Airport Security Debacle

[Lust4xxxLife]

Originally Posted by mansfield

How about secure the borders and deport people in massive numbers, while profiling any non citizens to the extreme?

Oh no, can't do that, might hurt someone's feelings.

Instead let's treat a 78 year old grandmother from Iowa the same as 3 guys carrying Korans and no luggage with one way tickets and here on a student Visa.

Yeah that will work.

I'm not against your suggestion to get the borders under control, but that won't make flights any safer so it's just deflective rhetoric. The terrorist enemy is already within and has been for years.

YES, let's treat that 78 year old grandma from Iowa like everyone else. In fact, we might want to pay special attention to her. If someone had called my Grandmother and told her I would be killed unless she carried something through security, I'm reasonably sure she would have tried to do it.

I'd still like to hear reasonable better alternatives.

[mansfield]

YES, let's treat that 78 year old grandma from Iowa like everyone else. In fact, we might want to pay special attention to her. If someone had called my Grandmother and told her I would be killed unless she carried something through security, I'm reasonably sure she would have tried to do it.

So you want a system that guarantees 100% safety against every conceivable danger? You're not going to get that.

Life is dangerous, you mitigate the risks as much as possible without violating the rights of citizens. If risk still remains then each person can decide whether to take that risk or not. If it's too high for someone they they can put their happy ass in the minivan and drive.

That's reality, not fantasy land.

[Lust4xxxLife]

Originally Posted by mansfield

So you want a system that guarantees 100% safety against every conceivable danger? You're not going to get that.

Life is dangerous, you mitigate the risks as much as possible without violating the rights of citizens. If risk still remains then each person can decide whether to take that risk or not. If it's too high for someone they they can put their happy ass in the minivan and drive.

That's reality, not fantasy land.

You're not paying attention.

I would like a system that is 100% safe but I accept that the system is flawed and it doesn't make me 'safe'. But it makes me ***SAF-ER***. And I want that.

There is NO violation of "rights of citizens". As you've now ackowledged, each person can decide to opt out and "put their happy ass in the minivan and drive." You have to CHOOSE to purchase a ticket to a flight on a public airline. You can choose to use other means of public or private transportation if you wish.

Still waiting for some better alternatives... and yes, I'm being a bit pedantic because it pisses me off when the American media stirs up a controversy where none exists. These measure are good for us.

[mansfield]

When did airlines become public? I was under the impression they were private companies. I am being forced to undergo a search without a warrant or probable cause because I want to do business with a private company. That's wrong no matter what excuse is given as the reason.

[69er]

Lust4xxxLife,

I do agree that the whiners complaining about their 4th amendment rights are full of $*^. There is no "right to fly" in the constitution. The constitution also balances an individuals rights, with what is necessary for the safety and security of the citizens.

But, I think the latest TSA effort has been bungled beyond belief.

Bungle #1: There is no reason the TSA couldn't forsee issues such as people who have a physical disability, and how to handle those issues with some respect and dignity. This is just plain ole inept government in action! They failed to think about anything but the average traveler walking through the equipment, and didn't train the employees on how to deal with other issues. Sorry, but a traveler shouldn't need to pull out an artifical breast, or get bathed in their own urine because the TSA hasn't bothered to train their employees!

Bungle #2: Next they have failed to examine the possibility of increased incidence of skin cancers because the radiation is concentrated in the top layers of skin. The studies that proclaim the amount of radiation is safe, do so by applying that radiation evenly over the entire volume of an average body. The truth is that this technology penetrates only the top layers of skin, so the radiation is more concentrated. If you look at the radiation level based on how much skin is penetrated, a single exposure does not pose much risk (there will always be some risk with radiation exposure), but multiple exposures start looking suspect. I think the TSA has not asked for the studies to be done, and the companies selling the scanners certainly don't want to do them! This is the TSA and big business not asking the tough questions, because they don't want the wrong answer.

Bungle #3: The TSA has improperly trained their people as to the ability of an individual to opt-out of being scanned. There have been a number of cases where TSA agents refused to give passengers the option of a pat down rather than a scan. Yet another training issue with the TSA.

Even if I were to agree that this screening would help with security, (which I do not!) they have handled it in about the poorest manner possible.

The issue, is that I think the money is being spent in the wrong place. They keep putting more and more restrictions on passengers, and continue to move at a snails pace on other pressing matters.

Cargo: Most of the cargo that goes on the aircraft goes through very rudimentary scans. Nothing to even a close degree to what passengers go through. So, if I were a terrorist, the easy route would be to check something, and trigger it remotely.

Blast Proof Cargo Containers: These containers have been promoted by many security experts. They would serve to contain a blast and limit damage to an aircraft if cargo were to contain a bomb. But the airlines don't want to use them, as they would have to replace the containers they use today (which costs money), and the containers weigh slightly more, which would reduce the cargo carrying capacity of the aircraft by several percent. (again, the issue is money)

Aircraft security: Have you even seen some of the videos of kids who hop the fence at an airport late at night, follow the fences to the terminal, and party on the aircraft? If some teens can sneak alcohol onto a plane, and party through the night, why do I doubt a terrorist could plant weapons on an aircraft?

I could go on. The security expert Bruce Schneier coined the term "Security Theater" referring specifically to the TSA, and their efforts in screening. When the experts have contempt for the TSA, why should I believe they are doing what is best for us.

No, I believe this is about businesses selling a technology to the TSA, not because it is the best increase in screening per dollar spent, but because this is what they had, and they saw an opportunity. Personally, I figure that soon we will hear about who at the TSA was taken for nice dinners, and got a vacation in the Bahamas, for mandating this new procedure.

[Juan Pablo de Marco]

Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

I'd still like to hear reasonable better alternatives.

here's one. maybe the US govt could stop invading foreign countries (that may or may not have large amounts of oil) and installing puppet governments that allow our oil companies to plunder their natural resources. just a thought.

the present leader of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, was a consultant for the California-based oil company Unocal while the US was negotiating the building of an oil pileline from the Caspian Sea basin to the the port of Karachi. at the same time there was a proposed pipeline that Russia wanted to build through Iran. when a Brazilian oil company was awarded the contract by the Taliban... the US was not happy. US nogotiators told the Taliban at the time they could either get 'a carpet of gold... or a carpet of bombs'. guess what they got.

anybody want to guess why Russia invaded Afghanistan in the 80's? and why our CIA gave millions of dollars to the mujahideen in a proxy war led by Osama Bin Laden, to drive Russia out of the country? it's all about the oil. at least the control of it.

and know who the US gets most of their oil from? Venezuela. and boy howdy does the US govt hate Hugo Chavez. why? he wants to increae taxes on the oil companies to give land to the poor of the country. oil companies do not like this idea. the CIA has tried to fund assasination attempts against him.

remember saddam hussein? he was installed as the head of Iraq by the US. he was a relative nobody but 'US friendly'. all was well in saddam land until he changed the trading currency of their oil from US dollars to Euros. they made about a 15% increae in profit in their oil sales due to this, but his fate was sealed at that point. we invaded the country and assasinated the man we had installed as leader of the country. and slaughtered millions in the process and ignited a virtual civl war. why did we allow him to be hanged? so he couldn't tell his secrets. go USA!

and want to know why Iraq invaded Iran a few years before? Iran was using a relatively new oil drilling technology that allowed them to drill into oil reserves at an angle. they were in effect stealing oil from Iraq. guess who was the world leader in these angled drilling technologies? Halliburton. Dick Cheney anyone? the US gave tacit approval for them to do this.

and the US govt installed the Shah of Iran to power years before.

know why we have huge military bases in Saudi Arabia? the Bush administration used fake intelligence to convince the Saudi's that Iraq was amassing troops on their border. until that point Saudi Arabia would not allow a military presence from the US on their soil. it was all a lie. now we have a HUGE military presence in a region that has the largest oil reserves in the world...maybe just a coincidence.

anybody remeber Salvador Allende? democratically elected leader of Chile. a leftist, elected on 1970, and assassinated by the CIA in 1973. hell... Collin Powell admitted as much in an interview a couple years ago. the US govt then installed Augusto Pinochet to power and his regime killed thousands of political dissidents.

all this was not done at the behest of the American people... but by a government run and controlled by corporations. the Military-Industrial Complex that President Eisenhower warned the country about back in the 50's.

the same corporate structure that controls our elections (thanks to the recent Citizens United vs FEC Supreme Court decision) elects our corporate-owned government and dictates our domestic and foreign policy. until corporate money is legislated out of our elections... we're all just a bunch of slaves.

Happy Holidays!

JPdM

[Lust4xxxLife]

Originally Posted by mansfield

When did airlines become public? I was under the impression they were private companies. I am being forced to undergo a search without a warrant or probable cause because I want to do business with a private company. That's wrong no matter what excuse is given as the reason.

The airlines are private companies providing regulated public transportation. You are not forced to do anything. You can choose whether or not to purchase a ticket to a flight. If you CHOOSE to attend a Mavs game here in Dallas, you will also have to accept a scan. You don't seem to want to get it so let's not debate it anymore.

[Lust4xxxLife]

Originally Posted by 69er

Lust4xxxLife,

I do agree that the whiners complaining about their 4th amendment rights are full of $*^. There is no "right to fly" in the constitution. The constitution also balances an individuals rights, with what is necessary for the safety and security of the citizens.

But, I think the latest TSA effort has been bungled beyond belief.

Bungle #1: There is no reason the TSA couldn't forsee issues such as people who have a physical disability, and how to handle those issues with some respect and dignity. This is just plain ole inept government in action! They failed to think about anything but the average traveler walking through the equipment, and didn't train the employees on how to deal with other issues. Sorry, but a traveler shouldn't need to pull out an artifical breast, or get bathed in their own urine because the TSA hasn't bothered to train their employees!

Bungle #2: Next they have failed to examine the possibility of increased incidence of skin cancers because the radiation is concentrated in the top layers of skin. The studies that proclaim the amount of radiation is safe, do so by applying that radiation evenly over the entire volume of an average body. The truth is that this technology penetrates only the top layers of skin, so the radiation is more concentrated. If you look at the radiation level based on how much skin is penetrated, a single exposure does not pose much risk (there will always be some risk with radiation exposure), but multiple exposures start looking suspect. I think the TSA has not asked for the studies to be done, and the companies selling the scanners certainly don't want to do them! This is the TSA and big business not asking the tough questions, because they don't want the wrong answer.

Bungle #3: The TSA has improperly trained their people as to the ability of an individual to opt-out of being scanned. There have been a number of cases where TSA agents refused to give passengers the option of a pat down rather than a scan. Yet another training issue with the TSA.

Even if I were to agree that this screening would help with security, (which I do not!) they have handled it in about the poorest manner possible.

The issue, is that I think the money is being spent in the wrong place. They keep putting more and more restrictions on passengers, and continue to move at a snails pace on other pressing matters.

Cargo: Most of the cargo that goes on the aircraft goes through very rudimentary scans. Nothing to even a close degree to what passengers go through. So, if I were a terrorist, the easy route would be to check something, and trigger it remotely.

Blast Proof Cargo Containers: These containers have been promoted by many security experts. They would serve to contain a blast and limit damage to an aircraft if cargo were to contain a bomb. But the airlines don't want to use them, as they would have to replace the containers they use today (which costs money), and the containers weigh slightly more, which would reduce the cargo carrying capacity of the aircraft by several percent. (again, the issue is money)

Aircraft security: Have you even seen some of the videos of kids who hop the fence at an airport late at night, follow the fences to the terminal, and party on the aircraft? If some teens can sneak alcohol onto a plane, and party through the night, why do I doubt a terrorist could plant weapons on an aircraft?

I could go on. The security expert Bruce Schneier coined the term "Security Theater" referring specifically to the TSA, and their efforts in screening. When the experts have contempt for the TSA, why should I believe they are doing what is best for us.

No, I believe this is about businesses selling a technology to the TSA, not because it is the best increase in screening per dollar spent, but because this is what they had, and they saw an opportunity. Personally, I figure that soon we will hear about who at the TSA was taken for nice dinners, and got a vacation in the Bahamas, for mandating this new procedure.

@69er – I agree with ALL of your points on government execution of the new scans/gropes and also with your points on other areas of security that need attention. It's typical government management. We could have the same discussion on many other government-managed initiatives.

But... you haven't given me a single reason why we aren't MORE secure with the new measures than without them. I'm totally with you that it isn't enough and that it isn't greatly executed, but what are you suggesting? Do you think we would be safer if we stopped the new initiatives? Really? Why?

I think we should direct our passion at two points:

1) The enemy. None of this bullshit would be necessary if it weren't for the scum who were attacking us. If we feel inconvenienced or persecuted because of these kinds of security measures, let's focus that emotion on the source. The terrorist are my enemy. The government is a necessary evil responding to threats. The quality of service we get from the government is directly related to the caliber of people we elect. Remember that if you're tempted to vote for the Sarah Palins, Rand Pauls, or Larry Craigs.

2) How do we make it better. Bitching and complaining does nothing. If you can think of a better way to make flights safer, get it out there. If you don't know how to do it, send your ideas to me. I do. But focus on the problem at hand. Ideas like 'close the borders' or 'stop making war' are legitimate but not useful for dealing with point issues like airport security.

Your friend,

L4L

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by Juan Pablo de Marco

here's one. maybe the US govt could stop invading foreign countries (that may or may not have large amounts of oil) and installing puppet governments that allow our oil companies to plunder their natural resources. just a thought.

JPdM

It would never work. It just makes too much sense.

[Lust4xxxLife]

Originally Posted by Juan Pablo de Marco

here's one. maybe the US govt could stop invading foreign countries (that may or may not have large amounts of oil) and installing puppet governments that allow our oil companies to plunder their natural resources. just a thought.

the present leader of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, was a consultant for the California-based oil company Unocal while the US was negotiating the building of an oil pileline from the Caspian Sea basin to the the port of Karachi. at the same time there was a proposed pipeline that Russia wanted to build through Iran. when a Brazilian oil company was awarded the contract by the Taliban... the US was not happy. US nogotiators told the Taliban at the time they could either get 'a carpet of gold... or a carpet of bombs'. guess what they got.

anybody want to guess why Russia invaded Afghanistan in the 80's? and why our CIA gave millions of dollars to the mujahideen in a proxy war led by Osama Bin Laden, to drive Russia out of the country? it's all about the oil. at least the control of it.

and know who the US gets most of their oil from? Venezuela. and boy howdy does the US govt hate Hugo Chavez. why? he wants to increae taxes on the oil companies to give land to the poor of the country. oil companies do not like this idea. the CIA has tried to fund assasination attempts against him.

remember saddam hussein? he was installed as the head of Iraq by the US. he was a relative nobody but 'US friendly'. all was well in saddam land until he changed the trading currency of their oil from US dollars to Euros. they made about a 15% increae in profit in their oil sales due to this, but his fate was sealed at that point. we invaded the country and assasinated the man we had installed as leader of the country. and slaughtered millions in the process and ignited a virtual civl war. why did we allow him to be hanged? so he couldn't tell his secrets. go USA!

and want to know why Iraq invaded Iran a few years before? Iran was using a relatively new oil drilling technology that allowed them to drill into oil reserves at an angle. they were in effect stealing oil from Iraq. guess who was the world leader in these angled drilling technologies? Halliburton. Dick Cheney anyone? the US gave tacit approval for them to do this.

and the US govt installed the Shah of Iran to power years before.

know why we have huge military bases in Saudi Arabia? the Bush administration used fake intelligence to convince the Saudi's that Iraq was amassing troops on their border. until that point Saudi Arabia would not allow a military presence from the US on their soil. it was all a lie. now we have a HUGE military presence in a region that has the largest oil reserves in the world...maybe just a coincidence.

anybody remeber Salvador Allende? democratically elected leader of Chile. a leftist, elected on 1970, and assassinated by the CIA in 1973. hell... Collin Powell admitted as much in an interview a couple years ago. the US govt then installed Augusto Pinochet to power and his regime killed thousands of political dissidents.

all this was not done at the behest of the American people... but by a government run and controlled by corporations. the Military-Industrial Complex that President Eisenhower warned the country about back in the 50's.

the same corporate structure that controls our elections (thanks to the recent Citizens United vs FEC Supreme Court decision) elects our corporate-owned government and dictates our domestic and foreign policy. until corporate money is legislated out of our elections... we're all just a bunch of slaves.

Happy Holidays!

JPdM

JPdM - I can't disagree with anything you post. I'm personally disgusted and embarrassed by some of our actions abroad.

America is every country's best friend when disaster strikes. We're there in force and we don't ask for credit cards before we deploy. I think a lot of the world is overlooking this very key point.

However, our reputation abroad is in tatters because we make war for oil and everyone knows it (yet we're generally in denial on this point at home). This makes enemies. Exxon-Mobile owns our government. The country goes bankrupt while E-M makes record profits because the little Bush gives them tax breaks AND spends our money to protect their supply. WTF?

Again though, none of these truths change the fact that the new scans and pat-downs make us safer. I want better but I'll take what I can get in the interim. I want to come home alive.

L4L

[69er]

Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

But... you haven't given me a single reason why we aren't MORE secure with the new measures than without them. I'm totally with you that it isn't enough and that it isn't greatly executed, but what are you suggesting? Do you think we would be safer if we stopped the new initiatives? Really? Why?

I don't think we would be safer if full body scans were not in effect, but I don't believe we would be less safe either. I think these will have no net effect.

Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

1) The enemy. None of this bullshit would be necessary if it weren't for the scum who were attacking us.

This is where you and I will differ. It is easy to think that they are all scum. They are not. The US has too long a history of wanting to lump an entire population into our little "Cone of hate". The US has made many mistakes over the years, but some of those in power in the east, hate the US not for what we've done, but for what we stand for. They are afraid of us because we are trying to deliver tolerance, and civil rights to the people of the region. Most of those in the region welcome the US and soldiers, it is a few bad eggs that pose the problem. This war will be waged over decades, and involves changing peoples opinions through our long term actions.

Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

2) How do we make it better. Bitching and complaining does nothing. If you can think of a better way to make flights safer, get it out there.

I thought I did. I'm afraid you're just on your soap box now. LOL. I think better screening of cargo, and screening of everything shipped into this country is the next step. I think this would be much more effective, and likely to catch items such as the "Toner Bombs."

[mansfield]

Originally Posted by 69er

I do agree that the whiners complaining about their 4th amendment rights are full of $*^. There is no "right to fly" in the constitution. The constitution also balances an individuals rights, with what is necessary for the safety and security of the citizens.

Yet I would assume you believe the government should not regulate prostitution? There is no right to screw in the constitution either. So, laws against that balance individual rights with what is necessary for the safety of the citizens right? That makes sense to you go ahead, but don't say that people who believe in the 4th Amendment and the government staying out of business and private activities are full of it.

Originally Posted by Lust

The airlines are private companies providing regulated public transportation.

Airline service has not been a regulated public transportation mode since October of 1978. The aircraft and pilots are subject to regulation the same as cars and boats, but it is not a regulated service. So, since you are OK with this regarding the airlines would you be OK with the same security measures for buses and taxis? There may be a place for airport security but it should be done privately by the airlines, not government.

If business decided to do security screening THEN the argument that you can walk away if you want to works, someone would start a competitor airline with more reasonable security policies and the market would work itself out. Government forcing business and their customers to submit to physical searches with no probable cause is simply against what the Constitution says, even if you believe it's a good idea. There is a big step from metal detectors to physical groping by government employees.

And it's clear most people agree with that since this morning TSA says they have gone too far and will be pulling back soon. It's obvious airport security isn't going away, but the bodily searches being done now are not necessary, too intrusive, and don't really make it "safer" at all. I predict we will see this change drastically over the next few years. I think the TSA will be pulled out and private security companies will take over this function, and I predict the intrusive physical searches will end very soon. Guess we'll see.

[S-Man]

Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

Yes, I think this is a much bigger deal for infrequent travelers who aren't as familiar with the process. I've been experiencing 'erotic' pat-downs by female security personnel at Heathrow in London for years. We're still newbies here when it comes to dealing with terrorist threats.

I flew thru/out of Heathrow a couple years ago. I never experienced a pat down from a hot Brit.

With my luck, I'll get one of them... http://theclicker.todayshow.com/_new...tsas-sexy-side

[cptjohnstone]

New TSA slogans

Can't see London, can't see France, unless we see your underpants.

Grope discounts available.

If we did our job any better, we'd have to buy you dinner first.

Only we know if Lady Gaga is really a lady.

Don't worry, my hands are still warm from the last guy.

Throw a few back at the airport Chili's, and you won't even notice.

Wanna fly? Drop your fly.

We've handled more balls than Barney Frank.

We are now free to move about your pants.

We rub you the wrong way, so you can be on your way.

It's not a grope. It's a freedom pat.

When in doubt, we make you whip it out.

TSA: Touchin', Squeezin', Arrestin'

You were a virgin.

We handle more packages than the USPS.

[69er]

Originally Posted by 69er

I do agree that the whiners complaining about their 4th amendment rights are full of $*^. There is no "right to fly" in the constitution. The constitution also balances an individuals rights, with what is necessary for the safety and security of the citizens.

Originally Posted by mansfield

Yet I would assume you believe the government should not regulate prostitution? There is no right to screw in the constitution either. So, laws against that balance individual rights with what is necessary for the safety of the citizens right? That makes sense to you go ahead, but don't say that people who believe in the 4th Amendment and the government staying out of business and private activities are full of it.

Mansfield, I suggest you go back and read what I said, rather than just jump to the conclusion that because I said something you don't like, that I don't believe in the 4th amendment! LOL. In effect what I said is that those who think they should be exempt from a search when they board an aircraft are sadly mistaken that they will be protected by the 4th amendment.

If you wish to practice a little "civil disobedience", go ahead. Don't be surprised if you end up in jail for breaking the law. If you "Cop a Tude" with the judge, you may get free clothing and meals for a while! Alas, you may find that during the time, your freedoms are a bit constrained.