Transportation Security Administration hard at work

[AZhitman]

<shudder>

[IBCoupe]

Ha. Now that's the kind of girl a man can bring home to his gaggle of Mah Jongg Jewish Mothers.

[telcoman]

I like the El Al approach.

Search every bag, and give every passenger a short interview. If something doesn't smell right, you then take them off for further screening.

+!

But thats too simple of a solution.
Someone likes spending money on useless scanners while others like feeling passengers private parts.
If they were at least trained properly you could get checked for a hernia and enlarged prostate to cut down medical expense for annual physicals while flying.
Females could get free mamograms prior to boarding.

Telcoman

[n00b240]

[raises hand for frisking]

+1 for the hand of fatima, surely its been working for her.....

[heliochrome85]

http://gizmodo.com/5695522/tsa-screenin ... -own-urine

[heliochrome85]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skkCpnCm ... r_embedded[/youtube]

[n00b240]

Really??? So you are saying that you have no problem with someone strip searching your son, because your son is probably a terrorlst. Really, we should take his clothes off, just to be 100% sure that your son is not the terrorlst that you claim he isn't.

Really? There is no such thing as privacy, because if the scanner shows you naked, lets go ahead and strip your son right here in front of everyone. Oh yes, your son is a terrorlst, harboring things inside his terrorlst shirt.

As the Hitman said, where do you draw the line, in the name of safety. Where do you draw the line?

Privacy rights??? Oh yeah, thats why its an Amendment to the constitution

Having said that, I find it quite ironic that I'm all for a pat down, beats the sniffer for sure. TSA wants to rub all over my junk, go ahead, I'm never stepping into that sniffer. I just dont see the need to take one's clothes off...in the name of safety.

[heliochrome85]

Really??? So you are saying that you have no problem with someone strip searching your son, because your son is probably a terrorlst. Really, we should take his clothes off, just to be 100% sure that your son is not the terrorlst that you claim he isn't.

Really? There is no such thing as privacy, because if the scanner shows you naked, lets go ahead and strip your son right here in front of everyone. Oh yes, your son is a terrorlst, harboring things inside his terrorlst shirt.

As the Hitman said, where do you draw the line, in the name of safety. Where do you draw the line?

Privacy rights??? Oh yeah, thats why its an Amendment to the constitution

Having said that, I find it quite ironic that I'm all for a pat down, beats the sniffer for sure. TSA wants to rub all over my junk, go ahead, I'm never stepping into that sniffer. I just dont see the need to take one's clothes off...in the name of safety.

THIS

[heliochrome85]

Really??? So you are saying that you have no problem with someone strip searching your son, because your son is probably a terrorlst.

That was not a full strip search. But, yes I don't have a problem with that.

Just because I know my son won't (future tense, don't have a child) have a b0mb or other weapon, it doesn't mean that another person's child won't have a weapon. Remember, Osama Bin Laden was somebody's son at some point!

I'd rather be safe than sorry.

Really, we should take his clothes off, just to be 100% sure that your son is not the terrorlst that you claim he isn't.

Yep, as long as there is probable cause. There was most definitely probable cause in that video, otherwise the strip search wouldn't have been performed.

Oh yes, your son is a terrorlst, harboring things inside his terrorlst shirt.

You never know. Again, play into let's be safe than sorry, rather than attending our family member's funerals because we didn't take the proper measures to ensure everyone's safety.

As the Hitman said, where do you draw the line, in the name of safety. Where do you draw the line?

I don't. If I want to be safe, I'll take you and give you a cavity search. I'd expect the same to be done to me if there was probable cause.

I just dont see the need to take one's clothes off...in the name of safety.

You won't be saying that when someone didn't have their clothes taken off (in the name of safety) and they were hiding a b0mb and one of your family members died in the explosion.[/quote]



careful there. pulling the heartstrings card can only get you so far and that logic can justify anything. there is clearly a line as to what the populace will put up with. i think we've found it.

[heliochrome85]

yes, but also put yourself in the shoes of a rape victim who is forced to be patted down. or someone who has had testicular cancer. or someone who was forced to get out of their wheelchair so it can be checked.

the number of people in those circumstances FAR outnumbers those who lost family members in a plane accident/attack. thats all im saying.

[heliochrome85]

i personally am not willing to give up all my rights in the name of security. if i wanted to do that, id have moved back to syria a long time ago.

[n00b240]

You won't be saying that when someone didn't have their clothes taken off (in the name of safety) and they were hiding a b0mb and one of your family members died in the explosion.

You mean the b0mb they couldnt find via the extensive pat down they give you, inside your T-shirt, in front of everyone standing around

I think I'd feel the safest at an Israeli Airport, rather than the farce that the TSA puts us through

[heliochrome85]

yes, but also put yourself in the shoes of a rape victim who is forced to be patted down. or someone who has had testicular cancer. or someone who was forced to get out of their wheelchair so it can be checked.

the number of people in those circumstances FAR outnumbers those who lost family members in a plane accident/attack. thats all im saying.

Rape victim who was forced to be patted down? Want me to get out a box of tissues?

Testicular cancer? Sorry for your condition, no you can't carry a b0mb on board.

Wheelchair? Lean up against a wall, bud. You can't bring that knife on the plane!

Kidding aside, I do understand where you are coming from. We will probably always be on opposite sides of the matter, and so be it.

The sad part is that these measures will never be proven — as they are so airtight that no bombs or other weapons can pass through. Meaning people can't say, well this happened because... or that happened because.... It won't happen because of the great security!

I suppose time will speak for itself.

say what you will, but the forces you are arguing against have GREAT societal support. its like arguing against increased benefits for vetrans. its just not a winning argument. its just not socially acceptable to put rape victims through this sort of thing. same with paraplegics, same with cancer survivors, or people with other health issues that have been documented.

society views these people as having an unfair burden in life and so to add to their misery via public humiliation is simply unacceptable. im glad someone is willing to say this.

[heliochrome85]

yeah, but in my case, im arguing FOR freedoms protected by the Constitution, not against.

[n00b240]

LOL you asked for it, I try to keep my youtube watching for entertainment only, and keep the comments to the forums, too many silly people out there

[AZhitman]

LOL you asked for it, I try to keep my youtube watching for entertainment only, and keep the comments to the forums, too many silly people out there

For sure.

The intellect of NICO members is, by and large, FAR above that of your typical YT comment-monkey.

[heliochrome85]

yeah, but in my case, im arguing FOR freedoms protected by the Constitution, not against.

But freedom isn't free! It comes with its costs and, in contemporary times, those costs involve TSA policies that, while may be considered intrusive, are ultimately there to ENSURE your continued enjoyment of freedom (as apposed to injury or death).

again, these are CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED FREEDOMS, the government simply CANNOT infringe on them, regardless of reason. thats the price we pay for these freedoms.

[bigbadberry3]

^^ there are always some exceptions to the rights. Freedom of speech doesn't let you yell fire in a movie theater without consequences....

[srellim234]

In my opinion, the manner in which TSA goes about their business is ridiculous. That said, what they do is not infringing on my rights when I attempt to get on a plane. I CHOOSE to put myself in that position.

Knowing full well what is awaiting me at the airport, I have chosen to drive weekends to get my business destinations most of the time in the years since 9/11/2001. I've taken trips like that from Pompano Beach, Florida to Portland, Maine to Portland, Oregon to Los Angeles, California and a lot of cities across the country between those. I don't see the ability to get on an airplane as a protected right anywhere in the Constitution. If I work for a company that is going to require me to fly all the time, I have the CHOICE not to accept that job or assignment. Given the options available (car, train, ship, internet videoconferencing, etc.) I don't see the misery that TSA puts you through at the airport as that big of a deal. You do have the option not to go to the airport. Work for someone else. Take that vacation trip closer to home.

I would very much like to see the Israeli airport security here. I think it is a heck of a lot more effective than the reactionary form of security we keep coming up with. Why do we wait for something to happen and then react to it instead of being proactive? This way all we get is a bunch of piecemeal security measures that do nothing but upset everyone. And I'm fairly sure that the majority of TSA screeners aren't happy about it either.

[AZhitman]

^ THIS. Times ten.

A little reminder - You don't have a "right" to drive either. It's a priv. And it comes with requirements, one of which is you must purchase something from a private company (insurance) in order to do so. Gotta wear your seat belt, obey the rules, pay your tolls, and pull over when the red & blue lights flash.

[IBCoupe]

I would agree with everything in Srellim's post, but I would add this quote as a sort of disclaimer that's been floating around my skull these past few weeks:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Now, we can have a debate about whether there's anything "essential" about what we give up or "temporary" about what we want to prevent, but this has been in the background for me since the issue first arose.

[UpStar]

WOW! Poor kid is learning how expen$ive freedom really is. They say that the father voluntarily pulled the kids shirt off to make it easier on TSA, but....

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

[stebo0728]

[stebo0728]

The new pat down system doesnt sit well with me......but let one of these pervs go after one of my kids and suddenly Im on the 6'oclock news....this is why I am for the most part not a flyer, all my family is no more than a state away so driving is feasible, but if it werent, right now I'd probably just not travel.

[IBCoupe]

I like driving enough that I'm willing to road-trip to Arizona to visit my family if I've got the time to do it.

[IBCoupe]

TWO-BY-TWO, HANDS OF BLUE!

[heliochrome85]

http://gizmodo.com/5696217/why-did-this ... t-security

[wingFeather]

What do y'all expect with the Democrats in office? This is just more of the same from the anti-freedom blue state crowd. Congrats!

Looting and pillaging like L.A. after the Rodney verdict.

No doubt the very same individuals we saw at Obama's rallies, and rioting outside the RNC... bussed in. Animals shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[heliochrome85]

nice. whats next? gonna drop a "jigaboo" comment? how bout one reminding us of the scurge of the "jungle bunny"?

[heliochrome85]

life just isnt fair.