Naked Body Scanners - Pedophiles Dream

[Pagan]

Something to think about, can we charge the TSA for Child Porn for it's Nude Photo's of Children?

Me, I say this is not only a colossal waste of money but does nothing other than strengthen the Police State. If they were truly concerned about safety they'd just place Air Marshals on flights and let everyone get on with life without being molested.

[actsnoblemartin]

very well said, I completely agree.

this is just intrustion of the grandest order

[DragonStryk72]

Something to think about, can we charge the TSA for Child Porn for it's Nude Photo's of Children?

Me, I say this is not only a colossal waste of money but does nothing other than strengthen the Police State. If they were truly concerned about safety they'd just place Air Marshals on flights and let everyone get on with life without being molested.

What's really stupid is that they already did put the marshals on board. all this other crap is just to "show" people that they're doing something. The sad part is, I think that they really believe in these sorts of fears, without realizing that the measures themselves only end up making it an issue longer.

[SassyLady]

It would be nice to know if there is a connection between the owners of the scanners and someone high up in the TSA ..... how are the scanners more efficient that the metal detectors?

One of the things that upsets me is that it shows what type of product a woman is using when she is menstruating....that is one of the most invasive things I can imagine....and something men do not have to be worried about. I will be traveling with my granddaughter during the Christmas holidays and am concerned about what I will end up doing.....cause I certainly don't want pictures of her naked body being viewed by anyone.....ANYONE!!! And, I don't want her being TOUCHED by strangers.

So, if I don't post here after Christmas I'll probably be in jail somewhere!

[Trinity]

Passenger To TSA: Don't 'Touch My Junk'


http://www.wlwt.com/video/25798051/detail.html

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TBL3ux1o0tM?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TBL3ux1o0tM?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[jimnyc]

To the laddie above me...

methinks some people must spend 12hrs a day on Youtube. Very sad...:lol:

[revelarts]

This ones for Jim NYCccccccccccccccccccc!!!!!!

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QhEMRSp7vaY?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QhEMRSp7vaY?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/I_t8BkcQrgw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/I_t8BkcQrgw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[revelarts]

GOP lawmaker: Full-body scanners violate Fourth Amendment

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/129651-gop-lawmaker-full-body-scanners-violate-fourth-amendment



GOP lawmaker: Full-body scanners violate Fourth Amendment
By Elise Viebeck - 11/17/10 10:29 AM ET

A GOP lawmaker said Tuesday the full-body scanners now employed by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) violate the Fourth Amendment to the constitution, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures."

During a one-minute speech on the House floor, Rep. Ted Poe (Texas) also blasted former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff as a "political hack" and accused him of profiting from the proliferation of the devices.

"There is no evidence these new body scanners make us more secure. But there is evidence that former Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff made money hawking these full body scanners," Poe said.

He went on to explain that Chertoff, who served under President George W. Bush, had given interviews promoting the scanners while he was "getting paid" to sell them.

"[T]he populace is giving up more rights in the name of alleged security. These body scanners are a violation of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures ... There must be a better way to have security at airports than taking pornographic photographs of our citizens, including children, and then giving apparent kickbacks to political hacks."

Chertoff has advocated for the use of full-body scanners since he took his post at DHS in 2005.

As of January, his consulting agency, the Chertoff Group, counted among its clients one of the machines' manufacturers.

[DragonStryk72]

Okay, I don't usually get behind the ACLU, but when both they and the GOP are saying it's a violation of privacy... It's gotta be pretty bad.

[Trinity]

GOP lawmaker: Full-body scanners violate Fourth Amendment

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/129651-gop-lawmaker-full-body-scanners-violate-fourth-amendment

FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution]
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

[Mr. P]

The public can put this to rest in short order...DON'T FLY...especial now during the holidays. Things will change before you can say "Profile damn it".

[Pagan]

The public can put this to rest in short order...DON'T FLY...especial now during the holidays. Things will change before you can say "Profile damn it".

Too much of modern society depends on air travel, especially when it comes to the bread and butter of the industry, business travelers.

Sorry but your suggestion is rather unrealistic to say the least.

[Mr. P]

Too much of modern society depends on air travel, especially when it comes to the bread and butter of the industry, business travelers.

Sorry but your suggestion is rather unrealistic to say the least.
Holiday travel is a major revenue generator for the airlines.
A boycott by this segment of society from now till say early Jan will result in a rapid response to fix this madness...Money (or lose of) talks.

[Mr. P]

FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution]
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'
I doubt the 14th holds water in this case. Weak at best. The 14th prevents the Gov from coming to you without cause and warrentless. In this case we are going to them of our owen free will.

[revelarts]

But the Fed Gov't doesn't own the airlines... yet.
the Feds position themselves between a private purchase of a ticket from a private company and our boarding the a privately owned plane. The 4th does Apply. The same as, if not moreso, than the case of riding a cab or boarding a city bus. A cop or federal agent can't LEGALLY stop and frisk you before you board a bus or get into a cab without probable cause.

[Mr. P]

But the Fed Gov't doesn't own the airlines... yet.
the Feds position themselves between a private purchase of a ticket from a private company and our boarding the a privately owned plane. The 4th does Apply. The same as, if not moreso, than the case of riding a cab or boarding a city bus. A cop or federal agent can't LEGALLY stop and frisk you before you board a bus or get into a cab without probable cause.
The 4th clearly specifies "against unreasonable searches".
I would argue screening is reasonable for public safety and therefore no warrant is needed. I think the issue is really the method of screening not the screening itself. But then I support profiling which is proven to be successful by Israel. I'm sure there are many that oppose profiling too but that's my preference along with the baggage scanners and metal detectors.

On "probable cause", some folks are trying to blow airplanes to pieces and kill hundreds of folks..that's enough "probable cause" for me and I'm sure most of the public feel the same way about that. Again, I think the issue is the screening method, not the screening.

PS. I wrote the 14th in my last post..my error..I meant the 4th
Edit: one more thing, Rev. All airline operations are regulated by Government.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/holb101118_cmyk20101117113257.jpg

[Pagan]

How many fingers?

http://www.brendangrant.com/blogimages/JohnEdwardsAContinuumofCare_9E2/RubberGloveDr_3.jpg

[Binky]

[FONT="Impact"]Profile, profile, profile. If a crime is done by certain types of individuals, then for crying out loud, profile........[/FONT) DUH!

[Pagan]

[FONT="Impact"]Profile, profile, profile. If a crime is done by certain types of individuals, then for crying out loud, profile........[/FONT) DUH!

Then they won't be able to get their rocks off of looking at naked kids the perverted fucks that Government is.

[chloe]

I do feel men carry weapons in there pants alot, it doesn't bother me if tsa agents need to pat them down:laugh2:

However, I'm highly offended by those tit gropers at tsa those skanky pervs !!!!

[red states rule]

I do feel men carry weapons in there pants alot, it doesn't bother me if tsa agents need to pat them down:laugh2:

However, I'm highly offended by those tit gropers at tsa those skanky pervs !!!!


Again the amswer is simple

You go with the terrorist profile and stop pulling kids, and grandma out of line

Of course you will have the bleeding heart libs pissed off and screaming about civil rights violations

Well, anytime you have libs pissed off that should tell you that you are doing something right

[chloe]

sYcARF1-JDg :laugh2:

[red states rule]

sYcARF1-JDg :laugh2:

Well, Bill Clinton would have a bright future as a TSA employee if he could get a waiver to do the ladies

(Not that he ever needed a waiver in the past)

[chloe]

6Vm7OF-Ruxs

[Gaffer]

6Vm7OF-Ruxs

That's funny, you don't have to speak the language to know what's going on. Had a good laugh over that one.

[red states rule]

http://www.alpheratz.net/images/uploads/GW_bladderfuckwits.png

[red states rule]

Liberal Eleanor Clift thinks we should be more worried about Cat scans then the TSA



<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hdSUqG6UIr" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hdSUqG6UIr" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

[Pagan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAOsb1R-zq8

[red states rule]

Please remember, we have to do this so the US does not offend those young Middle Eastern men

After all, Obama is out to improve our nations image around the world

so..........





Slumped in her wheelchair, Amelia looked my way and shrugged. It was happening. Again.

In the Transportation Security Administration checkpoint at the Reno-Tahoe International Airport recently, my 14-year-old was once more being patted down by uniformed strangers wearing rubber gloves.

Nearby, a line of adults streamed by, shoes and belts in hand, hustling to their flights.

She's an amazing young person, my kid. Amelia has survived brain and spinal cancer, debilitating nerve pain, and the challenging transition into life with a wheelchair.

She's my hero, and it makes my heart ache to see her humiliated by TSA workers who I am sure are only following orders.

Catcalls went out across the nation last week in reaction to the TSA's latest increase in airport security: far more invasive pat-downs by screeners and the phasing in of full-body scanning. They're feeling up cleavages and crotches from here to Miami -- supposedly at random.

The anxious public is peeved.

Airline pilots are outraged.

They have nothing on Amelia.

She is searched every time we fly. Every damn time.

We are told it is because she uses a wheelchair, despite the fact it is stowed with the luggage in the belly of the plane.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/somehow-patting-down-disabled-elderly-improves-security-109629939.html

[Pagan]

Good article on the so called "screening" by the TSA -

“Do I have the right to refuse this search?” (http://www.hlswatch.com/2009/10/15/%E2%80%9Cdo-i-have-the-right-to-refuse-this-search%E2%80%9D/)

[Gaffer]

Good article on the so called "screening" by the TSA -

“Do I have the right to refuse this search?” (http://www.hlswatch.com/2009/10/15/%E2%80%9Cdo-i-have-the-right-to-refuse-this-search%E2%80%9D/)

You can get scanned or get searched. If you just try to leave they will detain you for questioning. They have effectively taken away all your rights.

[SassyLady]

UNBELIEVABLE!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSQTz1bccL4

Video of TSA employee taking clothes off a child, who is visibly upset. The person taking the video comments about the child being arrested .... I would imagine, if true, for protesting being touched by strangers.

I have drilled into my children and grandchildren that strangers are not allowed to touch them. Do you think there is new intelligence that the terrorists are using children to get explosives on board airplanes?????

[red states rule]

http://content.cartoonbox.slate.com/?feature=8deb53b43c6b3f4f456d2a110b1001a6

[revelarts]

mrskurtsprincess that is Outrageous. no other words for that. Safety? B---S---.
-------------------
Gaffer exactly.

--------------------

Liberal Eleanor Clift thinks we should be more worried about Cat scans then the TSA



<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hdSUqG6UIr" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hdSUqG6UIr" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

Is Eleanor Clift ever right? GollyDAY! One celebrity in the UK had a Security guy ask the celebrity to SIGN their very CLEAR Naked scan.
Even the ACLU says the TSA are WAY over the Line. And unconstitutional.
http://www.ktvb.com/news/ACLU-claims-TSA-screenings-violate-civil-liberties-108807264.html

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-sues-dhs-over-unlawful-tsa-searches-and-detention

[revelarts]

The 4th clearly specifies "against unreasonable searches".
I would argue screening is reasonable for public safety and therefore no warrant is needed. I think the issue is really the method of screening not the screening itself. But then I support profiling which is proven to be successful by Israel. I'm sure there are many that oppose profiling too but that's my preference along with the baggage scanners and metal detectors.


That may be debatable if there was probable cause to think that MOST of the passengers were a threat. but the fact is MOST are not.



On "probable cause", some folks are trying to blow airplanes to pieces and kill hundreds of folks..that's enough "probable cause" for me and I'm sure most of the public feel the same way about that. Again, I think the issue is the screening method, not the screening.


Probable cause to suspect every human being? No. the right protects persons. The circumstance has to specific to persons who have done something to make them suspect. that doesn't apply to 99.999% of the people flying.

Israel profiles and that's not the best of worlds either but it does makes more sense. But if they are profiling every Muslim. that's to much, again probably cause means there should be something that red flags the person. MOST Muslims aren't terrorist. Just like most White Christians aren't Klansmen. The Intel community tells us that there are about what? 1000 or so AlQuida. Why waste time and money with all these jokers at the airport feeling people up. if all TSA guys were on the street tracking real terrorist we might catch a few. Or find out that it's mostly a big SNIPE HUNT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snipe_hunt), either way we'd be "safer".

[SassyLady]

I heard that Soros owned quite a bit of the stock in the company that makes the scanners and sold all of it about three days ago.

How deep does this man control our world?

[Trinity]

http://www.alpheratz.net/images/uploads/GW_bladderfuckwits.png

That's funny...but not funny.....look at this one

http://www.wlwt.com/video/25874261/detail.html

[OldMercsRule]

Hmmmmmmmmmm...... Islamo Facists tend ta use aircraft to cornduct killing and maiming operations against innocents over a four decade period of time, and the attempts corntinue. That seems fairly clear to even a feller with only one functional brain cell...... :wink2:

If a large jet, (or many jets), pounded into a loaded sports stadium, nuclear power plant, dam, or another huge skyscraper it would not be so good, IMHO.

Individual interviews, (as in Israel with 1/60th the air traffic is not practical).

Most people who are cornplaining the loudest haven't traveled via air since the new policy, and the media is going wild with story after story jus' ta gin things up.

If we exempted little old ladies or kids that would be the next tactic the Islamo fellers would use, (and I'm sure we do use some profiling, it just isn't talked about).

Getting worked by the media sounds like the same way we got a fruit fly from Chicago fer POTUS ta me. I'm with Mr P, (n' I'm not a big fan of Nanny Gubment stickin' their nose into my bidness [or me undies]).

Don't fly if ya can't stand the clearly reasonable security measures, (there are trains, buses and cars).

If we dodge a few bullets this way so be it. 9-11 changed a few things, get used to it, n' quit snivelin' n' knashin' yer teeth.

Me overpriced and likely unpopular $.02. JR

[Kathianne]

How many terrorists attempts have been thwarted by TSA? How many attempts at terrorism via airlines have originated in US since 9/11?

There is nothing logical about what is going on with the government intrusion into, literally, our persons.

Much of what happened on the 2nd of this month was in reaction to the administration and Congress not hearing the people were against the government intrusion into our healthcare and relations with our physicians. Now their reaction has been to grope children, old people, nuns, those with prosthetic breasts and urinary problems. Nope, Obama & Co are once again tone deaf and will be hearing from the originators of their power. This isn't for our safety, this is about where the power lies.

[Mr. P]

That may be debatable if there was probable cause to think that MOST of the passengers were a threat. but the fact is MOST are not.


Probable cause to suspect every human being? No. the right protects persons. The circumstance has to specific to persons who have done something to make them suspect. that doesn't apply to 99.999% of the people flying.

Israel profiles and that's not the best of worlds either but it does makes more sense. But if they are profiling every Muslim. that's to much, again probably cause means there should be something that red flags the person. MOST Muslims aren't terrorist. Just like most White Christians aren't Klansmen. The Intel community tells us that there are about what? 1000 or so AlQuida. Why waste time and money with all these jokers at the airport feeling people up. if all TSA guys were on the street tracking real terrorist we might catch a few. Or find out that it's mostly a big SNIPE HUNT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snipe_hunt), either way we'd be "safer".
I don't understand your position, Rev. You seem opposed to passenger security screening. If I'm mistaken, what do you propose be done that would, in your opinion, insure airport security that is both effective and legal?

[OldMercsRule]

How many terrorists attempts have been thwarted by TSA?

Hard for an arm chair quarterback with only one functional brain cell ta know: Kathianne; and if I did know the exact statistics I would not want my enemies ta know the exact report card. It is quite clear that our Islamo enemies favorite way ta kill is via commercial jet.


How many attempts at terrorism via airlines have originated in US since 9/11?

Again: hard tellin' not knowin'. It is clear that if ya could walk on a commercial jet unchecked like ya could in the 1960's, all attempts would have a far greater chance of success.


There is nothing logical about what is going on with the government intrusion into, literally, our persons.

Hmmmm..... since we know they have tried shoes and underware, and liquids in small devices, the scannin' "our persons" seems logical ta a dense feller like me.


Much of what happened on the 2nd of this month was in reaction to the administration and Congress not hearing the people were against the government intrusion into our healthcare and relations with our physicians.

Very true. Another factor ta ponder was forcing people to buy a product with politically imposed features and substantial associated costs likely had a bit ta do with the 11/2/2010 outcome don't ya think?


Now their reaction has been to grope children, old people, nuns, those with prosthetic breasts and urinary problems.

Yes that is the media spin.... alrighty. Seems like very few of those type of issues vs the total number of travelers, butt: it does make good boob tube viewing, eh?


Nope, Obama & Co are once again tone deaf and will be hearing from the originators of their power.

I sure hope the fruit fly POTUS from the windy city gets spanked again in 2012, (as well as his fellow dim wits); and I really don't care what the reason is.

On this point we agree 100%: Kathianne.

Liberals, (Progressives), which are now even more dominate in the dim wit party with the loss of most of the "blue dogs" are all about control from central corntrol as they always look down their noses at the unwashed masses and know so much better then us what is best for us don't they?


This isn't for our safety, this is about where the power lies.

I think it really is about public safety: Kathianne; so we shall have to politely dissagree. Thanks for the exchange of ideas. Respectfully, JR

[NightTrain]

I'm with Mr. P and Merc.

We live in a different age now, thanks to terrorists, and gone are the days of lax security.

Profiling makes all the sense in the world - if the passenger fits the typical profile of a terrorist, then by all means pull him out and be sure he's legit. I am in the typical age group and have dark hair and eyes and I fully expect to get some extra attention every time I fly, which is all the time during the summer.

TSA is doing it this way because the liberal media howled and raised holy hell over profiling. So then they started pulling 70 year old Grandmothers out of the line for extra screening so they'd get the pricks from ACLU off their backs and pointing out that Granny got screened too, not just Achmed.

Now everyone gets naked under the new imaging equipment, and this way TSA can't get beaten up over profiling.

Now they're PC, because everyone is subjected to the same treatment. Now no one is happy.

This is where PC gets us. This whole thing had to end up here, because of the game that the liberals played with this whole "profiling" and "discrimination" bullshit.

[red states rule]

Most on the left do not have a problem with this issues. They say it is to prevent terrorist attacks

Of course these are the same people who opposed the wiretaps of terrorist phone calls and following their money via bank records during the Bush years

From Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post:




Last Christmas, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab allegedly tried to bring down an airliner by detonating explosives concealed in his underwear. The device did not properly explode, but the incident sensitized the TSA to the danger of terrorist bombs that might make it past a metal detector -- hence the rush to install full-body scanners that give a clear view of what's beneath a person's clothing, junk and all.

An unacceptable, un-American invasion of privacy? That's not what critics were saying at the time. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's assessment of the underwear bombing attempt -- that "the system worked" because a fellow passenger jumped Abdulmutallab -- was ridiculed. If there was technology that could have detected the underpants device, critics asked, why hadn't it been in place?

So now the scanners are being installed -- and some people complain that they do too good a job, clear-picture-wise. The TSA's response is to give travelers the option of submitting to a manual search that is comparably thorough. It would defeat the whole purpose of the machines if people could just say "no thanks" and then undergo a cursory search that might leave a device like the underwear bomb undiscovered. The pat-down, if it comes to that, has to be thorough.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/23/why_granny_gets_searched_108042.html

[Kathianne]

Initially I was with NightTrain, Mr P, and others in being supportive. The more I read about implementation, via purported first person accounts, the more I wondered. Those first person accounts then were added to news stories, (grouping of children, nuns, prosthetic devices), about what TSA was in fact doing, I changed my mind.

The wonderful folks at HLS should finally exercise commonsense and call in El Al Airlines security people and learn something useful. This is not working and there are times we do need to say, "No."

[gabosaurus]

I love how the same people who complain about body scanners are also the ones who complain about terrorism and the need for more security.
My daughter was pretty scared of the body scanners the last time we traveled. So a TSA person showed us how they worked. It's really just an outline. And the workers see hundreds of them an hour. I doubt they are looking at anyone's "junk."
The only people who are patted down are those who refuse the scanners. Or if the scanners see something.

[Pagan]

Comments in this thread is just an example of why I know the Constitution is functionality dead and the U.S. has fallen.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/trutv.com/graphics/conspiracy/gallery/government-lies/big-brother/big_brother.jpg

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Ben Franklin

[Mr. P]

Comments in this thread is just an example of why I know the Constitution is functionality dead and the U.S. has fallen.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/trutv.com/graphics/conspiracy/gallery/government-lies/big-brother/big_brother.jpg

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Ben Franklin
What is your solution, Pagan ?

[DragonStryk72]

The 4th clearly specifies "against unreasonable searches".
I would argue screening is reasonable for public safety and therefore no warrant is needed. I think the issue is really the method of screening not the screening itself. But then I support profiling which is proven to be successful by Israel. I'm sure there are many that oppose profiling too but that's my preference along with the baggage scanners and metal detectors.

On "probable cause", some folks are trying to blow airplanes to pieces and kill hundreds of folks..that's enough "probable cause" for me and I'm sure most of the public feel the same way about that. Again, I think the issue is the screening method, not the screening.

PS. I wrote the 14th in my last post..my error..I meant the 4th
Edit: one more thing, Rev. All airline operations are regulated by Government.



Yes, being strip searched simply because you decided to board a plan like a majority of americans, and get full body searched based solely on a random number being picked by non-federal agents, who have no process beyond the random check, aka no probable cause, is unreasonable.

[DragonStryk72]

What is your solution, Pagan ?

Oh I got this one. Stop doing it. It has yet to turn up any terrorist, so it's both a personal invasion of privacy, and completely ineffective. For that matter, stop making people take their shoes off. We put the federal marshals on the plane to make sure another 9/11 didn't happen, and that's where we should have stopped.

Let people go to where the plane boards and lets off so they can see their family as they get off the plane. Stop being complete cowards, and get rid of security measures that do nothing but look like "security".

[Mr. P]

Yes, being strip searched simply because you decided to board a plan like a majority of americans, and get full body searched based solely on a random number being picked by non-federal agents, who have no process beyond the random check, aka no probable cause, is unreasonable.
Again, I think the issue is the screening method, not the screening.

[DragonStryk72]

Hmmmmmmmmmm...... Islamo Facists tend ta use aircraft to cornduct killing and maiming operations against innocents over a four decade period of time, and the attempts corntinue. That seems fairly clear to even a feller with only one functional brain cell...... :wink2:

If a large jet, (or many jets), pounded into a loaded sports stadium, nuclear power plant, dam, or another huge skyscraper it would not be so good, IMHO.

Individual interviews, (as in Israel with 1/60th the air traffic is not practical).

Most people who are cornplaining the loudest haven't traveled via air since the new policy, and the media is going wild with story after story jus' ta gin things up.

If we exempted little old ladies or kids that would be the next tactic the Islamo fellers would use, (and I'm sure we do use some profiling, it just isn't talked about).

Getting worked by the media sounds like the same way we got a fruit fly from Chicago fer POTUS ta me. I'm with Mr P, (n' I'm not a big fan of Nanny Gubment stickin' their nose into my bidness [or me undies]).

Don't fly if ya can't stand the clearly reasonable security measures, (there are trains, buses and cars).

If we dodge a few bullets this way so be it. 9-11 changed a few things, get used to it, n' quit snivelin' n' knashin' yer teeth.

Me overpriced and likely unpopular $.02. JR

What have they protected us from? 80 year old grannies on their way home to see their kids for Thanksgiving? 6 year old children who don't even understand what's going on? That's the threat?

[CSM]

After following this thread since its inception and thinking about it for a while ....

If we are going to set aside constitutional rights anyway and security risks are that high; why should we not prophile? Seems to me a focused effort would be far more effective. All this kabuki dancing makes for great theater but doesn't seem to do much for security.

[DragonStryk72]

Again, I think the issue is the screening method, not the screening.

Any screening process that uses purely random methods for search is both unreasonable as well as being purely ineffective. Our prior screening method (pre 9/11) were actually just fine. The reason 9/11 stands out is because it was a rare occurence, as likely now as getting struck by lightning. Yeah, we didn't figure for crazy guys with knives trying to take over planes. We put federal marshals on the planes afterward, and that's about the only effective measure we've taken.

Actually, we even made it more effective by having them wear plain clothes so that no one knows who the federal marshal might be. Sadly, we have submitted to a degree of panic and fear (i.e. OldMerc) that says that everyone is a terrorist, or at least has the potential to be such, and must debase themselves to prove themselves "safe".

[Pagan]

After following this thread since its inception and thinking about it for a while ....

If we are going to set aside constitutional rights anyway and security risks are that high; why should we not prophile? Seems to me a focused effort would be far more effective. All this kabuki dancing makes for great theater but doesn't seem to do much for security.

Yep, you nailed it and as I stated opening this thread -

"If they were truly concerned about safety they'd just place Air Marshals on flights and let everyone get on with life without being molested."

But then again the "Herd" is all to happy to shit on the Constitution for the "Illusion" of safety.

I've said for many years we here in the U.S. have the "Illusion" of freedom.

[revelarts]

Individual interviews, (as in Israel with 1/60th the air traffic is not practical).

Most people who are cornplaining the loudest haven't traveled via air since the new policy, and the media is going wild with story after story jus' ta gin things up.

I haven't been stopped by cops and beatin or tased for no reason yet. But we've all seen it happen 2 many times and we need to complain about it now so it doesn't get worse.



If we exempted little old ladies or kids that would be the next tactic the Islamo fellers would use, (and I'm sure we do use some profiling, it just isn't talked about).
SO planes would be hijacked by Children and Old Ladies with box cutters?



Getting worked by the media sounds like the same way we got a fruit fly from Chicago fer POTUS ta me. I'm with Mr P, (n' I'm not a big fan of Nanny Gubment stickin' their nose into my bidness [or me undies]).

Don't fly if ya can't stand the clearly reasonable security measures, (there are trains, buses and cars).

If we dodge a few bullets this way so be it. 9-11 changed a few things, get used to it, n' quit snivelin' n' knashin' yer teeth.

Me overpriced and likely unpopular $.02. JR
There are alternatives. to "this way". If we don't assume that we have to bend over and take it from the gov't or terrorist.





Hmmmmmmmmmm...... Islamo Facists tend ta use aircraft to conduct killing and maiming operations against innocents over a four decade period of time, and the attempts continue. That seems fairly clear ...
If a large jet, (or many jets), pounded into a loaded sports stadium, nuclear power plant, dam, or another huge skyscraper it would not be so good, IMHO.

If Hijacking is really the HIGHEST Concern. then 2 things
As mentioned several time
1. Sky Marshalls, if Security's that Urgent then 4 on every fight is not too expensive a price for the airlines to pay. Subsidize it via the Gov't.
I'd buy that.
2. Locked reinforced Pilot cabins from take off to landing. No terrorist in the cockpit, no planes into Buildings, stadiums, power plants etc..

Those 2 items ALONE would solve the problem.
But Add to that 6 month security reviews of all Pilots. To make sure that they haven't gone Isalmo Fascist.
Check the Fight attendants every 3 months too, to make sure they having married or boyfriended some known Isalmo Fascist.
Heavy Screening of Baggage handlers and other airport employees.

Now you have a level of security focused where it makes the most Sense IMO.

then we only have to be concerned about someone boarding with a necessarily small bomb. that would only effect the aircraft and persons on board.

A much less dramatic target from a terrorist POV. IF the intel community is doing it's job we know who the main players are. If they make to the airport anyway. Normal security screening Should pick them up. A real Profile list. of less than 1 million people would be good. If they get on the plane. the Sky Marshalls have a chance to get them before they blow.

Despite the Hype about Terrorist right now planning the next attack and the imminent color coded terror threat, we've all got a little better chance of being struck by lighting as a being killed in terrorist Attack.

[Pagan]

"Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship…Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.”
— Hermann Goering, at the Nuremberg Trials before he was sentenced to death

[OldMercsRule]

Initially I was with NightTrain, Mr P, and others in being supportive. The more I read about implementation, via purported first person accounts, the more I wondered. Those first person accounts then were added to news stories, (grouping of children, nuns, prosthetic devices), about what TSA was in fact doing, I changed my mind.

That is what the media focusing on tear jerk incidents that are not ordinary can do after a period of time. Not just the hard Left media either.


The wonderful folks at HLS should finally exercise commonsense and call in El Al Airlines security people and learn something useful. This is not working and there are times we do need to say, "No."

[OldMercsRule]

Originally Posted by OldMercsRule

Individual interviews, (as in Israel with 1/60th the air traffic is not practical).

Most people who are cornplaining the loudest haven't traveled via air since the new policy, and the media is going wild with story after story jus' ta gin things up.


I haven't been stopped by cops and beatin or tased for no reason yet. But we've all seen it happen 2 many times and we need to complain about it now so it doesn't get worse.

Is the TSA screening for public safety= to inappropriate beatings or tazer use by Police in yer mind? Hmmmmmmmm.........
Seems ya have an issue understanding scale, (individual problem, [possibly more then one individual] vs mass murder and or potential devastating economic problems).


Originally Posted by OldMercsRule

If we exempted little old ladies or kids that would be the next tactic the Islamo fellers would use, (and I'm sure we do use some profiling, it just isn't talked about).


SO planes would be hijacked by Children and Old Ladies with box cutters?

Blowin' up a 747, or an A380 full of people over a major city is fine with you then???? Hmmmmmmmmmm.........I say!


Originally Posted by OldMercsRule

Getting worked by the media sounds like the same way we got a fruit fly from Chicago fer POTUS ta me. I'm with Mr P, (n' I'm not a big fan of Nanny Gubment stickin' their nose into my bidness [or me undies]).

Don't fly if ya can't stand the clearly reasonable security measures, (there are trains, buses and cars).

If we dodge a few bullets this way so be it. 9-11 changed a few things, get used to it, n' quit snivelin' n' knashin' yer teeth.

Me overpriced and likely unpopular $.02. JR


There are alternatives. to "this way". If we don't assume that we have to bend over and take it from the gov't or terrorist.

Sure: ground all the jets. That would be a real effective way ta stop Islamo fellers usin' 'em fer their evil deeds. :rolleyes:


Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
Hmmmmmmmmmm...... Islamo Facists tend ta use aircraft to conduct killing and maiming operations against innocents over a four decade period of time, and the attempts continue. That seems fairly clear ...
If a large jet, (or many jets), pounded into a loaded sports stadium, nuclear power plant, dam, or another huge skyscraper it would not be so good, IMHO.


If Hijacking is really the HIGHEST Concern. then 2 things
As mentioned several time
1. Sky Marshalls, if Security's that Urgent then 4 on every fight is not too expensive a price for the airlines to pay. Subsidize it via the Gov't.
I'd buy that.
2. Locked reinforced Pilot cabins from take off to landing. No terrorist in the cockpit, no planes into Buildings, stadiums, power plants etc..

Hijacking is one of many corncerns. How about blowing a large jet full of people over a population center, or takin' out much of Atlanta's airport.... yer OK with that then????


Those 2 items ALONE would solve the problem.
But Add to that 6 month security reviews of all Pilots. To make sure that they haven't gone Isalmo Fascist.
Check the Fight attendants every 3 months too, to make sure they having married or boyfriended some known Isalmo Fascist.
Heavy Screening of Baggage handlers and other airport employees.

Hopefully those proceedures are now followed.


Now you have a level of security focused where it makes the most Sense IMO.

then we only have to be concerned about someone boarding with a necessarily small bomb. that would only effect the aircraft and persons on board.

You are OK with that then. Sometimes a large jet can kill many when falling out of the sky with a well timed boom, (ya know).


A much less dramatic target from a terrorist POV. IF the intel community is doing it's job we know who the main players are. If they make to the airport anyway. Normal security screening Should pick them up. A real Profile list. of less than 1 million people would be good. If they get on the plane. the Sky Marshalls have a chance to get them before they blow.

Despite the Hype about Terrorist right now planning the next attack and the imminent color coded terror threat, we've all got a little better chance of being struck by lighting as a being killed in terrorist Attack.

A lightining strike would not bring down the WTC, a nuclear plant, or a major dam would it? Respectfully, JR

[revelarts]

They've lied to us all the way along the line with these scanners.

Scanners it's for your safety, No Worrys'
-they CAN"t be saved,-
well OK sorry, soorry they can be saved, BUT we WON'T save um...

Well OK sorry we do save sometime, BUt we Won't Give them to anyone..
.
Ooops WEll we gave a few Just a few of them to others in the gov't...

umm but the Security workers won't have access or be able to print them though...

woops, Well Ahem sorry In some cases, we can't set up and it's right there so..Hmm . But Mostly it's in another room. where they can't .. ya Know be... printed... saved... or given away....

But the pictures are fuzzy ... to fuzzy to see anything really nothing to see really...


<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1yfvRjCc8HU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1yfvRjCc8HU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

What... what? I'd let my kids go through that. Are you a prude or something?

Better that than being struck by lighting. See those clouds over there. your a fool if you don't think we all couldn't be hit by lighting any day now.

But don't worry about the radiation, it's perfectly safe.. trust us don't listen to those "independent" scientist.

[SassyLady]

I want to be safe...I do...I want everyone to be safe.

However, as someone who suffers from PTSD (sexually abused as a child) ..... I have an instant response to someone touching me inappropriately...I usually smack them with intent to do harm (have hit a boss in the past) .... so it looks like I'll be forced to use the scanner.

I used to travel extensively and would find myself on 7-8 flights per week. I would not want to be forced to walk through an x-ray machine 8 times a week. And, in all those times I traveled ... I never set off the dectectors...never took off anything but my shoes and jacket. Now....I find it offensive that I have to be searched as if I am a criminal...as if I'm already guilty until they prove I'm innocent.

Maybe I'm being irrational....but that's my current take on the subject.

[Noir]

No, search engine + basic understanding of Proxy servers = Paedophiles dream. Not this tosh.

[SassyLady]

I love how the same people who complain about body scanners are also the ones who complain about terrorism and the need for more security.
My daughter was pretty scared of the body scanners the last time we traveled. So a TSA person showed us how they worked. It's really just an outline. And the workers see hundreds of them an hour. I doubt they are looking at anyone's "junk."
The only people who are patted down are those who refuse the scanners. Or if the scanners see something.

So, Gabby, I'm assuming that you are not complaining about the scanners, therefore, you are also someone who does not complain about terrorism?

[red states rule]

I want to be safe...I do...I want everyone to be safe.

However, as someone who suffers from PTSD (sexually abused as a child) ..... I have an instant response to someone touching me inappropriately...I usually smack them with intent to do harm (have hit a boss in the past) .... so it looks like I'll be forced to use the scanner.

I used to travel extensively and would find myself on 7-8 flights per week. I would not want to be forced to walk through an x-ray machine 8 times a week. And, in all those times I traveled ... I never set off the dectectors...never took off anything but my shoes and jacket. Now....I find it offensive that I have to be searched as if I am a criminal...as if I'm already guilty until they prove I'm innocent.

Maybe I'm being irrational....but that's my current take on the subject.

Hey, if you don't like the TSA take the bus. This advice from MSNBC





Columnist Mike Barnicle had some pointed words on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" Tuesday for travelers exasperated with the new TSA airport scanning procedures: "Take the train or take the bus."

"Here's a tip for travelers this Thanksgiving," the "Morning Joe" regular remarked Tuesday. "If you're upset about this at airports, take the train or take the bus." He added later in the show "Hop in your car and drive to Detroit," as another alternative for air travel.

Barnicle, continuing his rant from Monday, lamented that Americans are so upset with the controversial security procedures when the U.S. is involved in two wars and real unemployment stands at 15 percent. "This again, if we ever needed it, is proof-positive that we live in a time where we have such a limited attention-span as a nation, it is sickening," he preached. "We're now more afraid at airports, apparently, of being felt-up rather than blown-up in the air."


Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2010/11/23/mike-barnicle-air-travelers-if-youre-upset-take-bus#ixzz169PJHGOj

[revelarts]

Is the TSA screening for public safety= to inappropriate beatings or tazer use by Police in yer mind? Hmmmmmmmm.........
Seems ya have an issue understanding scale, (individual problem, [possibly more then one individual] vs mass murder and or potential devastating economic problems).
I have a problem with all infringements on my rights. I believe them to be precious and fragile and more in need of protection than they are given. Plus we see that economic problem come despite terrorist attacks.



Blowin' up a 747, or an A380 full of people over a major city is fine with you then???? Hmmmmmmmmmm.........I say!
Is this a serious question Merc?


Sure: ground all the jets. That would be a real effective way ta stop Islamo fellers usin' 'em fer their evil deeds. :rolleyes:
That's another dum way, just as dum as Body cavity searching every passenger.

You and Mr P want to protect the planes at the cost of every "convience" of liberty or stay the heck home or drive if you dont like it or shut down the airlines

how about this. If your AFRAID TO FLY, becuase there might be a terrorist on board, becuase we don't do cavity searches and virtual strip searches. then you stay the heck home or drive. We all keep our freedoms and only the fools who fly take the risk.

Hijacking is one of many corncerns. How about blowing a large jet full of people over a population center, or takin' out much of Atlanta's airport.... yer OK with that then????
ASSUMING that they get pass 4-5 layers of NORMAL security 1st.
A hand full of powder in the underpants won't take out a whole airport. you are exaggerating the threat. Funny how your upset with the "All the media" exaggeration of the TSA actions all over the news. but you don't mind blowing the terrorist threat way out of portion. "Grannies and Children will be the next terrorist mules!!! BEWARE BEWARE." But then say "the tsa aren't reaaally feeling up grandma. that's media Hype." You can't have it both ways Merc.

Hopefully those procedures are now followed.
I hope so too, but I don't think so.


You are OK with that then. Sometimes a large jet can kill many when falling out of the sky with a well timed boom, (ya know). "AM I OK with that? " What kind of question is that? Am I a terrorist now too? sheesh.
concerning a bomb. in the pass 10 years WITHOUT scanners or feeling up passengers the terrorist haven't managed it. SO THERE's NO NEED FOR IT.


A lightining strike would not bring down the WTC, a nuclear plant, or a major dam would it? Respectfully, JR
Respectfully JR, in 10 years neither have any terrorist.

[OldMercsRule]

Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
Hmmmmmmmmmm...... Islamo Facists tend ta use aircraft to cornduct killing and maiming operations against innocents over a four decade period of time, and the attempts corntinue. That seems fairly clear to even a feller with only one functional brain cell......
If a large jet, (or many jets), pounded into a loaded sports stadium, nuclear power plant, dam, or another huge skyscraper it would not be so good, IMHO.

Individual interviews, (as in Israel with 1/60th the air traffic is not practical).

Most people who are cornplaining the loudest haven't traveled via air since the new policy, and the media is going wild with story after story jus' ta gin things up.

If we exempted little old ladies or kids that would be the next tactic the Islamo fellers would use, (and I'm sure we do use some profiling, it just isn't talked about).

Getting worked by the media sounds like the same way we got a fruit fly from Chicago fer POTUS ta me. I'm with Mr P, (n' I'm not a big fan of Nanny Gubment stickin' their nose into my bidness [or me undies]).

Don't fly if ya can't stand the clearly reasonable security measures, (there are trains, buses and cars).

If we dodge a few bullets this way so be it. 9-11 changed a few things, get used to it, n' quit snivelin' n' knashin' yer teeth.

Me overpriced and likely unpopular $.02. JR



What have they protected us from? 80 year old grannies on their way home to see their kids for Thanksgiving? 6 year old children who don't even understand what's going on? That's the threat?

Get yer specs on and read or re read the first section of yer quote from my post and you have yer answer.

I will repeat it ta make it easy.

Hmmmmmmmmmm...... Islamo Facists tend ta use aircraft to cornduct killing and maiming operations against innocents over a four decade period of time, and the attempts corntinue. That seems fairly clear to even a feller with only one functional brain cell......
If a large jet, (or many jets), pounded into a loaded sports stadium, nuclear power plant, dam, or another huge skyscraper it would not be so good, IMHO.

Respectfully, JR

[OldMercsRule]

Any screening process that uses purely random methods for search is both unreasonable as well as being purely ineffective. Our prior screening method (pre 9/11) were actually just fine. The reason 9/11 stands out is because it was a rare occurence, as likely now as getting struck by lightning. Yeah, we didn't figure for crazy guys with knives trying to take over planes. We put federal marshals on the planes afterward, and that's about the only effective measure we've taken.

Actually, we even made it more effective by having them wear plain clothes so that no one knows who the federal marshal might be. Sadly, we have submitted to a degree of panic and fear (i.e. OldMerc) that says that everyone is a terrorist, or at least has the potential to be such, and must debase themselves to prove themselves "safe".

What you refer to as "panic and fear" is the LOGICAL use of tactics and technology to keep us safe. Respectfully, JR

[Mr. P]

...
You and Mr P want to protect the planes at the cost of every "convience" of liberty or stay the heck home or drive if you dont like it or shut down the airlines ....


Perhaps you should read my posts again, you've obviously misunderstood my position.

I see you really haven't posted a reasonable solution yet. You're being (like many) part of the problem instead of part of the solution. Besides Air Marshal's and locked cockpit doors, both done now, what else if anything do you suggest?

[OldMercsRule]

Is the TSA screening for public safety= to inappropriate beatings or tazer use by Police in yer mind? Hmmmmmmmm.........
Seems ya have an issue understanding scale, (individual problem, [possibly more then one individual] vs mass murder and or potential devastating economic problems).
I have a problem with all infringements on my rights.

Yes you do, (I can see that), and you are cornsistent in this position.

You also seem ta have a problem with all infringements on terrorist's rights as well, (yer position on waterboarding cums ta mind). I also dissagree with your position there, butt: have not waded into that thread. Torture is what the Japanise did (in addition to the use of water) that could cost a body part or two or yer life, or what Saddam did with electric drills, or Hitler's henchmen have done. (Ta name a few historical examples.)


I believe them to be precious and fragile and more in need of protection than they are given. Plus we see that economic problem come despite terrorist attacks.

9-11 was executed with perfect timing, (after the dot bomb bust in 1999 that directly lead to a recession). Another big hit from Islamo Facists would crush us and the world economically. That is the advantage for those pukes. The security costs they have imposed on the world have been a huge problem and very much part of their calculation.


Blowin' up a 747, or an A380 full of people over a major city is fine with you then???? Hmmmmmmmmmm.........I say!
Is this a serious question Merc?

You bet. You admitted in yer post you were willing to let a "small bomb" take down a jet.


Sure: ground all the jets. That would be a real effective way ta stop Islamo fellers usin' 'em fer their evil deeds. :rolleyes:
That's another dum way, just as dum as Body cavity searching every passenger.

It was a reply to yer question about alternatives.


You and Mr P want to protect the planes at the cost of every "convience" of liberty or stay the heck home or drive if you dont like it or shut down the airlines

I will speak fer meself, (Mr. P can make his own reply).

Islamo Fasicsts have focused their energy on commercial jets fer four decades, (and commercial jets make great weapons as we have seen). They have won (so far) in the clash of the West vs Seventh Century Islam thus far, and if we can't stop them from scoring major hits we are gonna need to step up and elliminate a large chunk of the 1.5 Billion people that follow that aggressive idology that wants to corntrol all of the world's people 24-7. I value freedom and individuality every bit as much as you do. That said, I think the measures to keep terrorists from using our own jets as weapons are reasonable and logical. Sometimes people who may aggree in many areas dissagree, and this is one of those times.


how about this. If your AFRAID TO FLY, becuase there might be a terrorist on board, becuase we don't do cavity searches and virtual strip searches. then you stay the heck home or drive. We all keep our freedoms and only the fools who fly take the risk.

Wrong. I was not flying on 9-11 and my firm, (I werked fer Morgan Stanley at that time n' the firm lost 40 floors of office space), and my Country lost nearly 3000 people. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.
BTW: I'm not skeeeeeeered to fly, (I'm actually fairly fearless), n' ya can't read me mind no matter how simple it is, (one functional brain cell).


Hijacking is one of many corncerns. How about blowing a large jet full of people over a population center, or takin' out much of Atlanta's airport.... yer OK with that then????
ASSUMING that they get pass 4-5 layers of NORMAL security 1st.
A hand full of powder in the underpants won't take out a whole airport.

The plane could take out a sizable chunk of an airport and every person on the plane.


You are exaggerating the threat.

When you and others speak of "strip searches" and "body cavity searches" that is an exaggeration of the present TSA proceedure!!! 9-11 is a model for Islamo Facists' achivement, (the current high water mark of their success), and they would like to take down Grand Coulee Dam if they could as well, or nuke a major city. Their seventh century hatred of our freedoms is very real, and pullin' the covers over our collective heads will never work.


Funny how your upset with the "All the media" exaggeration of the TSA actions all over the news. but you don't mind blowing the terrorist threat way out of portion.

Who said I'm upset? Please don't read me simple mind; stick ta readin' me EXACT words, which I choose carefully. This is causin' Obamaprompter grief so there is a side effect that has some upside, even if it is fer the wrong reason.

I don't feeeeeeeel I'm blowin' the threat from Islamo Facists out of proportion at all. My eyes see clearly, I know a bit of history, n' me brain cell functions jus' fine.


"Grannies and Children will be the next terrorist mules!!! BEWARE BEWARE." But then say "the tsa aren't reaaally feeling up grandma. that's media Hype." You can't have it both ways Merc.

Sure I can. I don't underestimate our very capable enemies: Rev.


Hopefully those procedures are now followed.
I hope so too, but I don't think so.

We would be purdy foooooolish not to do some behind the scenes profilin' butt: we prolly will not know will we????


You are OK with that then. Sometimes a large jet can kill many when falling out of the sky with a well timed boom, (ya know). "AM I OK with that? " What kind of question is that? Am I a terrorist now too? sheesh.

Go back and read exactly what ya said: Rev. That was my take on yer words. You were willing ta sacrifice the jet, ("small bomb"), remember???? I only have one functional brain cell, can't read minds, (like you seem to think you can), I can only read yer words n' draw cornclusions from them.


concerning a bomb. in the pass 10 years WITHOUT scanners or feeling up passengers the terrorist haven't managed it. SO THERE's NO NEED FOR IT.

We got reeeeeeeel lucky with the underware booob, n' the shoe feller, remember? Sometimes the luck runs with the bad guys: Rev. Somethin' ta ponder don't ya think????


A lightining strike would not bring down the WTC, a nuclear plant, or a major dam would it? Respectfully, JR
Respectfully JR, in 10 years neither have any terrorist.

Precisely because we have callibrated our defense to the tactics we have learned about. Respectfully, JR

[Kathianne]

That is what the media focusing on tear jerk incidents that are not ordinary can do after a period of time. Not just the hard Left media either.

Not at all. That is called using commonsense. That is called 'connecting the dots' and not being wedded to preconceived ideas; something I wish the government would be much better at.

I read. A lot. I saw many of the first hand accounts from non-msm outlets, first in dribbles and drabs, then more and more. Some of those then managed to connect with a few in the msm to get the info out there. In fact, the editorial pages of most MSM outlets have been looking like your posts-backing up the nonsensical invasions of privacy in the name of national security. It's like seat belts, helmet laws, and cigarette bans-Give up your rights for your own good! Or else!

No method, none is fool proof. Using the methods of Israeli airlines will work. As for their having far less people flying, they have far less security people also. Get some trained people in there, let the goons at TSA go.

[red states rule]

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.gadling.com/media/2010/11/tsabumperstickers09325zzasdfuse.jpg

[Kathianne]

Note, it's an AP article, not MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40298973/ns/us_news-airliner_security/


TSA has met the enemy — and they are us
Frustration with the federal agency is boiling over after nine years

By ADAM GELLER
The Associated Press
updated 11/21/2010 9:31:35 AM ET 2010-11-21T14:31:35

How did an agency created to protect the public become the target of so much public scorn?

After nine years of funneling travelers into ever longer lines with orders to have shoes off, sippy cups empty and laptops out for inspection, the most surprising thing about increasingly heated frustration with the federal Transportation Security Administration may be that it took so long to boil over...

...The outcry, though, "is symptomatic of a bigger issue," said Geoff Freeman, executive vice president of the U.S. Travel Association, an industry group that says it has received nearly 1,000 calls and e-mails from consumers about the new policy in the last week.

"It's almost as if it's a tipping point," Freeman said. "What we've heard from travelers time and again is that there must be a better way."

...

The pushback against the body scanners and pat-downs shows the agency at its worst, Elliott said, issuing a policy that wasn't properly vetted or explained, but determined to defend it.

Growing dissatisfaction with TSA has even led some airports to consider replacing the agency with private screeners. Such a change is allowed by law, but contractor must follow all the security procedures mandated by the TSA, including body scans and pat-downs.

But frustration with the TSA was building even before the latest furor. In a December 2007 Associated Press-Ipsos poll asking Americans to rank government agencies, it was as unpopular as the Internal Revenue Service. Even so, a poll earlier this month by CBS News found 81 percent of Americans support the TSA's use of full-body scanners at airports. The poll, conducted Nov. 7-10, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Elliott said that better communication would probably win the TSA more cooperation. But the pushback suggests that a growing number of consumers, particularly frequent travelers, are questioning the premise at the heart of the agency's existence.

"I think at some point Americans said to themselves, maybe in their collective subconscious...there's a line here where it's not just worth it anymore," he said. "There's a growing sense that that line has been crossed."

[OldMercsRule]

Not at all.

OH......really?


That is called using commonsense.

I'm sure lemmings think they use common sense toooooooooo........ :rolleyes:


That is called 'connecting the dots' and not being wedded to preconceived ideas; something I wish the government would be much better at.

Lemmings think they 'connect dots' tooooooooo......... :rolleyes:


I read. A lot.

Gee how does one allow the media to influence em, eh? :rolleyes:


I saw many of the first hand accounts from non-msm outlets, first in dribbles and drabs, then more and more.

"First hand" is when you see the actual incident corntext and all with yer own two eyeballs. Not what the media, (which includes print, internet, booooooooob tube, et al). Didn't they teach you that in school somewhere...........? I know the modern media experience sure feeeeeeeeels like "first hand"............ :laugh:


Some of those then managed to connect with a few in the msm to get the info out there.

OH "msm" is the media is it not??????? :rolleyes:


In fact, the editorial pages of most MSM outlets have been looking like your posts-backing up the nonsensical invasions of privacy in the name of national security.

I would say my own survey of said media favors yer lemming approach, even Krauthammer agrees with you, which is surprizing ta me as his brain functions fairly well most of the time.


It's like seat belts, helmet laws, and cigarette bans-Give up your rights for your own good! Or else!

You and the Rev have the same problem with yer analogies, individual restrictions by Nanny State big Gubment are very different then public safety matters for the safety of everyone.


No method, none is fool proof.

10-4, we do agree from time to time, eh? ;)


Using the methods of Israeli airlines will work.

Yeah I know the media says that...... "Common sense" says otherwise.


As for their having far less people flying, they have far less security people also.

Israel's individual intervue system is far more intrusive, and time cornsuming then takin' shoes and belts off and walkin' through a scanner. I don't want Big Brother ta know my bidness on an intimate level.

Soooooo be careful of what ya ask for.....


Get some trained people in there, let the goons at TSA go.

Me thinks ya made me point....... Respectfully, JR

[Kathianne]

OH......really?



I'm sure lemmings think they use common sense toooooooooo........ :rolleyes:



Lemmings think they 'connect dots' tooooooooo......... :rolleyes:



Gee how does one allow the media to influence em, eh? :rolleyes:



"First hand" is when you see the actual incident corntext and all with yer own two eyeballs. Not what the media, (which includes print, internet, booooooooob tube, et al). Didn't they teach you that in school somewhere...........? I know the modern media experience sure feeeeeeeeels like "first hand"............ :laugh:



OH "msm" is the media is it not??????? :rolleyes:



I would say my own survey of said media favors yer lemming approach, even Krauthammer agrees with you, which is surprizing ta me as his brain functions fairly well most of the time.



You and the Rev have the same problem with yer analogies, individual restrictions by Nanny State big Gubment are very different then public safety matters for the safety of everyone.



10-4, we do agree from time to time, eh? ;)



Yeah I know the media says that...... "Common sense" says otherwise.



Israel's individual intervue system is far more intrusive, and time cornsuming then takin' shoes and belts off and walkin' through a scanner. I don't want Big Brother ta know my bidness on an intimate level.

Soooooo be careful of what ya ask for.....



Me thinks ya made me point....... Respectfully, JR

Snark doesn't mean ya won, far from it.

First person doesn't mean witness, not regarding news or reporting. The TSA is wrong, not the workers, they are stuck, but the department and its boss agency, HLS. Which of course brings it full circle to who that department head reports to.

BTW, there is nothing respectful in your post, but you have made it clear the level of poster you are, so thanks!

[revelarts]

So Merc I guess you think it's OK to feel up granny becuase of the danger. Since you never address it but are still playing up the horrible threat of terrorist. I can only assume




I don't feeeeeeeel I'm blowin' the threat from Islamo Facists out of proportion at all. My eyes see clearly, I know a bit of history, n' me brain cell functions jus' fine.

Sure I can. I don't underestimate our very capable enemies: Rev.

We got reeeeeeeel lucky with the underware booob, n' the shoe feller, remember? Sometimes the luck runs with the bad guys: Rev. Somethin' ta ponder don't ya think????

Precisely because we have calibrated our defense to the tactics we have learned about. Respectfully, JR

Merc, Mr. P
Sorry, if i misrepresented your "thoughts". My mind reading powers must be failing. According to you guys my reading comprehension seems to be off as well.
But, correct me if I wrong, you both think the naked scanners and 2 minute feel ups are NECESSARY to deal with the POTENTIAL threat of terrorist. And Not a significant "inconvenience" to our rights. So I think my main points are still good, though you Merc, obviously disagree. ANd you Mr. P are not satisfied with the level of security we had last year, or so, without both procedures.


ANd Merc, It's interesting that you mention torture, it seems your position on rights is sorta consistent as well. If i understand your's and mrP's positions on Water boarding, that is, Water boarding is not torture and and not really that bad. And should be legal ONLY FOR THE GOV"T, if the gov't does it for the right reasons, human rights be damned. Similarly the Airport Virtual strips searches are not THAT bad for what you get in exchange for the SMALL hassle and petty rights sacrificed. That what you perceive as SMALL but REAL daily and multiple negations of rights is OK in exchange for the POTENTIAL or POSSIBLE lives saved.

If I understand you guys properly, I think that's where we really disagree.
See, I think that the rights are not small and the benefits are vaporous if not completely bogus.

Mr. P., As Kathianne mentioned, there is no Foolproof safety system. AND what we were doing before seemed to working on the horrible threat waiting at the door. Merc says we got lucky with Under Boober, No, that was sloppy, he should have been stopped much earlier. And easily, within the previous rules. Like a lot other things. we don't need more laws or rules we just need to enforce the ones we have.
You're military, you know there is no perfectly protected area. and you also know that even under military lock down you can't guarantee complete safety. ANd frankly I don't want to live in police state just for it's shadow of "safety". I'd prefer the freedom we talk about and say we have in this country. That means some risk of lighting strikes now and then. the world was never a really safe place. maybe we should just stop pretending we can make it that way by feeling up granny and jr.. or any of us without a reasonable suspicion.

[Kathianne]

Like Israel, the TSA should be focusing on the 'bomb carriers' not the bombs. Not every person, but all that fit certain behavioral profiles. All of the 'enhanced' methods since 9/11 have been instituted after an attempt, never preventing one. In military parlance, they are fighting the last war.

[OldMercsRule]

Snark doesn't mean ya won, far from it.

Where did I say I won? I said ya made my point. This is a media hype deal, (which was my point), if ya read my previous post.

I gather ya think I'm a bit snarky.


First person doesn't mean witness, not regarding news or reporting.

I don't think there is such a thing as "first person" via the internet, radio, boob tube, (media), as the author or the editor can significantly impact the message with context, or the omission of such.


The TSA is wrong, not the workers, they are stuck, but the department and its boss agency, HLS. Which of course brings it full circle to who that department head reports to.

I understand why you and other cornservatives have a problem with this screening partially due to yer feeeeeeeelings about Obamaprompter. I don't agree with very much he does either butt: he is not 100% wrong 100% of the time, IMHO. If Ronald Reagan was POTUS durring this TSA deal you prolly would have stuck with yer original supportive take before the media n' yer negative feeeeeelings about Barry O influenced ya. (A guess as I can't actually read yer mind). ;)


BTW, there is nothing respectful in your post, but you have made it clear the level of poster you are, so thanks!

Sorry ya take offense with me postin' I thought I was respectful, and did not mean to offend ya.

I remember ya weren't too happy with me when I joined, and I usually agree with yer posts so it is rare we debate issues.

Respectfully, (and I do mean it), JR

[OldMercsRule]

So Merc I guess you think it's OK to feel up granny becuase of the danger.

You accuse me of exaggerating, yet you claim "OK to feel up granny", knowing full well that "Granny" will not be "felt up" if she agrees to go through the scan; and the scan doesn't turn up anomalies or potential threats.


Since you never address it but are still playing up the horrible threat of terrorist. I can only assume


Originally Posted by OldMercsRule

I don't feeeeeeeel I'm blowin' the threat from Islamo Facists out of proportion at all. My eyes see clearly, I know a bit of history, n' me brain cell functions jus' fine.

Sure I can. I don't underestimate our very capable enemies: Rev.

We got reeeeeeeel lucky with the underware booob, n' the shoe feller, remember? Sometimes the luck runs with the bad guys: Rev. Somethin' ta ponder don't ya think????

Precisely because we have calibrated our defense to the tactics we have learned about. Respectfully, JR


Merc, Mr. P
Sorry, if i misrepresented your "thoughts". My mind reading powers must be failing. According to you guys my reading comprehension seems to be off as well.
But, correct me if I wrong, you both think the naked scanners and 2 minute feel ups are NECESSARY to deal with the POTENTIAL threat of terrorist.

First it is either the scanner or the pat down not both, unless the scan shows a threat. The scanners are able to show the explosives in clothing, and prior to there use that was not possible without the pat down. That said I think it is logical to use them for public safety; yes.


And Not a significant "inconvenience" to our rights.

Sure it is a significant inconvenience, (that doesn't make me happy either). As to "rights", there are other ways to travel, and I see nothing in the Cornstitution that says anyone can walk right on a Jet aircraft without any corncern fer public safety. (Especially since the Jets have been successfully used as weapons


So I think my main points are still good, though you Merc, obviously disagree. ANd you Mr. P are not satisfied with the level of security we had last year, or so, without both procedures.

Yup I disagree with yer position on this matter: Rev. ;)


ANd Merc, It's interesting that you mention torture, it seems your position on rights is sorta consistent as well. If i understand your's and mrP's positions on Water boarding, that is, Water boarding is not torture and and not really that bad.

It's bad, butt: it is NOT TORTURE.


And should be legal ONLY FOR THE GOV"T, if the gov't does it for the right reasons, human rights be damned.

I think is was legal prior to an executive order from Obamaprompter, the Bush 43 justice department said so.


Similarly the Airport Virtual strips searches are not THAT bad for what you get in exchange for the SMALL hassle and petty rights sacrificed. That what you perceive as SMALL but REAL daily and multiple negations of rights is OK in exchange for the POTENTIAL or POSSIBLE lives saved.

They are legal and necessary for public safety in the post 9-11 world.


If I understand you guys properly, I think that's where we really disagree.
See, I think that the rights are not small and the benefits are vaporous if not completely bogus.

Sometimes people disagree, and this place is for debate is it not?


Mr. P., As Kathianne mentioned, there is no Foolproof safety system. AND what we were doing before seemed to working on the horrible threat waiting at the door. Merc says we got lucky with Under Boober, No, that was sloppy, he should have been stopped much earlier. And easily, within the previous rules. Like a lot other things. we don't need more laws or rules we just need to enforce the ones we have.

He boarded overseas. Prior to the NEW scanners we could not detect an underware bomb without patting down all travelers.


You're military, you know there is no perfectly protected area. and you also know that even under military lock down you can't guarantee complete safety. ANd frankly I don't want to live in police state just for it's shadow of "safety". I'd prefer the freedom we talk about and say we have in this country. That means some risk of lighting strikes now and then. the world was never a really safe place. maybe we should just stop pretending we can make it that way by feeling up granny and jr.. or any of us without a reasonable suspicion.

The world changed on 9-11 Rev. I'm not happy about the change either, butt: I'm not gonna whine about it. Respectfully, JR

[OldMercsRule]

Like Israel, the TSA should be focusing on the 'bomb carriers' not the bombs.

The TSA doesn't have the resources or mission to do that, the CIA, FBI, NSA and or the Military are the entities that hopefully are doing that.


Not every person, but all that fit certain behavioral profiles.

Obamaprompter and the dim wits have politicized "profiling". That said, the CIA, and FBI likely do it to some extent.


All of the 'enhanced' methods since 9/11 have been instituted after an attempt, never preventing one. In military parlance, they are fighting the last war.

It is prudent to adjust tactics once a new strategy by the enemy shows some success, (or the potential to succeed). Respectfully, JR

[Kathianne]

The TSA doesn't have the resources or mission to do that, the CIA, FBI, NSA and or the Military are the entities that hopefully are doing that.



Obamaprompter and the dim wits have politicized "profiling". That said, the CIA, and FBI likely do it to some extent.



It is prudent to adjust tactics once a new strategy by the enemy shows some success, (or the potential to succeed). Respectfully, JR

I said they were fighting the past, they are. I said they should be looking for the bombers, not the bombs, you said not TSA, but intelligence. Guess what? They are all part of the NEW HLS and they are still not working together. 9/11 occurred at least in part by the failure of the intelligence agencies to 'connect the dots,' they still are failing on a basic requirement of their mission.

As I said, it's not the fault of the boobs at the machines or feeling up Granny, it's the fault of HLS and the person that the cabinet officer reports to. As for your guess about my feeling different with a different POTUS? Wrong. If you read a bit you'd know I've never quite understood the infatuation with Reagan. I've not been keen of FISA warrants, certainly not warrantless searches.

The Patriot Act and all it entails, might have been acceptable in 'time of war', but the war is being waged against the US people, not the ones that wish to do us harm. People warned of this, it's now coming true and some are applauding it. Shame on you.

[OldMercsRule]

I said they were fighting the past, they are.

All tactical adjustments that occur durring conflict is based on new experience where the enemy breaches a defense that previously had been effective. War is NOT STATIC! That is the history of warfare, (101). Yer criticism is both shallow and meaningless.


I said they should be looking for the bombers, not the bombs, you said not TSA, but intelligence.

Read or re-read yer own sentence. You said TSA, and I specifically responded to exactly what you said. That is debate 101.

Please refrain from using yer moderation powers to change what has been said. I noticed you changed my previous posts, (and I'm not talking about your claims about trademark/copyright).

I can't spell and sometimes I intentionally misspell.

Please leave my posts intact.


Guess what? They are all part of the NEW HLS and they are still not working together.

No chit: Sherlock.

The Gubment rarely works well at anything, that is and has been the nature of bureaucracies, where bureaucrats protect their terf and resist change.

The combination of all those services/agencies is one of the many issues I have with Bush #43, as the basic problem with bureaucracies gets much worse with size.


9/11 occurred at least in part by the failure of the intelligence agencies to 'connect the dots,' they still are failing on a basic requirement of their mission.

That maybe true, butt: we have avioded a hit on the homeland since 9-11.

As I stated we got lucky with the underware feller, and the shoe feller, as well as the Time Square Islamo Facist.

Hard to know how many other bullets we have dodged, butt: we know the Library Tower in LA was also foiled, (which may not have been luck in that case).


As I said, it's not the fault of the boobs at the machines or feeling up Granny, it's the fault of HLS and the person that the cabinet officer reports to.

That is a simplistic response and I don't buy it.

In asymmetric cornflicts (as we are now in) the advantage is with the entity bringing the attack, especially in a free and open society as we still have.

That will change if they get a real big hit, or hits and get 100% of our undivided attention, (as the Japanese did in WWII).

Then we will start making some glass and eliminating a large part of the "religion of peace". I very much hope moderate Muslims take this issue seriously and modernize before we get to that stage.

Until then I feeeeeeel we need to focus on defensive strategies as screening access to the Islamo Facists favorate weapon: commercial jets. That is as basic as it gets.


As for your guess about my feeling different with a different POTUS? Wrong.

It was a guess.


If you read a bit you'd know I've never quite understood the infatuation with Reagan.

If you say so, I will take you at yer word. I don't focus on the messinger in debate as I have noticed you tend to do.

Does debate make you angry????


I've not been keen of FISA warrants, certainly not warrantless searches.

Who is "keen" on that? NOT ME.

9-11 changed the world and it would pay some to come to terms with that.

Defense, (effective defense), is what we must persue if we are to avoid the horrible escalation I mentioned above.


The Patriot Act and all it entails, might have been acceptable in 'time of war', but the war is being waged against the US people, not the ones that wish to do us harm.

That is a "keep the head in the sand statement" if there ever was one. We are at war!

Jimmy Carter kick started it in 1979 by undercutting the Shah of Iran where we became the "Great Satan", and it has progressed since then.

Technology and oil revinues have hepled the Islamo Facists score some big hits, and if we let this escalate to unlimited war this will make WWII look like a picnic, IMHO.

Religious wars are always far more bloody and horrible then the massive political wars we have fought since Das Kapital was published in 1867.

That is history: my Dear.

It pays to pay attention to history.


People warned of this, it's now coming true and some are applauding it. Shame on you.

Shame on who? Let's not attack the messinger: please.

Please read my words not my simple mind.

Respectfully, JR

[Kathianne]

All tactical adjustments that occur durring conflict is based on new experience where the enemy breaches a defense that previously had been effective. War is NOT STATIC! That is the history of warfare, (101). Yer criticism is both shallow and meaningless.



Read or re-read yer own sentence. You said TSA, and I specifically responded to exactly what you said. That is debate 101.

Please refrain from using yer moderation powers to change what has been said. I noticed you changed my previous posts, (and I'm not talking about your claims about trademark/copyright).

I can't spell and sometimes I intentionally misspell.

Please leave my posts intact.



No chit: Sherlock.

The Gubment rarely works well at anything, that is and has been the nature of bureaucracies, where bureaucrats protect their terf and resist change.

The combination of all those services/agencies is one of the many issues I have with Bush #43, as the basic problem with bureaucracies gets much worse with size.



That maybe true, butt: we have avioded a hit on the homeland since 9-11.

As I stated we got lucky with the underware feller, and the shoe feller, as well as the Time Square Islamo Facist.

Hard to know how many other bullets we have dodged, butt: we know the Library Tower in LA was also foiled, (which may not have been luck in that case).



That is a simplistic response and I don't buy it.

In asymmetric cornflicts (as we are now in) the advantage is with the entity bringing the attack, especially in a free and open society as we still have.

That will change if they get a real big hit, or hits and get 100% of our undivided attention, (as the Japanese did in WWII).

Then we will start making some glass and eliminating a large part of the "religion of peace". I very much hope moderate Muslims take this issue seriously and modernize before we get to that stage.

Until then I feeeeeeel we need to focus on defensive strategies as screening access to the Islamo Facists favorate weapon: commercial jets. That is as basic as it gets.



It was a guess.



If you say so, I will take you at yer word. I don't focus on the messinger in debate as I have noticed you tend to do.

Does debate make you angry????



Who is "keen" on that? NOT ME.

9-11 changed the world and it would pay some to come to terms with that.

Defense, (effective defense), is what we must persue if we are to avoid the horrible escalation I mentioned above.



That is a "keep the head in the sand statement" if there ever was one. We are at war!

Jimmy Carter kick started it in 1979 by undercutting the Shah of Iran where we became the "Great Satan", and it has progressed since then.

Technology and oil revinues have hepled the Islamo Facists score some big hits, and if we let this escalate to unlimited war this will make WWII look like a picnic, IMHO.

Religious wars are always far more bloody and horrible then the massive political wars we have fought since Das Kapital was published in 1867.

That is history: my Dear.

It pays to pay attention to history.



Shame on who? Let's not attack the messinger: please.

Please read my words not my simple mind.

Respectfully, JR

If I edited a post it would only be for copyright, I didn't 'change' anything. If it was your own, original writing, let me know.

You are just wrong on this, but I guess you think Uncle Sam is your best babysitter. Good luck with that, others of us disagree.

[DragonStryk72]

[
Gee how does one allow the media to influence em, eh? :rolleyes:

Really? How do you find out about things going on? I would guess it would involve reading something or seeing something, so you're obviously influenced by the media.


Respectfully, JR[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

You need to learn what respect is. Calling someone a lemming for disagreeing with you ain't it.

[DragonStryk72]

This occurs to me: you think it's okay to essentially strip search random people, because of the war against an opponent we've already horribly crippled, and who haven't made a successful attack against us since September of '01, and the hole that allowed it in the first place is already covered?

How does the random strip search help us safety-wise? And don't pull that "possible" crap. It's "possible" we could get hit by lightning, but we don't go out in grounded rubber suits all the time.

[revelarts]

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/d-N5adYM7Kw&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/d-N5adYM7Kw&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

[revelarts]

Scanners not even good for what they claim to be for.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/common-sense-and-security-body-scanners

...Indeed, TSA Administrator John Pistole told Congress last week that body scanners (which TSA calls Advanced Imaging Technology, or AIT) are "the most effective technology for detecting small threat items concealed on passengers, such as explosives used by Abdulmutallab."

Yet there’s no publicly available evidence that body scanners counter the threat from explosive powders. What we do know makes us extremely skeptical.

* A TSA document, which EPIC obtained via the Freedom of Information Act, shows that the scanners were intended to detect weapons, traditional explosives (C4, plastique, etc.), and liquids — but not powder (page 10).
* The Government Accountability Office (GAO) says that "it remains unclear whether the AIT would have detected the weapon used in the December 2009 incident based on the preliminary information the GAO has received."
* Ben Wallace, a member of Parliament who was formerly involved in a project to develop the scanners for airport use, said trials had shown that materials such as powder, liquid or thin plastic — as well as the passenger's clothing — went undetected. According to Wallace, the millimeter waves pass through low-density materials. High-density material such as metal knives, guns and dense plastic such as C4 explosive reflect the millimeter waves and leave an image of the object. He added that X-ray scanners were also unlikely to have detected the Christmas Day bomb.
* German border police recently reported folds in clothing were confusing the body scanners used at Hamburg Airport (the L-3 ProVision Automatic Threat Detection system). "NDR radio said the devices, introduced in September, had repeatedly given warnings about innocent passengers, mainly because of folds in clothes. It quoted guards saying the devices were unreliable in scanning through many layers of clothing too."


Isreali expert says that there are several ways to get explosives pass the scanners.

The scanners are BS security.

[OldMercsRule]

Really? How do you find out about things going on? I would guess it would involve reading something or seeing something, so you're obviously influenced by the media.

Cornsumption of information generated by the biased media and arriving at a preliminary cornclusion, (as Kathianne did), is what we all do to gather the facts, (keeping in mind the bias of the medium).

Changing our mind based on media hype of sensational stories, (not our own traveling experience), is the biased media "influance" I refer to.

Hope that is clear.


Respectfully, JR[/COLOR]

You need to learn what respect is. Calling someone a lemming for disagreeing with you ain't it.

I know what the term "Respectfully" means...... Do you????

I also know that people who lose debates tend to attack the messinger not the message, as was done here.

Show me where I called anyone a "lemming": Sport.

Use of illustrative examples doesn't mean I am calling anyone anything. I'm using an example to make a clear point from a minority position.

Respectfully, JR

[OldMercsRule]

This occurs to me: you think it's okay to essentially strip search random people,

Hmmmmmm...... I thought you got yer undies in a bunch over machines that used advanced imaging technology to search all boarding passingers that you have characterized as a "strip search". Where is the random "strip search" being done that you refer to; eh: Einstein?


because of the war against an opponent we've already horribly crippled, and who haven't made a successful attack against us since September of '01, and the hole that allowed it in the first place is already covered?

If "the hole" is covered how did the shoe bomber n' the underware bomber get so close to executing their plans? Their incompetence is all that allowed us to dodge the bullet.


How does the random strip search help us safety-wise?

"random"......Dunno what yer talkin' 'bout. Do you have some of whatever yer smokin' that I can try?


And don't pull that "possible" crap.

It is much more then "possible": Einstein. Aircraft are the weapon of choice fer Islamo facists, (even small planes), fer over forty years. Does yer brain werk????


It's "possible" we could get hit by lightning, but we don't go out in grounded rubber suits all the time.

N' that sure proves yer profound point eh?????

Yasureyabetcha......

[OldMercsRule]

If I edited a post it would only be for copyright, I didn't 'change' anything.

Hmmmmmmm.... so someone has a "copyright" on poor spelling then, (see post #74)??????


If it was your own, original writing, let me know.

I have no idea what you changed: Mam.


You are just wrong on this,

Gee that is a profound point that is difficult to overcome. :rolleyes:


but I guess you think Uncle Sam is your best babysitter.

Those are yer words not mine. Kinda "snarky" eh? :rolleyes:


Good luck with that, others of us disagree.

Good luck to you too: Mam.

I like dissagreement. This is a debate forum is it not?? :thumb:

Respectfully, JR

[revelarts]

untrained upset 16 year old kid
Avoids the gauntlet of tight TSA airport Security and Hides in AirPlane wheel well and falls to this death from the landing gear just before Plane landing.
Tragic but it just goes to show the TSA airport security is not real but Security Theater.

http://www.newser.com/article/d9jm4edg0/official-investigators-checking-remote-possibility-nc-teen-might-have-fallen-from-airplane.html

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/10/teen-stowaway-breach.html

The mangled body of a 16-year-old boy from North Carolina mysteriously dropped from the sky down to a Boston suburb last month. Authorities now believe the teen breached airport security, and managed to hide himself inside the wheel well of a US Airways Boeing 737. He is believed to have then fallen to his death as the plane lowered its landing gear on approach to Boston's Logan Airport.

"It appears more likely than not that Mr. Tisdale was able to breach airport security and hide in the wheel well of a commercial jet airliner without being detected by airport security," Norfolk County District Attorney William R. Keating said at a news conference Friday afternoon.

Mr. Keating said he alerted federal authorities and the Charlotte Airport that the teenager was able to breach airport security and get onto the plane. While the case is a tragedy, Mr. Keating said, it also underscores fears that someone with malicious intention could do the same thing.

At the risk of pointing out what is very much apparent: all the TSA's invasive body-scanning and crotch-groping failed to prevent this. What if this kid was a suicide bomber stowaway, strapped with explosives? How did this happen?

From a report by a Charlotte, NC news station:

Police found a note on the body which appears to be a school "hall pass" with the "Delvonte Tisdale A Lunch" written on it, along with a signature and the date 10/19/2010. ...

[Pagan]

untrained upset 16 year old kid
Avoids the gauntlet of tight TSA airport Security and Hides in AirPlane wheel well and falls to this death from the landing gear just before Plane landing.
Tragic but it just goes to show the TSA airport security is not real but Security Theater.

http://www.newser.com/article/d9jm4edg0/official-investigators-checking-remote-possibility-nc-teen-might-have-fallen-from-airplane.html

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/10/teen-stowaway-breach.html

As I stated when opening this thread -


Something to think about, can we charge the TSA for Child Porn for it's Nude Photo's of Children?

Me, I say this is not only a colossal waste of money but does nothing other than strengthen the Police State. If they were truly concerned about safety they'd just place Air Marshals on flights and let everyone get on with life without being molested.

But forgot to mention focus on physical security around the aircraft in regards to maint, flight line crew, etc.

And again let passengers get on with life without being molested.

[revelarts]

TSA BS Security.
I hate to say I told ya so but.

Gaping Holes in Airline Security: Loaded Gun Slips Past TSA Screeners
Secret Tests At LAX, O'Hare, Newark Show TSA Screeners Missed Guns, Bombs
ABC news


Last fall, as he had done hundreds of times, Iranian-American businessman Farid Seif passed through security at a Houston airport and boarded an international flight.
PHOTO A Glock handgun like this one passed unnoticed through TSA screeners and scanning machines in Houston last year and made it onto an international Continental Airlines flight.
A Glock handgun like this one passed unnoticed through TSA screeners and scanning machines in Houston last year and made it onto an international Continental Airlines flight.
(ABC News)

He didn't realize he had forgotten to remove the loaded snub nose "baby" Glock pistol from his computer bag. But TSA officers never noticed as his bag glided along the belt and was x-rayed. When he got to his hotel after the three-hour flight, he was shocked to discover the gun traveled unnoticed from Houston.

"It's just impossible to miss it, you know. I mean, this is not a small gun," Seif told ABC News. "How can you miss it? You cannot miss it."

But the TSA did miss it, and despite what most people believe about the painstaking effort to screen airline passengers and their luggage before they enter the terminal, it was not that unusual.

Experts tell ABC News that every year since the September 11 terror attacks, federal agencies have conducted random, covert "red team tests," where undercover agents try to see just how much they can get past security checks at major U.S. airports. And while the Department of Homeland Security closely guards the results as classified, those that have leaked in media reports have been shocking.

According to one report, undercover TSA agents testing security at a Newark airport terminal on one day in 2006 found that TSA screeners failed to detect concealed bombs and guns 20 out of 22 times. A 2007 government audit leaked to USA Today revealed that undercover agents were successful slipping simulated explosives and bomb parts through Los Angeles's LAX airport in 50 out of 70 attempts, and at Chicago's O'Hare airport agents made 75 attempts and succeeded in getting through undetected 45 times....


Some test done say they were able to get bombs through 100% of the time. So why are we taking are shoes off and getting felt up? No good reason. period. we are not safer with the this BS showboat "security".

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/loaded-gun-slips-past-tsa-screeners/story?id=12412458&page=2


Frankly this is not surprising to me, however if the remaining 300 alQuida were to see this report they might be emboldened. to STIKE! I say ABC NEWS is conducting espionage!!! It's TREASON to REPORT this!!! Hangins to good for UM. the that traitor Brain ROSS. AND DIANA SAWYER! Send them to GITMO and FIND OUT THERE SOURCES!!!! HIding BEHIND FREEDOM FOR SPEECH. HOW many BOMBS WILL GET THROUGH BECUASE OF THIS REPORT? WE'll know it's the fault of this report when the next plane Blows up. Then we can prosecute That Tratorist Witch Dian Sawyer and SHUT DOWN ABC "NEWS".

[Gaffer]

I think most of us agree the TSA is a big waste of time and money and showcase security as you say. But getting to the meat of what your post is really about. Are you a michael moore supporter? He's backing assange. He supplied the bail money and set him up with a place to live. A big mansion, imagine that. moore also offered him the use of his website and servers.

When I read moore was backing this guy his credibility with me went out the window entirely. What little sympathy I might have had for him is gone.

[revelarts]

the Wikileaks bit was an inspired after thought really, but I think I was defending Wikileaks right to continue it's work, before M Moore's support became public. that's pretty funny. But ABC's financial backers are questionable as well.
From time to time the MSM manage to get a few facts out. Credit where credit is due from the news media in all it's forms. Wikileaks and ABC and FOX and Al Jazeera, Bloggers and whistle blowers.

If it wasn't for the leaked Classified airport security documents and "inside soucres" revealing the truth about lack of security. We'd still be debating the facts. That our Gov't has mislead us about it and given the public a completely false sense of security.

Even with this, many people are still going to be promoting the necessity and effectiveness of the TSA. the gov't will keep doing the same and watch most of the media parrot the Gov't line rather than challenge it.

[revelarts]

Obscene, threatening comments posted at anti-TSA website traced to Homeland Security servers

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030860_TSA_Homeland_Security.html#ixzz19YN8ORey


(NaturalNews) Officials from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) seem to now be going on the offensive against those who oppose its new invasive and unconstitutional airport security protocols being carried out by agents of the U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA). According to George Donnelly, owner of WeWontFly.com, government workers appear to be posting hateful messages on his anti-TSA blog under the guise of anonymity.

One such comment, which has since been deleted, said, "F**k you, f**k all you c**ksuckers, you wont change anything." Another stated, "Ride the bus, TSA is here to stay there [sic] doing a great job keeping americia [sic] safe."

Donnelly says that upon tracing the origin of the comments, he discovered that they came from the servers of dhs.gov, the official website of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Nineteen comments in total were all posted from the same server, including the two previously mentioned. And while all were worded in different tones and voices, they all expressed hostility to those opposing the TSA.

"Some questions come to mind," wrote Donnelly on his blog in response to his findings. "Is this an official statement? If not, is it an accurate representation of the DHS position? Was this person on the public dime when he or she posted this? Who posted this and what is their position with DHS?"

"This is not the first time we have been trolled by individuals connected to the TSA. Someone posted a personal attack on me from an IP belonging to mitre,org, a corporation whose core competency is securing federal government contracts, including DHS and TSA ones. Any effective TSA resistance threatens not only the TSA itself but also the bureaucrats who got us to this point and the corporations who are getting paid for the technology."

WeWontFly.com is working towards abolishing the new TSA protocols by pushing airlines to take a stand. And according to a Washington Post piece from November, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a civil liberties group, has filed a lawsuit against the TSA citing the unconstitutionality of its current actions.

Sources for this story include:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030860_TSA_Homeland_Security.html#ixzz19YRZO4FG

[revelarts]

I know i rant on about this but I've got a question for folks here that fly.
I have a daughter she'll be 10 this year. We plan on a flight overseas some time in the recent future. What have you seen to be the "typical" treatment of young girls. I can't bear the thought of standing by while someone feels up my little girl and the thought of going off on TSA and her watching me handcuffed or put put in my place while TSA feels her up anyway is worse.


The TSA's state-mandated molestation

The humiliations of the patdown policy, which Janet Napolitano wants to expand, are an Orwellian assault on American freedom

* Jennifer Abel
o guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 29 December 2010 18.00 GMT

TSA airport security check 2010 A TSA officer signals an airline passenger forward at a security checkpoint at Seattle-Tacoma international airport, Washington State. Photograph: Elaine Thompson/AP

The holiday brought bittersweet news: unless the Transportation Security Authority disbands, I'll never see a certain friend of mine again. His long-term unemployment finally ended, and next month, he starts a great new job. But it's in Texas, too far to drive; from my place in Connecticut to his new home in San Antonio is 2,000 miles – 500 more than separates London from Moscow.

As an American – that is, someone considered lucky to get seven consecutive days off work – the only way I could possibly travel such distance is to fly. But flying includes the legal obligation I submit to having my genitalia groped by some TSA thug wearing the same latex gloves already shoved down nine dozen other strangers' underwear. There's only two ways an American flyer can reliably avoid this: be rich enough to buy your own plane, or a high-ranking congressman or other VIP exempt from the indignities they inflict upon ordinary citizens.

The ACLU maintains an ever-growing database of these indignities, many so graphic they're illegal to broadcast over public airwaves. Actions that violate FCC standards are embraced by the TSA. "Mary in Texas" reported:

The TSA agent used her hands to feel under and between my breasts. She then rammed her hand up into my crotch until it jammed into my pubic bone ... I was touched in the pubic region in between my labia ... She then moved her hand across my pubic region and down the inner part of my upper thigh to the floor. She repeated this procedure on the other side. I was shocked and broke into tears.

A woman named Chris said:

"In the four times she explored the area where my inner thigh met my crotch, she touched my labia each time, and one pass made contact with my clitoris, through two layers of clothing. I told her I felt humiliated, assaulted and abused ... In my work as a nurse, if I did what the TSA did against a patient's will it would be considered assault and battery, and I did not see how the TSA should have different rules."

Recipients of such treatment aren't allowed to show distress. Melissa from Massachusetts did anyway:

"I was shaking and crying the entire time. I was begging them to hurry up but they kept stopping and telling me to calm down. It is impossible to gain composure when a stranger has her hands in your underwear."

I couldn't. I know my limits: can't sprout wings and fly, spin straw into gold, or ooze obedience toward anyone who'd treat me as the TSA treats Melissa, Mary, Chris and countless others. And once I said something rude – even an obscenity-free comment like "Have fun on your knees, sniffing my crotch like the dog that you are" [see top photo] – I'd be arrested on terrorism charges and the media would run sympathetic stories about poor TSA agents disliked for merely following orders. Self-described patriots would say "Disrespecting authority is unAmerican" and recommend harsh punishment for me.

....

Meanwhile, every month, more American airports install nude-photo pornoscanners and fingerbang patdowns, while less-intrusive (for the time being) searches spread on other mass transit modes. Washington, DC kicked off the holiday season on the solstice by instituting "random" bag searches on the Metro; New York City has had them at scattered subway stations since 2005.

Last month, Janet Napolitano floated the idea of TSA searches for bus, ship and train passengers; she later withdrew it, but I'm sure it will be re-introduced after Americans come to accept such treatment in airports – which Napolitano has just confirmed "for the foreseeable future" (that is, permanently).

So, I can't fly. And maybe, someday not far off, I won't be able to ride any form of mass transit either, unless I become so debased and broken in spirit that I don't mind vacation and business trips bookended by government-mandated sexual humiliation. And while my government requires such dehumanisation, I mournfully recall 20 years ago, when the cold war ended and we Americans thought concepts like "freedom" and "human dignity" would rule the future.

[OldMercsRule]

I know i rant on about this but I've got a question for folks here that fly.
I have a daughter she'll be 10 this year. We plan on a flight overseas some time in the recent future. What have you seen to be the "typical" treatment of young girls. I can't bear the thought of standing by while someone feels up my little girl and the thought of going off on TSA and her watching me handcuffed or put put in my place while TSA feels her up anyway is worse.

Ya gotta calm down Rev.

This is a hyped up media event.

Respectfully, JR

[revelarts]

Ya gotta calm down Rev.

This is a hyped up media event.

Respectfully, JR

Merc you do acknowledge that some real people are having issues correct? But if out of the 10,000's of passengers only a handful are seriously harassed. Is it hysterical or extreme not to want to buy a lotto ticket for a possible sexual assault or radiation treatment for my kid?

[OldMercsRule]

Merc you do acknowledge that some real people are having issues correct?

In a huge Country of 308 million people, some "real" people can have issues over jus' about anything: Rev.


But if out of the 10,000's of passengers only a handful are seriously harassed.

There are a lot of attention whores who are exploiting this media frenzy: Rev. The so called "serious harassment" you post about is much more difficult fer a feller with only one functional brain cell ta acurately assess, (way out here on the Left Coast). ;)


Is it hysterical

Hard fer me ta know: Rev. This is the internet n' I can't read yer mind.


or extreme

That is one of those werds modern Liberals use to label people, so I wouldn't personally use such a werd ta characterize yer cornduct.


not to want to buy a lotto ticket for a possible sexual assault or radiation treatment for my kid?

Wow........ You put things in VERY extreme terms; eh: Rev?

I have three grown kids, (all now young adults). I can tell you in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS: if anything bad, (at the hands of another person or persons), happens to them THERE WILL BE SOME SERIOUS HELL TA PAY. N' I DO MEAN SERIOUS!!!!!!!

I really do understand the dynamics of Fatherhood: Rev.

Are there any alternatives available fer travel, (or possibly another travel destination), you could cornsider????

Respectfully, JR

[revelarts]

...
Are there any alternatives available fer travel, (or possibly another travel destination), you could cornsider????

Respectfully, JR[/COLOR]

Family In Europe Merc, no alternative I know of, I'm open to suggestions.

if you could turn down snark, it would help too.

[OldMercsRule]

Family In Europe Merc, no alternative I know of, I'm open to suggestions.

Ship would be the only one I know of, butt that is prolly toooooo slow n' spendy.


if you could turn down snark, it would help too.

That is yer perception of me, so that is not somethin' I can easily do.

Ya think my blue typin' n' me cornpone are snarky?

That is not my intention, (if that matters at all ta you).

Respectfully, JR

[revelarts]

That is yer perception of me, so that is not somethin' I can easily do.

Ya think my blue typin' n' me cornpone are snarky?

That is not my intention, (if that matters at all ta you).

Respectfully, JR


I'll take you at your word Merc.

[revelarts]

Security and Terrorism Expert Bruce Schneier: TSA Scans "Won't Catch Anybody"
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/tsa-scans-security-theater-interview




Since 9/11, cryptology expert and security consultant Bruce Schneier has been one of the most pointed critics of the government's anti-terrorism security programs. In his 2003 book "Beyond Fear," he coined the phrase "security theater" to refer to measures which are undertaken not because they will be effective at thwarting attacks, but because the agencies carrying them out need to appear to be doing something useful. We spoke to Schneier about the recent controversy involving the Transport Security Agency's use of invasive scanners and full-body pat-downs.

Q:What is really being seen by these machines?
A
Bruce Schneier: In theory, it sees stuff that isn't part of the body. So if you've got a stapler in your pocket, it will show up. The thought is that it will see stuff that a metal detector won't detect, like a ceramic knife. But this doesn't seem to be borne out by reality.

Q
The machines have shown up in the wake of the so-called underwear bomber, who tried to blow up a plane with chemicals stored in his briefs. Would this technology have stopped him?
A
The guys who make the machines have said, "We wouldn't have caught that."

Q
So what kind of attack will this prevent, that otherwise might be successful?
A
There are two kinds of hijackers. There's the lone nutcase, like someone who will bring a gun onto a plane because, dammit, they're going to take the whole plane down with them. Any pre-9-11 airport security would catch a person like that.

The second kind is the well-planned, well-financed Al Qaeda-like plot. And nothing can be done to stop someone like that.

Q
Has there been a case since 9/11 of an attempted hijacker being thwarted by airport security?
A
None that we've heard of. The TSA will say, "Oh, we're not allowed to talk about successes." That's actually bullsh*t. They talk about successes all the time. If they did catch someone, especially during the Bush years, you could be damned sure we'd know about it. And the fact that we didn't means that there weren't any. Because the threat was imaginary. It's not much of a threat. As excess deaths go, it's just way down in the noise. More than 40,000 people die each year in car crashes. It's 9/11 every month. The threat is really overblown.

Q
Do you think there's been an over-reaction, on the part of the government and the press, to the underwear bomber?
A
That case was really instructive. Nobody was injured, and the plane landed safely. It was a success! And it was pre 9-11 security that made it a success. Because we screen for superficial guns and bombs, he had to resort to a syringe and 90 minutes in the bathroom with a bomb that didn't work. This is what success looks like. Stop bellyaching!

Q
What's the motive behind introducing this new level of security?
A
It's politics. You have to be seen as doing something, even if nothing is the smart thing to do. You can't be seen as doing nothing.

Q
Does it surprise you that at last, after several escalations in the TSA's level of intrusiveness, the public seems to have finally rebelled?
A
Back in 2005, when this full-body scanner technology was first being proposed, I wrote that I thought this would be the straw that broke the camel's back, because it would unite conservatives and liberals. Nobody wants their daughter groped or shown naked.

Q
Is privacy being violated, in your estimation?
A
You go get groped and you tell me.

Q
Have you had a pat-down?
A
Yes, actually, just a couple of days ago.

Q
Is this security theater?
A
100 percent. It won't catch anybody.


Jeff Wise is the author of Extreme Fear: The Science of Your Mind in Danger. For a daily does of fear, and how it pertains to our everyday life, go to Wise's blog, here.

[pete311]

I travel at least once a month. I've been patted down and body scanned several times. It is no big deal whatsoever. I even got to see my scan. The image is not detailed at all. There are no characteristics shown to even be able to identify the image as me. It's a standard 2d beige human outline and I assume some area would be red or something if I had something on me. Also the patting down is a non issue. People are so damn sensitive. It's not like these agents are fondling anyone or touching privates (i'm sure they LOVE having to pat down nasty smelly fattys). It's just like getting into a risky club or concert. They run their hands down the arms, legs and mid section of waist. Women and checked by women, men by men. If you are a super prude then take a train. I love it how it's the hard ass gun totting types who get scared by being touched on the leg.

[gabosaurus]

I have traveled a lot with my nine-year-old daughter. Never once has she been "felt up" by any TSA worker. In fact, when my daughter expressed fears of the scanners, a worker even showed how they worked and the images they showed. Which are basically blank images.
Is it uncomfortable and inconvenient? Yes. But it is the price you pay for traveling.
I had a TSA worker (female) tell me that one guy who complained about the scanners portraying "pornographic imagery" had two men's magazines in his carry-on luggage. Go figure.

[Silver]

wow....I see

your brainwashing has been a total success...

the results are astounding....

[revelarts]

SIlver, Gab, Pete,
thanks for the replies

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8LPv4cKyIZw&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8LPv4cKyIZw&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

[revelarts]

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7QBZZ0pkMO8&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7QBZZ0pkMO8&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

[logroller]

Naked airlines -- "Spread 'em and cough!":laugh2:

[revelarts]

Sharp T-shirt designer

http://hideyourarms.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/C-SCAN-T-SHIRT-480x253.gif

[revelarts]

TSA shuts door on private airport screening program


Washington (CNN) -- A program that allows airports to replace government screeners with private screeners is being brought to a standstill, just a month after the Transportation Security Administration said it was "neutral" on the program.

TSA chief John Pistole said Friday he has decided not to expand the program beyond the current 16 airports, saying he does not see any advantage to it.

Though little known, the Screening Partnership Program allowed airports to replace government screeners with private contractors who wear TSA-like uniforms, meet TSA standards and work under TSA oversight. Among the airports that have "opted out" of government screening are San Francisco and Kansas City.

The push to "opt out" gained attention in December amid the fury over the TSA's enhanced pat downs, which some travelers called intrusive.

Rep. John Mica, a Republican from Florida, wrote a letter encouraging airports to privatize their airport screeners, saying they would be more responsive to the public.

At that time, the TSA said it neither endorsed nor opposed private screening.

"If airports chose this route, we are going to work with them to do it," a TSA spokesman said in late December.

But on Friday, the TSA denied an application by Springfield-Branson Airport in Missouri to privatize its checkpoint workforce, and in a statement, Pistole indicated other applications likewise will be denied.

"I examined the contractor screening program and decided not to expand the program beyond the current 16 airports as I do not see any clear or substantial advantage to do so at this time," Pistole said.

He said airports that currently use contractor screening will continue to be allowed to...

for your safety that's all

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/01/29/tsa.private/

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/i-jdDE6bFow?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/i-jdDE6bFow?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tEJpzVPmih0?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tEJpzVPmih0?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[revelarts]

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vvKRhdx9F9s&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vvKRhdx9F9s&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

[revelarts]

Another Pregnant woman.
<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RrpPCM2z_h4&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RrpPCM2z_h4&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

[revelarts]

NJ and NH bills to make TSA's Vagina/Penis grope and naked pictures a sexual assault.

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mlm1_ySunMA&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mlm1_ySunMA&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

[Abbey Marie]

After following this thread since its inception and thinking about it for a while ....

If we are going to set aside constitutional rights anyway and security risks are that high; why should we not prophile? Seems to me a focused effort would be far more effective. All this kabuki dancing makes for great theater but doesn't seem to do much for security.

I guess I am different. I have no problem with profiling. And when I am flying, I not only don't mind the scans, searches, etc; I appreciate them. I want to actually be safer, and I want to feel safer when I am in the air. To me, it isn't a very large price to pay. If looking at an outline of my vajayjay is that big or a turn-on, hey, have at it.

What I do mind is the government using my tax money to fund things like abortions and busing. That feels very invasive.

[revelarts]

profiling would make sense if you had competent people making the standards and doing the work.
Based on what we've seen to date in the U.S. we don't have either.

And Abby I don't know you you've read most of the post on this thread. but the TSA isn't providing any real "safety" with there B.S. searches, scanning, groping etc..
security experts from Israel and the u.s. have stated flatly that what the TSA is doing is ineffective. AND news and gov't undercover testers have gotten guns and fake bombs past the TSA on a regular basis.

the TSA activity is not making you safer in any real sense Abby even though it gives the illusion of security.
If that makes you feel better i'm sorry to inform you that a bomb could still go off in the plane.

[OldMercsRule]

Me thinks the boarding passengers portion of airline travel is as secure as ya can practacally make it in a huge ****ry with over 300,000,000 people.

I know my position is opposed to most of the posters in this thread.

The real risk is the airport werkers, (who cum and go to all parts of the airport and tarmac without any scrutiny what so ever). N' that is nearly every airport in the whole USA!!!!!!

I have a close friend who werks as a plant maintenence engineer at a major airport. Many of the support werkers (who werk fer the individual airlines) are from Somolia n' such, n' cum and go each shift without any security searches et al.

Guess their religion!

Me overpriced $.02. JR

[revelarts]

Agree with that bit about airport workers OMerc.
Heard a former NY Drug investigator talk about all that is transported though the back doors of airports by employees.

[revelarts]

And even more TSA issues.


aviation online magazine
http://avstop.com/march_2011/tsa_cooked_the_books_on_costs_federal_vs_private_s creening.htm

TSA Cooked The Books For Years On Costs, Federal Vs Private Screening


The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a letter to Transportation Committee Chairman John L. Mica (R-FL) that confirms the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has used faulty data and withheld information when evaluating and comparing the costs of the all-federal screening model and an alternative federal-private screening program.

The Screening Partnership Program was established in the Aviation Transportation Security Act (ATSA) after September 11, 2001, to enable airport authorities to “opt-out” of all-federal screening and instead use private screening contractors under federal standards, supervision and oversight. Previously, TSA has misleadingly claimed that the cost of the privatized screening program is at least 17 percent higher than the cost of using screeners who are TSA employees.

“In essence, TSA cooked the books to try to eliminate the federal-private screening program,” Mica said. “GAO found that TSA ignored critical data relating to costs. In fact, according to TSA’s own revised cost study, the cost differential between the two screening models is closer to three percent, likely within the margin of error,” Mica said.

“And that still doesn’t account for various other ignored factors, including the cost taxpayers incur from TSA’s high attrition rate and the full cost of TSA’s bloated and unnecessary bureaucratic overhead. “I am investigating the full cost differential between the two screening models, and I believe the federal-private program model will prove to be less expensive and provide the best model for U.S. aviation security,” Mica said.

TSA has only accounted for a fraction of their personnel located at privatized airports, which result in duplicative costs that still have not been factored into estimates. Mica also said the federal-private screening model, through previous GAO evaluations, has performed significantly better than or equal to the all-government model. ...


...“I have also asked GAO to continue to review what other factors gave the all-government model a cost advantage. It is my intent to make certain that TSA cannot arbitrarily deny any future application from an airport to participate in the private screening program. “I am confident that the private sector can not only perform better, but do so at a lower cost to the taxpayers,” Mica added.

[Abbey Marie]

I travel at least once a month. I've been patted down and body scanned several times. It is no big deal whatsoever. I even got to see my scan. The image is not detailed at all. There are no characteristics shown to even be able to identify the image as me. It's a standard 2d beige human outline and I assume some area would be red or something if I had something on me. Also the patting down is a non issue. People are so damn sensitive. It's not like these agents are fondling anyone or touching privates (i'm sure they LOVE having to pat down nasty smelly fattys). It's just like getting into a risky club or concert. They run their hands down the arms, legs and mid section of waist. Women and checked by women, men by men. If you are a super prude then take a train. I love it how it's the hard ass gun totting types who get scared by being touched on the leg.

Thanks for the first-person comments. It doesn't sound at all traumatic, and I suspected as much.

[revelarts]

Thanks for the first-person comments. It doesn't sound at all traumatic, and I suspected as much.

You saw some of the other 1st person accounts reports here as well Abby.

But the MAIN points aren't the trauma or lack therefore.
the main points are
1 it's an unconstitutional , no probably cause search.
2 it's ineffective as precaution for hijacking or bombing.
the invasiveness is just adding insult to injury.

All mix together to add the rising a sense that the gov't has the authority over the people to search, invaded, touch, question, detain, etc., anyone at anytime for any reason.
that's not what we grew up understanding the U.S. under the constitution is suppose to be.
9-11, as bad as it was, was not the end of the world. However it looks like it may have been the final curtain on the freedoms we claim we have.