Slashdot Mirror
TSA Defends Pat Down of 4-Year-Old Girl
cosm writes "With public outcry against the TSA continuing to spread, the TSA is defending a recent episode in which a four-year-old was patted down while kicking and screaming at Wichita Airport in Kansas. From the AP article: 'The grandmother of a 4-year-old girl who became hysterical during a security screening at a Kansas airport said Wednesday that the child was forced to undergo a pat-down after hugging her, with security agents yelling and calling the crying girl an uncooperative suspect.'"
Otherwise, despite increased cockpit security and civilian awareness, we'd all die from terrorist attacks! That's why you must surrender your privacy in exchange for the all-important security theater like a good citizen would do. Otherwise, you're just a terrorist!
LOL! American Freedom!
No shit! I honestly don't know of ANY 4 year old that's going to be graceful and cooperative about being taken away from a family member and groped. Sorry, this isn't some sicko loli fantasy. This is real life with real people, and some real perspective needs to be acquired here.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Could we please shut down this joke of an organization? How many stories do we have to hear like this? Frankly, if you touch my daughter and yell at her like this I'll have you arrested for indecent liberties with a child, abuse of a child, and I'll do whatever I can to have you listed on every sexual predator website I can find and basically I'm willing to destroy your life. If a parent acted like this they'd be arrested and the kids taken away. But because "Floyd" watched a 15 minute instructional video, he gets a cardboard badge and the ability to make up any rules he wants and doesn't have to tell anyone what the rules are.
The TSA... where the agents are pedophiles, the supervisors are thieves and the ones pointing out flaws in the system are unemployed.
The grandmother was a 3 oz container of liquid.
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
Now that US airports are treating their own citizens as badly as they do foreigners, they can no longer be accused of being racist.
Summation 2
It's been said before but it bears repetition, the TSA is security theater, that's all. And all paid for with our tax dollars. We are a nation of sheep.
Ok, the new paradigm has arrived and we all need to teach our kids and grandkids that it is OK if strangers touch you...even "down there" because it's for the good of the country.
Keeping you safe from 4 year old girls and their grandmothers since 2001.
The agent takes you out to see a movie, buys you dinner and then gets frisky. Without the movie and dinner.
I'd compare this to disproportionate use of military force. You don't need a carrier strike group against a suspected row boat attack. Clearly their focus is on harassing citizens in stead of real threats. I wouldn't be surprised if the next 4 yo to be patted down smacks the TSA agent in the face and is charged with assault and interviewd under the spot lights.
the agents are pedophiles, the supervisors are thieves and the ones pointing out flaws in the system are unemployed ...and the architects are multi-millionaires.
So what? The cockpit door is locked and the rest of the passengers won't let anyone hijack the plane anymore anyway.
You should RTFA which you clearly didn't.
It's not a case of never screening children. The child had passed the metal detector once, but after that she had contact with her grandmother who hadn't been screened yet, so she had to be screened again. For some reason just sending her through the metal detector again wasn't enough, which makes no sense as it was clearly good enough the first time.
I don't see how my civil liberties are being violated when boarding a plane; everyone should have the same equal protections and confidence that each and every passenger is not going try and hurt anyone on the plane
You don't see how civil liberties and privacy are being violated when you're forced to be patted down and searched when trying to travel?
If you're so scared of terrorists, never leave your house. There is no right to feel safe at the expense of everyone's freedom and privacy. Not only that, but increased cockpit security and civilian awareness of the consequences of plane hijackings is more than enough.
I think the terrorists have gotten more then they have lost. We live in fear, giving up our rights and freedoms in order to gain the illusion of "security". Then again, this is a police state's wet dream - a passive, docile, and accepting population who never question. (Meaning population as a whole, we know there are plenty of individuals and small organizations that do question the state.)
Read the article. The complaint (at least from the family) is about the manner in which the agents approached the task rather than the task itself.
Owl tried to think of something wise to say, but couldn't.
Yeah because drug mules so often try to hijack airplanes instead of trying to lay low and not attract attention to themselves. Also a gropedown doesn't detect internal objects, which is how said drug mules do it - swallowing condoms of substance. Any other method gets picked up by dogs pretty damned quick
Is it really that hard to search wikipedia?
If you find a typo, you may keep it.
with security agents yelling and calling the crying girl an uncooperative suspect
"Let us not assassinate this lad further...; you've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
- Army counsel Joseph Welch to Senator Joseph McCarthy, June 9th, 1954
People have been known to mule all sort of things up their assholes and vaginas. Therefore, everyone should get a free cavity search (women get a two-for-one of course) before being allowed through security. As long as EVERYONE is probled I don't have a problem with it. This should of course also include staff. Get up in there and have a good feel'around!
The only agency with a well known 100% failure rate. 100% of the terrorist that we know of that tried to get through TSA security were able to get through and detonate their devices. The TSA's response is to add proven useless and potentially deadly scanners, and create new checkpoints at highway and post offices. These people are worse than useless. They take from the tax payers on so many levels that the monetary loss is the least of our concern. Give us our freedom back you assholes.
Blink
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Yesterday it was a seven year old kid with cerebral palsy.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/04/26/father-tsa-got-aggressive-with-cerebral-palsy-stricken-7-year-old-from-long-island/
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
You're right, there is historical precedent for using little kids with grenades and similar incidents. I believe the concern in this case was that the woman might have passed the child a gun or something to try to evade the screening. The question here is why the TSO does not have the initiative or leeway to make a judgement call about a situation before it escalates into a scene where they threaten to shut down the airport because of a crying child. Security doesn't come from a bunch of rigid bureaucratic rules, it comes from an exercise of intelligence, observation, and experience. If the rules are the only thing that matters then those terrorists will just exploit the inevitable gaps. There's already plenty of holes in the procedures. And as other have pointed out, a security measure does not have to be applied 100% of the time in all situations to be effective, it just has to be likely enough to interfere to force the plotter to try something else. There aren't enough suicide bomber volunteers that they can afford to gamble on a security measure that is merely inconsistent.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
No.
Just no.
If we've really gotten to the point where our fear justifies injustices such as these, the terrorists have been more successful than they ever dreamed.
The TSA has been proven ineffective. The methods and technologies they employ to "protect us" by invading our privacy have proven ineffective. Why is this still a discussion?
If the terrorists were smart, they'd just kill TSA stooges, too-big to fail bank executives, and congress critters. The rest of the country would be happy to meet their demands out of sheer gratitude.
You are less than human. You are like the dog shit that gets stuck between the ridges on the bottom of my shoe. Read the damn article. The TSA agent was yelling at the little kid causing the problem in the first place. People like you make me sick. You think that just because there's a security protocol people stop being human beings? I guess your plan would be to explain to the 4 year old about the birds and the bees with a nice little pedobear patdown? Get a life scumbag.
From a related article "One officer even told the girl's mother that the airport would have to be shut down and every flight cancelled if the four-year-old did not co-operate" My reaction to this was, yeah go ahead and close the airport because of a crying little girl TSA, let me dial that number for you.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
I'm still waiting for the first bomb to go off in the security-checkpoint-waiting-line. At which point they'd need a checkpoint to check the passengers prior to the security-checkpoint-waiting-line, but offcourse this new checkpoint would also get a line, whereafter a bomb goes off in the waiting-line for *this* checkpoint repeat as necessary.
This bullshit is a *much* larger threat to both life and freedom than terrorists ever where. People fly 900 million trips a year (that's USA only), thus if every one of them spend 5 minutes extra in the security-theatre, that means more than 100 lifetimes are wasted standing in line every year. That's without considering the resources used, and the costs incurred, and the other inconveniences resulting.
Thus the TSA has almost certainly killed more people than they've saved.
The TSA has now shown they are just an organization of child molesters. How can they justify molesting a 4 year old. If anybody else performed this action they would be arrested and thrown into jail.
I realize this quote is way overused these days, but its worth repeating here. Ol' Ben Franklin said it best..."Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
You are no longer in danger of a 4 year old suicide bomber trying to take over the plane with a pair of plastic scissors.
See? Everybody is complaining that the government is always trying to solve the last problem as opposed to thinking of the next one. Well, obviously the TSA have put some thought into this and they concluded that the next likely attempt at hijacking and blowing up a plane will be done by 4 year old religious fundamentalist girls.
You can't handle the truth.
Terrorists in Israel often attack buses and restaurants.
Even in America, a couple guys with a rifle can terrorize an entire city.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks
Perhaps it's time the TSA realized that no planeload of passengers is ever again going to quietly allow anyone to take over an aircraft. If we assume that there are fewer terrorists than defenders on the aircraft, and that all have been through a metal detector, the chances are pretty damn good that an aircraft full of uncooperative passengers can and will subdue any reasonable number of attackers, even if they have hostages and even if they have knives.
If TSA were to mount a publicity campaign to encourage fighting back (in the appropriate circumstances, of course), the odds would be even further improved.
But that would make far too much sense, and nobody would get rich selling useless tech to the government...
Did the 4 year old have a booster seat with her? You know, to see over the cockpit dashboard when she takes control of the jet. Without a booster seat, they're harmless. Just sayin'
Umm, devil's advocate: why can't the 4-year-old girl be considered a terror suspect?
I mean, once we start saying things like "well she can't be a terrorist, she's a grandmother!" or "she can't be a terrorist, she's just a 4-year-old girl!" aren't we essentially letting the world know that these are the loopholes that can allow you to get past the TSA?
Do I think the 4-year-old girl was a terrorist? No. Do I think it's impossible though? No.
You're a terrorist cell. You need to get the (whatever) to your guy on the inside so he can hijack/blow up the plane. You find a family in a generally unsuspecting demographic. You kidnap the mother. You tell the father that unless he has his 4-year-old girl smuggle (whatever) to the terrorist who has already crossed the gate into the terminal you will kill the mother. The little girl won't actually be on the plane, she'll just be giving the (whatever) to the terrorist, then she's free to go and the father gets his family back.
Is that a movie plot? Sure. Is it likely to happen? I don't know but probably not.
But is it completely unreasonable to pat down people who don't fit a terrorist stereotype? No.
Schnapple
This isn't just happening in the US anymore. My wife flew from Ottawa to London, Ontario with our two kids (2 month old daughter and 2 year old son) last July. They made my son take off his jacket, hat and teddy bear, put them through the x-ray, then wait on one side of the metal detector while my wife went through with our daughter. At that point he starting crying and trying to pull away from the big stranger forcefully restraining him from his mom. After verifying that my wife and daughter didn't set off the alarm, they waited for all the items to go through the x-ray. Only then did they sent my son through the metal detector, on his own. I got to watch the whole scenario from the dining area on the next floor up, and I've never in my lunch wanted to just hit someone as badly as I did then.
Can anyone venture a plausible reason why they couldn't have sent my son through with my wife, and then just scanned them individually in the event that the detector went off?
A recursive sig
Can impart wisdom and truth
Call proc signature()
Except that neither of them will do a damn thing about the TSA, and since we're only allowed to choose between the two of them, the TSA will continue to terrorize and sexually assault people for the foreseeable future.
It's true. The TSA is correct when they say they were following the correct TSA procedures.
So let's not work to get those agents disciplined. Let's take this as a wake-up call that the TSA's procedures, and possibly their very existence, need to be re-thought.
If following the rules leads to this sort of incident, then the rules are bad and need to be changed. Simple as that.
This is not so much isolated to the TSA as it is the government not being monitored. The knee-jerk reaction of all government people is to hide information. Organizations like the TSA think they can use "Security" as their reason for hiding information. But that hiding what they do combined with the fact that the public is there interacting with them every day is why we know they stink so bad. I can't imagine the waste, rot, and wrongdoing that takes place within the CIA and the NSA as we neither encounter those organizations and they really get to hide behind security. The FBI is probably not so bad as defense attorneys have at them all the time.
So keep in mind that while we get to see the TSA acting like they only hire from the head injury pool that is only because we are getting a behind the curtains taste of what is going on. The entire government hires from the head-injury pool and the few gems are inside a head-injury designed system.
The simple solution to the TSA along with all other government organizations is to open up their records. In this day and age it would be of little effort to post all internal documents, emails, phone records, etc. As for any security/privacy concerns: any "enemies" already have the information, and a tiny few exceptions could be made such as medical records. But otherwise if you deal with government then expect to have it on the public record.
The TSA does tests where they slip crap by their screeners. They hold on to this information dearly, not to keep it from the bad guys but to keep us and our elected officials from laughing them out of existence.
BTW someday somewhere the baddies will strike again and the TSA will say "See you interfered with our ability to do our job and look what happened." They seem to forget that they themselves have become the baddies. I feel zero threat from baddies but I can feel my blood pressure rise from the tension of what ludicrous encounter I might have with the TSA. Also this has resulted in my cutting back on travel to the US by a huge amount. Not only because of the TSA themselves but because of the huge security fees on any flight to the US. This has made flying a huge distance the same price as a short hop to the US. Security types don't seem to realize that this sort of cost (a small price to pay) is compounded. Year after year, decade after decade of making people miserable and avoiding your country will add up to the US falling behind the rest of the world. And guess what a poorer unhappy population is probably more likely to engage in the very activities that you are trying to prevent.
The worst part is that the US population is developing a "They're just doing their job" attitude and get upset when videos of people given viper checkpoint thugs a hard time. You read the comments in any posted video and a good half are "Why didn't the douche just answer the cop's question." after the guy repeatedly asked something like "Am I being detained?" If most people didn't cooperate at all and only voted for the politician who promised to eliminate these McCarthyist institutions they would be gone in no time. But instead I hate to say it but you deserve the government you vote for.
"The terrorists" have clearly won.
Stop flying you fucking retards. Eventually the message will get through. Money talks.
They know that all this hue and cry will blow over. But no one will be fired because they followed the procedure to the letter. But they know they are not stopping any terrorists. It is a matter of time before something bad happens. Then this entire media circus will turn on them. Every journalist and blogger will do Monday morning quarterbacking. And finally they will find one TSA agent who deviated from the script by an inch. And they all will come down like a ton of bricks on him. "If only Agent Ball G Rabber or Specialist Gater Aper had done this or that, something very clearly and explicitly stated in the manual and procedure, this whole tragedy could have been avoided". All these guys want to do is not to be that fall guy.
Federal bureaucrats are one of the last few remaining groups that is ok to be crapped on. Every time something goes bad, everyone, from politicians to pundits to media analysts to bloggers to slashdot posters to late night comedians, crap on them. Is it any wonder only the thickest skinned CYA professionals still remain in the Government service?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
He's absolutely right (at least, his first sentence is - he goes downhill from there). The fact that the girl was four years old is irrelevant. If there's an actual reason to pat down anyone, you also have to do the children they're with, grandma in her wheel chair, everybody.
Since there isn't an actual reason to pat down anyway, the TSA shouldn't be performing an unnecessary, pointless and invasive procedure on anyone.
Also, the agent is a dick for screaming at anyone objecting to being patted down. Especially a little kid.
to work for TSA you have to be mentally disturbed.
I'm sure other people have commented the same... but I have seriously avoided travelling to or through the USA for several years now, primarily because the security measures frighten and disgust me. I am a Dutch citizen, but living in Canada as a permanent resident (so already I'm not 'standard'). Don't get me wrong - if I had to travel for work in the sense of 'you need to go to that customer or lose your job', I would of course. But I won't consider going there on vacation (I had twice before in my life) and if I (or my relatives) fly between Europe and Canada, we now always make sure to book flights without stops in the USA.
I am really curious if anyone has made any serious attempt to quantify how many people are doing the same and what the losses are due to this, because I know I am far from being alone in this.
As much as I hate the sue! mentality that seems so prevalent in the USA, I really hope the people involved in this story bring as wide a lawsuit as possible against the TSA, this whole insane instution needs to be removed as quickly and as completely as possible - and if a few highly publicized lawsuits happen, it can only help with that.
Ps. Captcha: "Concern". How ... appropriate.
FTFY
WTF... you've been defeated from within... one day the real truth about 911 will get out and you will be howling with rage...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Considering the failure rate of the detectors, they don't need to use designated child carriers. The real safety factor is that civilians will get in their face if they try anything in the flight cabin now.
why isn't this story making headlines...
Instead of being afraid of terrorists, we are now afraid of the TSA. I guess it's just trading one form of terrorism for another. Since the TSA has come around, I have refused to take my children on vacations that involve going through airports. Sorry Disney World, you're too far away to drive. We've been going to local attractions which have been just as much fun, if not more interesting. Nothing like family bonding on a camping trip!
"It's not hard to imagine scenarios"
That is the problem. That right there.
I choose not to live in fear.
Fear is the mind killer. Or society in this case.
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
but I'm a business traveler and know how these things look.
You're defending the molestation of a four year old girl because the government thought she was a threat to national security because she wanted to say goodbye to her grandmother. This is one of those McCarthy era moments where I have to ask, do you have any sense of decency or shred of humanity left in your body? Or do you really believe that molesting children and the elderly makes you safer? Even if we pretend that's true, why in the hell do you find that acceptable?
The threats we should accept as the price to live in a free and open society are tiny in comparison to the injustice of living in a militarized police state. Giving the government more power to molest, imprison, search, and detain people with impunity are the real dangers to our democracy, not the memory of a single terrorist attack 10 years ago. We have locks on the cockpit doors. We have Air Marshals in the cabin. We can retain some reasonable security checkpoints. But when your society tells you that it's acceptable for an adult to put their hands all over a child because they are a threat to national security, you can be damn sure you don't live in a free and rational society.
I also travel for business, and I would rather die in a terrorist attack than live in a police state where people who want to travel are subject to molestation.
A few years ago our daughter broke her mandible and we had to go to hospital. The kid was four years old back then.
First a physician applied metal brackets on the teeth and covered them with plastic. These brackets provided hooks to fix the jaws with plastic rings. Later another physician tried to put plastic rings around those hooks. He was able to apply some rings, but it didn't work out as he wished and he cursed against his colleague - and spoke about the good compliance of the kid.
He said he would try it again later.
A few hours later a nurse came in and told us about a second try, which was neccessary because of the bad compliance of the kid. Which wasn't true, the kid had held her mouth open, had been calm and had followed every order immediately. So I went to the physician and asked about this. He insisted the kid had been the problem.
As we had to go on and no other physician was available on this sunday afternoon, I agreed to try it again with this physician. A huge mistake.
The man didn't say a word to the kid, turned around and inserted a way to big gripper into her mouth, breaking away plastics from the covering nearby the hooks. He didn't speak a single word to the kid, which only screamed during his activities in her mouth, getting calmer in between his actions.
Then he applied some of the plastic rings, eventually exactly at the same positions he was able to in the morning. Only that this time it was ok.
After this show I had a fierce discussion with the man during which he claimed to know how to handle kids, as he himself had some of his own. He didn't like when I started to laugh out loud.
So - where is the problem? These security officers surely have children on their own, so they know very well how to handle small kids. Oh, just to make this clear to anybody, who really thinks that I might support such behaviour: you might have children on your own, you might even handle them really well, but this behaviour is not acceptable.
My 4 year old son will fight me for 30 minutes when I ask him to try a bite of his green beans at supper. I can only image what he would do if some strange man pulled him away from his parents and started touching him all over, he would probably be called something a little worse than "an uncooperative suspect".
Just sayin'
It should come as no surprise that our tyrannical government defends its own crimes of tyranny against its Citizens.
No, cause see, under your logic you shouldn't be allowed your toothpaste.
After all, terrorists saw that they could get bombs on planes with them.
Why should your toothpaste be exempt when this little girl isn't?
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
What terrorists? You mean the dupes the FBI keeps entrapping? Or the insurgents half a world away who are just trying to repel a foreign occupation?
No, the TSA itself is a greater danger than any threat from terrorism. More people have died on the roads because they chose to drive instead of get groped than died in 9/11.
Employees of the TSA deserve the same fate delivered to Bin Laden.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I've always wondered why they don't just put the door to the cockpit on the outside of the plane surely this would be the best way to prevent hijackings. I'm aware that doesn't solve all security concerns but it would have been enough to prevent 911, my other thought for the other worst cases are giving the pilot cctv, radio links t the other crew and even possibly a sleep gas button although I also can still remember how that went for that school taken hostage n Russia.
Why this is not standard policy i don't know but
1 clear the caretakers FIRST
2 clear the kids
personally i think that entire checkpoint team should be FIRED.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
for me not to visit your state as a tourist. Why would I want to visit such a unfriendly country? There are a lot of other places where it is way safer and less hostile. Imagine the first thing you experience getting through your airport is a pat down.
Because I would have shot the TSA agent, because I felt threatened, and was Standing My Ground.
I don't usually side with the gun-nuts, but I'm beginning to think it would be a good idea if everyone on the plane *was* allowed to bring a gun. What's a terrorist going to do if he has to face an entire plane full of people with loaded weapons?
Heck, even the unruly fat passenger who wants 30 bottles of vodka and is having the loud argument with the stewardess would be a lot nicer if he knew that there were 300 armed people on-board.
It's like that car-analogy about having a large spike in the middle of the steering wheel -- people would drive more reasonably if the probability was much higher that they wouldn't even survive a fender-bender.
Get rid of the TSA, and issue every passenger a gun. It's like nuclear deterrence, suddenly we're all going to get along fine on the flight.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
They did create it...
And this is what is wrong with the TSA. They are no better trained than the private companies that used to do the same job but they do cost us nearly 1000x as much.
I wonder if anyone has run the numbers to see if the TSA is actually worth the investment?
We made a lot of security changes after 9/11 that have basically eliminated airline aircraft as a primary target for terrorists (cockpit doors, pissed off passengers, etc)
The TSA has been around over a decade with a significant and growing recurring cost. On top of that, we have the hidden costs of delays, airport evacuations and other actions that impact the airlines and the traveling public.
As a nation, we constantly make tradeoffs between safety and economics and there is usually some element of risk that we tolerate because the economics justify it. For instance, people still travel on airlines even though planes sometime crash or sail on cruise ships even though they sometimes run aground and kill people.
It seems to me that it is highly probable that the TSA's costs outweigh their savings. Let's just warn travelers of the danger and roll on without the cost and inconvenience (and loss of Constitutional rights) that the TSA presents.
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
Damn I am out of mod points. Jk. Before you get on your high horse in the future, consider reading the article.
Ya all the conservative/libertarians are totally for a huge authoritarian state. Give me a break. Read a book.
Conservative/libertarians are totally for a huge authoritarian state: but one that only applies to "them," as in "those other guys". Do you doubt this? How about the Arizona "Papers, please" law? Do you think the transplanted rednecks in favor of this law for a moment felt that they would be detained on the street and asked for proof of citizenship? No, they understand how the law is to be applied. Twelfth generation Hispanic Arizona native? Fair game. White retiree? Not a chance.
I am not a crackpot.
Read the article.
Seriously. The article is not that long. Could have saved you from writing both of you misinformed posts.
Except it is based on a completely false assumption that came from never bothering to read the article. It was a reaction to the other comments and not the article itself. It was designed to elicit a response from other readers and not enhance the discussion. It is in fact a very obvious troll.
After years of incompetent "protection" and/or "service", gratuitous bullying, and general thuggery, I can say the same about most "Law Enforcement" here. I understand its worse in most of the world, but you'd think progress would not be stalled quite in the Bronze Age.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Great article. Worth a read.
I used to travel for business, but then I posted on the internet about how I would rather die in a terrorist attack than live in a police state where people who want to travel are subject to molestation.
FTFY. See, I don't travel for business, and I wouldn't take a job where travelling to the US would be mandatory because I outright refuse to kowtow to your outrageous border policies. No, you shouldn't live in fear of your government, but you actually have something to lose by pissing them off. I do not, as I've already resigned myself to never return to America. Being put on their No Fly list is moot; the USA is on mine.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
You must work for the TSA. Funny your subject is RTFA, but you clearly did not.
The fact that the girl was four years old is irrelevant.
It's actually extremely relevant that the girl was 4 years old. There is now policy around children under 12 that allows a great deal more flexibility which intelligent people can leverage to avoid this scenario.
Just put her through the screener again, for gawd's sake. Was this policy based on reasonable guidelines or engravings from Mount Sinai?
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
It makes me sad to see this modded troll, because that's exactly what I came here to say.
Then you haven't thought it through very carefully.
blah blah irrelevent stuff blah blah
The TSA could have done any number of sensible things instead of none, which they chose to do.
They could have simply told the grandmother to take her granddaughter back outside the security line, and made them just go through like normal.
They could have not acted like shouty pedo-kidnappers and not grabbed a terrified 4 year old and kept her away from her carer.
Or, they could have directed the grandmother to take the 4 year old to one of those secluded pat-down rooms alone to let the grandmother calm doen the child quietly and alone.
Instead they chose to yell itiotic slogans at a person simply too young and scared to understand.
Can you really not see how they acted like complete morons?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
" She also said TSA agents wanted to screen her granddaughter alone in a separate room."
You really support that? You truly support the TSA agents taking a 4 year old girl away from her family to screen her in a separate room? You think the state searching children without their parents present is ok? You are sure your ok with that? That is what you want the world to be like? Your totally sure you support the TSAs action? Of course you don't. All you demonstrated was your a mindless drone that couldn't bother to even read the article. Maybe it would have helped to read what the family was actually complaining about.
why not just make them BOTH go back through the scanner?
I know I'm summoning the "black helicopters" with this statement, but since the security checkpoints are crowded and insecure, why not rig up a bomb to go off in the checkpoint, killing/injuring thirty to forty people and sowing panic? You probably wouldn't even have to make it be a suicide bombing (although that particular tactic with a vest of C4 and nails would stand the best chance of success). Such an attack, made at enough airports within a similar timeframe would likely cripple air travel more than the TSA already has.
"I've spent my whole life figuring out crazy ways to do things. It'll work." -- Montgomery Scott, "Relics"
Some small inner voice inside me would like to see this address along with police misconduct, profiling and brutality. But alas, we'll only scrape off enough bad stuff to make the system look good enough to keep selling.
You remember everything we thought you about strangers, and how you never have to let them touch you in ways you feel uncomfortable about. None of that matters any more when you're flying.
Response from TSA: Blah blah blah, procedures, blah blah blah, terrorists. The little girl violated our procedures because she was scared, therefore we MUST subject her to more terrifying treatment. Honestly surprised that the mother who walked past the TSA agent to try to calm her daughter was not arrested for her suspicious behavior.
But I hear the same thing a lot on message forums, where it's easy to hide behind a screen and a broadband connection....
The reality is, people aren't really doing anything about this stuff when it happens. When you're out in public, being ordered around by a bunch of people in govt. issued badges and granted the authority to have you strip searched, arrested, and blacklisted from ever traveling on a commercial airplane again -- it's funny how people tend to lose much of their willingness to fight back.
Every once in a rare while, someone makes a public protest (like the guy in Oregon who recently tried to go through the scanners in the nude). But it's quickly blown off and we're back to govt. control as usual.... (Right after he did that, I saw comments on the news stories to the effect of, "He was a computer programmer and I knew him... He was a nice guy and never did anything wrong. I can't understand what possessed him to do this!")
Nope ... it's all a grand experiment to slowly "boil the frogs". Keep adding regulations and restrictions slowly, and it's amazing how much the American public will tolerate. Most of us wouldn't "jump out of the pot" if we had a chance, right now... Too comfortable in here!
And no one would have complained if they had just sent the kid through the metal detector again instead of yelling, demanding a pat-down and then acting surprised when the kid objects.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Yes, yes.. please walk this way to the gas chamber. Oh, and because I have a plastic badge, I'm allowed to have sex with your wife and daughter. Just follow the rules.
You know, once upon a time, it was "the rules" that I could OWN another human being because of the color of their skin.
In some countries, it's "the rules" that women can't go outside without a male escort, are arrested for trying to drive a car, and may be stoned to death for wanting an education.
So please, continue to follow "the rules" which may change at any moment, requiring you to give up more and more of what you once called freedoms, and may eventually require you to give up basic human rights.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Last month I lost my wallet in the cab on my way to la guardia. I found that you CAN fly without an ID, but the TSA will make it very uncomfortable for you. The pat down is pretty much what you would expect I guess. They pat all over your body, run their hand up your crack, grope your package, run their hand around your waistband (which I thought was the creepiest part), then send you on your way. It was done professionally, and I would do it again to get through, but it definitely was a bit invasive and creepy. I would have been a lot more disturbed by it if the TSA agent did not look like he was having the worst time in his life as he did it. Slightly different body language and it would get weird quick. The only thing that really makes me angry about it is that I totally still could have smuggled something through, even with the heightened security around me at the time. It might be justifiable if it was actually going to be effective, instead it was just inconvenient and uncomfortable.
This B.S. about being so concerned little kids are "security threats" because of a potential to strap a bomb to their body is just that.... utter paranoia.
What I find extremely odd about all of this is the fact that so many of us accept this nonsense while in line to get on a plane, yet if similar policies were enacted in other public places, there'd be a huge outcry (primarily because it would suddenly be a regular inconvenience instead of a novelty). If we're *truly* concerned about this being an issue, we need to start searching all the babies and toddlers as they enter the grocery stores, movie theaters and sports arenas - and definitely at least pat down and wand everyone before they start to use a gas pump at a filling station! Huge potential for disaster otherwise, there.
At some point, I just want to grab some people by the collars, shake them, and yell, "Life is NOT safe, ok!?! Get OVER it!" Maybe, in some isolated case, one of the days, someone really WILL bring a 4 year old kid onto a plane with a bomb under his shirt. Ok, fine! That's horrible, but it MAY happen. Someone may walk outside on a stormy night and get struck by lightning and die, too. Someone else may get in their car to drive to work and get in a fiery multi-car collision, killing dozens of people. (Better odds of that than the baby/bomb scenario.) Should we just stay in bed all day and do NOTHING in public, to protect us from all these possibilities?
Yes, it seems the TSA thinks it's critical to harass and terrorize children, but perfectly acceptable to accept bribes to let meth pass through security:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/04/tsa-screeners-will-stop-your-children-not-your-meth/51593/
The TSA is a corrupt joke and needs to be shut down.
You would think that we need some sort of a constitutional amendment that forbids this sort of behavior. Like, an amendment that explicitly spells out our right to be secure in our persons, so that the government cannot just grope people at will. If only we had such an amendment...
Palm trees and 8
Generally speaking, you're talking sensibly... but you open with saying "they're just following orders"
Are there still actually people that think that's a reason to abandon basic ethics?
I am as anti-republican as it gets, and the TSA was Dubya's creation... But NOW, the buck stops at Obama and it is time to end the excuses. The TSA is a criminal organization that depends on the executive. Either dismantle it, make it work as it should (oxymoron for the TSA?), or it is your fault, Mr. President. Unfortunately this is the most common thing with Obama: every nasty thing that came from Dubya is still in place (illegal detentions in Guantanamo, illegal occupation of Afghanistan, the molesters at the TSA, the economics team, the economics policies, the tax breaks for the rich, everything!). So, what is the difference between Obama and Dubya? The color of the skin and empty talk.
. the government to take over my health care. . .
I'm all for protecting our civil liberties, but I'm perfectly fine with TSA pat downs and screening.
Well those two statements seem pretty contradictory. Clearly you have never had the pat down before, because no one who has had it done would be "perfectly fine" with the idea of some random dude feeling up their taint. No it is not "tramatic" or anything, but it certainly is violating. The fact that they would not even catch anyone who was motivated and had half a brain makes it even worse.
Most explosives contain their own oxygen, often in the form of nitrates or chlorate compounds. However removing all the free oxygen would certainly reduce the risk of a hijacking.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Then you haven't thought it through very carefully.
Quite the contrary. I actually read TFA before posting, and learned what happened, and saw how blatently stupid the family was, and how the entire matter is being sensationalized in an appeal to emotion, rather than looking at what the security implications of "common sense" are.
They could have not acted like shouty pedo-kidnappers and not grabbed a terrified 4 year old and kept her away from her carer.
They didn't grab her, and they didn't yell anything at her. After the kid hugged the grandmother (who had originally set off the alarm), the TSA said she'd have to be checked again. The kid screamed and tried to run off. At that point, there's a person running through a secure area who hasn't been checked. When the girl was brought back, the TSA manager had the parent hold her during the pat-down.
The TSA could have done any number of sensible things instead of none, which they chose to do.
The "sensible" thing to do is to follow basic security practices. There's a secure area, an insecure area, and a DMZ between them. Entities passing through the DMZ are screened before entering the secure area. When anything from the secure side interferes with the security checking, it needs to be rechecked. Period. Disallowed material may have been passed unnoticed. The only thing allowed free passage through the DMZ are entities that have undergone a thorough vetting process.
In case that procedure still doesn't seem familiar, it's also the basic DMZ setup for a computer network. Why is it that what's decent security for a computer is suddenly terribly unacceptable for an airport? Why can't the mother have told the kid "No, stay with me now; Grandma will be back in a minute?" Why do we complain when a boss insists that the new data server be accessible from his house, but we expect the TSA to abandon security for a whiny child?
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
This is fucking stupid. Before I say anything further, I am a US soldier of over 6 years with combat experience. Not airsoft, not paintball, real people trying to kill me on a daily basis.. for years at a time. I have also spent the majority of my live involved with martial arts of different forms. I have also had several armature MMA bouts. I'm not a badass, but I don't shy away from a fight and I am no stranger to violence.
I have 3 children. One of them is a 4 year old little girl.
If you ask my wife what would happen if we were put in this situation, she can tell you that I would be in jail. Without a doubt. She knows me, she knows my convictions, and she knows that I try to pick my battles carefully, but fight tooth and nail for what I believe in. If I don't, who's going to stand up and fight for me? Not you. You would sit by and watch this happen. You would sit by and continue to let it happen to millions of other people and just tell yourself that it was normal.
I would beat the living dogshit out of any TSA agent that tried to put their hands on my daughter, or tried to separate her from me, especially with the number of cavity searches going on as of late.
Sure, I'd get taken down by several of them eventually. I'm no superhero, I'm just a man. What I would do is scream LOUDLY while all of this was going on, and try to get as much attention to the situation as possible.
Youtube videos go a long way. Especially when it's a US soldier protecting his 4 year old daughter from being groped. You know, solders? The people that protect the TSA from the True Believers.. the *real* terrorists?
My wife would do everything in her power to get massive media and internet attention to this thing. She simply wouldn't let it go away.
Most of you would argue that "what good are you doing protecting your daughter from jail?"
I'm a US soldier. It's not about me, it's not about my family. I would protect my daughter in the moment that I could, and hope my actions echoed loudly enough in the media to cause a storm on Capital Hill (especially with IAVA [Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, of which I am a member] to make sure this shit never happens again to another US citizen.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s16e01-reverse-cowgirl
When the TSA becomes in charge of restrooms...
You're the fucking retard.
I'd like to see you give me an alternative when I need to be across the country in 6 hours, or across the globe in half a day.
Oh that's right, there is none
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
A lot of people are misunderstanding the OP. The fact that someone sneaks past security justifies searching them. Similarly, the fact that someone in the terminal has contact with someone outside of the terminal, justifies searching both of those people. In both of those situations, there is a valid reason to perform at least some search. The OP is NOT talking about how much authorityTSA should have in general, who searches should be performed on, or how searches should be performed. In other words, the OP was NOT saying that, as a matter of everyday security, we should patdown four-year old girls. The OP IS saying that the specific circumstances OF THIS CASE justified at least some extra scrutiny. For a community that purports to be news for nerds, it sure does have an abundance of people who are incapable of independent thought/reasoning.
Lofty language devoid of any substance - and of course people mod it as insightful. So you're saying that if someone brings a gun on an airplane we shouldn't care? What about a grenade? Other explosives? You chose not to live in fear, after all.
And I agree with you. The rest of you of the paranoia seems awfully troll-ish and they should be put away or on Xanax.
If someone wants to blow you or some place up, they will. Period. You're dead so get your affairs in order and stop waving guns and police forces and armies around. Niet. Gone. Nada mas.
Fortunately, terrorism is NOT the norm. People don't really want to blow themselves up until they feel they're backed into a corner and have nothing else to live for. So, try a little empathy first. It would go a long way toward ensuring a safer, happier humanity instead of this "Well I carry a gun everywhere because it's better me than him." Are you fucking retarded? Try understanding why someone might flip out and start shooting up a post office, for instance.
I'll give you a hint: It has to do with desperation and scarcity mentality. There are WAY more than enough resources to go around, and if we actually had a society that valued something besides money and had a more interconnected one that actually has sympathy for people's situations, we'd have a lot fewer anxious, crazy people walking around. You! Hey you! Yeah, the one who bought that pistol that you got a conceal-carry permit for. Yeah, and you tell your friends it's your Constitutional Right? Yeah you. You know, if you got more hugs as a child, or hadn't been bullied to death in grade school, or had a friendly network of confidants who positively support you, instead of all the toys in your house that keep you "entertained" I'll bet you wouldn't need to walk around thinking you're some sort of badass who's going to hold out at the Ok Corral when the bullets start flying in Nowheresville, Suburbia.
Good lord, I'm so sick of selfish asshats walking around talking about security. You're the dangerous ones. You ARE CRIMINALS ALREADY. You've committed crimes of blowing someone away, without judge or jury, thousands of times in your head. You've made it real in your mind, so your reality is that one day it will happen and you want to be ready for what you actually think is an inevitability.
This security thing is just another manifestation of that mentality, and at the top sits a sick fuck who beckons with a finger and thousands can die, sitting at a little desk feeling smug and superior that,"I know what's best for everyone else."
-
Of course we accept it, the public outcry was to add security for planes. If you think we do things based on actual chances you haven't been paying attention. If we see some sensationalized story in a national newspaper we believe if it can happen to them it can happen to us. The TSA's job is to make planes as "safe as possible", and you have to admit they are doing a good job at that, but perhaps a little too good, I think most people would rather take a little extra "risk" than deal with the TSA these days and that needs to be communicated to them. But don't forget, your privacy and self respect is not one of their metrics for a job well done.
This buffoon is so brainwashed he wouldn't feel safe even hived up in his own house. He would demand all pedestrians be patted down so nobody outside could possibly make a sprint for his door with evil intent.
I have to respectfully disagree with your assertions here. It's a well thought out set of ideas you have, but I know too many people actively involved in the Ron Paul campaign to believe you're correct.
Ron Paul already *did* run for president in 2004 on the Libertarian party ticket. He's TRIED the "run as an independent" thing already. All that led to in '04 was dissent among the independents. I even recall Chuck Baldwin (Constitution party platform's running mate) urging all the independents to unite and stop bickering amongst themselves, even if that meant going with a Green party or a Libertarian party candidate instead of their own party. Few listened.... Looking back on all of it now, I really believe Bob Barr got involved in the campaign as a Libertarian simply to ensure it was fragmented. (Look at his past history.... CIA connections and all about "big government". Sure, he had a story about how he "saw the light" and changed -- but he essentially came out of nowhere, and proceeded to parrot all the press releases put out by "Campaign for Liberty" and Ron Paul. I was signed up on both mailing lists for a while, and I swear, EVERY time Ron Paul released something? Along came Bob Barr with his "Raising the Barr" newsletter the next day, with utter plagiarism of the Ron Paul letter.)
Specifically regarding the situation in Paul's district in Texas? I think you're reading too much into the situation there. Ron Paul inherited it. he didn't create it. So complaining that his district is full of people who make a living from government jobs is hardly a failing on his part. At absolute best, all one can do to try to change that is to encourage the growth of new private businesses in the area, and hope the jobs they create will be lucrative enough to entice people away from their existing govt. employment. That is going to be a SLOW process that only changes things in the LONG haul.
I'm not from Texas myself, so I don't claim to know all the details of what's going on there with regard to new bus stops and what-not. But in general, public transportation is ALWAYS a money losing proposition. Our local bus system is NEVER profitable, nor is our light rail system here in St. Louis, Missouri. In a "perfect world", all of it would be eliminated if it can't make a profit and replaced with profitable alternatives that were NOT govt. funded at all. But again, all of this requires baby steps.... If the bus system ensures some people can maintain gainful employment as housekeepers, and that in turn reduces expenses for some of the folks paying the taxes that pay for the bus system? That's not the worst situation one could have.
This B.S. about being so concerned little kids are "security threats" because of a potential to strap a bomb to their body is just that.... utter paranoia.
Yeah. There's some of that. Cultural paranoia. Lower level inner-party members (middle management types) think that any security is a good thing, so turn a blind eye to civil outrages like this. But the people at the top of the American heap, the CEOs, the millionaires, they don't go through these check points.They have daughters too. "Not my child, private plane. Problem?". This is actually more a function of knee-jerk reponse by a civil beuracracy machinery that wears the blinders of political correctness. Take back your government machinery people. Its off a gear and running off its tracks to crush you.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
It can't possibly ever be overused.
yet when similar policies were enacted in other public places there was no outcry
Just Google for TSA bus
The child's grandmother, Lori Croft, told The Associated Press that Brademeyer and her daughter, Isabella, initially passed through security at the Wichita airport without incident. The girl then ran over to briefly hug Croft, who was awaiting a pat-down after tripping the alarm, and that's when TSA agents insisted the girl undergo a physical pat-down. Isabella had just learned about "stranger danger" at school, her grandmother said, adding that the girl was afraid and unsure about what was going on.
What we have here, gentlemen, is less about a failure to communicate. Thar be a storm a bewin...
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
So you're suggesting that if there's something abnormal that raises suspicions, the right procedure is to comply with the suspect's requests and use the weakest scanning system available?
And that when there's a breach of security, and several people disrupting the normal flow of operations, it's entirely unacceptable to shout or become frustrated in any way?
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
What else can one say, than shame on the TSA.
I fly a lot in the EU and I never had any problems with the security process. I was always treated respectfully and profesional manner.
But flying to the US (which I awoid at any cost, but sometimes I can't) is always an unpleasent thing. In a way the USA has lost already against terrorism since it lets itself be terrorised.
That a country of democracy and "freedom" has its people treated like this is nothing else than shameful...
Do you have another source for this story? I'm very conscious that the bulk of the information appears to be coming from a single source.
The story I'm seeing says quite clearly that TSA agents were yelling and threatening to close the airport, because the child was an "uncooperative suspect". Where does it suggest that the family behaving stupidly?
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Generally speaking, you're talking sensibly... but you open with saying "they're just following orders"
Are there still actually people that think that's a reason to abandon basic ethics?
You say that as if you believe the people who take these kind of jobs suffer from an existence of ethics in the first place...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
We are paying $4/gallon for gas, it isn't our fault people over there are poor, the countries are swimming in money, our own money, which is used to attack us.
We get robbed at the pump and killed by our own money.
We need to get an ethanol based society, dry up the terrorists funding.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
It would go a long way toward ensuring a safer, happier humanity instead of this "Well I carry a gun everywhere because it's better me than him." Are you fucking retarded? Try understanding why someone might flip out and start shooting up a post office, for instance.
Actually, you'd find it surprising how few crimes are committed by people who are carrying firearms legally. The criminals don't bother to jump through the hoops of registering, training, getting a license, etc. You'd find it even more surprising how many crimes are prevented by armed citizens.
Not to mention the supreme court has explicitly ruled that it is not the responsibility of the police to protect you.
Quite the contrary. I actually read TFA before posting, and learned what happened, and saw how blatently stupid the family was, and how the entire matter is being sensationalized in an appeal to emotion, rather than looking at what the security implications of "common sense" are.
So how was the family stupid by wanting to go back outside the security perimiter and come through again?
And as for stupidity, have you ever actually ever dealt with a 4 year old?
At that point, there's a person running through a secure area who hasn't been checked.
No, there's a small kid (not very fast) running around. You know, the kid might run onto an aircraft undetected, then set off a bomb once it was in flight. Could happen.
And that only happened when they tried to grab her. If they'd been sensible, that would never have happened.
And, frankly at that point, you're seriously evaluating the risk of a 4 year old pulling off two complex transfers with the second one not being detected? That's not common sense.
And starting to yell when a frightned kid runs off is not going to make the kid stop, so it was a very stupid thing to do. Kids don't behave likle adults, because they're kids.
And frankly if you think shutting down an airport because a 4 year old kid has run off, then you are running scared, frankly. I, for one would rather live in a world with a marginally higher terror risk than one that is so stupid and officious.
The "sensible" thing to do is to follow basic security practices. There's a secure area, an insecure area, and a DMZ between them. Entities passing through the DMZ are screened before entering the secure area. When anything from the secure side interferes with the security checking, it needs to be rechecked. Period.
Yes, and instead of rechecking by sending them out to come through again, they decided to do the most intrusive and disruptive thing on a scared kid. That was stupid and unnecessary.
In case that procedure still doesn't seem familiar, it's also the basic DMZ setup for a computer network. Why is it that what's decent security for a computer is suddenly terribly unacceptable for an airport? Why can't the mother have told the kid "No, stay with me now; Grandma will be back in a minute?" Why do we complain when a boss insists that the new data server be accessible from his house, but we expect the TSA to abandon security for a whiny child?
The fact you think that you believe it is reasonable to treat scared children in the same way as a computer network speaks volumes. Kids get scared, computers don't. Computers do exactly what you tell them, kids don't. Kids can't be reasoned with by the person who is scaring them.
If you escalate with kids it just makes the situation worse.
The TSA officials had mature, sensible options with prefectly adequate security open to them. They chose to be abusive instead.
You keep definding their actions. Then why is what they did better than simply sending them all out and rescreening them?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
TSA's "proper procedures" are not only not proper, but abusive, ineffective, and used to keep our own US citizens in a state of fear and uncertainty. I fail to see a difference between the TSA "procedures" and what a police state will do to their own people. But what is even more worrisome, is how easy most people go along with all this nonsense.
I joined TSA because I needed a job. I got a better job and left that service when I could. Most of those people are in the same boat. And I can tell you most of those people don't want to do what they do either.
So far, people are being upset because it violates their comfort zones. That's bad enough, I know, but it's not like people are being rounded up and shot.
If you want to see where the REAL rights violations are occurring, look to the luggage inspection process and look to the immigrations and customs process.
It would be nice if the economy were in a condition where people didn't have to make difficult choices like "have a job or have an ideal moral standing" but it's never that simple. And so I put it to you to offer to take care of just one TSA screener -- feed him, house him and pay for his bills while he tries to look for another job and until he finds one. Because if you're not willing to do that, your moral standing just doesn't quite stand up. And frankly, if you were faced with such a choice, I doubt you would favor starving and homelessness over feeling up a few angry travellers.
This girl could of been hiding dangerous explosives, she could of been caring coke in her tits, she could of been working with the Taliban to completely corrupt the USA......
Or she could of been a normal 4 year old girl.
Every motherfucker involved with the TSA needs to be flayed alive & dipped in vinegar.
There is a war going on for your mind.
It's obvious that there is nothing we can do to bring a peaceful end to the TSA. Voting didn't work. A widespread campaign of ridicule didn't work. Refusing to fly didn't work, and simply leads to the government propping up at-risk airlines. It is time to try something a little different:
Publicly document the names of people employed by the TSA. Every single one of them, from their administration (John Pistole) all the way down to the nameless, faceless front-line gropers. It won't take long for a document like that to spread in the wild.
That's step one. It becomes unnecessary once the following step starts to gather momentum because these people wear uniforms, drive to work everyday, and are self-identified. They don't wear masks (yet).
Step 2: Make their lives as TSA agents unbearable. Everything from denying them loans and refusing to do business with them personally to stealing their cars and vandalizing their property. Hurt them, hurt their families, hurt them financially. Humiliate them and make them legitimately afraid for their lives and those of their wives, husbands, and children. Socially ostracize them completely or make them targets, whichever your morals and conscience dictates, but start such a campaign of fear that the TSA will never see another willing job applicant.
Make them ashamed and afraid of doing their job, because they should be.
If you're so scared of terrorists, never leave your house. There is no right to feel safe at the expense of everyone's freedom and privacy. Not only that, but increased cockpit security and civilian awareness of the consequences of plane hijackings is more than enough.
This is so right on point it bears repeating.
So many TSA supporters say, "If you don't like having your rights violated, then don't fly. Travel is not a right." I think a decent response is, as you said, "If you are so terrified of being killed in a terrorist attack, then don't fly. Travel is not a right."
...has TSA ever admitted they've done a search wrong, or conducted one that wasn't called for?
Ferretman
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Well in Kansas the usual procedure would be to put the child in water, if she floated she is a witch and be burned at the stake, if she sunk, she is packing a hand gun and would be arrested if they the mouth to mouth recessitation worked. They learn about that in school the period after they learn about how God created the universe and that science and biologists are just lazy intellectuals selling people on a cute story to help continue getting grants for research.
I can see the new ticket form now, you get the child nightmare option for free, and a voucher for psyciatric treatment for 50 years for the sweet little one.
Let me play Devil's advocate.
A burka makes a(n) (armed) small man indistinguishable from a woman, and a "little person" with certain forms of dwarfism can easily be made to look like a child.
Islamic dress makes hiding weapons comparatively easy!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
that is how they do it when they push draconian laws (think of the children!), why would it not work to get rid of the tsa?
it was the "stranger danger" bullshit taught at schools.
There's nothing I've seen that isn't a blatant retelling of the family's story, with minimal input from the TSA. There's one source that shares most details with TFA, but has less sensationalism, and gives a clearer picture of the sequence of events. Since the TSA's statement is short and not very informative, separating the actual events from the family's emotional retelling is a matter of interpretation.
A female officer started “yelling at my child and demanded she, too, must sit down and await a full body pat-down,” Brademeyer said. Her daughter responded by putting her hands over her face and crying.
“I was prevented from coming any closer, explaining the situation to her, or consoling her in any way. It was implied, several times, that my mother, in their brief two-second embrace, had passed a handgun to my daughter.”
I interpret that to mean that the parent didn't control their kid through the checkpoint or explain sufficiently that they'd need to "stay near mommy", and apparently the grandmother (who was worthy of getting a running hug a few seconds prior) didn't console the confused child herself. When the TSA tried to explain that the procedure is because contraband could be passed, the family took that as an accusation.
I personally think the TSA's a ridiculous waste of my government's time and resources, but that's no excuse for turning a child's confusion into a sensational media circus.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
What I just wrote to my Senators:
According to an AP news article (http://bit.ly/Jd55Zz):
--------
WICHITA, Kan. (AP) — The grandmother of a 4-year-old girl who became hysterical during a security screening at a Kansas airport said Wednesday that the child was forced to undergo a pat-down after hugging her, with security agents yelling and calling the crying girl an uncooperative suspect.
--------
I am afraid for my country. We've been reduced to molesting terrified little girls in airports for a demonstration of fake security. When will this end? Please use your position as a Senator from our great state to protect Americans from the TSA.
Respectfully,
Kirk Strauser
What bothers me most is that I halfway expect to be asked about those letters or this post the next time I fly.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
You! Hey you! Yeah, the one who bought that pistol that you got a conceal-carry permit for. Yeah, and you tell your friends it's your Constitutional Right? Yeah you. You know, if you got more hugs as a child, or hadn't been bullied to death in grade school, or had a friendly network of confidants who positively support you, instead of all the toys in your house that keep you "entertained" I'll bet you wouldn't need to walk around thinking you're some sort of badass who's going to hold out at the Ok Corral when the bullets start flying in Nowheresville, Suburbia.
I'm not sure how you figure gun ownership has anything to do with all this security hoopla. You seem to have an irrational hatred for people who want to own guns. Perhaps if you feel that strongly, you should organize a group to repeal the second amendment. I'm not sure what has you all bothered about legally owning weapons. Perhaps you were bullied as a child, or didn't get enough hugs or don't have a friendly network of confidants who positively support you.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Are we really worried about a bomb small enough that a little girl could have taken it from an adult and kept it hidden after a brief hug?
interpret that to mean that the parent didn't control their kid through the checkpoint or explain sufficiently that they'd need to "stay near mommy"
The kid's 4, dude. I really don't understand what part of that you don't understand. Sometimes they do random things.
and apparently the grandmother (who was worthy of getting a running hug a few seconds prior) didn't console the confused child herself.
I assume you've never either (a) been a kid and (b) ever seen any kids ever. No, basically only the kids mother will do. That's just how most kids work.
I personally think the TSA's a ridiculous waste of my government's time and resources, but that's no excuse for turning a child's confusion into a sensational media circus.
The reason for the media circus is because they insisted on doing an intrusive, invasive, unpleasant and totally unnecessary patdown on a young, scared kid.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
We need to get an ethanol based society
And royally clusterfuck the food supply chain and cost of food. Good idear there Amrikhun Dumbtard.
My then 2-year-old daughter was subjected to a patdown by security at Frankfurt airport a few years ago. Granted, it was a flight to US, so perhaps they were following some sort of US rule - I can't tell. We were going from one terminal to another, possibly dedicated to US flights (or may be not).
Either way, it was done by a German policewoman (again, not sure who they are, it's been a while, but they did appear to have police uniforms). They patted down pretty much everyone, as far as I recall. 2 year old child was not exempt. Fortunately, my daughter is a calm type - but she was quite a bit surprised. Nothing like that happened to her before (or since) in any other airport, at least not yet.
With that, and my multiple similar own experiences at European airports and elsewhere, I am not quite sure what is so different in Europe in terms of personal privacy or freedom. That's not to say it is a good thing - quite the contrary. I just don't get where the "Europe is more free than US" sentiment comes from.
And don't get me started on CCTV in UK.
My cousin is here with me now, and we are discussing this topic. And his answer is so stupid and simple I must bounce it off you guys.
:) )
He says: "If you don't like this system, then don't fly. Case closed. No one is forcing you to fly anywhere."
PS: He is a known teetotaler and rule follower. (He did not see me write that part
Sometimes they do random things.
Oh, look at that cute kid! Ha ha, he's got a flamethrower! Isn't that adorable?
Kids only do random things when their parents let them.
I assume you've never either (a) been a kid and (b) ever seen any kids ever. No, basically only the kids mother will do. That's just how most kids work.
So let the kid cry. It worked for me, and it worked for my kids. In ten minutes, the manager's approved an alternative procedure, and the problem's solved.
The reason for the media circus is because they insisted...
Nope. It's because people like you see the just-like-me think-of-the-children underdog getting abused by the evil bad nasty gub'mint, and band together in an orgy of hate, feeling for two minutes like you have a common enemy, and that if you scream loud enough at the villain of the day, the world will listen to you, and you don't need to play politics or actually work toward improvement, but just be united in your anger.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
On a major american airline. How the security was handled? No need to remove bottles or shoes, no pat downs or x-rays. Everything seemed the same as pre-9/11 security with one exception. The gate itself was sealed. To enter the gate they had some security staff with airline garb on. They asked simple questions. The cliche ones like 'did you pack your bags yourself', etc. BUT, I noticed that they were intently watching my facial and body language during this brief conversation. To me they looked like well trained security professionals. I am sure if I showed any suspicious signs I may have been searched further. I did not notice that from a planeful of 300 passengers, they patted down or used the hand-held wand on a handful of people. The net effect of all this? The whole check-in & security line was 10 minutes. I did get to airport 2.5 hours ahead of time. I certainly did not have to do so. We need to return to this. Our current process is so wasteful.
The problem is:
This was pretty much settled in the 1970s when the whole security screening process got started to eliminate handguns and grenades from airplanes. A few airlines were slow to pick up on their new responsibility and learned from their insurance carriers they did not have a choice.
Sorry, but you are 40 years too late to deal with the screening issue. The only possible question is who is doing it, and again I think the insurance is going to dictate that the government must do it because the airlines were "lax" in allowing 9/11 to happen. So, no government screening = no flying.
You'd find it even more surprising how many crimes are prevented by armed citizens.
I would indeed be surprised at this. Have any statistics to back this up? Because the very few I know of that exist are from heavily biased sources and disputed by everyone that doesn't share the bias.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
In Israel; Hamas and Fatah have a history of strapping young children and mentally handicapped kids with bombs and having them approach Israelis...only to remote detonate the child. Israel has saved more than one of these children by defusing the bomb before they are detonated. So...it's not really true that we don't have the search children. But it should be done professionally and with care.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Only if we continue to use corn-based ethanol rather than cellulosic ethanol that use wood waste products or grasses.
They have metal detectors and wands in MN at many sporting events and nightclubs. Been that way since the late 90's...
Oh yes, yes. That's OBVIOUSLY exactly what I was saying. Guns, bombs...pshaw. Nerve gas and radioactive material should be allowed too. After all, what's to be afraid of? LOL
Fucking dumbass.
"Lofty language." - A couple of hundred years from now your descendents will probably think that mine talk 'gay' too. Go back to greeting people at Costco.
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
"TSA has reviewed the incident and determined that our officers followed proper screening procedures in conducting a modified pat-down on the child," the agency said.
TSA is a bureaucracy interested in following procedures rather than creating any sort of real security. It will always be invasive because they will constantly add new rules to deal with old threats. It will never be effective because they only follow the rules rather than looking for real threats.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
EVERYONE needs to send letters (NOT emails) to their state's senators. If enough people deluge their offices with "Shutdown the TSA" mail, they'll finally get a clue and do something about.
And yes, spend the money on a stamp, these guys pay more attention to paper mail than email.
LongTail SSH Brute Force analysis tool is here!
Why ethanol? It seems like renewable forms would be much better and would not disrupt the food supply (and pricing). If you're talking about automobiles, we should move towards the new IBM "breathable" batteries, which weigh much less because they get some of their power from the atmosphere. Batteries in cars make the most sense, because it decouples "power generation" from "power usage"; the batteries can be filled from energy produced via water, wind, sun, nuclear, coal, fusion, and whatever the next quantum-based energy source is. (Siblings said similar statements, albeit with much more vitriol...)
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
"WHERE ARE YOUR PAPERS?"
Whats actually happening today is more scary than these infamous lines spoken in WWII era movies. And we look back at those and sigh in relief that we don't live in that time period now, while allowing the TSA to do what they do...
-- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
I'm starting to seriously think the job attracts people who get off on feeling up kids, handicaps, etc. They certainly aren't doing it for our safety. After all some were just caught out for letting cocaine into the country. That sort of thing is probably more common than we think.
In the 1920s and 30s it wasn't too hard for the average Italian, Spaniard or German to imagine a scenario where radical communists would plunge the nation in chaos. They were out there on the streets marching.
Of course we all know how that turned out.
Mart
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
If we're *truly* concerned about this being an issue, we need to start searching all the babies and toddlers as they enter the grocery stores, movie theaters and sports arenas - and definitely at least pat down and wand everyone before they start to use a gas pump at a filling station! Huge potential for disaster otherwise, there.
But we're not, because there haven't been any major terrorist attacks along those vectors. As soon as they are, expect movement towards ineffective reactionary security theater in those venues.
Did the Shoe Bomber invent hiding bombs in a shoe? Did the Underpants Bomber invent hiding a bomb in your tighty-whities? Was the concept of a binary explosive unheard of before there was supposedly an attempt? Are none of these things that a TSA based around fighting real security threats would have anticipated?
No. Instead, they perform some real security (metal detectors, baggage scanners), and then a bunch of security theater on top of that which is designed to make it seem like They Are Doing Something about the "new" threats that show up.
The enemies of Democracy are
It would go a long way toward ensuring a safer, happier humanity instead of this "Well I carry a gun everywhere because it's better me than him." Are you fucking retarded? Try understanding why someone might flip out and start shooting up a post office, for instance.
Actually, you'd find it surprising how few crimes are committed by people who are carrying firearms legally. The criminals don't bother to jump through the hoops of registering, training, getting a license, etc. You'd find it even more surprising how many crimes are prevented by armed citizens.
Not to mention the supreme court has explicitly ruled that it is not the responsibility of the police to protect you.
True. I looked up the statistics for Texas concealed carry permit holders:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm
If you have a concealed carry permit in Texas you are about 90% LESS likely to commit a violent crime.
A good analogy for this case would be Safford Unified School District v. Savanna Redding, when a 13-year-old girl was strip-searched after another student accused her of possessing prescription-strength Advil. The SCOTUS ruled the search was unconstitutional, yet still held the school officials had no liability because they did not violate "clearly established law."
The rule, basically, is that the government can wantonly violate your rights and you can only sue if both a) the people violating your rights KNEW their actions were illegal, and b) the government has waived its sovereign immunity.
Yeah, but King_TJ's point is, "So what?". Yeah, some people are psychopaths. That's life. Are you going to cower in fear because of it? Life IS dangerous. Get over it.
I was with you right until you used "reasonable" and "Then, while the grandmother was waiting to get a patdown" in the same paragraph.
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
The only thing that happened in the last ten years that has made us appreciably safer when flying is adding secure locking doors to the cockpits of commercial aircraft. The rest is theater or has little real value other than to make a subset of the population (mostly the ones that travel on planes only rarely) feel warm and fuzzy.
If we want to stop bombs from getting on planes, we already have an effective solution: bomb sniffing dogs. One at each checkpoint and we're set. Knives and guns? X-ray and metal detectors works fine. There's no need for all this other crap.
The idea that the TSA can provide 100% security is an illusion. We can easily achieve 99% security at a relatively low price, financially and in rights, but that last 1% costs us everything. We all know that drunk driving kills more people than terrorists in this country. We also know that longer yellow lights and a delay between red & green lights saves lives yet many cities keep those times short to pull in more red light tickets for funding. Like many posters here have stated, we have lost ourselves to the fear that something could happen. It's true that something can and will happen. We have to find a way to accept that and move forward as a nation. As citizens we are now always on high alert for terrorists on planes, and we have shown since flight 93 that we will intervene and prevent mass casualties. We don't need to abuse ourselves any further in the name of the security.
All glory to the Hypnotoad!
For people with signatures like ours? Unbelievable!
Or, even majority of mods suddenly become infuriated libertarians when the story is about cure 4 yo girl? ;-)
Paul B.
The child's grandmother, Lori Croft, told The Associated Press that Brademeyer and her daughter, Isabella, initially passed through security at the Wichita airport without incident. The girl then ran over to briefly hug Croft, who was awaiting a pat-down after tripping the alarm, and that's when TSA agents insisted the girl undergo a physical pat-down. Isabella had just learned about "stranger danger" at school, her grandmother said, adding that the girl was afraid and unsure about what was going on.
The TSA did the right thing. That looks like a handoff by someone who's trying to get something past a checkpoint. That's exactly when additional examination is required.
Using kids and old people to get bombs past checkpoints has been common in Israel for years. The Israelis check women and kids.
Travel is not a right.
Perhaps not directly; however: how am I to pursue this happiness when I keep running into security checkpoints?
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Since Timothy McVeigh looks like you, he's an upstanding citizen, right? Don't look at others to justify your bigotry.
If you don't vote Libertarian, you're an idiot. If you know about the LP, and you still don't vote for them, you're an A@@hole.
To you and all your sympathetic moderators.
I can do what I want and your fantasy of judging my state of mind is just that.
Carry on.
At this point it's obvious you don't deal with security or children (or shouldn't be, at least). Security is pointless if it's compromised, or left to the whims of people involved. I'll pick out a few bits of nonsense
There are finite resources. If you waste them in stupid places, more important gaps will be left. These is one of the stupid places. Also, the security is already entirely left ot the whims of the TSA, so I'm not entirely sure how you think them being asshats is somehow important.
No, I'm evaluating the risk of a child being used as a tool for pulling off two complex transfers,
Which is minute.
where everyone involved has an unknown level of training. Children of all ages are known to be used around the world as pickpockets and drug mules. When your goal is to maintain security, "common sense" is expecting a hug to be part of the act.
My god no! There are something like 900,000,000 passengers per year in the USA, of which the TSA has currently found zero terrorists. There is no way that going for a one in a billion chance is even remotely common sense.
Seriously, you're expecting a terrorist to orchestrate a system involving a complex transfer of a kid between two adults---and bear in mind the kid would have to find the second adult and make a transfer undetected---where the kid has a limited carrying capacity and is phenomenally unreliable.
And you think it's common sense to go for that less than one in a billion chance where instead you could just bribe the TSA officials into letting you take a bunch of stuff on to the plane, or even easier keep trying to bring stuff onto the plane yourself or even even easier bring on dangerous but unrestricted and hard to detect chemicals.
You have a strange idea of common sense.
Also, referring to another post of yours, you have a strange idea of suspicious behaviour if you believe that a 4 year old acting up is suspicious behaviour, as opposed to perfectly normal behaviour with an infinitesimal increase in risk.
By age four, children are perfectly capable of understanding appropriate behavior, and being patient enough to wait through lines.
You've never seen a 4 year old act up a bit?
They're also capable of being used for smuggling. The "sensible" thing to do would be to talk to your kids about appropriate behavior before entering the checkpoint,
Yes, because 4 year olds are known to be so reliable.
not assume the TSA's going to babysit your kids for you at the expense of security.
Like I said they could have just sent them through the scanners again. And if the scanner is too unreliable to be trusted, then looking for ridiculously convoluted and error prone schemes for smuggling tiny amounts of stuff is the most ridiculous and pointless faffing around the edges when there are much more important things to do.
You have a very, very strange idea of risk versus likelihood. There is simply no point in targeting very low risk, very unlikely events if there are other much bigger risks. I really hope you're not in charge of any really serious security, because if you are, I can imagine you defending against hairy, mad-cap schemes (what if someone air-drops a light tank and starts blasting away??? Better get some heavy anti-tank stuff here!!!), while not bothering to put a lock on the back door.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
"Just doing their job" is a bullshit response. I don't care what your fucking job is. Use a little common sense. If it seems like a bad idea and you know you will feel bad for doing it, don't fucking do it.
The TSA has been proven ineffective. The methods and technologies they employ to "protect us" by invading our privacy have proven ineffective.
Yet Obama's supporters still insist the TSA is great, or that somehow he isn't responsible for their actions even though he's the head of the Executive Branch.
And in November, either Obama or Romney will be elected, and either way there won't be any change. Great job, voters!
Otherwise just forget the whole fucking thing.
Sounds like an excellent plan. When can we start?
The TSA agent was yelling at the little kid causing the problem in the first place. People like you make me sick. You think that just because there's a security protocol people stop being human beings?
Since when did TSA agents qualify as "human beings"?
Actually, travel is most certainly a right. It's not spelled out quite so explicitly in the Bill of Rights, but it is a fundamental human right.
AFAIC, the real terrorists are the TSA. Who's actually terrorizing people these days at airports? It's the TSA.
And I agree; they deserve the same fate as that delivered to bin Laden.
You're so wrong it's incredible... But then your moral compass has to be pretty out of whack before you take such a job.
Violating people's "personal space" in this case is molesting them, including children. I don't know how fucked up you have to be in order to not see that as a rights violation, but it's a dangerous place to be mentally.
Why exactly would I shelter and feed a morally corrupt child molester? Moreover, how would doing so make me a better person morally?
I'm all for protecting our civil liberties, but I'm perfectly fine with TSA pat downs and screening.
You're a very smart person, but you're actually a fucking imbecile.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
You think people are going to give up their rights overnight? HA! It's a little thing called CONDITIONING. People give up freedom for what they think is a little security. You are now conditioned to being searched when you go on a flight. Pretty soon, when you board a train, you will be searched. Then you will be searched even more, when attending a sporting event besides the world series & super bowl. Before you know it, you will be searched for every public event. One day, you'll wake up and wonder what happened to your freedom. Those who give up a little security in the name of freedom deserve NEITHER!
You can't be too careful these days, and I think they should have given that 4 year old a full body cavity search. Who knows what dangers could have been lurking in her lower intestine that would have posed a flight risk.
Travel (as in free movement), yes. Flying, no.
There shouldn't be. If there's a reason to pat down anyone, a policy granting exceptions to children is dangerous and irresponsible. A serious security hole. In reality, there isn't much reason to pat down anybody, except maybe in very specific circumstances, and that policy is an indication that the whole pat down thing, for anybody of any age, is arbitrary, symbolic, misguided and/or dishonest.
Travel (as in free movement), yes. Flying, no.
Yes, it is enumerated right there in the constitution along with the other rights that the federal government has....
Ohhh wait, it isn't. Therefore it IS a right.
Seriously. Just because the child is young and grandma makes an emotional plea we should let her go through security checks unimpeded?
YES!
We should also let the next person go through unimpeded, as well as the person behind that person, and the next one, ad nauseum.
We should let EVERYONE through unimpeded.
It will save time, money, and I for one would feel safer.
They complain about the TSA being ineffective, and also complain when the TSA follows legitimate secure-area procedure.
YES! Despite following "legitimate secure-area procedure" the TSA is ineffective.
Here is the thing... Get rid of the TSA, and your chances of being on a plane with a terrorist does NOT change!
Being put on their No Fly list is moot; the USA is on mine.
Because your countries "border" policies are so much better? I admit that USA's policies are pretty stupid sometimes (like the whole fiingerprinting everyone) But the USA doesn't have a monopoly on security theatre. You can see it in about every airport in the world. I saw a girl lose her pocket knife in Ukraine. I was only allowed one bag in heathrow, and had to take my shoes off. I Brazil I was question about my timing system. Not because of all the wires, but because the tripod on it was sort of kind of maybe sharp (a dull pencil was sharper)
I'm normally as anti-TSA as they come, but I actually think that this patdown was more reasonable than the title suggests. .
What?????
NO patdown is reasonable. Zero, zilch, none.
It's one thing to sit back in your arm chair casting judgement on others. It's another to actually contribute to the solution. You simply find it convenient to label people as bad without further knowledge or understanding. Your lack of consideration is truly telling about you.
tl;dr? You want to judge and complain but won't do a thing about it. You are a-pathetic.
You're exceptionally high and mighty for the scum of the earth... I find that fascinating.
I do plenty to help those who deserve it, thanks.
It's not that the TSA did it, but the attitude they take in doing it.
There was no justification for yelling, calling the child a "suspect" or the rest of it. If they handled it with sensitivity instead of having a huge attitude problem, then this story would never have blown up in their faces.
TSA agents seem to like to behave like NCOs shouting at privates in the Army. Why do they have to always be so agressive? In other countries, airport security are polite, don't raise their voices, say please and thank you and as a result you don't get these situations. If you need to search a child there are ways to do it which don't upset the child. However, every TSA officer seems to think they are a military policeman and can just shout at people and order them around.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Remember this from ten years ago? Maybe this is all a clever plot to dissolve all freedoms. What better way to prevent attacks targeted at freedom? Oh, and decency and respect too, apparently...
I'm inclined to agree, and the letters to my representatives said as much.
The TSA's biggest problem is that it exists to solve a problem that's practically unsolvable. If terrorists want to attack the US, they will, period, and airplanes just happened to be a convenient method in 2001. Now with cockpit reinforcements and more air marshals, that's very unlikely to be the easy route again, and it won't carry the same "we can strike anywhere you think we can't" message.
The TSA should die, and the sooner the better, but making a media circus about an offended parent doesn't help put sanity in airports. Politicians will see the news, know it's spun for reaction, and ignore the whole event.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
No, it's the problem with all types of "security" employers who hire the bottom-of-the-barrel personnel to do a job that can't possibly be done by them and that doesn't even need to be done.
Couldn't agree more. Setting aside the 4th Amendment and the idea that a pat-down is a worthless means of security, the idea is that the random selection criteria need not apply to low-risk groups while allowing specific suspicions to be investigated on anyone. That flexibility and reason were clearly ignored in this situation. She's 4. This is likely her first plane ride and definitely one the first she actually remembers. She's excited.
They are doing a job. Then need to do it following the policies as best they can.
That alone is enough reason to hate them. Without their compliance, those policies wouldn't be carried out.
You completely missed dripdry's point. He is not talking about the legalities of firearms, nor the fact that they can prevent crimes in progress. What he is talking about is about having a society where people did not fear for their lives due to artificial scarcity, and would then not act irrationally. He is talking about a society where the chances that you would have to stop a crime in progress being reduced to nil because that society's people are generally happy. It's doable, but only if people give up their various religions.
Social Credit would solve everything...
Why don't you just spare yourself the all fretful suspense, and step in front of a train?
Social Credit would solve everything...
I hear that a lot, but your land where a whole lot of you go off with more confidence in violence than a Chuck Norris character is the place that let barely trained airport security guys get into a position to squeeze all those testicles. While you were all going on in about the rights of the individual an organised group that pretends to have a similar outlook to yourself took them away. It's the politics of "I want to do whatever I want and fuck the rest of you" - and the "rest of you" turns out to be whoever can't afford to bribe the right people.
Ranting about violence gets you nowhere and carrying out the violence gets you shot in the terminal so the above is really just helpless noise. There's guys you vote for and (sadly for the USA) guys that have those bought and paid for - but they are still vunerable to a lot of people organised to vote another way or boycott the products of those that bribe (face it - "lobby" is usually just a euphemism) the representatives.
Forget the lone gunman shit and the "land of heroes" mythology. Washington didn't kick British ass alone with nothing but the axe he cut the cherry tree with. I suggest if you care enough band together and do something about it or just be a death statistic or prison number if you try a violent singlehanded reponse.
Are you seriously saying you are going to get radiation from being within MILES of a TSA scanner?
OMG WTF LOL!
For that kind of range it would be so "hot" the airport wouldn't need lights, it would glow!
Also, you have any idea how many medical X-ray machines or even radiation therapy machines are closer to your home than the airport is?
OMG
I guess I'd should worry about the Gamma Knife about 5 to 10 miles away from me.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Right, but the job of the TSA is NOT to keep us safe at airports, it's to condition us to accept "authority" and "authoritative demands"-- however unreasonable they may be-- without question. In order to reshape our society into someone's perverted, Hitler-esque dystopian wet dream. The problem, as so many here have bleated so many times in the past-- is that people are sheep-- easily led and easily distracted. The odds of enough of us being able to get it together long enough and well enough to muster up any meaningful resistance are pretty long.
Greetings and Salutations;
I am not going to quote sources, as it is easy enough to search them out. However, folks that say that "travel is not a right" are totally wrong. Although the right to travel is not explicitly in the Constitution (except as regards legislators), the current interpretation is that it was such an obvious thing that the writers simply did not think it necessary to put it into the document. However, that having been said, it is a fact that the First Amendment does say that freedom of assembly is a basic right of the citizen and cannot be interfered with by the Government. Implicit in this clause is the freedom to travel, simply because it would be impossible for a group of citizens to assemble without traveling to a meeting point.
Pleasant dreams
dave
YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/