged and empowered to stand up for themselves, the correct resolution of "I'm gonna make the bully either kill me or leave me alone." comes to mind; rather than the "I'll save everyone the trouble" thought that comes too often nowadays.

      This woman was horrifically bullied, the same way millions of Americans allow themselves to be bullied by the TSA daily. Since the victim in this case is just about the most vulnerable member of society we have, we're acting all shocked and shit. Don't even pretend there is or was any possibility that she is a terrorist. A quick look at her and who she was traveling with reveals the absolute zero chance that she had a bomb with her. That's the most stupid part of this whole thing; like here, in this one case, the TSA went too far. Well, of course they did. Beyond the most outrageous fiction you could make up too far. But that's the new normal.

      We don't mind being bullied now, especially in the name of safety. As long as we're bullied somewhat equally.

    225. Re:PROFILED by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      yes, I personally know first-hand witnesses to children being rigged with explosives in viet nam war. And I'm aware of it in those countries you mentioned plus six more.

      So what?

      Irrelevant. It is not happening here. Has not happened here. Total number of humans caught rigged to blow by TSA: Zero.

    226. Re:PROFILED by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Children have been rigged with explosives in various third world shit holes for over a century. so what? how many here in the USA in the last 235 years? Zero.

    227. Re:PROFILED by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Yes to the 1000th power about cutting off the 8 million plus a DAY we are sending to Israel. If the Jews of this country want to send THEIR money to Israel? Fine and dandy. But the fact that our current ME policy is based on a single sentence...Jesus won't come back...frankly sickens me. So many dead, so much wasted lives and property and for what? So a prophecy written by an 1800 year dead goat herder on sheep skin about a 2000 year old dead mystic that has to have a certain race in a certain place so he has a place to park his fluffy cloud, WTF?

      If their God wants Jews in Zion, well I'm sure A GOD can make sure Jews stay in Zion, don't you think? Living next to a Christian conservative college where many of the right wingers that roam the halls of power come to lecture I've actually gotten to talk to some of these people of power, and I swear that line above has caused more suffering since 1947 than you would believe.

      How bad is it when I have to do a Shat and point out "What does God need with missiles and piles of money, just to make sure some race is in the right place? Isn't he a God?" and basically get told we'll get spanked like some bad child by the sky bully if we don't bend over backwards for Israel. these guys wouldn't care if Jews decorated their cars with Arab baby heads as long as there is a Jew in Zion to fulfill that stupid line. I swear the Commies had the right idea, we should just load up all the books of all the religions and burn the damned things. The world would be a better place after a couple of generations.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    228. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah? How many times has that happened on US soil? Never? OK so why are you defending such ridiculousness?

    229. Re:PROFILED by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      yep, you're really sticking it to them. Good job, you should be proud of yourself.

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    230. Re:PROFILED by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      Um, no; you've got that backwards. Bullying is more accepted now than it was back in the day. Which is why we've got national anti-bullying campaigns, increases in teen suicides, and stuff like the TSA. People aren't allowed to stand up for themselves anymore.

      This statement doesn't make any sense. If bullying was more accepted, why would there be more national anti-bullying campaigns? You're confusing small time school yard bullying with federal bullying, which can only be so defined under certain limited circumstances.

      I don't want to sound like I'm in favor of the thuggery currently practiced by our governmental institutions, but it's foolish to call such acts "bullying" while simultaneously trying to compare those bureaucratic acts of thuggery to an insecure child trying to push other kids around. They're not even in the same ballpark, let alone league.

      It is indesuptible that there are petty bureaucrats flexing their muscle and inconvenicing us regular Volk with retarded procedures and regulation, but for gods sake, quit trying to make these naive metaphorical connections to schoolyard bullying.

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    231. Re:PROFILED by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      It's already collapsed, but inertia keeps up the illusion of Power. Just wait until we turn our unfathomable military might upon our selves. Happy times are coming. Ya hoo.

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    232. Re:PROFILED by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      While it's not often I agree with you, in this at least your are 100% correct. These delusional idiots have held our civilization in their sweaty grasp for so long that they think they were born to it. Unfortunately, even if we westerners managed to beat our religion, we'd still be stuck with the Muslim hordes hell bent on converting everyone to their shitty belief system.

      I don't like it, but I wholeheartedly believe the 21st century is going to be marked by the wholesale slaughter of the deranged Muslim fanatics that refuse to let to of bronze age thinking. The moderate Muslims have only a slim chance of convincing their retarded brethren that they really don't have a snowballs chance in hell of converting the world to their brain dead religion. These sons of bitches live and breath absolute insanity. They are willing to die for a lie. How could anyone assume that they would just give up, and make way for some kind of sustainable civilization?

      So long Islam, you had a good run. Too bad you're opposed to 90% of the world, and those are odds even Allah can't help you with.

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    233. Re:PROFILED by moortak · · Score: 1

      My point is that those same people who stood up to a schoolyard bully and were not subjected to anti bullying campaigns often froze when faced with actual mortal peril. This mythic past you envision where people are always able to stand up when faced with a real substantial risk of death never existed. Sure with hindsight we can see that the passengers would be better off charging the hijackers and not being slammed into a building. The passengers didn't have the luxury of a September 12 newspaper. They saw a group of guys who could cause them substantial harm if they charged them and would likely delay their trip if they didn't. As for less bullying by government agents you should take off your rose colored glasses and look at the actual history of the world around you.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    234. Re:PROFILED by mywhitewolf · · Score: 1

      I've never heard of terrorists using children or other innocents to get past security though?

      drug mules, yes... terrorists not so much.

      unless you can back up that claim?

    235. Re:PROFILED by mywhitewolf · · Score: 1

      That almost sounds like Russians policy.

    236. Re:PROFILED by cavebison · · Score: 1

      Terrorists aren't complete morons.

      This is true. Which is why TSA has never caught one.

      This is true. Which is why TSA can be said to be working well as a deterrent. Just saying.

    237. Re:PROFILED by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Indeed. The entire thing isn't merely out of proportion, it is WILDLY out of proportion.

      Diabetes contributes to a quarter million deaths in USA every year. (and is the -direct- cause of around 70.000 deaths).

      Reducing diabetes by 1% would save more lives than eliminating terrorism completely.

      Where's the multi-trillion-dollar "war on diabetes" ?

    238. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intelligence????????? I will write it again in case you missed it,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                INTELLIGENCE????????????????

          There actions in no way illustrate the meaning of INTELLIGENCE!!!!!

    239. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Appreciate your view but in this era of high tech chemical sniffers to detect explosives,X ray machines so powerful they see your ancestors let alone everything about you,on you and in you and all,other sorts of wondrous equipment to keep us safe why was it necessary to remove the diaper??? Wait,maybe she had a biological weapon concealed in it!!!!! Quick raid all nursing homes before they make a movie about it! CONSPIRACY THEORY 2 !!
       

    240. Re:PROFILED by Mr.+Foogle · · Score: 1

      The shoe check is because Richard Reid attempted to ignite explosives in his shoes on a plane December 12, 2001.

      A quick reality check demonstrates your two possibilities are false: people have smuggled bombs and bomb making material on airplanes: the underwear bomber, the bombs discovered in cargo planes in 2010. There are also numerous reports of people inadvertently bringing banned materials on airplanes without being detected. Terrorists are still interested in mayhem, the strict procedures don't seem to be effective.

      'TSA has never caught one' is shorthand for 'this program is not effective at it's stated goal, is a massive inconvenience to the people it is supposed to be serving, allows gross violations of civil rights, and is a waste of money and resources'. Citizens _should_ bash government programs like this.

      --
      Display some adaptability.
    241. Re:PROFILED by Mr.+Foogle · · Score: 1

      We know the former is not true.

      I am not sure how one takes a person quietly into custody: do you mean that they do not have a public hearing, sequester them in jail without recourse to attorneys and deprive an accused person of their civil liberties?

      --
      Display some adaptability.
    242. Re:PROFILED by Mr.+Foogle · · Score: 1

      As well as the numerous reported incidents of people accidentally bringing contraband right through the checkpoints.

      --
      Display some adaptability.
    243. Re:PROFILED by Mr.+Foogle · · Score: 1

      If it was an effective deterrent there would not have been bombing attempts since 9/11. Also - is the deterrent worth the loss of civil liberties, the growth of yet another federal agency, increase in police powers? Some of us don't think so.

      --
      Display some adaptability.
    244. Re:PROFILED by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I haven't had my coffee yet and don't have a bible in front of me, but Christ is quoted in at least 3 of the 4 first books of the New Testament that breaking the first commandment was the only sin that you won't be forgiven for.

      There are a lot of "sins" weren't called sins by God, but were edicts from the Jewish church elders.

      And to my mind, Moses' ten commandments are the most important, and all of them are summed up by Jesus' two commandments "Love God above all else, and love your neighbor as you love yourself". That right there is Christianity in a nutshell.

    245. Re:PROFILED by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That is the best description of it I have ever heard, so I have another question for you. What about the people who didn't have the benefit of knowing the rules or of Jesus' sacrifice? People born before him, people who were never exposed to Christianity. At the time many still believed in multiple gods from Roman and Greek mythology and had never even heard of this Jesus guy or the one true God, and their gods handed down a different set of rules, so I can't see how they could have been saved and were basically condemned to hell.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    246. Re:PROFILED by cavebison · · Score: 1

      If it was an effective deterrent there would not have been bombing attempts since 9/11

      Well, we're talking about TSA and airport screening. Do these bombing attempts have anything to do with that? If not, what's your point?

      Also - is the deterrent worth the loss of civil liberties

      Of course that's a question worth asking, but we don't question all the restrictions on our "civil liberties" which do protect us. Driving within the lines and under the speed limit, for instance. Or against hate speech in public. In countries outside the US, people aren't allows to carry guns whenever they want or drive without seatbelts. We accept being limited in many, many ways. What exactly is your specific argument against airport screenings?

    247. Re:PROFILED by AJH16 · · Score: 2

      I understand what you are saying and I agree about the point of loving our enemies. I didn't fully complete the logic, but my full logic of it is that we are not the judge of our enemies because we are not any better and have no grounds to judge them. That said, God also established governments [Rom. 13:1; Prov. 8:15,16] and gave authority to the leaders of governments beyond what individuals have. Jesus said nothing to lead me to believe that this had changed under the new testament. He in fact kind of confirmed it is still true with verses such as Matt. 22:21. (Give to Ceaser what is Ceaser's (in response to a question about paying taxes to Rome)).

      Governments are given the authority to form civil law and setup punishments for it. The idea of death as a penalty carried out by government as a result of violating a civil law was never spoken against in the Bible. Neither was the idea that war is wrong or murder. The nation of Israel was frequently instructed by God to go to war. The Bible makes it clear that the character of God and right and wrong is unchanging, so how can it be ok for God to instruct one people to go to war but then say it is outside the legitimate authority of nation states to decide to go to war without being morally wrong?

      It is also worth noting that when Peter cut off the ear of the servant, the reason given was that it was time for Jesus to be taken, not that it was wrong to defend yourself. (For that matter, if Jesus believed that self defense was wrong, why did he even permit Peter to be carrying a sword in the first place?) [John 18:10-11]

      I understand that you have convictions about this and am not encouraging you to go against them, but I wanted to offer food for thought as it sounds like you may still feel guilty for your involvement with the Air Force during Vietnam, and I do not believe that guilt is from God, but rather conviction and if you are feeling guilt that won't leave you despite repentant for what you feel convicted of, then I would challenge that your guilt and conviction is not from God. I would also challenge that you did nothing wrong in Vietnam even if you had been directly involved in killing within the duties of a soldier. Even if the reasons for going in to the conflict were wrong, the Bible is fairly clear that it is the leaders that are held accountable for that since the individuals can not know what the reason the leader has are and it is within that leader's Biblically established authority to give the direction to go to war.

      One final parting thought is that my main criterion for evaluating situations has been this, is it something that is being done out of personal feelings and desires or something that is being done as a cause and effect of violating the law of the established government. Both the government and God have authority to make rules. God is solely responsible for punishing those who violate his rules and the government is solely responsible for punishing those who violate its rules. As long as I am not taking action against others for my own reasons, but simply in service to the government (a death row executioner, a soldier, a police officers, etc) and make very sure that my reasons for doing it are simply and only to follow and enforce the civil law, then I am not doing wrong as it is within Biblically established authority and justice.

      Also, if I am defending others, I do not see a Biblical issue with killing someone if necessary. I have no ability to know which of those people are more likely to accept Christ, so I see it as a responsibility to try to defend the victim with whatever the minimal amount of force necessary is to ensure their safety. It gets trickier in personal defense as I know where I am going and I'm not sure that I would be willing to use lethal force in my own defense, but I know that I would have no problem using anything short of lethal force in defense of my life or if I thought that allowing myself to be killed would result in danger to others.

      The key in all these situat

      --
      AJ Henderson
    248. Re:PROFILED by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If you kill someone they have no chance to repent afterwards. You deny them the opportunity, where as if they live their natural life they can appeal to God for forgiveness.

      This is all just dancing on the head of a pin. Killing people is wrong, no matter if justice does it or if an individual does it. The only time it is acceptable is where there is no other option (e.g. war), but since you can lock people up indefinitely there is always an option for justice.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    249. Re:PROFILED by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The fact that the majority of Christians read the Bible and take away a different message to you ought to make you stop and think that a) Christianity isn't so great, neither is the Bible and b) that you have moved beyond Christian morality and are now just looking for arguments to support your own point of view within the text.

      Having said that, and I may just be being pedantic here, by saying "far worse than homosexuality" you seem to be implying that it is wrong. Perhaps I overestimated your cognitive and moral superiority to the average Christian.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    250. Re:PROFILED by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Ya know, I really wish I could find the link because it really explained why ultimately it will be either the west or Islam in a battle to the death. It explained how in all Sharia societies you have on average 10% that are stone cold killers, and another 15% that are collaborators. What this does is pretty much kill ANY and all dissent, because you know that 1 in 4 is either a killer or a collaborator. And since there you don't get punished if you "Kill for Allah" it just makes the killer and collaborators emboldened. They also had a nice quote from one of the hardcore Mullahs that said "We need to not attack Europe, since with our birthrate we'll own it in three generations and one shouldn't destroy one's own property".

      Sadly I think ultimately we will HAVE to become isolationist, we will simply have no other choice. It is gonna end up "fortress America" with the Americas against the former free Europe and Asia ruled by Sharia fanatics. At the current birthrate Germany will be Sharia in less than 30 years, the UK in as little as 25. The Muslims make it a point to NOT in any way assimilate, instead living in "Sharia Ghettos" so they can keep their birthrate high and their fanaticism intact. This is why you have women that refuse to wear the veil attacked in England as we speak.

      And while I believe ALL organized religions are ultimately about control and are full of shit (what you believe should end where it infringes upon me) in the end as you say Islam is a cult filled with fanatics. There is NO "religion of peace" when it comes to Islam, there are mearly killers, collaborators, and those afraid to speak against the two above for fear of being murdered for being an apostate. In the end we will have no choice, we will have to lock down the borders and keep them over there, or risk losing our freedoms to Sharia and the cult that is Islam. Their own book says there will be NO PEACE until the world bows to Islam and Sharia, so frankly we should take them at their word and leave their asses in the desert to rot.

      We should treat switching off oil as a national defense priority no less than our development of the bomb, and let them swim in their no longer all powerful oil and slaughter each other.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    251. Re:PROFILED by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Trust me, if the airline industry is in danger of going under because people refuse to be sexually assaulted prior to flying, it will change quickly. The real problem is all the sheeple that willingly put up with that when they don't have to. I can sort of understand people that have to fly for their jobs still flying, but I do have to question the sanity of people that are willing to put up with the increased risk of terrorism so that they can feel safe.

    252. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... Scan the woman's luggage - carry-on included. But the example you provide doesn't even remotely rationalize the kind of crap the TSA did here. It's utter nonsense carried out by brainless, shameless thugs.

    253. Re:PROFILED by AJH16 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but you are ignoring the civil consequences side of the equation. The idea of civil law is that of responsibility. If you do thing a) you get treatment b). So don't do thing A. You can make an argument that they won't have an opportunity to seek forgiveness, but the Bible is also clear that God will call those who he will call regardless of our actions. (We can't make or break someone's salvation.) Also, the idea that you have to repent prior to your death is really a bit of a dogma. I'm not sure that I disagree with it, but find me a verse anywhere in the Bible that states that after your physical death, you are not able to repent. My understanding of this has recently been refining to the point of people are either rebellious against God and will not turn even given a full revelation of God's sovereignty and justice or they are responsive to God seeking a restored relationship and repent and accept God re-establishing the broken relationship (through Christ).

      --
      AJ Henderson
    254. Re:PROFILED by Mr.+Foogle · · Score: 1

      Well, we're talking about TSA and airport screening. Do these bombing attempts have anything to do with that?

      IIRC at least two of them involved guys walking explosives, or components of explosives, through the checkpoint.

      What exactly is your specific argument against airport screenings?

      They are ineffective at preventing people from doing harm to others with, or aboard airliners.
      Incompetently implemented.
      Violation of the fourth amendment.
      Granting increased powers to the state.

      --
      Display some adaptability.
    255. Re:PROFILED by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      how can it be ok for God to instruct one people to go to war but then say it is outside the legitimate authority of nation states to decide to go to war without being morally wrong?

      I see it like this: If I write a program I have the right to erase that program, as well as the right to write another program to erase or modify that program, and if the second program fails at its task I'll be annoyed. You and I are to God what a computer program we write is to us. If the first program is buggy I'm surely going to want to delete it using any tools I wish, including other tools I've written.

      God never told Bush to invade Iraq (and I'm not sure that Bush isn't just pretending to be a Christian; I'm pretty sure Gingrich is just pretending to be a Christian, but it isn't up to me to judge; they'll stand before God some day). The passage you cite says taxation is moral (so why are these "Christian" tea partiers so against taxes?) but I don't see anywhere that anybody is given the right to kill.

      I'm pretty sure I couldn't kill to save myself, but I'm not so sure I could refrain from killing to protect my children, even though it would be wrong. Plus, the sin of killing is, in fact, forgiven, just as any other sin is.

      I have another objection to the death penalty that not only isn't based on morality, but may be immoral in itself. You don't know when you're going to die, or how you're going to die. You could suffer a stroke or a heart attack in the next five minutes. You could be killed in a car accident on your way to work tomorrow. And when you do die, it's most likely going to be horrrible; from a heart attack, or cancer, or Alzheimer's, or bleeding to death from a gunshot or accident, drowning, fire, etc. Few die painlesslessly in their sleep. It's not likely to be pleasant.

      The condemned murderer knows the exact time he's going to die, and has a chance to repent the murder. You won't. And when he does die, he'll be humanely and painlesslesly put to death, like a beloved dog you have to euthanize. I say let him rot in prison until God takes him. Like I said, that's probably an immoral view.

      When I tell Christians that Timothy McVeigh is probably in heaven, I have yet to meet a single one who isn't appalled at the idea. They're sure he went straight to hell, but McVeigh was a devout Catholic who had a chance to repent and confess his horrible deeds before he was executed. Hell, Christ prayed for God's forgiveness for the people who tortured him to death, as you surely know.

      It is also worth noting that when Peter cut off the ear of the servant, the reason given was that it was time for Jesus to be taken, not that it was wrong to defend yourself.

      I don't have a bible in front of me right now, but in one of the other four accounts that John omits, Jesus performed another miracle by putting the ear back on and healing it. "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword". That is the passage (and I couldn't tell you what chapter and verse, again, I don't have my Bible with me) that says self-defense is wrong.

      (For that matter, if Jesus believed that self defense was wrong, why did he even permit Peter to be carrying a sword in the first place?) [John 18:10-11]

      I have no answer to that. I guess I have some Bible study to do tonight.

      Even if the reasons for going in to the conflict were wrong, the Bible is fairly clear that it is the leaders that are held accountable for that since the individuals can not know what the reason the leader has are and it is within that leader's Biblically established authority to give the direction to go to war.

      I'm no longer conflicted about my role; my guilty conscience and repentance (let alone God's grace and Jesus' sacrifice for me) pretty much says I'm not going to have to pay for it; nevertheless, it was wrong. I wasn't drafted, and in fact my lottery number pretty much guranteed I wouldn't have been. I really feel bad for the poor guys who had to suffer the actual horrors of killing someone dire

    256. Re:PROFILED by Mr.+Foogle · · Score: 1

      It was a hippie philosopher, Leary or Thoreau or one of those guys, that said if you're not worried you're not paying attention.

      --
      Display some adaptability.
    257. Re:PROFILED by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, perhaps not. I don't know whether or not homosexuality is wrong, and really don't care. As to my take on Christianity, my grandmother gave me a "red letter edition" of the King James Bible where Jesus' words are printed in red ink. IMO this is the important part of the Bible, and I can find no fault in any of them. Whether or not you believe in God or Jesus, his teachings make sense. If everyone lived like that (and yes, it's nearly impossible, especially in this world) it would be a far better place to live.

      Ghandi (a Hindu if I'm not mistaken) once famously said "I don't like Christians, but I like Christ". Those are also words of wisdom.

    258. Re:PROFILED by erroneus · · Score: 1

      The expectation is that society is expected to change... adjust... or perhaps the most appropriate word would be "conditioned." Yeah, I know "conspiracy theory" crap, but society is currently conditioned to believe a variety of things and among them is that freedom is our birthright. Additionally, "convenience" is "freedom." From the beginning, we have been told/sold the that "enduring a little inconvenience is our patriotic duty" or that by enduring such problems, we are displaying our patriotism.

      So far, this conditioning has failed -- people are still upset and these matters are still appearing in the news.

    259. Re:PROFILED by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I agree that Christ was generally a good role model, except perhaps for that episode with the fig tree. The Bible isn't what I or most historians would call a reliable source for what he actually said though, not that it matters much.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    260. Re:PROFILED by cavebison · · Score: 1

      IIRC at least two of them involved guys walking explosives, or components of explosives, through the checkpoint.

      Erk. That's not good. How were they found out?

      Violation of the fourth amendment.

      Not really. In "unreasonable searches and seizures", the key word is "unreasonable". Congress decided it was reasonable, so how is it a violation?

      Neither is being pulled over by a cop and asked to show a driver's licence, or when customs goes through your luggage. They're deemed reasonable. Customs doesn't stop all illegal imports, and cops don't always catch crims, but that doesn't mean the practices are useless or unreasonable.

      Does the death penalty deter all murderers? Deterrents will never deter *everyone*. To expect so would be unreasonable. :)

    261. Re:PROFILED by AJH16 · · Score: 1

      "but I'm not so sure I could refrain from killing to protect my children, even though it would be wrong."
      Why is it that you feel this would be wrong? Do you feel that we are not permitted to protect others who are innocent? I'm very interested what your view is on a situation where you have two individuals who you do not know the state of either of their hearts and one is about to kill the other. Do you feel it is moral to save the victim at the cost of the life of the aggressor who could be depriving them of the opportunity to accept forgiveness before they die?

      "The condemned murderer knows the exact time he's going to die"
      Not really relevant to the discussion, but it is worth pointing out that they could die prior to being executed as well.

      "When I tell Christians that Timothy McVeigh is probably in heaven, I have yet to meet a single one who isn't appalled at the idea."
      You can make that "You have met at least a single one who isn't appalled by the idea." I sincerely hope that he did repent of what he did and if he did I have complete faith that he is in heaven now. I would also suggest that Osama Bin Laden or similar individuals might make an even better example. If he had repented to God and stopped what he was doing and surrendered I would have expected him to still pay the civil penalty for his actions, but I believe that he would have gone to heaven if he had repented and at least think that I would have been able to even be friends with him given the opportunity if he was genuinely repentant. (After all Paul was effectively the Bin Laden of his day when he was Saul and he went on to be one of the pivotal leaders of the early church.) The flip side of that is that I would still not see his repentance as removing his civil penalty at all.

      On the live by the sword die by the sword thing, that is Matt. 26:52. I don't disagree with that statement but I also don't interpret it as specifically a condemnation of it, but rather a warning that Peter did not understand fully the consequence of his action. There is no statement made on the morality of the situation but rather that a sacrifice is made in doing so. Also, Jesus benefits from the ability to see Peter's motives which we lack the ability to see. Personally, from my convictions, I know that defense of the innocent is an extremely high priority for me. I would never take a life I did not have to, but if I was in a situation where I could save someone's life but it would require taking the life of someone attacking them (or probably myself as well) then I do not believe I would hesitate to do so. I expect it would exact a toll on me, as your example from your uncle showed. I do not claim it to be a pleasant thing or without a profound impact, but I also do not have any conviction what so ever that it is morally wrong in defense of the life of others.

      "I'm no longer conflicted about my role"
      Good, glad to hear it. That was my primary concern in responding to you. Otherwise, while it is an interesting discussion, even if we disagree, I'm glad you follow your convictions. It doesn't seem we disagree on any critical issues, I just really wanted to make sure you weren't being driven by false guilt since I know many people who are from other situations in their life.

      "Everybody has to die"
      Except Enoch ;) (Gen 5:24 if for some reason you aren't familiar with that one, but I'd guess you are.)

      --
      AJ Henderson
    262. Re:PROFILED by Mr.+Foogle · · Score: 1

      Erk. That's not good. How were they found out?

      One fellow attempted to detonate the explosives in his shoes. The other the explosives in his underpants. The former didn't blow up so much as set his shoes on fire.

      Which is, yes, laughable. These guys are clearly a) zealots and b) ignorant. But they were serious attempts to do a lot of damage and kill people, even if the execution left a lot to be desired.

      Congress decided it was reasonable, so how is it a violation?

      I think the Supreme Court, not Congress, is in charge of interpreting the law. But just because _they_ say something is right, does not make it forever inviolate. Once upon a time we thought chattel slavery was icky, but legally okay. Later we changed our minds about that.

      Times and morals change. Maybe someday we'll decide to live up to the meaning of the Constitution and be a free people.

      Don't (he smiled) get me started on the death penalty. I have only a few qualms about it in theory: in practice we seem to spend a lot of time killing people who are innocent, were talked into a confession, or were just plain inconvenient to authority.

      --
      Display some adaptability.
    263. Re:PROFILED by AJH16 · · Score: 1

      Oops, forgot part of the hypothetical situation, what if it is one person about to kill multiple people. If you are able to save those individuals by killing the one person, is it moral (say a suicide bomber that you can only stop them by killing them.) In either case, it is ultimately up to God to save either the bomber or the victims' souls, but unless I get an awfully strong conviction that I shouldn't kill the bomber, I would take the shot in a heartbeat and I don't think I would ever feel I did the wrong thing. I do think it would take a toll in it's own way, but I do not think it would be do to any guilt or feeling that I did the wrong thing.

      --
      AJ Henderson
    264. Re:PROFILED by AJH16 · · Score: 1

      Oh, another thought. On the whole right of government to kill thing. Levitican law told the Israelites to kill people for many sins. If your primary reason for saying that killing is wrong in all cases is the 10 commandments prohibition of killing, then it would be wrong in any situation and it would be God's job to carry out the penalty of death, not that of the Israelites, but as it was, this killing was not included as morally wrong under the 10 commandments version of not killing (which in many cases is translated as murder, which is very different from killing) though I'm not enough of a Hebrew scholar to get in to which translation is more appropriate. The situation seems to support that killing by the government is not considered killing under the 10 commandment's prohibition. Is there some other prohibition that you can point to?

      --
      AJ Henderson
    265. Re:PROFILED by cavebison · · Score: 1

      Maybe someday we'll decide to live up to the meaning of the Constitution and be a free people.

      Whose meaning? :)

      But define "free people". Isn't that as problematic an idea as the death penalty? Complete "freedom" (I've yet to hear a reasonably practical definition of the term) doesn't account for our species' flaws: the sociopathic, megalomaniac and narcissistic to scratch the surface. Freedom to someone of a different mindset will mean something different.

      I don't think anyone wants a "free market", where companies are allowed to do whatever they want, governed only by concepts of profit and market share. We've seen where that leads. The promise of power will always attract the greedy and corrupt; it's only human. And what does freedom mean in a society of various levels of power, influence and property?

      Freedom is a two-edged sword, a slippery concept. The only idea of freedom that makes sense to me is more a *process* than a state of things. The only freedoms I consider fundamental are to be able to pursue opportunity, speak out and strive for change.

      As you say, times change, we change. The concept of a single perfect state of freedom doesn't seem to be the way we work. We humans will always (hopefully) find something we want to change. Although we'll often disagree on what it is and how to change it.

      Life is change management. :)

    266. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not trying to justify the TSA's batshit policies, but if you think it is bad here, don't ever head to Colombia.

      Getting into Colombia was easy. They had a metal detector that periodically worked. The girl running the machine would wave a bunch of people around it while she whacked it a few times, and then once it started working again she would send people through until it died again, at which point she'd just wave people around it. The group of Korean teenagers in front of me were horrified :)

      Leaving Colombia was a bit different. First you go through a metal detector, then get wanded with a hand scanner, then a patdown, then a different person wands you, then they send you through a full body scanner, then a second one. And take your fingerprints. After that, if you're lucky you get to go on to the waiting room. While in the waiting room, they call up people to the gate where they then have 4 guards with machine guns watch you while a 5th goes through your luggage, pulling open the seams, etc.

      And the unlucky people after the double body scan from earlier end up in the room with the gloves, and are told to bend over and cough.

      So yes, the TSA is bad. But not nearly as bad as some other countries.

    267. Re:PROFILED by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, in that situation I probably could kill... but I would hate to be in such a situation.

    268. Re:PROFILED by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Why is it that you feel this would be wrong?

      I'm not really sure. It's hard to explain one's feelings, especially when you don't really understand those feelings yourself. Maybe I'm an Asimov robot :)

      You can make that "You have met at least a single one who isn't appalled by the idea."

      Thanks, I don't feel so alone now.

      I would also suggest that Osama Bin Laden or similar individuals might make an even better example. If he had repented to God and stopped what he was doing and surrendered I would have expected him to still pay the civil penalty for his actions, but I believe that he would have gone to heaven if he had repented and at least think that I would have been able to even be friends with him given the opportunity if he was genuinely repentant. (After all Paul was effectively the Bin Laden of his day when he was Saul and he went on to be one of the pivotal leaders of the early church.)

      Very true. Most folks either havent read the part whare Saul's job was killing people, but it's actually one of my favorite stories in the Bible. Job is another, it's gotten me through a lot of hard times.

      It doesn't seem we disagree on any critical issues

      We certainly agree about that. You're the first person I've ever heard of that thinks McVeigh is in heaven.

      Except Enoch ;)

      I take the "Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, because God took him away" to mean that Enoch died. But again, that's open to one's own interpretation.

    269. Re:PROFILED by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Levitican law told the Israelites to kill people for many sins

      I think Jesus changed that one when they were going to stone the adultress, and he said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

    270. Re:PROFILED by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      I foresee the end of this republic and going into a Roman style empire, with modern hi-tech, within 10-50 years if we keep following this path.

      Too late, we're already there. The republic was over years ago. It's just not so obvious.

      However, unlike the Roman Empire which survived for centuries, we don't have the economic power left to do that. This country is going to collapse in a matter of years or maybe a decade or two.

      And just like the Roman Empire, the people there don't know it is over for 50-100 years.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    271. Re:PROFILED by AJH16 · · Score: 1

      I suppose I can kind of see where you are coming from with that situation. I've always read that one as more being the fact that they had no interest in justice being done, but were rather simply trying to trip Jesus up so he exposed them for where there hearts really were. I guess my issue is not so much the application of Levitican law (as I do think that large portions of it were more focused on trying to give Israel the best chance possible of measuring up to perfection (even though it was impossible from the start)) Paul still makes it very clear, and Jesus seems to support, that the law was good. Though I suppose that your argument still works then because the law would be correct that if you were not deserving of death, it would be good to kill someone who is not. Which actually now that I think about it (I'm writing as I'm thinking here) that actually makes a lot of sense since really it is saying what would be necessary for someone to stay perfect (just like God could not be near sin without destroying the sinful, neither could anyone who is perfect.)

      Ok, I'll yield the point on the Levitican examples as potentially only being applicable to keep the community pure. That is largely what my understanding of Levitican law has been revolving around lately anyway and it just made more sense as we were talking here. Basically I see Israel as the case study in human imperfection. God took his chosen people, started with the best parentage he could find, provided them with everything they could justly want or need, gave them rules to follow to keep themselves pure and basically stacked the deck in favor of them being able to follow God in every way possible, and still none of them could.

      --
      AJ Henderson
    272. Re:PROFILED by AJH16 · · Score: 1

      "You're the first person I've ever heard of that thinks McVeigh is in heaven."

      Wow, that honestly kind of surprises me. (Also, just to clarify, my opinion on McVeigh is that I honestly have no idea, but if he did honestly repent, then I am sure he is in heaven. I have no idea if he did or not.) I live in upstate NY and I know many Christian's who believe firmly that you can't be too screwed up or do too much wrong to be forgiven and go to heaven. I'd actually say that is one key thing that you can't not believe and still be Christian. Equality of sinners as equally screwed up is pretty firmly established in the scriptures. The only real serious debate I'm aware of in that area among those I consider to be strong practicing Christian's is the meaning of the passage that speaks of blaspheming the holy spirit as an unforgivable sin. (If curious, my personal take on that has always been that it is either impossible to truly blaspheme the spirit until the day of judgement when you can say with full knowledge and realization "you are God and sovereign, but I will have no part in it." or it is something you can not do without having your heart at a point so unrepentant that you will never wish to repent. Either situation makes it effectively irrelevant as neither of the situations I believe that passage could refer to would have any bearing on someone who is in fact repentant.)

      --
      AJ Henderson
    273. Re:PROFILED by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Ok, I'll admit I'm not an expert on Roman history, but surely the Roman people knew it was over when their city was sacked?

      Also, with global electronic communications and with the interconnectedness of economies, it seems like things happen much faster these days than in ancient times. It sure didn't take the Russians, Ukrainians, and other eastern Europeans 50-100 years to figure out the Soviet empire had fallen. That was all over in just a few years, with all the republics breaking away, East Germany reuniting with West, etc.

    274. Re:PROFILED by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      Your basis for this is that airplanes are falling out of the sky like hail from children rigged to explode?

      I assume his basis is that it is true (which it is).

      It's happened once. But it's in the news, as it was recent, so now you (I'm not an American) have to protect yourselves from all eight year olds, who are all potentially carrying bombs for terrorists.

      But once you start checking all the eight year olds, then what happens when the terrorists use a nine year old? You'll completely miss it, because you're continually checking for what they've done once in the past, rather than figuring out what's likely or possible to happen next.
      Every time a new attack comes up, the talking heads say it was "completely unforeseeable," simply because nobody has the foresight to do anything beyond reactionary bullshit.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    275. Re:PROFILED by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      > So what?

      You've got *examples* of children being rigged with explosives. You could *demonstrate* how bulky - or stealthy - such rigs are/can be.

      By having examples, you can counter baseless "sorry ma'am, I have to search your baby's rectum for explosives" search techniques.

      Or contrarily, you can say "Sir, here is an example of how easy it is to hide sufficient plastic explosive to destroy the entire septic system of an airplane; *this* is why Rex here has to sniff your crotch."

      One of the crowning achievements of TSA security theater is that they come up with rules that they refuse to justify.

      > It is not happening here. Has not happened here.

      As I overheard the other day regarding a Fire Swamp, "Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has." Or as my investment advisor would put it, "past performance is never a guarantee of future returns."

      The key is for the threats you are warding against to be realistic. I'm sure you've read up on Schneier's opinions on the whole subject. He being more informed than me, I will leave it at that.

    276. Re:PROFILED by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Not true. Denying the Holy Spirit is the one unforgivable sin. Matthew 12:31

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    277. Re:PROFILED by Mr.+Foogle · · Score: 1

      Whose meaning? :)

      Mine, duh. :)

      Freedom seems to be a lot like pr0n. You know it when you see it, hard to define otherwise.

      What I Want My Society To Be

      Government has the job of providing a regulated market. Such regulations are very minimal - the very least that we can have and still have a functioning market. As much as possible is done by private organizations. As much as possible is governed locally.

      That's it. The rest is details worked out by individuals acting in their own self-interest.

      --
      Display some adaptability.
    278. Re:PROFILED by cavebison · · Score: 1

      Government has the job of providing a regulated market. Such regulations are very minimal - the very least that we can have and still have a functioning market. As much as possible is done by private organizations. As much as possible is governed locally. That's it. The rest is details worked out by individuals acting in their own self-interest.

      Perhaps that's what we already have. Individuals always (rare exceptions) act in their self interest. The shape of both government and private enterprise as it stands right now is the result of lots of people acting in their self interest.

      The trick about change is convincing people in positions of influence that doing things differently will be just as much, if not more, in their self interest as the things they do now. The problem with that proposition of course is that people don't like to change things that are already working for them. Thus a society's status quo maintains a great deal of inertia and is very slow to change.

      Minimal regulation is easy of course - if you mean industrial regulation as opposed to civic - because business hates to be regulated, and business has influence on policy. But when you start asking questions like: "does the 4th Amendment apply to companies being able to search my private info online, or my health/DNA records?" then you're asking whether regulation is needed. An interesting quandary, but if you think about it the Constitution is fraught with such contradiction.

    279. Re:PROFILED by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

      "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention" - John Sweeny

      --
      The game.
    280. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure I feel too comfortable about using the word rim around the subject of an old woman taking off her diaper.

    281. Re:PROFILED by OptimacyCorp · · Score: 1

      And to that I say... 'so?'

      People die every day, and in the US it's more likely to be from bee stings than terrorist activity. Yet we've determined to spend billions to make that a zero percentage. What about those terrorist bees!?

      wu tang killer bees are on a swarm!

    282. Re:PROFILED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ban kids from flying. After having been on many flights with ones crying nonstop in adjacent seats, this has many advantages.

    283. Re:PROFILED by eleuthero · · Score: 1

      An analogy can only express so many aspects of its original, but I might be able to tie this in to the current one... If the child were to go over to a friend's house out the front door (again without permission), knowing the rule about torches and staying inside, went into the other kids' garage because that kid's parents were not even home (Christianity claims that other gods are either created beings resisting the true God--demons--or not real in any fashion), and then took out the torch in said garage, his death would be (1) tragic, and (2) on some level his fault for leaving the house without permission.

      The analogy does break down at the following points, (1) the Christian understanding is that God knows everything. (2) There is, among most Christians, an understanding of "an age of accountability" (varying by child) which would determine when the child, as it were, could be entrusted with staying out of the garage or not leaving the house, etc. To make the analogy somewhat more accurate, it would be as if the child were suddenly an 18-year old honors student in particle physics and mechanics, and knew everything there was to know about the torch... and ran towards it anyway. God steps in front of the torch but the fully cognizant individual can choose to try and sidestep God and hit the torch anyway, reject that the torch is really that bad, believe that the torch is a means of salvation in itself or that God is not who He says He is... Again, the analogy can only cover so much.

  2. Could've been worse by Zerth · · Score: 4, Insightful
    1. Re:Could've been worse by Zerth · · Score: 1

      Woops, urostomy.

    2. Re:Could've been worse by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Well...it did have liquid in it!

      I think the TSA agents should be required to personally inspect the contents of EVERY such bag!

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    3. Re:Could've been worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can never be sure. They must also do taste tests.

    4. Re:Could've been worse by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Well...it did have liquid in it!

      I think the TSA agents should be required to personally inspect the contents of EVERY such bag!

      Agreed; TSA agents should also have to taste it to make sure it's not an alcoholic beverage or plastique or something.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    5. Re:Could've been worse by drainbramage · · Score: 1

      Do you know what a 95 year old woman tastes like?
      .
      Depends.

      --
      No brain, no pain.
  3. Start looking for terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop assaulting children and the elderly.

    1. Re:Start looking for terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      herp derp I'm so stupid I don't know that terrorists have little kids and grannies too and are all too happy to blow them up.

      QFT

    2. Re:Start looking for terrorists by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, every month people die in car accidents to equal about another 9/11.

      Clearly our priorities should be stopping an event less likely than a shark attack rather than...bah, whatever, enjoy your security theater...

  4. Terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    She was smuggling biological agents onto the plane and had to be stopped. She should be HAPPY she didn't get shot on the spot.

  5. Pr0n by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess the TSA agents hadn't had their fix of granny porn that day.

  6. Independent review needed by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I love how the TSA says that they reviewed the case and gave a pass to their own people. IMHO, there needs to be an independent review board for bullsh*t like this. That aside, I think the woman should have put a plastic turd in there just to piss them off (you know, because a real one would be gross).

    1. Re:Independent review needed by TC+Wilcox · · Score: 2

      I love how the TSA says that they reviewed the case and gave a pass to their own people. IMHO, there needs to be an independent review board for bullsh*t like this. That aside, I think the woman should have put a plastic turd in there just to piss them off (you know, because a real one would be gross).

      There were actually real turds in her diaper. That is why the TSA clerks wanted her to change it in the first place. I guess even though they don't mind feeling up everyone walking through the line they do mind poo.

    2. Re:Independent review needed by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Funny

      Apparently you're only allowed 3 ounces of poo.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Independent review needed by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      IMHO, there needs to be an independent review board for bullsh*t like this.

      In my opinion, the TSA needs to be eliminated completely. They don't appear to be doing much good, violate peoples' privacy, and even if they capture a few 'terrorists', I don't believe that forcing innocent people to be searched is worth it (especially considering the low chances of terrorist attacks in the first place). More security on the planes themselves (such as reinforced doors) is better, in my opinion.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    4. Re:Independent review needed by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Well, they could fix this problem in a really easy and customer friendlly way: free diaper changing stations for the elderly, assisted by TSA-trained nurses! Oh, wait, that would cost money. I'm just being stupid again.

    5. Re:Independent review needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She left a bomb in the diaper. It should have been in a clear platic container.

    6. Re:Independent review needed by chemicaldave · · Score: 1

      Indeed. All the asinine policies put in place were done so after they failed to prevent an attack. The no shoes policy and now the scanners were implemented because the TSA failed to screen for the shoe and underwear bomber. The only thing the TSA can accomplish is to force people to find better ways of concealing contraband. I'm surprised we havent had an example of someone storing some explosive in their rectum considering it would be completely undetectable.

    7. Re:Independent review needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But where is the pressure being put on Congress? Supposedly they represent us and are there to carry out our will [I'll wait for you to stop laughing...ok, ready to go on?] and need to be told that the state of airport security is unacceptable.

      How about two tiers of travelers? We let one group get fingers put up their asses and they fly like they do now. We'll call these the "People who pee themselves everytime they watch Fox News pussies". The other group gets a basic metal detector check and bag x-ray and walks on except the cockpit is completely safe and the crew get tasers for emergencies. Otherwise you can bring whatever the hell you want including bottles of water, small pocket knives, and dying elderly woman in diapers. We'll call these "People unwilling to live in constant fear".

    8. Re:Independent review needed by houghi · · Score: 1

      Well, we know all where poo comes from. We also know how many drugs are still smuggled by airplane. What would stop a terrorist of putting some C4 or something else there and then take it on the plane?

      Not sure how to let this stuff explode, but I am sure there would be solutions for that.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    9. Re:Independent review needed by toriver · · Score: 1

      No, wasting money on TSA seems to be a hobby among politicians... maybe they will suggest it eventually? When they run out of other ways to spend money?

    10. Re:Independent review needed by Seumas · · Score: 1

      In my view, I'm tired of hearing "child durp durp" and "mother durp durp durp" or "nun durp durp" and "elderly woman durp". Apparently we only care to protect the liberties of people who aren't young and middle aged adult males. Everyone else, it's a shocking catastrophe. And not because of civil liberties, but because we're a bunch of prudes.

      I'd rather see media focusing on how this is disgusting, not because it involves going into the undergarments of an elderly person, child, mentally disabled person, veteran, wheelchair bound person, or religious person, but because it's abhorrent that they're treating ANY citizen that way. Period.

    11. Re:Independent review needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I agree -- prior to 9/11, people hijacked airlines with bars of soap with wires stuck out of them. Post 9/11, people know that there is no hijacking - they either fight the hijackers to the death or die. If you look at the news prior to 9/11 globally there was a hijacking about every year globally. Now there are none -- and it is not because of the TSA. The TSA should be scaled back to a random search organization that uses a random computer algorithm to select people about to board a plane and that is it; also, require every airplane company to maintain a bond or insurance equivalent to the size of the largest plane they have, in terms of person occupancy, times 50 times the annual poverty rate, in the event of a catastrophe, in order to operate. Finally, give the airlines legal protection against any lawsuits claiming they are using racist or profiling methods -- it becomes completely (with the exception of the small random selection for searches) up to them in terms of making sure terrorists and bombs do not get on their planes.

    12. Re:Independent review needed by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Well they said the search did not violate any procedures. To me that does not mean the TSA is right but that the procedures are wrong.

    13. Re:Independent review needed by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Because C4 is easily detectable, you don't even need to search for it since bomb sniffers can detect it.

    14. Re:Independent review needed by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      Just so we're clear, you recommend one ineffectual government bureaucracy provide oversite for another ineffectual government bureaucracy? Is this the start of your presidential campaign?

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    15. Re:Independent review needed by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

      That's no different than Nixon saying to David Frost "When the President does it, it's not illegal." It's no different than the Hugo Chavez's of the world saying "We've reviewed the election process and guess what? The people unanimously want us to stay in power forever!! WOOHOO!!! See? We told you so." *facepalm*

    16. Re:Independent review needed by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

      Effective or not, letting the TSA review itself is stupid.

    17. Re:Independent review needed by cavebison · · Score: 1

      More security on the planes themselves (such as reinforced doors) is better, in my opinion.

      Reinforced with moral fibre perhaps. So that when the terrorist threatens to either take over the plane or blow everyone up in it, the pilot will be suitable equipped to not open the door. Just saying you can't tell what people will do in those situations unless they're quite happy to die right now instead of later.

      What I don't understand is why we don't have the technology to simply scan people for explosive compounds or the component parts thereof. And only pat people down in places where they have detected metals.

      I mean I can hold someone hostage with a pencil to their throat, or my Vulcan neck pinch or a sharp fingernail in an eye socket. Not that I would, or am skilled in Vulcan neck pinches. But it seems these guess-work pat-downs, guided by whether someone could fit something or other in their oversized underpants is a bit strange.

      What I really really don't understand is, when there are 3 or 4 terrorists on a plane, surrounded by 100 or more able-bodied people, why the terrorists aren't quickly torn limb from limb. Or at least jumped on and held down. The only thing stopping people from reacting is *the fear that they will be the only one*.

      In my opinion, what we need is for the fat, complacent, lazy American public to be trained to cooperate well in a crisis. So that everyone knows what to do, based on what they're capable of. A few key signals that everyone is taught to respond to. A few key techniques. Jump on your nearest terrorist would be one. So some people get hurt - big deal, that's better than everyone dead. And who knows, it may help us stop fighting each other. Just a thought.

  7. When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically... by [Zappo] · · Score: 1

    ...from who are the TSA protecting me when they scan me or pat me down?

  8. According to some sources ... by bigjocker · · Score: 2

    According to some sources, they didn't find no shit

    --
    Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
    1. Re:According to some sources ... by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      if it was me i would have made sure they found lots of shit and would have done my best they got it smeared all over them

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    2. Re:According to some sources ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure what's more dangerous: what's inside the diaper vs. what's potentially inside the diaper

  9. the pat-downs will continue.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..until morale improves.

    (or, did I get that quote wrong?)

    1. Re:the pat-downs will continue.. by biek · · Score: 1

      Mod the fuck up

  10. they must have thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that it was a dirty bomb! har har

  11. Other sources say ... by bigjocker · · Score: 4, Funny

    Other sources say they found some shit

    --
    Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
    1. Re:Other sources say ... by operagost · · Score: 2

      And now they're takin' some shit!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:Other sources say ... by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      And apparently they couldn't give a shit.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Other sources say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One TSA official was quoted as saying "Same shit, different day"

    4. Re:Other sources say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To which the woman in question replied "I'm too old for this shit."

  12. Sensitive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sensitive? What a load of shit.

  13. The British Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America has lost its self-confidence, the fuzzy wuzzies are throwing off the shackles of American hegemony. America doesn't make anything and the rest of the world has caught up with design. Banks rule Americas ass and jobsworths are multiplying like fleas on a dog. A third of its population live in poverty while it bombs an African country with the highest living standard in the region back to the stone age.

    Stick a fork in America's ass cuz its done.

  14. Chimp tactics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps they thought she would fling poo as a weapon?

  15. Re:Sick of this by Warwick+Allison · · Score: 2

    I'm certainly glad I got an education... I wouldn't like to handle adult diapers for a living.

  16. Re:TSA is crazy. by michelcolman · · Score: 0

    OK, where can we contact you to make an appointment?

  17. Perhaps we need another amendment? by webgovernor · · Score: 1

    Perhaps we need a new amendment, let's call it "the 4th amendment", that gives us a right to privacy of our persons and belongings. I mean, with a sealed airplane cabin, you're better off bombing a subway if you're going for death toll -- I fail to see a need for this behavior.

    1. Re:Perhaps we need another amendment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's also say we have a legal term called "consent." You would give it by buying a ticket, arriving at the airport, and then entering a secure zone where searches, you knew would occur, amazingly enough, occur. Entering the secure area you have consented to be searched. That means you have waived your 4th Amendment rights. It's been this way now for almost 40 years.

      Panic! I just found out my rights, in a very limited and completely voluntary situation, were gone 40 years ago it's still Bush's/Obama's fault, though. Damn TSA and their time machine.

      This is in no way condoning the need of TSA; just that the legality of what they do was settled before I was even born.

    2. Re:Perhaps we need another amendment? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Shut up or they'll require screenings to go into the subway. I'm just waiting for them to realize what a terrorist target those security check points are. I'm guessing that rather than do something sane about it that the result will be a security check point before getting into the security line...

    3. Re:Perhaps we need another amendment? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Shut up or they'll require screenings to go into the subway. I'm just waiting for them to realize what a terrorist target those security check points are.

      s/terrorist target/cash cow/

      This is why transparency is so critical to freedom. It's critical that we know who is profiting, because one of the major benefits of capitalism is being able to follow the money to find out who's fucking who.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Perhaps we need another amendment? by element-o.p. · · Score: 2

      Yeah, exactly! Fortunately, TSA only conducts searches at airports before you board the airplane and they never, ever, direct train passengers to a secure area (where it wasn't otherwise necessary for them to go) at the END of a trip BY TRAIN. Because that would just be absurd. How soon will the government apologists be arguing that if you leave your house, you are giving implied consent to be searched?

      How about the government goes back to respecting the spirit of the 4th Amendment? You don't have the right to conduct an invasive pat-down or electronic strip search until and unless you have a bona fide reason to suspect that I might be a danger to other airline passengers, and no, buying a ticket is not a "reasonable suspicion."

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    5. Re:Perhaps we need another amendment? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      I do not consent to illegal searches by purchasing something. Anything.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  18. Re:When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yourself, before you get any 'strange' ideas in your head about living in a civilized nation of liberty.

  19. Re:When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the TSA went way overboard here, but your question is fscking retarded. You may remember a certain Tuesday morning when domestic flights were re-routed by passengers with malicious intent.

  20. Americans are craven, spineless cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody respects you, and everybody is sick of your race to the bottom.

    You arent the greatest ANYTHING. Not even close. Do yourself a favor, drop the jingos, and pull your heads out of your assholes.

    1. Re:Americans are craven, spineless cowards by BrokenBeta · · Score: 1

      Nobody respects you, and everybody is sick of your race to the bottom.

      well they are winning the race to the bottom

  21. The only thing more disgusting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ..than the criminal act of these cowards towards this woman, are the comments responding to the CNN.com article in support of the TSA. Are you americans REALLY that stupid? "The Terrorists (TM)" might use a grandmother as a potential suicide bomber?

  22. Re:TSA is crazy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    LOL to a chiropractor? Are you fucking kidding me? Take them to a MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL like a DOCTOR not a fucking quack. Seriously, those last 2 sentences have got to be a troll. Dumbfuck chiropractors think they can treat everything when they're the cause of more injuries than they could even pretend to fix.

    "Doctor" Bob prescribes another round of Whoosh! as the first one was not effective.

  23. Wet and Firm.... by jordanjay29 · · Score: 1

    ...in a granny's diaper. What the hell do you THINK that is?!

  24. She should have filled it first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what I would have done.

  25. Re:When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically. by mark-t · · Score: 2

    According to them, these processes are preventative measures to keep somebody from smuggling a weapon onto the plane, thereby allegedly protecting *all* of the passengers, even though you are definitely correct in pointing out that what is done to any given individual does not protect them at all, personally... the TSA's response would likely be that putting you personally through such processes protects others... and putting others through it, in turn, protects you individually.

    Of course, the above should not be construed in any way that I think these measures are a good thing... only that I can see their point of view - even if it does come from something that, IMO, qualifies as outright paranoia.

  26. Either you have screening or you don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you make exceptions to the rule those will be the ways the bomb is smuggled through. Whether it be a woman in a burka, an old lady wearing a diaper, a conservative looking chap in a pin striped suit, a Sikh in a turban, a pregnant lady or mother with a push chair.

    I have no idea whether screening serves a useful purpose (I suspect it does deter terrorist acts but anyway...) but if you are going to have screening everyone has to expect to be pulled out of the queue and searched regardless of who they are.

    All you dopey liberal armchair fools with a guilt chip on your shoulder would be the first to be out protesting if the security staff actually did let a bomber through without screening.

    1. Re:Either you have screening or you don't by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Actually, if there was an airine that let me get on, buy a ticket for cash with no id, and had no security checkpoint....I would choose to fly it every single time.

      The real truth is, you can have all the screening you want, the terrorist chooses his target. Your BEST CASE SCENARIO is he moves on and attacks a school or subway instead. In truth, you probably have no chance in hell of actually stopping every terrorist who tries to get a plane.

      Even if you could, he could just.... blow up the checkpoint....or the line in front of it. There is no win, there is no "security" Its all for show, 100%

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    2. Re:Either you have screening or you don't by Issarlk · · Score: 1

      Ha! But then they could just put checkpoints in front of the checkpoints to filter out the terrori... wait a minute.

    3. Re:Either you have screening or you don't by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      I actually asked on the TSA blog once if that was their plan.

      They apparently didn't consider it a worthy question....that or they don't want to give away the plan.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    4. Re:Either you have screening or you don't by CelticWhisper · · Score: 1

      I herd u liek security, so we put a checkpoint in your checkpoint so you can get irradiated while you get your 4th-amendment...rights...viol...ated? ...This sucks, I want my free country back.

      --
      Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
      http://www.tsanewsblog.com
    5. Re:Either you have screening or you don't by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      'Kay. I vote "Don't", then.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    6. Re:Either you have screening or you don't by toriver · · Score: 1

      A chain of security checkpoints stretching TO INFINITY... AND BEYOND!

    7. Re:Either you have screening or you don't by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Then....once everyone is a TSA employee.... we can spend our days touching eachothers junk! w00t!

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  27. Re:When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically. by Volante3192 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yep, and thanks to them, they got to pull off a one time only ever event. Plane hijackings stopped becoming a legitimate terrorist tool as soon as the first tower was hit. (Who came out of 9/11 as the biggest heroes? United 93.)

    The fact is terrorists are NOT stupid. They know they can't pull this off again, but they're having a hell of a time laughing at us pissing ourselves to soaking levels every time someone drops a penny at a security line.

    Your pussy nature has let them win, exactly what you think you're trying to prevent.

    It'd be funny if it wasn't so damn depressing.

  28. Unfortunate, but possibly necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That this would happen to this invidual, that clearly isn't a terrorist, is unfortunate.
    But, elderly people in general do fit the profile of a terrorist on the following main points:
    a) They are likely to have reconciled with death.
    b) They are often disgruntled with society.
    c) They have a lot of spare time on their hands and are therefore more likely to stumble into Islamic forums on the Internet and become converted.

  29. Bin Laden must be rolling over in his grave. by bazorg · · Score: 1

    "Roigl" is probably the acronym.

  30. The TSA is run by idiots, for idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All you pathetic fools who have allowed yourselves to be brainwashed
    by the government deserve exactly what you get.

    Now drop your pants, and bend over and cough.

  31. Re:TSA is crazy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, Dr. Bob. But don't worry, this MD will be waiting for you at the ER when you get REALLY sick. And I'll be sure to prescribe lots of "big pharma" poisons for you. Staying in a hospital bed for a long time kinda sucks though and you will probably get a back-ache, so after your stay with us you're welcome to visit one of your spine-cracker buddies.

  32. Want to live? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't diss bees. They work very hard and then we steal their honey. Also, they don't sting unless they are in mortal peril, or if their hive is threatened. Bees are very docile. Appreciate them, they deserve it.

    Obligatory car analogy: people die in car crashes every day. Most of them could have easily been avoided. We don't try to do that, because we feel we have the right to behave how we want in our car. Freedom and all that. Drunk drivers think it is ok to drive when intoxicated, even if they are told it has a higher risk. We still use our mobile phone in the car, even if study after study proves it is rather dangerous. Some cars aren't really fit to be on the road, but does that stop us?

    But somehow we feel we should have our genitals groped on the off chance there might be a non-savoury passenger aboard. Even when the drive to the airport is several orders of magnitude more dangerous.

    We are a stupid lot, really.

    1. Re:Want to live? by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Not dissing bees. In fact, you could argue from my analogy I'm saying bees are more bad-ass than terrorists.

    2. Re:Want to live? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't diss bees. They work very hard and then we steal their honey.

      ...

      We are a stupid lot, really.

      People are even more docile than bees when you steal their shit!

    3. Re:Want to live? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      But somehow we feel we should have our genitals groped on the off chance there might be a non-savoury passenger aboard. Even when the drive to the airport is several orders of magnitude more dangerous.

      We are a stupid lot, really.

      Look, I agree that the TSA's approach isn't working out. But if we're going to discuss stupidity, we should at least do it fairly: Those car crashes do not equal the damage done by 9-11. Everybody was affected by that event, not just those directly involved in the crashes. Remember the massive bouts of unemployment that lasted something like 2 years? It's also worth noting that though the death toll was around 3,000, they were aiming for more than 50,000. We were very lucky the count was that low.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    4. Re:Want to live? by chill · · Score: 2

      First things first. Congrats on the +5 for the "I like to lick butts!" comment. That should be a special /. achievement. Kudos.

      On to the discussion...

      The car crashes DO equal the damage done by 9/11. Add up the unemployment, lost hours due to non-fatal injuries, grief time, having to now deal with single-parent issues, etc. and you'll find that it more than matches the loss of productivity triggered by 9/11.

      Then take into account the fact that the car issues happen every day, and every year for the last 60 or so and will continue into the foreseeable future and you'll find that it dwarfs the impact of 9/11.

      The problem is the spread-out nature of the event diminishes the perceived impact. The numbers get lost in the noise and unless you go looking for them, you don't see them. Even if you point them out to people, most won't acknowledge them. The human brain isn't wired for that sort of thing. We are VERY bad at judging risk at timescales other than the immediate.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    5. Re:Want to live? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      The problem is the spread-out nature of the event diminishes the perceived impact.

      This statement supports my point. If all of the car crashes in the space of a year happened in one day the damage would be greater than it currently is where everything is spread out.

      The severity of those big events aren't reduced by the size of the time-line. They're compounded by compressing them all together into one big event. That sort of situation is always going to be worse than dealing with the small percentage of loss we deal with just by getting out of bed every morning.

      We are VERY bad at judging risk at timescales other than the immediate.

      No we're not, we just recognize the importance of going after the low-hanging fruit. We're also smart enough to diversify our efforts so both issues are actually being actively addressed, even if not successfully.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    6. Re:Want to live? by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      Bees are insects. They don't work hard; they do what they are programmed to do (instinct). They don't deserve anything. They cannot be stolen from. They cannot appreciate being appreciated. They are insects. Get your priorities straight. Stop vilifying humans and victimizing insects.

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    7. Re:Want to live? by tragedy · · Score: 1

      The problem is the spread-out nature of the event diminishes the perceived impact.

      This statement supports my point. If all of the car crashes in the space of a year happened in one day the damage would be greater than it currently is where everything is spread out.

      But that's a circular argument. You're saying that more significance should be attached to such events because people perceive them as more significant.

    8. Re:Want to live? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      No, I'm saying they are more significant.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    9. Re:Want to live? by tragedy · · Score: 1

      I know that's what you're saying, but you were claiming that the previous posters comment that the spread out nature of the event diminishes the perceived impact supported your point. I don't see how it does. I suppose if all the crashes happened in one place at the exact same time it might overwhelm local emergency services. Taken the way the poster you replied to actually meant it, however, as simply a comparison of the cumulative death, injury, and property damage of auto accidents versus the 9/11 incidents death injury and property damage, then the auto incidents are clearly worse.

    10. Re:Want to live? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      I suppose if all the crashes happened in one place at the exact same time it might overwhelm local emergency services.

      Yes, you're on track. It's more than that, though. The way life already works, we have to be tolerant to the idea that people can just suddenly disappear. It's not just car crashes. Natural disasters, health problems, plain old 'shit happens'. We're prepared for it. When suddenly a large event happens, everything is thrown into a chaotic shock. That's what happened on 9-11, that's why it's more than a death toll of ~3,000.

      Taken the way the poster you replied to actually meant it, however, as simply a comparison of the cumulative death, injury, and property damage of auto accidents versus the 9/11 incidents death injury and property damage, then the auto incidents are clearly worse.

      They seem that way because you're filtering out important details. You can use the same rationale to say that smoking lowers the risk of alzheimer's.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    11. Re:Want to live? by tragedy · · Score: 1

      But the original poster wasn't saying "what if all those auto accidents happened at once?", just that the cumulative death, injury and damage was worse. "Chaotic shock" is just a matter of perception. It still seems to me that you're basically just saying that anything that is perceived as worse is actually worse, simply because it's perceived as such.

    12. Re:Want to live? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      But the original poster wasn't saying "what if all those auto accidents happened at once?", just that the cumulative death, injury and damage was worse.

      He's trying to make the point that we should take whatever effort is being done to prevent a terrorist attack and put it into stopping car crashes, the assumption being that at the end of the universe, the numbers will change showing there were fewer deaths and low unemployment. It's a tempting assumption for a few reasons:

      1. The timeline has no limit, leaving lots of possibilities open.
      2. It assumes 1 major terrorist attack a year tops.
      3. The gov't hasn't handled it well, annoying everybody.
      4. It's is an oversimplification of the numbers that doesn't take reality into account. There's a big difference between living through something and reading the Wikipedia summary of it 10 years later.

      It still seems to me that you're basically just saying that anything that is perceived as worse is actually worse, simply because it's perceived as such.

      I'm not saying that it's seems worse because it's perceived worse, I'm saying it's worse because it is worse. You acknowledged it yourself in your last post.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    13. Re:Want to live? by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Unless there's some sort of truly huge upswing in terrorist attacks, I don't see how the numbers don't make it more sensible to spend the money on making cars safer, developing alternative energy sources etc. Now, if we did spend the money on making driving safer then "at the end of the universe" there might, maybe, be a slim chance that terrorist attacks caused more death than transportation accidents. That's really a goal we should work towards.

      I did not acknowledge that it is worse. I acknowledged that a more concentrated event can overwhelm emergency services. Unless we're willing to spend massive amounts more for emergency services, we're not going to be able to fix that. As concentrated as 9/11 was, the total amount of death and destruction was less than the cumulative effects of auto accidents.

    14. Re:Want to live? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Unless there's some sort of truly huge upswing in terrorist attacks, I don't see how the numbers don't make it more sensible to spend the money on making cars safer, developing alternative energy sources etc.

      The answer to that is simple: Do both. (Note: When I say do both, I mean do both competently. That's not what's happening now.) Diversity is important and events like 9-11 have a way of setting us back. We've already seen that.

      I did not acknowledge that it is worse. I acknowledged that a more concentrated event can overwhelm emergency services.

      I know you didn't acknowledge it, you still proved it. That distinction really isn't one. You've shown one way that having it happen at once is worse than having it spread out. That means that this whole 'perception' concept is bunk.

      As concentrated as 9/11 was, the total amount of death and destruction was less than the cumulative effects of auto accidents.

      You're saying a finite event is less than the total of all events throughout eternity.

        We don't know how many more attacks will happen. We don't know how effective it would be to actually spend money to stop them. We don't know that we can actually reduce/stop car crashes or how much that will cost. We don't know how successful those attacks will be, afterall there were over fifty thousand people in the towers when they were struck. We don't know that they won't manage to, for example, use a really powerful nuke. We don't know how long we'll have cars to actually crash. We can't measure the value of the quality of life. Etc.

      Spending money on one and not the other is unwise.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    15. Re:Want to live? by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Yes, we should respond appropriately to events. Clearly, the US hasn't and has gone completely crazy over one set of deaths for nearly a decade now.

      I did not acknowledge that it is worse. I acknowledged that a more concentrated event can overwhelm emergency services.

      I know you didn't acknowledge it, you still proved it. That distinction really isn't one. You've shown one way that having it happen at once is worse than having it spread out. That means that this whole 'perception' concept is bunk.

      I speculated that one large, concentrated event rather than lots of spread out events could overwhelm emergency services and, in that way, a large concentrated event might be considered worse. You're acting as if this somehow makes the event immeasurably worse. It doesn't. It's fairly straightforward. If emergency services aren't overwhelmed, there may be fewer deaths, fewer injuries, and less property damage. If they are overwhelmed, there may be more. It is not a factor that's separate from the final accounting. If the final tally of death, injury, and destruction is less than the tally for some other cumulative "event", then the latter event is worse regardless of which event got better emergency services coverage. In any case, it's a bit subjective whether overwhelming emergency services actually makes an event worse. On a human scale, it almost certainly does. The kind of cold, pragmatic accounting used, for example, by nations when they decide to go to war, almost certainly prefers people to die at the scene than to require long-term medical care and perhaps require assistance for the rest of their lives.

      You're saying a finite event is less than the total of all events throughout eternity.

      I'm saying that a finite event is less than the total of all events throughout the kind of time frame you could reasonably expect finite events of that scale to occur. There were more than 42,000 deaths from auto accidents the year that 2752 people died in the World Trade Center collapse. It was about a month's worth of auto accidents. All of those deaths were tragic, but the death of someone who was just working innocently enough in their office isn't somehow more tragic than the death of someone just innocently driving down the road. If an event on the level of 9/11 happened once a month, it would put it on the scale of auto accidents. Both combined would still only be a fraction of the 250,000+ deaths that would be occurring each month. Devoting the kind of money and focus that's been given to 9/11 to almost any other cause of death would almost certainly have better results.

      There are all sorts of things we don't know about the future. We don't know that some natural cause of death won't come along tomorrow and wipe us all out. Uncertainty about the future isn't an excuse to act stupidly. All we can do is extrapolate from past events and our best information on the causes of those events and try to apply that knowledge to the information we have about the present. That's all we can ever do. Getting overly worked up over any one thing isn't sensible. I remember when everyone in the US was so incredibly worked up about the Soviet Union and that fear justified tremendous amounts of spending. The USSR is no more, but their nuclear program remains and the US is still in a constant state of being minutes away from nuclear war with Russia. People have just gotten used to it or just plain forgotten about it. Eventually they'll forget about it. In 8 years, there will be an entire generation of US voters starting to reach voting age who weren't even alive when 9/11 happened. Given the slow progress of withdrawing troops, it's looking like it's possible they're going to be wondering why the US is _still_ in an ongoing war over it. They're also going to be pretty angry that they're being stuck with the bill for the last 50 years or so of the bipartisan "borrow and spend" program.

    16. Re:Want to live? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      You're acting as if this somehow makes the event immeasurably worse.

      That's because it was. It took almost two years for the country to recover from what happened on 9-11. The world would have been very different if, for example, 3,000 people had heart attacks across the country.

      There were more than 42,000 deaths from auto accidents the year that 2752 people died in the World Trade Center collapse. It was about a month's worth of auto accidents.

      There were 50,000 people in the buildings when the planes hit, that's what Osama was aiming for. It was a miracle that only 3,000 people died. Also, those 42,000 didn't tank the economy.

      Devoting the kind of money and focus that's been given to 9/11 to almost any other cause of death would almost certainly have better results.

      I agree in the sense that the money has not been used wisely. I don't agree that if the money was being used competently that would be the case. There were lots of people on unemployment for 18+ months as a result of those events.

      Getting overly worked up over any one thing isn't sensible.

      We agree on this. That's why I think spending money in both directions (if being done competently...) is good.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    17. Re:Want to live? by tragedy · · Score: 1

      You're acting as if this somehow makes the event immeasurably worse.

      That's because it was. It took almost two years for the country to recover from what happened on 9-11. The world would have been very different if, for example, 3,000 people had heart attacks across the country.

      Yes, the world would have been very different. But saying that it was worse because of how long it took to recover from it (personally, I don't see where you get the two year figure, it seems that the country still hasn't recovered) doesn't work. It's taking so long to recover from it because the response was so disproportionate. The response was disproportionate because the event was perceived as worse, not because it actually was worse than an equivalent number of fatal auto accidents. People who lost loved ones in the 9/11 incident were surely profoundly affected by it, but surely no more so than those who lost loved ones in auto accidents.

    18. Re:Want to live? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      But saying that it was worse because of how long it took to recover from it (personally, I don't see where you get the two year figure, it seems that the country still hasn't recovered) doesn't work

      The two year figure is about how long it took for things like the stock market and employment to re-stabilize. It's not a scientific number, really, it's what I remember from that time period. As for it not working, well that brings us to this point...

      The response was disproportionate because the event was perceived as worse, not because it actually was worse than an equivalent number of fatal auto accidents. People who lost loved ones in the 9/11 incident were surely profoundly affected by it, but surely no more so than those who lost loved ones in auto accidents.

      The whole world was affected. Besides scaring the shit out of everybody, the economy tanked, travel was severely disrupted, and there's a world of difference between people dying by accident and people being brutally murdered. The area I was in, its job availability plummeted. The state extended unemployment insurance from 6 months all the way to 18. When I finally got laid off (unrelated to 9-11, although the direction that company took was a direct result of it...) I took the risk of looking for a job in another state instead. Lucky for me it played out. I work in entertainment, now. Which... is scary, too. Entertainment was the first thing to go out for two to three months when the planes hit. Several movies were shifted to turn away from the general direction of that event, some flat out canceled along with several games. Lots of people who do the sort of work I do were out of a job, and that took months to re-stabilize. If this sort of event happens again it's possible I'll have to figure out how to survive long-term unemployment.

      I lost no-one on 9-11. I was affected by it pretty seriously, and I had it light compared to lots of people. It was an era, not an event.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    19. Re:Want to live? by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Things like the stock market and the economy are feedback loops that are very, very heavily by perception of reality rather than reality itself. The financial effects of 9/11, aside from the immediate property damage, injury and loss of life (which are comparable to those from auto accidents in a fairly short time frame), are all secondary effects due to the way the incident is perceived, rather than the actual adverse effects. You say that it "scared the **** out of everybody" which is everyone reacting irrationally relative to the actual danger to them. You say that "the economy tanked" which is once again due to people's reaction to the event, rather than the event itself. You say that "travel was severely disrupted" which is due to panic and the CYA principle employed by authorities who were trying to close the gate after the horses had already escaped.

      There are differences between people dying by accident and being murdered. The victims are just as dead either way, however. In any case, there were about 16,000 other murders in the US that year, so 9/11 would still just be a statistical blip against that.

    20. Re:Want to live? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Things like the stock market and the economy are feedback loops that are very, very heavily by perception of reality rather than reality itself.

      It's dependent on the fact that we are four dimensional beings that don't know the future. That bit will never change.

      There are differences between people dying by accident and being murdered. The victims are just as dead either way, however.

      One of the differences between accident and murder is in the case of murder, it can and probably will be attempted again.

      In any case, there were about 16,000 other murders in the US that year, so 9/11 would still just be a statistical blip against that.

      Again, 50,000 people in the buildings at the time of impact.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    21. Re:Want to live? by tragedy · · Score: 1

      We don't know the future, but we can extrapolate based on what we do know. What we knew, even on on the day of the event, is that it was extremely unlikely that another attack like that could be pulled off any time soon, but it was extremely likely that people would keep dying of other known causes at a fairly consistent rate. Most of us with any foresight knew right off the bat that 9/11 was a huge disaster for the US precisely because of the way the country would over-react. No special precognitive abilities were required to know that it would be an excuse to roll out a package of unconstitutional laws, or that the US was going to go to war with someone and spend massive amounts of money that it didn't actually have on it. That the US would push to go to war in Iraq was a no-brainer as well. Anyone with any common sense said that the US would be entangled in Afghanistan for years. People who said a decade or more were laughed at by the people saying it would just be a few months. Anyone with a functioning brain actually understood broadly where history was heading. Also, anyone with a functioning brain understood (and still understands) that the stock markets which are the base of much of the economy are ridiculously unstable and unreliable and that there are more people involved in them operating based on speculation and gaming the system than there are trying to provide solid capital to companies in exchange for a solid stake in that company. So, they understood that the markets, and therefore much of the economy, was about to take a big dive due to the facts that all the rats would desert the sinking ship at the very first sign of water. So, based on that knowledge, they all deserted the sinking ship. Great for them, if they managed to sell high and later buy low. Terrible for the market itself. But, once again, just a feedback loop based on people speculating and predicting how the event would be received and operating in line with those predictions, resulting in self-fulfilling prophecies of doom.

      In the case of murder, it may be attempted again. What surprises me is how many people forget that the 9/11 was at least the second attempt on the World Trade Center. Destroying them with a bomb had been tried about a decade before. Those behind the attacks (the ones who weren't already dead or whose cover wasn't compromised) certainly could have tried again for a similar sized attack and those who are left or who are their ideological descendants (or indeed completely different groups like say Iraqis or Afghan's who had no connection to the original attacks but who have lost their families to US bombings) still may try again. As you've stated, we're unsure about what the future may hold but, as I've stated, we can fairly reliably extrapolate certain trends. As such, we can be pretty sure that there will be another large terrorist attack someday, but our best guess at the size and frequency of such events puts them way down on the list of causes of death, injury and destruction. Meanwhile, many more people are likely to die from auto accidents and regular, personal murder (many of which are one-offs committed by people who don't actually intend to make a career out of murder).

      The World Trade Center towers could hold upwards of 50,000 people, true. The nature of the attacks made it unlikely that the planes could have hit lower than about halfway up, and the fact that the planes hit about 17 minutes apart gave a fair amount of time to evacuate the second tower so (making certain reasonable assumptions about distribution of people within the towers and how speedily the buildings could be evacuated) it's unlikely the attacks, as performed, would have gotten more than 13,000 or so even if the buildings had been filled to capacity when the first plane struck. For that matter, the first strike came before 9:00 AM. A lot of people don't start work until 9:00, so it's unlikely that the buildings were filled to capacity at the time anyway.

      You can say what if, and decide that, since fifty thousand _could_, ma

    22. Re:Want to live? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      What we knew, even on on the day of the event, is that it was extremely unlikely that another attack like that could be pulled off any time soon, but it was extremely likely that people would keep dying of other known causes at a fairly consistent rate.

      We knew they would try again and we had already seen first hand how much disruption it caused. Knowing it wouldn't be soon also meant knowing we had time to mobilize and prepare for round 2.

      We also didn't know that it was unlikely they'd try again. That's why all airplanes were instantly grounded and why we went into Afghanistan so quickly.

      You cannot apply hindsight to the way the gov't responded.

      But, once again, just a feedback loop based on people speculating and predicting how the event would be received and operating in line with those predictions, resulting in self-fulfilling prophecies of doom.

      Right, it happens, it would happen again. What you're describing is the nature of how it works. You can call it 'perceived' if you like, it's still a reality and has to be counted.

      As such, we can be pretty sure that there will be another large terrorist attack someday, but our best guess at the size and frequency of such events puts them way down on the list of causes of death, injury and destruction.

      We failed to do that extrapolation with the earlier bombing of the towers. Look what it bought us. There's no way that will be ignored.

      The World Trade Center towers could hold upwards of 50,000 people, true.

      No. The capacity of both buildings is upwards of 200,000. There were 50,000 at the moment of impact. An hour or so later it would have been closer to 100,000. That's the score Osama was aiming for.

      The nature of the attacks made it unlikely that the planes could have hit lower than about halfway up, and the fact that the planes hit about 17 minutes apart gave a fair amount of time to evacuate the second tower so (making certain reasonable assumptions about distribution of people within the towers and how speedily the buildings could be evacuated) it's unlikely the attacks, as performed, would have gotten more than 13,000 or so even if the buildings had been filled to capacity when the first plane struck. For that matter, the first strike came before 9:00 AM. A lot of people don't start work until 9:00, so it's unlikely that the buildings were filled to capacity at the time anyway.

      These were hijacked planes flown by barely-experienced pilots carrying terrified passengers over a skyscraper-laden city, not state-of-the-art missiles they could fire on a whim. If the second plane had impacted before the first, the 13,000 count could easily have happened only it would have been closer to 25k. It struck the lower quarter of the building. The first happened in the upper floors. The ~3,000 death count is disingenuous when describing what happened on 9-11. We were incredibly lucky.

      You can say what if, and decide that, since fifty thousand _could_, maybe, have died on 9/11 that it's as if fifty thousand really did die. Why not go whole hog and declare that 6+ billion people could have died, so the events of 9/11 were as bad as killing the entire world?

      Because there were 50,000 people in the buildings. The buildings were the target. The people in the buildings were the target. The intent was to destroy the buildings and everybody in them. Car crashes have no such intent *and* since they happen frequently we can measure their averages. Car accidents do not aspire to create more death.

      The argument that since something potentially could have been worse that it somehow _is_ worse is disingenuous when you're comparing it against other that also could have been worse.

      Not really. You're talking about an accident and I'm talking about an intentional act of murder. If somebody set

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    23. Re:Want to live? by tragedy · · Score: 1

      I'm not applying hindsight to the way the government responded. I'm simply remembering what was immediately obvious within hours and days of the event.

      As for the stock market, what I described may be the "nature of how it works" but that doesn't make it less stupid.

      You can call it 'perceived' if you like, it's still a reality and has to be counted.

      Of course it has to be counted. I'm not trying to argue that it isn't a reality, just that the reality only occurs because things are blown out of proportion. You're clearly arguing that 9/11 is so significant because of the way that people reacted to it, but for some reason, even though that's the argument you keep making, you insist that it isn't what you're saying.

      We didn't fail to do that extrapolation with the first world trade center bombing. Everyone knew that there were crosshairs painted on the site. Various security precautions were taken. Military actions occurred, etc. A sense of normalcy returned, people went back to work. Years later, a number of people died. It's still unclear, nearly ten years later, what could have been done to prevent it that wasn't. One key thing that was done was that better evacuation plans were made for the buildings after the debacle of the evacuation in the first bombing.

      No. The capacity of both buildings is upwards of 200,000. There were 50,000 at the moment of impact. An hour or so later it would have been closer to 100,000. That's the score Osama was aiming for.

      The actual capacity of both buildings is a little hard to find, but there were about 50,000 people employed there. About 150,000 people used the subway stations there each day, maybe that's where you're getting the 200,000 figure, by adding that to the 50,000 who worked there? In any case, an hour later, it might have been closer to 50,000, but at the time of the first impact it was more like 10,000 to 14,000.

      I find it odd that you feel the need to keep creeping up the number of potential victims of the attack. A pretty good estimate of how many people died exists. That's the reality of it. Speculating on possible alternate universes where it went down differently doesn't change what actually happened in reality.

      These were hijacked planes flown by barely-experienced pilots carrying terrified passengers over a skyscraper-laden city, not state-of-the-art missiles they could fire on a whim. If the second plane had impacted before the first, the 13,000 count could easily have happened only it would have been closer to 25k. It struck the lower quarter of the building. The first happened in the upper floors. The ~3,000 death count is disingenuous when describing what happened on 9-11. We were incredibly lucky.

      Once again, the buildings had less than a third of the total number of people they could have had in them at the time. It could have been closer to 25 thousand if it had happened later in the day and the planes had struck at the same time, maybe. Also, the second plane did not strike the lower quarter of the building. It struck pretty much right on the line between the upper quarter and the one below it. The approximate dead center of the second impact was only a few floors lower than the first impact.

      Also, the ~3,000 death count is not "disingenuous when describing what happened on 9-11" it's merely descriptive of what actually happened. Are you trying to suggest that ~50,000 people really did die and that I'm trying to somehow deceptively claim that it was only ~3,000?

      Because there were 50,000 people in the buildings. The buildings were the target. The people in the buildings were the target. The intent was to destroy the buildings and everybody in them. Car crashes have no such intent *and* since they happen frequently we can measure their averages. Car accidents do not aspire to create more death.

      We've previously discussed how a typical two months

    24. Re:Want to live? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      As for the stock market, what I described may be the "nature of how it works" but that doesn't make it less stupid.

      It doesn't matter if it's stupid, that's what'll happen. It's stupid that my cats are afraid of flying, there's not one thing I can do about it.

      You're clearly arguing that 9/11 is so significant because of the way that people reacted to it, but for some reason, even though that's the argument you keep making, you insist that it isn't what you're saying.

      You keep arguing that the danger was 'perceived', the implication being that the danger wasn't there at all. There's definitely an attraction to that line of thought, especially in light of checking an old lady's diaper for explosives, but the reality is that it wasn't like all those people who needed an extra year of unemployment were just sitting in their beds with the covers over their heads. Those problems were real, even if the reasons were dumb.

      The actual capacity of both buildings is a little hard to find, but there were about 50,000 people employed there. About 150,000 people used the subway stations there each day, maybe that's where you're getting the 200,000 figure, by adding that to the 50,000 who worked there? In any case, an hour later, it might have been closer to 50,000, but at the time of the first impact it was more like 10,000 to 14,000.

      Conceded. My info was coming from the news reports just after the buildings fell. There was no clue for days how many people were actually dead so they were trying to find out. The 200,000 was my misreading of a number, that's by the end of the day not the capacity. I accept fault for this.

      However, the 50k number is still important, unless it is your intention to say that Osama was trying to keep the killl count really low. An hour later and that's what the occupancy would have been at the time of impact.

      I find it odd that you feel the need to keep creeping up the number of potential victims of the attack. A pretty good estimate of how many people died exists. That's the reality of it. Speculating on possible alternate universes where it went down differently doesn't change what actually happened in reality.

      'Speculating on alternative universes' is exactly what defines what the next course of action is. The 'reality of it' is that we got off really lightly compared to what the actual goal of the attack was. The reality of it is that if round two had been attempted, improvements would have been made to increase the amount of destruction. The reality of it is that 9-11 was more than just the sum of the people who died.

      Also, the ~3,000 death count is not "disingenuous when describing what happened on 9-11" it's merely descriptive of what actually happened. Are you trying to suggest that ~50,000 people really did die and that I'm trying to somehow deceptively claim that it was only ~3,000?

      I'm saying that not understanding the scope of the event is making your judgement erroneous. If we were talking about accidents and not attacks, your point would be a lot stronger.

      The issue is whether or not the money and effort being used on one cause is wasted or not compared to putting it into another cause. Both things that have intent behind them and things that are simply accidents may be preventable.

      The money that's been spent on things like the current incarnation of the TSA and the war in Iraq etc has been a waste. I have never argued or intended to argue anything but that. It was not handled competently. I want to be clear about that for this next bit I'm about to say: We should not put all our eggs in one basket. You actually do agree with me on this, but it won't seem that way because I think it sounds like I'm endorsing events as they're happening now. I'm not. The fact that both are preventable, as you say, suggests exactly the same course of acti

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    25. Re:Want to live? by tragedy · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if it's stupid, that's what'll happen. It's stupid that my cats are afraid of flying, there's not one thing I can do about it.

      I never argued that it's not what will happen, just that it's a serious flaw in our behavior and one we should try to correct. Your cats don't really know what's going on when they're flying, they just don't like the noise and the vibration and the uncomfortable movement. You and I, on the other hand, know exactly what's going on when we're flying, for the most part. We are, in fact, much much more aware of the dangers of horrible death involved in flying. If we were irrational about it, we wouldn't fly out of sheer terror of what could happen (possibly what could happen if the plane were seized by people intent on crashing it). Since we're rational I'm assuming that we both fly anyway, because we have a grasp on the actual probability of dying in a plane crash (or the even smaller possibility of the plane being hijacked). There's nothing you can do about your cats stupidity, but as highly aware, informed, and intelligent beings, there's something we can do about our own stupidity or we wouldn't have planes in the first place.

      You keep arguing that the danger was 'perceived', the implication being that the danger wasn't there at all.

      No. This is incorrect. This is where I believe you're being disingenuous. You're trying to shift my argument slightly to create a strawman you can attack. Here's a history lesson, starting with Chill, then you, then me, then you:

      The problem is the spread-out nature of the event diminishes the perceived impact.

      This statement supports my point. If all of the car crashes in the space of a year happened in one day the damage would be greater than it currently is where everything is spread out.

      But that's a circular argument. You're saying that more significance should be attached to such events because people perceive them as more significant.

      No, I'm saying they are more significant.

      I was _not_ implying that "the danger wasn't there at all". I was outright stating that the danger was less than the danger presented by other well known causes and that it's irrational to treat that danger as if it's thousands of times worse than other dangers that cause far more death and destruction.

      Once again, I've never argued that the problems we're still experiencing due to the trigger event on 9/11 aren't real, just that the reaction is overblown and stupid. You don't actually seem to disagree with me on that half the time.

      As for the capacity of the buildings and how many were in them, I remember watching all of this on TV as it happened and speculative numbers like that being thrown around before anyone knew for sure. Before the towers even fell. Things like that stick with you whereas continuously adjusted information eking out for months and years afterwards doesn't always stick so well. Perfectly understandable.

      However, the 50k number is still important, unless it is your intention to say that Osama was trying to keep the kill count really low. An hour later and that's what the occupancy would have been at the time of impact.

      Actually, I've always wondered about that. In many respects, the 9/11 attacks were a terrorist masterwork. However, the timing of the attacks meant that the first strike happened before 9:00 AM in an office building, which should be an obviously bad time if your intent is to kill as many people as possible. A less obvious timing problem, but still one you might expect the planners to consider is that it was the day of the mayoral primary and also the first day of school. So, the attacks occurred on the weekday that was almost guaranteed to have the lowest attendance, especially in the morning, for months. The question there is if it was

    26. Re:Want to live? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      No. This is incorrect. This is where I believe you're being disingenuous.

      Not intentionally.

      Once again, I've never argued that the problems we're still experiencing due to the trigger event on 9/11 aren't real, just that the reaction is overblown and stupid. You don't actually seem to disagree with me on that half the time.

      I think a big part of the problem here is I'm not understanding what you mean by this bit. I might be mixing up what you've said with something somebody else said around the same time. I apologize for that.

      I think before continuing to the rest of your points I should ask a question first...

      I was outright stating that the danger was less than the danger presented by other well known causes and that it's irrational to treat that danger as if it's thousands of times worse than other dangers that cause far more death and destruction.

      ^^ can you give me an example or two of what you're thinking of while you say this?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    27. Re:Want to live? by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Well, the primary example seems to be nearly everything that has been done in response to 9/11: the wars, the pork spending, the security theater, etc. versus spending all that money and effort on cancer research, or just outright paying for medical care for people in need. Or maybe spending the money and effort on increasing auto safety to reduce fatalities by say, 10%. There are lots of worthy causes out there, and allocating the kind of resources that have been apportioned out to them could probably save tens of thousands of lives per year. Meanwhile it's not clear whether anything done in response to 9/11 has managed to help anyone.

      Of course, most of the things that the resources could be used on instead could never get the funding on their own merits, no matter how many people they could help. For one thing, the money just isn't there. The country was heavily in debt before all of this happened and things have just gotten worse. Nevertheless, due to overblown emotion the country is happily spending itself into bankruptcy and seems to not have any actual success to show for it.

    28. Re:Want to live? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      On this point we don't disagree. The way the gov't handled post-911 was terrible.

      The big thing is I don't think we should suddenly funnel that money into just one other project. Split it up. Space program, cancer research, quit cutting medicare and social security, etc. But that's a discussion about better uses for badly spent money. An effective anti-terrorism department would be worthwhile. We don't need another attack like that and I'm sure our Allies would have liked to have had their attacks prevented.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    29. Re:Want to live? by tragedy · · Score: 1

      It would be nice for the money to go to lots of programs, certainly. I suppose the big tragedy is that there is no money. All of this extra spending is being done with prospective future money that can be spent today by virtue of various forms of credit. It's all well and good to do that, as long as you spend as much time in the black as you do in the red and catch up on your debt rather than letting it grow and grow and grow. The US hasn't been in the black during my entire lifetime or indeed during the lifetimes of more than half of its citizens. All I can really conclude in the end is that the US, and indeed most of the world, is a mess.

    30. Re:Want to live? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      Have a good weekend, man.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  33. This is why profiling works. by BlueKitties · · Score: 1, Troll

    Everyone who thinks this is absurd has implicitly argued that profiling -- racial, gender, and otherwise -- works.

    --
    "Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
    1. Re:This is why profiling works. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is why we make such great targets. We'll bend ourselves in pretzels trying to prove we're not racists.

    2. Re:This is why profiling works. by rebelwarlock · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So anyone who thinks this ridiculous security theater is absurd is a narrow minded bigot? Well then, if being against molesting children and harassing the elderly to no gain makes me a bigot, I suppose I am.

    3. Re:This is why profiling works. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup -- I bet Israel would happily give this lady a pass. Because they're strip-searching every single young Arab male.

      It works. But is it right? Personally, I'm conflicted.

    4. Re:This is why profiling works. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Everyone who thinks this is absurd has implicitly argued that profiling -- racial, gender, and otherwise -- works.

      This is true, but profiling doesn't work. Profiling actually adds a vulnerability to a security system - a big gaping one, all you have to do is not match the profile to get Security Lite.

      I'm not upset that an old white lady was treated in a way that nobody would bat an eye at if she were middle eastern and wearing a burkha. I'm upset at how ridiculously over-the-top and intrusive the TSA's procedures have become.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    5. Re:This is why profiling works. by the_raptor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is absurd to pat-down or scan ANYONE boarding a flight. A bomb carried on a person in such a way that it would be detected by this screening is entirely incapable of bringing down an air-plane. It could kill people but that would probably work better in the security line then when seated in an aircraft.

      And yes profiling works (to a degree). The problem is that by profiling you alienate that group from society and from law enforcement. It has been proven time and again that the only way to stop ethnic crime is by the police forging strong ties with the community.

      --

      ========
      CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
    6. Re:This is why profiling works. by toriver · · Score: 1

      Yes, profiling rests on the flawed assumption that someone not matching this "profile" is inherently a nice guy. Would any form of profiling have stopped Timothy McVeigh? Did Irish-Americans see increased scrutiny following his terrorist attack?

  34. Re:When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically. by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

    From yourself, of course. Imagine how chaotic it would be if everyone suddenly claimed their dignity!

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  35. Special school for TSA press agents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where they teach them to lie with a straight face when they say that they have reviewed the incident and found it to be according to their rigid standards...

  36. Que the Spaceballs trooper with the pick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We ain't found shit"

    1. Re:Que the Spaceballs trooper with the pick by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      Well the odds were against that to be honest! :)

  37. Re:When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically. by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fact that 3000 people were killed on 9/11, ten years ago is not justification for every single action which has the label "anti-terrorism" attached to it.

    In the US around 35,000 people are killed every single year as a result of road fatalities. If the same paranoia were applied to this much larger figure, speed limits would be e.g. radically cut and there would be mandatory alcohol and drugs testing before each road journey.

    There's a balance to be made between risk and liberty/inconvenience. And the one that is currently being made in air transport security is ridiculous.

  38. I'm going to hell for this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but the probability of a dirty bomb is huge!!

  39. Yeah, she "dropped a bomb". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There should be a stretchable fabric duffle bag that lays flat until you stretch it around whatever your carrying. If you unzip it, then it snaps back to flat. And then people should check them with large numbers of marbles inside. Inspect luggage, fill room with marbles. woo!

  40. Re:When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically. by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    This is what happens when America elects morons to do their thinking for them. Americans need to start thinking for themselves instead of pushing the job off on others. I saw a bumper sticker the other day, "America: Now outsourcing thinking!"

  41. Re:TSA is crazy. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Is there any way you can refuse him treatment based on his beliefs and allow him to try to treat himself with his own bullshit?

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  42. Re:When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eventually you take the small chance of death to avoid having an elderly woman have to remove her only diaper, americans are cowardly people taking their own safety to absurd levels. Goes right along with bankrupting yourself to fight a "war".

  43. Couldn't care less by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    America is on my No-Fly List, and has been for a good long while.

    I can simulate the air travel experience in my own room by pushing my desk chair all the way up to my desk, putting a couple of boxes in front of my legs, and watching DVDs from 8 years ago on repeat. For that added authentic experience, i'll invite two fat sweaty nerds to sit either side of me and flick peanuts at each other. The icing on the cake really is the 45 year old balding rent-a-cop sexually assaulting me at my bedroom door.

    Seriously. Never going to America again.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    1. Re:Couldn't care less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice self-important rant, why should we care?

    2. Re:Couldn't care less by Kernel+Krumpit · · Score: 1

      Second. Don't want my do-re-mi going to a war overseas. Now, if they would just take care of the infrastructure, make it affordable to be healthy, house the homeless... and hold their heads up proud and high. Then, we might take a bus over the border for a half-day. Maybe.

      --
      May the lies we live by make us strong, healthy, happy and wise - Kurt Vonnegut.
    3. Re:Couldn't care less by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because as the US moves to a service/IP economy, you'll depend more on foreign business and tourism (hah, good luck). Making travel a giant PITA will hurt those things.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:Couldn't care less by Rizimar · · Score: 1

      Maybe he's trying to save others from having a bad experience like his. Just a thought.

    5. Re:Couldn't care less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice moronic reply. Why should we care?

    6. Re:Couldn't care less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are not alone, I turned down a job offer in January that required taking a course in US. And I know several other (IT) people who would consider flying to US a serious deal breaker when applying for a job. Funny, isnt it?

    7. Re:Couldn't care less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good idea, but implemented from the wrong end. Americans should stop flying in and out of the us. Boycott flying until this crap is stopped. good point above: dont ban knives on planes. simple. at this point, 99% of US adult males, and probably 50% of all other passengers over age 12, are totally primed to kick terrorist butt on a plane. They know this, and thats why there are so few incidents.

    8. Re:Couldn't care less by wvmarle · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm with you.

      I've never been to the US, I'd love to see the place, but this whole flying nonsense is keeping me away from it. Having go through a watered-down version that's in place in the rest of the world (though EU is following the US closely) is bad enough. No interest to visit the source of that.

      It's a pity, really, that it has to be like that.

    9. Re:Couldn't care less by greed · · Score: 2

      No-one has told the U.S. border guards in economically depressed areas of New York State; you know, the parts that aren't New York City.

      Those guys seem to be out to actively prevent tourism; which is all that some of those towns have left. One idiot north of the Adirondaks and Lake Champlain said he'd never even heard someone say "sightseeing" before, and we couldn't possibly be tourists as a result.

      Presumably, he's never read those brochures at the New York Welcome Centre....

    10. Re:Couldn't care less by Combatso · · Score: 1

      Geeze dude, id be looking for a new place to live

    11. Re:Couldn't care less by element-o.p. · · Score: 3, Interesting

      1) Because he's right.

      2) Because America receives lots of income from tourism, and the more people like him who choose to vacation elsewhere, the more our economy suffers, and

      3) Did I mention that he's right?

      I, too, have decided not to fly anywhere in the U.S. anymore due to the nonsense at the airports, and I am a U.S. citizen living in the U.S. Worse than that, I live in Alaska, so if I want to go anywhere, flying is pretty much my only choice. It would take up most of my vacation just trying to get through Canada to go anywhere else. But I REFUSE to subject myself or my family to TSA. I hope more people make the same choice, because once the airlines start to feel the pinch, maybe they can generate enough leverage to get the policies to change.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    12. Re:Couldn't care less by BadPirate · · Score: 1

      America is on my No-Fly List, and has been for a good long while.

      Obviously, because the situation you described is unique to flights to and from America.

      --
      - Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
    13. Re:Couldn't care less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see the TSA has done one good thing, in that case. Thank God for the TSA!!!
       
      I hope you keep to your promise.

    14. Re:Couldn't care less by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Well, I'd leave the US except I'd probably have to get on a plane to do so.

    15. Re:Couldn't care less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not fat nor sweaty, but can I be one of the peanut flickers?

    16. Re:Couldn't care less by MrNemesis · · Score: 1

      "List" usually implies more than a singular item. I agree with the OP as I won't visit anywhere that takes fingerprints, sexually assaults and then scans through any available hard drives of potential tourists, all apparently with zero legal recourse or independent oversight. Any other countries that do the same thing would similarly be off my work and holiday itineraries.

      --
      Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
    17. Re:Couldn't care less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luxury! You need to simulate the extreme dryness and low air pressure (8000 feet) also.

    18. Re:Couldn't care less by Squiffy · · Score: 1

      I'm an American and I sympathize with you wholeheartedly.

    19. Re:Couldn't care less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sigh. America is on my no-fly list and I live in America.

      Posted as AC because in this case I have good cause to be a coward ;-)

    20. Re:Couldn't care less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll be quite frank here: if you only fly internationally to and from your country it'll be a more enjoyable experience. Combined with charter flights (non-tsa), driving and trains, it's a significantly better way to see the U.S. Even if you only travel regionally there's zero molesting going on when you fly internationally, OUT of the country. At least that's been my experience.

  44. TSA and the US of A have jumped the shark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The rest of the civilized world has dealt with and knows how to deal with terrorism and terrorist threats. The only country that doesn't know how is the US. The TSA is a real fascist organization, its amazing to see just how subservient the american populace has become. You know all those dystopian futures you'd see in hollywood AB serie movies ? Well thats the US for you. Good thing I visited the US when it was still the country of the free and they welcomed foreign tourists.

    I'd just post this (preface to the novel Patriot Games) because it exemplifies everything thats gone wrong in the last decade in the US of A :

      Behind all the political rhetoric being hurled at us from abroad, we are bringing home one unassailable fact -- [terrorism is] a crime by any civilized standard, committed against innocent people, away from the scene of political conflict, and must be dealt with as a crime...
      In our recognition of the nature of terrorism as a crime lies our best hope of dealing with it. ...
      Let us use the tools that we have. Let use invoke the cooperation we have the right to expect around the world, and with that cooperation let us shrink the dark and dank areas of sanctuary until these cowardly marauders are held to answer as criminals in an open and public trial for the crimes they have committed, and receive the punishment they so richly deserve.

    -- WILLIAM H. WEBSTER, Director,
    Federal Bureau of Investigation,
    October 15, 1985

  45. wow. consent. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    with your moronic logic, it would be easy to justify slavery, as long as two parties consented to it.

    1. Re:wow. consent. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      with your moronic logic, it would be easy to justify slavery, as long as two parties consented to it.

      "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting what to have for dinner."

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  46. Rose by any other name by buravirgil · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can stink. While the War on Drugs (patent pending) is being comically questioned in Congress, the TSA has always, and continues, to countenance its spirit as 'terror'. Drug interdiction is the concern and naked ambition pursued by "securing" airports with the Patriot Act. Termed "controversial invocations" by Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_invocations_of_the_USA_PATRIOT_Act What this incident revealed is an established "thinking" of TSA agents, akin to police popularizing incidents of mothers hiding crack in a baby's diaper, and that no one is above suspicion. And extreme acts are how agents of power assert policy. Should there be a "rule"? In what regard? Ages 55-100? People in a wheel-chair? This action is a form of active propaganda-- because if we can all condemn this action as too extreme, actions upon everybody else is all the more normalized.

    --
    Would were! Should is! Could be! And live a hundred times three.
    1. Re:Rose by any other name by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Your comment was insightful, but I almost missed it from your first sentence. I see after reading the whole thing you were being ironic/sarcastic.

      I think the "war on terror" is just another tool on their war on (some) drugs, which has been going on since 1914 when they outlawed opiates (without a license). Note that the opiate laws were racist; there was no such war on the opiates used by whites (laudanum), just the opiates used by the Chinese (opium that wasn't mixed with alcohol as laudanum was).

      I had my eyes opened wide by a history of organized crime I read recently. The people who most want these drugs outlawed are the ones who gain financially from them. Politicians who are for the continued outlawing of these substances are in the pay of the gangsters.

      Consider marijuana -- the least harmful (and in many ways beneficial) psychoactive drug, a drug safer than aspirin, a drug that is not addictive and no more habuituating that orange juice, a drug with no known lethal dose, a drug that, when ingested, makes people less prone to violence than when sober (unlike alcohol, which often makes many people violent). An ounce of it goes for well over a hundred dollars. Contrast that to one of the most addictive and the most deadly drug known to man, cigarettes. Sold legally a pack cost about five bucks, four of that in taxes.

      Billions of dollars change hands over ganja's sales, yet not a penny of it is taxed! No pot tax, not even income tax. Those billions in uncollected taxes would go a long way to decreasing the defecit.

      Why would a politician be against collecting these taxes? They're in the pay of organized crime. Don't expect it to be legalized.

      Meanwhile, they trumpet catching the tiny fraction of those selling it. The more they catch (and I suspect they catch the ones who aren't smart enough to make the proper bribes), the more they trumpet.

      The war on terror and its revocation of our rights makes it easier to catch dope runners. This madness should stop; it's worse than counterproductive, as most of the societal problems caused by drugs are caused by the laws against them themselves. But don't hold your breath, there's way too much money to be made searching grandma's diaper in the name of counterterrorism that's really looking for drugs, for your corrupt government to ley the gravy train end.

    2. Re:Rose by any other name by mandelbr0t · · Score: 1

      I think you need to lay off a bit. While you're right about marijuana being a relatively safe drug, you're making wild claims that just aren't supported by fact. Marijuana most certainly is habit-forming, and like any drug, an addict can really ruin their life. It has a lethal dose, though it's basically impossible for a human to consume that much (1500lbs in 15 minutes). It is also harmful to children, and given the choice, I'd give my child an aspirin if they seriously hurt themself. There is no way I would let my child have even a puff of marijuana. The claim that politicians are in the pay of gangsters selling pot is nothing but a paranoid conspiracy theory, completely unsupportable.

      That said, I agree that marijuana should be legalized. At a minimum, the ability to regulate sellers makes it clear that the assholes who sell to schoolchildren are criminals. If people could purchase marijuana legally, then they would probably not associate with criminals. While the government probably receives some of their income tax money (everyone remembers Al Capone), taxing legitimately sold marijuana would likely increase their revenue from the drug. Finally, it's getting pretty hard to convince people of the propaganda of the fifties. Marijuana and its effects have been studied for a long time now, and its clear that its not a very harmful drug, and has considerable recreational benefits. Medical arguments aside, it's a lifestyle that many have shown themselves capable of living.

      --
      "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
    3. Re:Rose by any other name by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's habit forming. So is slashdot. A habit is not an addiction. I'm habituated to biscuts abd gravy in the morning and hated it when they shut the restaurant close to work down and I'm forced to eat McDonald's biscuits and school paste, but it will have to make do. Again, pot is no more habituating than orange juice. I like rolling a doob when I get home from work, but haven't been able to find any for 3 weeks. Yeah, I miss it, but it's no big deal. I'll get more when the dry spell is over. Now, if my coffee supply dried up I'd be in serious trouble. You should take a closer look at where your "facts" come from. If the facts contradict your own experience and are funded by an organization whose agenda needs those facts to be true, you should be VERY suspicious of those facts.

      In forty years of smoking it, I have yet to meet a single person whose life it's fucked up. Not one, and after smoking for forty years I've known a lot of potheads. I have known people who smoked dope with fucked up lives, but they were crazy before ever taking their first toke. I've also known people whose lives have been ruined by the war on drugs -- people who started smoking crack because they had to take drug tests for work, and pot is detectable for a month while the cheap tests employers give on;y detect cocaine for three or four days, and that drug will indeed ruin your life. But people like you (and the government) equate the two the same -- they heard the propaganda about pot and figure the propaganda about crack is equally fallacious. It's a goddamned shame what that stuff will do to a person, and to equate it with pot is worse than criminal.

      If there's no way to ingest enough of something to die, than there is no lethal dose. Saying "there's a lethal dose but you can't ingest that much" is disingenuous to the extreme.

      I'll agree that kids shouldn't smoke pot, which is another reason it should be legalized for adults. I'm 59 and get carded when I buy beer, nobody cards anybody for pot. In fact, selling pot to a thirteen year old is safer for the dealer than selling to me; I could be a narc, a 13 year old ican't. Nobody could stay in business just selling pot to kids, and in fact I'm all for harsh penalties for selling any psychoactive substance to minors.

    4. Re:Rose by any other name by mandelbr0t · · Score: 1

      I've known lots of people whose lives have been fucked up by marijuana. They simply couldn't live without it and spent everything they could get their hands on to get it. When they finally ran out of money, the withdrawal symptoms made it impossible to be around them. Just because it didn't happen to anybody you know doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I don't know what happened to them, and I no longer care. They were a changed person, and probably not for the better. Don't claim it's not addictive and I'll support legalization. Promoting marijuana as a completely safe drug is not going to help getting it legalized.

      --
      "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
    5. Re:Rose by any other name by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Marijuana eases the symptoms of many illnesses, both mental and physical (and can exacerbate symptoms of other illnesses). One physical illness helped by pot is MS, is a crippling disease. One such mental illness is bipolar disorder. If a person in the early stages of one of these diseases (I don't know if bipolar disorder actually has "early stages") was a pot smoker, and his reefer supply was disrupted, it would appear that the symptoms of his or her illness were marijuana withdrawal symptoms. If someone is addicted to another substance, such as alcohol or cocaine, pot will ease the symptoms of those drugs' withdrawal, and if you didn't know of the other drug use it would appear that the withdrawal symptoms of the addictive drugs were pot withdrawal.

      I learned when I gave up cigarettes (if any substance should be banned it's that one, but I believe an adult should have the right to screw their life any way they please) that habituation of an activity spanning decades can be as bad as the actual addiction. This is how nicotine patches work -- they allow one to overcome the habituation before tackling the actual addiction. When you're on the patches you still crave cigarettes even though you're receiving your dose of the drug itself.

      Things aren't always as they appear to be.

  47. Insist on hand search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Flew 4 segments last week, refused X-ray scanner each time. TSA guys did not like it, bit surly. Told me I'd get 4 x the radiation on my x-country flight. I replied that was true only if their machine was working properly, but even then, I reduced my dosage by 20%. But at least they were gentle with my junk.

  48. hear ye, hear ye - it happened by unity100 · · Score: 1

    a moron has just justified and rationalized this crap by fitting elderly people with diapers into the terrorist profile !!

  49. Re:When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically. by Wovel · · Score: 1

    Since the formation of the TSA, every attempted terrorist attack has been stopped by passengers or intelligence agencies. The TSA fails at here job 100% of the time. They talk about all the weapons they have confiscated..Mostly pocketknives and an ocassioal handgun forgotten about in a bag. The guns would have been found by the old system and the pocket knifed don't matter anymore.

    I am sure theynare counting globes too.

  50. Why did they let her on the plane at all? by BetterSense · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they really thought she had explosives...would they have let her on the plane? Of course not.

    A lot of people seem to miss this simple point through, I guess, conditioning.

    By letting the old lady get on the plane, they admit that they are extremely confident that she is NOT a terrorist and whatever was in her pants is completely harmless. Otherwise they would never let her on the plane. And this goes for all the people who have their play-doh, baby bottles, cheese, etc confiscated. If TSA had even a small reason to believe those things were actual explosives, you would not be flying that day, no fucking way. I mean, what do they do with the supposed possible-explosives they confiscate? If they are possibly explosives, shouldn't they put them in some explosion-safe location and have a bomb expert examine them to determine the danger? They don't do any of that, because they known goddam well that the baby bottles and cheese they confiscate is perfectly harmless. They just confiscate it anyway, because they are thugs and they can.

    If I try to get on a plane and they honest-to-god find explosives on me, and honest-to-god think that I'm going to blow up the fucking plane, do they just let me leave the line, dispose of my explosives, and then get back on the plane? Of course not. They would never do that. Honestly, I don't know what they would do--I don't think they would know what to do with a real bomb or a terrorist if they actually caught one--but they would probably shut the whole terminal down, call the bomb squad, and arrest me. The fact that they do none of those things when the confiscate my cheese is proof that they know I'm harmless, but they steal my shit anyway. In this case, they knew that this old lady was harmless--you know this--but they just bullied her anyway, because they are thugs and they can.

    1. Re:Why did they let her on the plane at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's actually a combination of this and the "just following orders" effect.

      The people confiscating items and searching passengers aren't using their own judgment. They're just following the rules, because that's what they agreed to do in exchange for a paycheck. I'd imaging they don't so much confiscate playdough because they can, as because they guy who issues their paycheck told them to.

      At some point you get far enough up the chain of command that the person in question actually decided that playdough needs to be confiscated, and that person is probably a thug with delusions of grandeur. However the rank and file TSA employee is probably as enthusiastic about the playdough confiscation as your average retail clerk is about asking for your phone number/email address (they don't want it themselves, and don't want to be bitched out for asking, but it's their job and they don't want to get fired).

    2. Re:Why did they let her on the plane at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they really she had explosives...would they have let her on the plane?

      Yes, because they would have searched her, just as they actually did, and found that she wasn't carrying explosives.

    3. Re:Why did they let her on the plane at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm ashamed to say that I've never looked at it this way before. You are 100% correct!

    4. Re:Why did they let her on the plane at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems to me there are even more people to blow up at airport security than there are on the plane.

    5. Re:Why did they let her on the plane at all? by ChinggisK · · Score: 1

      Yes, because they would have searched her, just as they actually did, and found that she wasn't carrying explosives.

      True in the case of searching someone and not finding anything, like this one. But in cases where they confiscate "suspicious" items, the GP is absolutely correct.

    6. Re:Why did they let her on the plane at all? by Adam+Appel · · Score: 3, Informative

      And that's why I quit after 4 months. A few things tipped me off. This was before the shoe and liquid BS. 1) I stopped a kid with a small chain with a weight on each end (also called a manriki-gusari). The security "manager" over ruled that and let him on the plane with it. Then I went though a checkpoint with and IED (inert C4) without alarming in any way. Then another screener failed to find a firearm in a XRAY then hand search during testing. then during training about terminal evacuation for bomb threats one TSA lady stood up and made a huge scene "I anin't goin down there if there is a re-port of a bomb, uh-ah, no way, I anin't paid to do that, I anint a cop". I said in my head, I am out of here. There is about 5% who want it to be effective. I head from their own lips "I got me a good government job now". Yeah, not now, everyone hates you.

      --
      They come in the dark, only in the darkest.
    7. Re:Why did they let her on the plane at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting theory, you believe that the TSA employee wanted to check a 95 year old womans diaper to meet some thug drive that all TSA employees have? Regulations, policies and procedures are put in to place for government employees to follow. I see nothing here other than someone doing their job.

    8. Re:Why did they let her on the plane at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent post.

      I hadn't thought of the TSA's actions like you have, but I feel more informed on the subject now. Thanks!

    9. Re:Why did they let her on the plane at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the idea is that if they don't confiscate your cheese they aren't going to confiscate explosives disguised as cheese either.

      In other words, if they stopped taking your cheese away from you, a terrorist might say "hey lets disguise our explosives as cheese since they are going to let that through."

    10. Re:Why did they let her on the plane at all? by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      People who were just following orders have caused more damage to the world than any other group.

    11. Re:Why did they let her on the plane at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TSA agents are not supposed to think, just follow the orders. Why?

      If the diper was a bomb and TSA agent "thought" it was not (maybe for being lazy) - big problem don't you think? I agree, the probability of being the bomb are miniscule, but TSA establishment have determined that are not 0 and justice system determined that their actions are right price to pay for being a part of a society.

    12. Re:Why did they let her on the plane at all? by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

      This. This is the post of the fracking month. Bravo. Your logic is dead on.

      I have always thought of the TSA as Nazi like, or glorified rent-a-cops**, depending on my mood. But after reading your post i will never think about them, or their kind, the same ever again, thugs that they are..

      Thank you for educating me and giving me something to think about today.

      Wbs.

      --
      Huh?
    13. Re:Why did they let her on the plane at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      U mad?

    14. Re:Why did they let her on the plane at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I head from their own lips

      Typo of the week!

      Plus, all the other stuff you said are good points too. It's been reported how most guns and bombs get past TSA screeners, so all terrorists have to do to blow up a plane it would seem is to send two or more.

    15. Re:Why did they let her on the plane at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A member of my family was flying back with a couple tiny bottles of high-end hot sauce(read: expensive). The TSA thug confiscated it for some reason(it was small enough to even bring on.. Not sure what reason he claimed). Or, to put it another way, he wanted some free hot sauce and my family member was his mark.
      They're thugs and con men. And if terrorists really wanted to cause some serious terror, they'd bomb the security checkpoint at the terminal during a busy time of day. Massive civilian death because they're all bunched up waiting to go through security.
      Captcha: Armament :)

  51. It's obvious why they did it by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 3, Funny

    They were afraid she'd do a boom-boom.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    1. Re:It's obvious why they did it by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      So it is proven: subject-and-comment-as-a-sentence beats subject-asking-question comment-answering.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  52. Re:TSA is crazy. by beckett · · Score: 3, Insightful

    keeping it close to your body where it absorbs in through the skin has been suspected as the cause for skin and nervous system issues over the past ~20 years.

    So why doesn't everyone have kidney and bladder cancer? those organs are in continual, unending contact with urea. or do you believe that skin is the only porous human body tissue?

    It's no coincidence that when some chiropractors work on infants (I refuse those under ~3, allowing their spines time to set), they notice that diaper rash is almost a guarantee of spinal and nerve issues. Without thinking, the parents are filling their precious child's system full of urea and other toxins.

    Actually,parts of the skeletal structure are still in development well into puberty (e.g. cranial sutures). By recommending spinal manipulating >3yrs, you're recommending potentially maiming a person that you think has a completely "set" spine. this is not based on any science nor reasonable health practitioner's recommendation; in fact, you'd have trouble finding any medical doctor (not chiropractor) to state that diaper rash is a nervous issue. to treat diaper rash, look for horses, not zebras. and keep 3yr olds out of the chiropractor's office!

  53. From the TSA's point of view by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 1

    "You don't like it when we check an infant's diaper, you don't like it when we check a 95 year old's diaper. Well, smartarse American public, who's diaper can we check?

    "Wait...why are we checking diapers again?"

  54. Glad I'm not that TSA agent by JTsyo · · Score: 1

    I doubt they enjoying checking adult diapers. Did the granny set off some sensor?

  55. Kontrol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The TSA is and always was about one thing. The cowing of the American public, and creating a mindset/kulture in the US of not asking questions and doing what you're told. It has NOTHING to do with terrorism.

  56. In all honesty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am an incontinent young adult, and going through the security screening in San Jose, CA they patted me down, poked and prodded the diaper and took me into a private screening room where a more senior TSA officer did more poking and prodding and that really was just it. They were very respectful, friendly and we were able to crack jokes back and forth. I was dreading it (and obviously, I could have opted for the scanner, just like this woman could have) but have decided I'm not fully comfortable with any potential health risks it may cause, so I took my chances, and the experience wasn't bad at all.

    1. Re:In all honesty by Montezumaa · · Score: 1

      Hey, I didn't know that the TSA allowed agents to muck around on the internet while working. Get back to work!!! There are nice, young and old women to molest, unless nice, young and old men are your thing.

  57. Re:When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically. by INeededALogin · · Score: 1

    In the US around 35,000 people are killed every single year as a result of road fatalities. If the same paranoia were applied to this much larger figure, speed limits would be e.g. radically cut and there would be mandatory alcohol and drugs testing before each road journey.

    I blame you when the paranoid 80% passes a law for this. asshole

  58. Bull fucking shit by hamburgler007 · · Score: 1

    It is one thing for a private company to mandate security checks, it is much different for the federal government to do so. You can stretch that logic out to just about anything. You choose to drive in your car, therefore you consent to be searched. You choose to walk outside, therefor you consent to be searched. You purchased a house in a bad neighborhood, you consent to be searched. The government can't pass laws that require citizens to waive their constitutional rights.

    1. Re:Bull fucking shit by DigiTechGuy · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Private airlines have no say in whether the rights of their customers are violated. This is not right. It's most certainly a fallacy to say "You consented to that search" when there is no other option for flying.

  59. Oh yeah... That'll work... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Give repercussions to people willing to kill themselves for there cause, group punishments again rather nasty business to punish the people that the terrorists cared for.

    Just like it worked for Germans in every country they occupied during the WWII.
    Killing civilians also does wonders for the morale of "our boys" out there.

    In fact, why even bother with recruiting and training anymore?
    Simply scour the prisons for rapists, murderers and other sociopaths, give them guns and flamethrowers and parachute them into civilian settlements.
    That should fix that pesky terrorist problem by Christmas or so. What could possibly go wrong, right?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Oh yeah... That'll work... by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Why would we have to do it in person? We have drones you know.

      Rapists murderers and sociopaths from US prisons wouldn't get very far if they were dropped into a Muslim country. They would stick out like sore thumbs and unlike here "profiling" is not only rampant, it is accepted as an obvious thing to do.

    2. Re:Oh yeah... That'll work... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      There was a comedian shortly after 911 (Jeff Foxworthy maybe? I don't remember) who said it was lucky for the terrorists that they hit the WTC instead of the Brewery in St Louis. "You'd have a hundred thousand rednecks with their shotguns and 30.06s crossing the ocean in their johnboats! Don't mess with out Budweiser!"

  60. The price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess 2000 years ago, when Romans "lead" the (Western) world, they had to deal with similar security issues. Except there were no airplanes or diapers then.

  61. Everyone is a suspect! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "our officers acted professionally and according to proper procedure.'"

    Acted professionally if professional means dumb as a bag of hammers. According to proper procedures if proper procedure is to treat every single person as a terrorist suspect regardless of the FACTS of the matter.

    I live in Toronto, Canada. Our security personnel at the airport fit the profile of terrorists more than the people their harassing, I mean screening.

    1. Re:Everyone is a suspect! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Aw damn I know exactly which Indian guy and middle eastern woman you're talking about. Somehow that hits closer to home. You're a racist fuck.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  62. They need to screen Janet Napolitano . . . by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

    . . . so we can all see her giant schlong.

  63. tsa funding needs to be slashed by Dan667 · · Score: 2

    the tsa is hugely expensive and provide no actual security that is going to stop a terrorist act. Those funds should be put towards agencies like the CIA and FBI to actually put people out in the field to infiltrate and disrupt these networks like they use to do back in the day when they were effective.

  64. Re:TSA is crazy. by mldi · · Score: 0

    DC = "Doctor of Chiropractic", a Doctor. If you think you'd be better off going to a BigPharma shill like an "MD", cross your fingers and get ready for the prescriptions.

    Listen pal, I don't go a Doctor of Archeology or a Doctor of History for a medical diagnosis. Don't kid yourself. You're NOT a medical professional.

    --
    If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
  65. Someone could have WITH her knowing it by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    works both ways.

    My mom has a perfect method to get pulled aside each time, bring a dog in a carrier.

    Her insulin needles and pump don't even phase security, but bring a cute dog, and its off to the races.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  66. don't joke by davidwr · · Score: 1

    The "perfect" covert terrorist is the one that attracts the least attention.

    Just this week insurgents tricked an 8 year old girl into becoming an innocent suicide bomber.

    A smart terrorist is going to look for people who don't fit the profile to do the front-line work.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:don't joke by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 1

      Another perfect terrorist is one who used to be a cop. Just like how the perfect cop is one who used to be a thief himself.

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
  67. Re:When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yep, knives and guns and drugs. Lots of drugs. Florida white trash like this is exactly the kind that would stuff her mom's depends full of crystal meth without the poor old lady's knowledge. IF TSA agents felt something suspicious, drugs is probably the first thing they thought.

  68. Re:When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically. by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    Yep, and thanks to them, they got to pull off a one time only ever event. Plane hijackings stopped becoming a legitimate terrorist tool as soon as the first tower was hit. (Who came out of 9/11 as the biggest heroes? United 93.)

    The fact is terrorists are NOT stupid. They know they can't pull this off again, but they're having a hell of a time laughing at us pissing ourselves to soaking levels every time someone drops a penny at a security line.

    Exactly. They aren't going to go after planes again for a while, if ever. No. They are going to go after trains, ships, and other much softer targets. Hell, they could just get a couple small groups, by some black market automatic weapons, and walk into high-rent shopping malls and start shooting. Or build a nitrate bomb inside a truck and park it next to a high school football game. Any attack like this would be much more effective and likely to succeed than trying to take down another plane, because all of these targets are virtually, if not wholly, unprotected.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  69. Re:When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are missing the point. What he is saying is that all this 'security' is too expensive for the general public. Also, your anger is misdirected: you should get upset with the legislators who passed all this crap laws, and not with your fellow citizens.

  70. George Orwell was an optimist. by h1q · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When I read 1984 as a youngster I was shocked at the telescreen, the minutes of hate, the ever-shifting language and designated terrorists, and the frightful Room 101 ways of dealing with questionable comrades.

    At some point with water-boarding, elimination of due process and habeas corpus for designated humans and spying without warrants, we have now fulfilled Orwell's nightmare of a despotic totalitarian system of politic and thought. And we aspire to further degradation of the human spirit.

    1. Re:George Orwell was an optimist. by Osty · · Score: 1

      You forgot Fox News providing 24 hours of hate 7 days a week. Orwell's two minutes of hate is nothing anymore.

  71. Fly the friendly skies of Cessna. Or Piper. by sugarmatic · · Score: 1

    The fact is that in the seven months after "9-11", more people died from *drunk driving* in NYC than from the terrorist attack. Did't even take a week and a half on a national basis.

    I don't fly commercially anymore unless it's out of the country. I fly my plane. It costs less for a nice plane than a large SUV, costs about 50% more than flying coach in most cases when I fly with my half, is a heck of a lot more interesting and fun on the way than sitting in a stinky spam can commercial jet, and gets me exactly where I want to go rather than some lemming farm like LAX or DIA. And there are zero restrictions.

    Stop the silliness.

    1. Re:Fly the friendly skies of Cessna. Or Piper. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Silliness is the presumption that owning your own plane is somehow an option for anyone other than the most fortunate among us. I'll stick with the stinky spam can and the ridiculous TSA pat-downs if the alternative is being a delusional elitist.

    2. Re:Fly the friendly skies of Cessna. Or Piper. by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

      I agree with the fundamental ideas, but what about range? If you wanted to go from NYC to LA, you can't single-hop that in a Piper, right? And then you have weather concerns: commercial planes still fly in all but the worst weather. How would your travel plans change if it started raining?

    3. Re:Fly the friendly skies of Cessna. Or Piper. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with the fundamental ideas, but what about range? If you wanted to go from NYC to LA, you can't single-hop that in a Piper, right? And then you have weather concerns: commercial planes still fly in all but the worst weather. How would your travel plans change if it started raining?

      Correct, you cannot single hop it in a typical single-prop light aircraft. But it's not just that; it'll be around 18 hours total flight time. So realistically it would be around 3 days with two overnight stays each direction.

  72. Selling Fear by MarkvW · · Score: 1

    Some politicians trade in fear. They do so because it works.

    Obama is afraid of appearing "soft." That's why the jerk has the US militarily involved in three wars at the same time.

    Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex. We should pay attention. The fearmongers are in it for their own self interest.

    1. Re:Selling Fear by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Wait, three? Which one did I miss? (I'm serious - I think I missed a memo.)

    2. Re:Selling Fear by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

    3. Re:Selling Fear by Slider451 · · Score: 1

      It's actually 5: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and Pakistan (drone attacks in the last three, plus the recent SEAL op to eliminate OBL)
      Plus our continued presence in Japan, Germany, Korea, and Kuwait following our respective military engagements there.

      --
      Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
  73. But does it make sense by jays8088 · · Score: 1

    "determined that our officers acted professionally and according to proper procedure.'" But the question is, does the procedure make a lick of sense?

    1. Re:But does it make sense by Combatso · · Score: 1

      for the love of god.... 'lick' was not a word I wanted to see in the comments of a diaper wearing granny story.....

  74. Think by grodzix · · Score: 1

    But think of the children! You don't want the terrorists to get them, do you?

    --
    My Windows is NOT slow, it's special!
  75. He then said... by GooberToo · · Score: 1

    'We have reviewed the circumstances involving this screening and determined that our officers acted professionally and according to proper procedure.'"

    He then follow up with:

    "We are very proud of the fact we go out of our way to needlessly humiliate people who absolutely pose no security risk. Furthermore, we are especially proud of the fact we've never once stopped a terrorist, know what a terrorist is, or understand even the most vague concept of who and what fits a terrorist profile.

    You'll have to excuse me now, I have to go lobby Congress for more money so as to ensure we only ever accomplish draining America's coffers. Peace! I outta heeer."

    As he turned to walk away, his last utterence was picked up by the mic:

    "Dip shits! I can't believe the American people are so fucking stupid and I get paid for doing absolutely nothing. Holy shit, the American people are fucking stpuid!"

  76. Re:TSA is crazy. by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 1

    According to the Hippocratic Oath, I think doctors have to treat everybody, and treat them equally. But I'm not an MD myself, so feel free to disagree...

    --
    Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
  77. No Comments? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is very interesting that the link you gave goes to a news site with a story from 2010 and they have a "user comments" section but there are 0 comments. Did NBC delete them for some reason?

  78. And this is what happens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is what happens when americans make concessions. At first they are willing to give up something small or be put out a little bit but the problem with that is once we give up something then it just gets worse and worse and things end up going too far.

    Sure some people might say "Hey if it inconviences one old lady for all our safety then its worth it". But thats the thing, it isnt just one old lady. Its a old lady, its a 5 year old boy that is crippled, its a pregnant woman, its the elderly man with a walker that is forced to walk through scanners on his own without his walker and so on and these things just keep popping up more and more. And for every one thing you hear about on the new a hundred others have suffered the same thing or worse but too embarassed to say anything. But thing is making some old lady take off her depends isnt security and isnt saving anyone, this isnt the wild west and this isnt Jordan. We dont have terrorists in the US running around bombing shit everyday, if we did that would be another story. Some terrorists got lucky one time in the US and the american people have been paying for it ever since. Compared to even a major country like england we have had a very minor terrorist experince. Hell england has had like dozens of street and subway bombings and so on and we had one time someone crash some planes.

    More people in the US die from allergic reactions in a year in the US than have from terrorist attacks in the past decade.

    If we actually tried to prevent problems at the source instead of just putting up one incredibly invasive line of defense right at the gates of the problem we wouldnt need this kind of shit. But thats the american problem solving tactics for you. We wait till a problem has gone too far and then we just patch it up real quick with a solution that doesnt really do shit. But its really expensive and sounds impressive so most people are happy.

    Safety is a illusion.

  79. Re:TSA is crazy. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Yeah I'm sure you can't actually deny treatment without consent, but maybe offer the guy the chance to object to filthy western medicine on religious grounds and see if he takes it ;)

    Jehovah's witnesses refuse blood transfusions for religious reasons.

    Roughly paraphrased scene from Scrubs:

    "We believe that blood should not pass from person to person" - Jehovah's witness

    "Well I believe that if you don't accept this transfusion, you're going to catch a nasty case of 'The Deadness.' " - Dr. Cox

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  80. Trains by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised that no one wearing a tin foil hat has yet called the Amtrak crash in Nevada a terrorist plot. Why hasn't the TSA investigated the truck driver that crashed his rig into a train? This is the sort of thing that the terrorists will probably do next.

  81. Did *they* win? by __aazsst3756 · · Score: 1

    Did the terrorist win? They almost bankrupted our country. We now have to worry about our 95 yo parents or young daughters getting gate raped, with procedures having little statistical correlation to actually blowing a plane up. Our country now has an enormous infrastructure installed to spy on its own citizens. I think they won.

    1. Re:Did *they* win? by Combatso · · Score: 1

      THEY won, but not the terrorists... Follow the money, and the power...

  82. Shark Attack Journalism by retroworks · · Score: 2

    Slow news day. Mainstream media cannot seem to resist publicizing "shark attacks", even if bee stings and railroad crossing deaths outnumber shark bites and terrorist attacks exponentially. Having created a disproportionate reaction to the statistical risk of terrorist attack (resulting in TSA), they are now doing the same thing to TSA, leading us all to believe that a significant number of TSA screenings are spent on 95 year old diaper-wearers.

    --
    Gently reply
    1. Re:Shark Attack Journalism by vgerclover · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter how often it happens. A shark attack can't be prevented just by dismantling an massive government organization that's yet to show any results/benefits after a decade, the unnecessary groping of the whole flying populace can.

    2. Re:Shark Attack Journalism by SpanglerIsAGod · · Score: 1

      The only reason "shark attack" stories make it to the news is because they are uncommon. If it shows up on the news it is automatically something that is uncommon enough you don't need to worry about it. However people don't normally take it that way.

      --
      War doesn't show who is right - just who is left.
    3. Re:Shark Attack Journalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care if "a significant number of TSA screenings are spent on 95 year old diaper-wearers", babies, or colostomy bag-wearers. One is too much.

      I don't want to see my tax-dollars being wasted on such foolishness. Why am I paying people to grope me? To be perfectly honest, I don't think that the "enhanced airport security" is doing a thing to protect me or anyone else. So why do we suffer it? Why do we let the TSA, and other government agencies violate us, when we're the people who are paying them?

      Enough is enough, it's time more of us than "don't touch my junk" to take a stand and say "this is wrong, if you don't stop it we will, and none of us are going to like it much, but you're going to like it a lot less than we are."

    4. Re:Shark Attack Journalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be new here. Mentioning sharks but not lasers? Tsk tsk tsk.

    5. Re:Shark Attack Journalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of the people (virtually all American air passengers) harassed and degraded by TSA agents, over 99% are completely innocent citizens.

      This isn't a "shark attack" incident. It's a "raindrop" incident. It's a "presence of oxygen" incident. It isn't an outlier; it isn't an exception. It is the rule. If you try to travel by air, you will either submit to the proffered humiliation or you will be blocked from travelling (with your fare effectively confiscated, in addition to whatever punitive fines those involved wish to impose).

      Sure, most of those humiliated are not 95-year-old diaper-wearing women, but most (by a huge margin) are just normal passengers, going about their business, doing nobody any harm whatsoever. All of them are treated as criminals, by petty officials empowered by dubiously enacted laws.

      Calling this a "shark attack" ignores the ubiquity of the abuse. The problem isn't that 95-year-old diaper-wearers are being humiliated and treated as criminals. That is merely one example of the problem. The problem is that all air travellers are being humiliated and treated as criminals.

      > leading us all to believe that a significant number of TSA screenings are spent on 95 year old diaper-wearers.

      They are drawing attention to these individual incidents which, while more popularly sensational than the average one, accurately characterize the experience to which all passengers (except those with private jets) are now subjected.

      You travel at their whim. You strip when they request it. You let them rub your genitals when they attempt it. You let them look over your naked body when they ask. You do what the agents ask, not because you deserve it, nor because they deserve that power over you, nor because it's making anybody any safer; you do it because they have the legislated power to do it to you.

  83. Come on, Americans, stand up for yourselves by Richard_J_N · · Score: 1

    It really is about time that American citizens had the self respect to tell the TSA thugs where to shove it. What will it take to get rid of the TSA? Already 40 BILLION dollars wasted on "security"- if you'd spent that on Education Aid in Pakistan and Saudi, it might have done some good. Instead, all that is done is to guarantee that other countries avoid the USA wherever possible. The TSA has directly caused our family not to visit - we've spent at least $100k in other countries over the last decade that would have been spent in the USA, where we used to have some wonderful vacations.

  84. Re:When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [...] I'm a U.S. citizen [...]

    Timothy McVeigh agrees.

    In reality though, if the price of freedom to fly w/o getting groped is a 0.000001% chance I may die instead of a 0.0000001% chance, I'm willing to take the risk.

    Hell, I still drive to work every day, and that's far more likely to kill me.

  85. Re:TSA is crazy. by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 1

    Yes, ER had a bunch of such cases too. American hospitals must have it really hard when a Muslim dies, what with "must be buried in 24 hours", and other religious regulations.
    I also think in some cases, doctors should have the right to override these choices, given that otherwise, they are in violation of their oath.

    Also, LOL at the quote.

    --
    Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
  86. Procedure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope they cleaned her butt and put a fresh diaper on.

    Yes I am a professional (Certified Nursing Assistant)

  87. Frontline by NetNed · · Score: 1

    Any who think it's ok for the TSA to do the most insanely stupid things all because "it makes us safer" needs to watch Are we safer? from the show Frontline.

    Watch that and tell me we need all this over-reactionary BS that we have. God forbid we profile anyone. No, the TSA uses 95 year old diapered women as a media event to prove the TSA is "Politically correct".

  88. Re:TSA is crazy. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    IIRC Orthodox Jews have to be buried before the next sunset. I wonder what happens if one dies just a few hours before sunset. Do all the interns start frantically digging in the backyard or do they have a special corpse-carrying supercar? Maybe something like this?

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  89. They obviously by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1, Funny

    were afraid she'd do a boom-boom.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  90. Your google fails you by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=8+year+old&btnmeta_news_search=Search+News

    Gosh, that wasn't so hard was it? Remember though, Islam is the religion of peace.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  91. TSA has just FUCKED with the WRONG GROUP by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    AARP won't take this well, and I think we all know how much Washington fears AARP...

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    1. Re:TSA has just FUCKED with the WRONG GROUP by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Funny

      we all know how much Washington fears AARP
      Well, of course they do. Most of them are in AARP.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  92. Education overhaul by hamburgler007 · · Score: 1

    This is just another example of why there needs to be a much higher emphasis on civics in the school system, from at least middle school up until the end of HS. The problem isn't the terrorists, it isn't the TSA agents or agency, it isn't the airlines or the airports, nor is it the branches of government. It boils down to the average complacent american citizen. The point of a democracy and a republic is to encourage citizens to participate in their government, yet most don't even know who their elected politicians are. People complain about how they have no power, how the rich are the only class with influence, yet they don't bother to do a single thing about it. You need look no further than voter turnout statistics to see how much people actually care about their government.

  93. Possible Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's a thought that should solve the problem. "Secure" and "Unsecured" air travel options. Those that don't want to get searched can just fly in unsecured planes. If you question if pilots will fly them I heard of air employees complaining about what they have or not have to go though. So again the answer is simple. Sure ticket prices will be higher (for which flights remains to be seen) but at least those who feel that having their rights set a side for a moment while everyone is made to feel safe is taken done.

    I work on solutions not problems.

  94. U like it, don't you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You, Americans like touching adults diapers and 6 old childrens genitals?
    Ohhh you notty notty anglo-saxons bastards! There will be no pudding today.

  95. Re:When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically. by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

    ...americans are cowardly people taking their own safety to absurd levels. Goes right along with bankrupting yourself to fight a "war".

    I wish I could argue with you and tell you why you're wrong...but you aren't. Yeah, there are individuals here in the U.S. that still have cojones -- I hope I'm one of them -- but by and large, we have become a nation of wusses. Sigh...

    --
    MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  96. Being Distraught = You Need To Be Searched Too by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

    As bad as the search of the 95 year old with leukemia was, I found this outrageous:

    "Weber said she burst into tears during the ordeal, forcing her own pat-down and other measures in accordance with TSA protocol."

    So a woman has to watch her mother be groped and forced to remove her undergarments, gets upset by it and thus needs to be groped herself. Because crying women are the next big threat to airline safety! Them and 95 year olds and 6 year old kids! Thank you, TSA. I feel so much safer knowing that a 95 year old grandmother with leukemia won't hijack the plane I'm on using her Depends undergarments along with her accomplice, her daughter who threatens to cry if we don't stay in line!

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  97. Correct and according to procedure? by black+soap · · Score: 1

    If this was done "professionally and according to proper procedure," that tells me procedure needs changing. I would argue that it may be the procedure, but clearly it is not the correct procedure. All of these xrays and pat-downs aren't nearly as effective as actual bomb-detecting would be.

    1. Re:Correct and according to procedure? by Roduku · · Score: 1

      Exactly. There's nothing respectful or sensitive about this. According to the video, they found something wet and firm in her diaper. Gee, I wonder what it could be..?

  98. Ewww... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    98-year-old woman, an adult diaper forcibly removed, and a "bush" tag?

    I need some mind bleach, stat...

  99. Why do we even have a TSA? by hahn · · Score: 1

    Is the conclusion really that terrorism can only be committed on airplanes in flight? What if a terrorist decided to blow up a bomb in the middle of a crowded security line? How many thousands of unprotected drinking water supplies are present in the US? How many tunnels and bridges? If I were a terrorist with half a brain, why wouldn't I go after much easier, vulnerable, unprotected targets? The fact that it hasn't happened ought to tell us that there aren't nearly as many suicidal terrorists out there as we think there are. Unfortunately, that doesn't make for good political grandstanding. We spend billions of dollars on actions that are 99% useless. And ultimately, that was Bin Laden's goal. To bankrupt the US by committing a cheap terrorist act (the cost of a couple of box cutters). Fear is a funny thing. It's completely irrational and yet, the downfall of every nation/empire in history is due to giving into it.

    --
    "The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well."
    1. Re:Why do we even have a TSA? by Caratted · · Score: 1

      Fear is completely irrational? Sir, I would hate to see what happens to you when the DM's Elders of Shmorgesboard roll 18d12+200 on your puny level 2 rationale.

      Now, I could see where the argument may be made that it is irrational, as a nation, to fear - as opposed to being informed and making just decisions. Fear itself, however, is completely natural and saves lives on a very regular basis.

  100. This is horribly wrong, but... by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 1

    ...I know no one as dedicated to doing their job so much to the point they'd do something like this.
    If it were me, I would have said "screw it, just go"

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
  101. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  102. Re:When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    I'd have to be wearing Zaphod's sunglasses to see their point of view.

  103. Re:When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    Or ironically, blow up the security line at the airport.

  104. The TSA provides top-notch security... by SeeSp0tRun · · Score: 2

    for the wallets of the investors of any company developing airport security hardware.

    --
    Something witty.
  105. My daughters aren't flying until they're 18 by Quila · · Score: 1

    I refuse to submit them to state-sanctioned sexual assault.

  106. But the problem is.... by threeseas · · Score: 1

    ... in the why there are those who want to blow up Americans... considering the US Politics and military would rather create enemies than friends...

  107. What's interesting here by fishbowl · · Score: 1

    What's interesting here is that there are people who, in return for a very modest wage, will agree to be in the position of examining little old ladies' diapers. There are people who would walk out of that job on day one. Then there are people who would make it their primary objective to get out of that job into something that gives some semblance of dignity. Understand, we're talking $10-15/hr jobs here, so a lateral move isn't all that hard to make, even in this economy.

    Then there are people who *compete* to *get* this job, and who are eager to keep it. Those people scare me.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  108. This may be a non-story. by BitterOak · · Score: 1

    This may be a non-story after all. According to this CNN story, the TSA is denying that they required this person to remove her adult diaper.

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  109. OT. by malsbert · · Score: 1

    No one's invented a "mental illness detector" that the airports can use to screen people.

    Sure they have! It's called Language!

    As in; "Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the Republican Party?"

    Sorry i could not resist. In my defence, I may have aspergers ;)

    --
    "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot.
    1. Re:OT. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but that won't get all of them. You also have to ask if they're a member of the Democratic Party. If they're a member of either party, or if they vote for either party, there's something seriously wrong with them.

      Of course, if you implemented this, there wouldn't be many people allowed to fly, at least in the USA.

  110. Re:When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um, I think the TSA are power-mad jumped-up rent-a-cops...but you should remember that 9/11 was carried out on domestic flights, so if anything, the domestic flights would indeed be the ones to require extra security procedures. And no-one said individuals were being patted down for their own protection - what, you think they pat-down a person with a knife to protect the person with the knife?

  111. Re:When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically. by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

    Whoosh, particularly along the variety of "Don't give them any suggestions..."

  112. Suspicion much? by ChilyWily · · Score: 1

    Why is is that no one ever asks to stop all this random "security"? If a person has committed a crime, arrest them and let due process (trial) take its course. If a person is to be harassed on suspicion, then that is no law enforcement or security or anything but a simple power grab.

  113. Re:When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically. by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    From no one. They are scanning and patting down you to protect everyone else from you.

  114. Re:When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically. by brkello · · Score: 1

    They don't need to hijack a plane to cause fear and economic turmoil. Just blow one up. So security makes sense (not necessarily what we have, but some security). And really, you need to call the person a pussy? You are pathetic.

    --
    Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
  115. Who sniffed checked it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some one at the TSA has a weird yet disgusting fetish...

  116. Don't believe the hype. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I went to Florida this year, I didn't get groped, nor did I have to go through one of the backscatter machines (There wasn't any). The airplanes were fine as well. Actually while I was flying in the US I even had wifi on the plane. Helped me route my next flight fast so I got there just as it was closing boarding. If it wasn't for that I would of missed it.

    Also once you are passed security, a lot of the places are just like bus stops. You can with ease change your flight mid transit, or move to a later flight if needed.

  117. Re:When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically. by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

    They don't even need to blow it up! All a terrorist has to do is look at a plane funny and suddenly we're wearing form fitting body suits to get on a plane and getting handcuffed to the chair.

    And no, I don't think the descriptive term 'pussy' was over the line. I think it's a very apt term to use. We're so irrationally scared of planes being hijacked now, we'll subject ourselves to humiliations that are starting to make the Vietnam War Hanoi Hilton look like the Hanoi Hilton on 1 Le Thanh Tong St, Hanoi.

    The 80s were one long string of hijacks and bombings of airplanes, yet people still flew, security didn't go batshit insane, and we're going 'Bring it on!' Here comes 2011, and now we're cowering, wetting ourselves everytime someone starts praying in an airport and crying for the (apparently incompetent) government to SAVE US!!!1!1!

    (Debate for another time: why do we suffer the government to do airplane security right? Aren't they incapable of doing anything right? That's all I heard during the Health Care Act debates... Just sayin.)

    So, yes, the OP I responded to is a pussy. And so are you. And so is everyone else who demands this security theater.

    Man. Up.

  118. how to simply make people comply with the rules by dndk82 · · Score: 1

    why don't they just make it clear: anybody goes through the security gate, please take off your bulging diaper and place in in the tray (just like taking out laptop, jacket, shoes, etc..) that'll make travelers less damned surprised

  119. Re:When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically. by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

    Oh yeah, paint up a Super Shuttle bus, load it up like OKC, drive it up to a terminal and bye bye airport lobby.

    Although, honestly, all you *really* need to do is go in the out door and that'll shut the airport down for hours too without all that pesky covert purchasing of fertilizer, the bus rental/purchase, busted detonators, and the radical gets to do it another day!

  120. Why -1? is For_a_Free_Internet a known troll? by malsbert · · Score: 1

    For; If s/he is not, Then surly this would be a bad mod?

    I mean; s/italians/muslims, This may not be "insightful", But is it a "bad" comment? IMO no, Just another /. comment.

    Now get this thing back to 1, were it belongs.

    --
    "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot.
  121. Wrong forum! by malsbert · · Score: 1

    Your comment makes sense!, clearly it's posted in the wrong forum.

    Now stop trying to raise the bar around here! some of us like reading /. ( makes us feel smart )

    --
    "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot.
  122. Punishment requires humans... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    ...doing nasty things to other humans.

    Kill by a drone... that's just a statistic. Like death/maiming by a land mine. Or a car accident.
    No kills are counted, or medals awarded for laying mines. At best, someone somewhere is taking account of the ratio of dead/maimed people per mine.

    And the victims have nobody to blame but some mythical boogieman they themselves created from their actual enemy (Yankee, Charlie, Jerry, Tommy, Johnie, Commie...) and their own bad luck.

    Punishment on the other hand is a VERY personal thing.
    You want the other side to know who, why and what for is punishing them BEFORE the actual punishment is "administered".

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Punishment requires humans... by stdarg · · Score: 1

      They're not cavemen, they're not illiterate simpletons with no access to news. We have drone strikes in Pakistan already, with no troops on the ground, and guess what, everybody in Pakistan knows about them, knows who is doing it, and knows why it's being done. People aren't stupid.

    2. Re:Punishment requires humans... by denzacar · · Score: 1

      This is threading deeply into Ignoratio elenchi, cause regardless of your preferred method of punishment the fact remains that it is... well... fucking stupid.

      And if USA was going to be delivering press reports on on how many civilians they have killed for every american soldier who stubbed his toe, they might just as well start each one with "ACHTUNG! ACHTUNG!".
      Some form of a salute in the end would also be nice. Like "Until we are victorious!", "For Victory!' or "Hail Victory!".
      Everyone pointing to the sky, as the source of punishment (also implying that it is actually divine retribution), while doing the salute - would also be a nice touch.
      Some skulls would also be nice. They've been known to tie the whole thing together rather nicely.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  123. You will get no argument from me :) by malsbert · · Score: 1

    Semi-funny story:

    I'm from Denmark (Scandinavia) and at this time, two partys holds goverment. one is called; "The Conservative Peoples Party", The other; "Left"

    The funny part? (aside from the names). For all intents and purposes; The Conservatives == Republicans and Left == Democrats.

    When we Europeans (barring the brits) fail to see a difference between the R's and the D's we have reasons!

    --
    "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot.
    1. Re:You will get no argument from me :) by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Are you saying your "Conservatives" aren't really conservative? That's the way it is here in the US. The Republicans are always talking about fiscal conservatism, but their actions are always the opposite.

      Both parties are the same fundamentally, they only differ in which corporate interests they serve. With the Republicans, it's the oil and defense industries. With the Democrats, it's the media and defense industries.

    2. Re:You will get no argument from me :) by malsbert · · Score: 1

      Are you saying your "Conservatives" aren't really conservative?

      My point was simply, that around here, the R's and D's are in goverment together, which makes it pretty funny to watch Americans argue over the Big differences between the 2.

      As to your question; i am not a conservative, so i do not know what is and is not the proper definition of "Conservative". BUT, i would think, they are properly closer to the "real deal" then the Republicans, for the simple reason, that they are a conservative party. As opposed to the Republicans, Which is 1 party consisting of 3 fractions; The Christian fraction, The Conservative fraction and The Liberal fraction. ( Note that i am a European, looking in from the outside. I assume Americans would divide them into more "fractions", and the word; "Liberal" seems to mean something different in the US then in the EU ).

      --
      "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot.
    3. Re:You will get no argument from me :) by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      My point was simply, that around here, the R's and D's are in goverment together, which makes it pretty funny to watch Americans argue over the Big differences between the 2.

      It's exactly the same here. The Rs and the Ds are in government together, and there's no real difference between the two. The problem is that most Americans are so clueless that they think there is. The Rs and Ds want us to believe there's a difference between the two, even though there's not, so they argue endlessly over certain hot-button issues like gay marriage, while in the background they're doing everything they can to enrich the corporations and continue the military-industrial complex. These hot-button issues keep the masses distracted from what they're really doing.

      BUT, i would think, they are properly closer to the "real deal" then the Republicans, for the simple reason, that they are a conservative party.

      That doesn't mean anything. Our Republicans call themselves "conservative" all the time, but that doesn't make it so. I could call myself a moose, but that wouldn't make me one. You have to look at politicians' actions to see what they're really about. I don't know about your country, but here in America, almost all the politicians are lawyers, and lawyers are nothing but professional liars.

  124. Re:TSA is crazy. by beckett · · Score: 1

    DC = "Doctor of Chiropractic", a Doctor. If you think you'd be better off going to a BigPharma shill like an "MD", cross your fingers and get ready for the prescriptions.

    It's interesting that DCs are the only "Doctors" that feel they need to marginalize other medical doctors. I do not hear from an internist that the surgeon is bought off by "BigCutlery", nor do i see the optometrist spit when he refers to the optician's chart.

    I think it's irresponsible for any medical practitioner to dissuade pursuing a second opinion in such an intimidating, dismissive manner. It is perfectly fine to hold this opinion personally; However, for the practice of patient care, a doctor needs to leave these personal prejudices outside of the waiting room. To come out swinging against evidence-based medicine (e.g. "MD" doctors) when you hold such a position of authority over your own patients is malpractice.

  125. TSA Accomplishments by acoustix · · Score: 1

    Check out this site for a list of the TSA's accomplishments. It seems that their greatest accomplishment is spending billions and billions of dollars without any *real* accomplishments.

    This site has a much better approach to listing the accomplishments of the TSA.

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
  126. Re:When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically. by [Zappo] · · Score: 1

    From no one. They are scanning and patting down you to protect everyone else from you.

    Well, OK, but I'm a *US citizen* traveling *domestically*. The law enforcement scrutiny I face at the airport is drastically disproportionate to what I face everywhere else in the country. Yet, a US citizen who intends harm to other US citizens isn't constrained to attack air travel. So I'm still scratching my head, here.

  127. Image your drive regularly by hamburgler007 · · Score: 1

    You can get any number of open source disk imaging utilities, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_disk_cloning_software. On my windows machine I run a virus check and clone the drive twice a week. Hard drives are cheap enough where the space to do this for most users shouldn't be an issue, it doesn't take much effort, and restoring your drive from an image is much less a pain in the ass than having to do a windows and application reinstallation.

  128. Would you like fries with that? by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

    Welcome to McFascism, please drive thru.

  129. Why do we accept this ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember when the war on terror began and we were all told that we would not let the terrorists destroy our way of life and the day-to-day freedoms that we all enjoy ?
    Anti-terrorism measures have been used as an excuse to eat away at our privacy and assert tighter control on our everyday lives. The sad thing is that we all buy into the illusion. Especially those in the law enforcement community who are brainwashed into believing that they're actually doing the right thing when performing these sorts of acts. Imagine if you could have asked one of these TSA agents, when they were a teenager, if they would ever consider doing something like this ? When did this sort of thing become acceptable ? The war on terror is already lost. Our way of lives change for the worse every day an it's not because of terrorists, but politicians. Legislation is made without challenge our question so long as the word "terrorism" is used.

  130. Re:When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically. by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    Terrorist killed thousands of people via hijacking an some planes. Hence a disproportionate level of scrutiny is applied to airport "security". And those attacks were also domestic flights, not via US citizens but you don't check citizenship on domestic flights anyway and there have been plenty of home grown American nut jobs too.

    Yes it's stupid. But it's stupid due to the overreaction on one attack vector not because of the flights being domestic or the traveler a citizen.

  131. Re:When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically. by [Zappo] · · Score: 1

    And those attacks were also domestic flights, not via US citizens but you don't check citizenship on domestic flights anyway

    Controversial: Should we? I'd rather show my passport than go through a scanner or get a pat-down. Certainly I bet this 95-year-old woman would have preferred that.

    and there have been plenty of home grown American nut jobs too.

    ...who have plenty of ways to carry out ill intent that have nothing to do with air travel. The TSA simply doesn't make us safer from them, even if you believe it makes air travel safer. In our non-air-travel lives, we seem pretty content with the trade off of nut job risk vs. law enforcement limitations.

  132. Re:When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically. by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    Non-citizens have plenty of ways to carry out ill intent that have nothing to do with air travel, so citizenship is irrelevant in to that point.

    I agree the focus on air travel security is stupid, but don't say that too loud in case they decide to inflict that on us in other areas instead of toning it down in the airports...

  133. Diaper Removal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you thought the Nazi's went away after WW II, think again. America now has, amongst its other accomplishments, its own Gestapo. Of course, they have PR agents right now that back their actions, but when did traveling on a plane constitute probable cause for searching? I fought to prevent these thugs from ever coming to power, but Congress was too much in a hurry to "protect America". What horse shit.
    The saddest part of the whole picture is that most Americans are so brainwashed they actually support the TSA's actions. I am sure our parents generation (at least the ones who fought for freedom of the individual against the State) are turning over in their graves.

  134. Sickos! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tha'ts so vile and disgusting TSA all should be screened like that then to! Omg I can't believe how many perverts in this country. Nice going D's!

  135. Wow... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    Just clicked on your web site and saw the photo of your cat, Shadow. I have a cat (well, my oldest daughter has him now) named Shadow that looks EXACTLY like your Shadow. Well, my Shadow is older but he looked like yours a few years ago (Leila says he's gotten fat).

    Also, my name's Steve, too! (Named after the saint that was stoned)

    I'd have posted this comment on your site if you didn't require registration, so my apologies to slashdotters I may have annoyed with this offtopic comment. Checking the "no bonus" boxes, if anyone wants to mod this down please feel free, it should be -1 as it's aimed at only one slashdotter.

    BTW, Steve, you may find some or even most of my journals offensive. especially the earlier ones tat deal with hookers. If you're ok with profanity here's some science fiction:

    We still haven't found extraforgostnic life

    Hadron Destroyers

    Little Green Men

    The Death of Two Protohumans

    1. Re:Wow... by AJH16 · · Score: 1

      Ah, if you want to comment on my website, it does support third party authentication through Janrain or on site accounts are stored on a secured server using WordPress' security. That site is actually running on a dedicated server box for a gaming news site that I administer. Unfortunately due to it's high pagerank the page gets mercilessly attacked by spambots which is why I had to put the registration requirement on. Even with a CAPTCHA I still get about 1 to 3 false registrations a week from spam bots that don't realize posts also require at least one past approval to show on the site. Otherwise, e-mail also can work as a good form of off-board communications.

      I'll have to check out some of your posts when I get a chance. I definitely do not have a problem with profanity and doubt I will be offended.

      --
      AJ Henderson
    2. Re:Wow... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I'll send you an email when I get home. I understand the spam/sociopath problems you must have.