Am I The Only One Who Doesn't Think Scanners and Patdowns Are a Big Deal?

[JCMach1]

Maybe I just fly too much, but honestly (except for the courtesy surrounding the new policy) I don't find it any more intrusive than any of the other BS I have had to endure since 9/11.

I don't know, but it seems that any rights we had surrounding flying went out the window shortly after 9/11.

If you (aimed more at FOX than DU) have been paying attention, the TSA has been doing these short of shakedowns for quite awhile (meaning the Bush administration). For us this included separating a sleepy and airsick 5 yr. old on a long international flight and frisking her away from her parents.

I should probably duck now, but I support Obama on this one.

:hide:

[qb]

1. We're just one asshole bomber away from body-cavity searches.

We could use someone in the TSA with pro-active, intelligent thoughts on airline safety (and civil liberties) rather than belated over-reacting to every incident.

[Nye Bevan]

2. No, there are a few of you "it's for our own good" types here (nt)

[Pholus]

3. Fight it here and now, or fight it later. The water temperature has been increasing since 9/11.

And until a voice develops to indicate that the public has a finite tolerance for intrusion, the scope of the intrusion will increase.

John Pistole just had a zinger on the Today show this morning accidentally.

He was saying he was trying to balance the expectations of the public "for security (which they should expect) and privacy......"

So, I have an expectation of security (and I should) but privacy? Yes, I imagine he isn't too keen on that one.

Anyway, if we don't complain now, the scanner usage will increase:

After a while we need to use the scanners to get into a public building, a stadium, the bus stop, the train station, our schools.

And while I am mostly happy with our president, I will not support everything he stands for if some of it is wrong.

[TexasObserver]

4. You're one of the few here who does.

[IdaBriggs]

5. I think it is an experience thing. If you haven't been "groped"

versus pat-downed, you probably don't see what the furor is all about. If you haven't met the guy who saw you naked because he or his co-workers didn't make lewd comments, its probably easier to pretend its like a metal detector.

We all have our comfort levels, and "denial" about what is actually going on - someone is taking a picture of your naked body which can then turn up *ANYWHERE* for example, but certainly *WON'T* (insert eye roll here) because you *TRUST* the folks behind the machines - is one way of dealing with it. (They make *how much money* again?)

Maybe you haven't had to expose your breasts in public, as some travelers report. Maybe the guy doing the "enhanced pat down" didn't bruise your testicles, as some travelers report, because he was having a bad couple of minutes because his coffee was delayed (or whatever the excuse de-minute is for a temporary bad mood). Maybe you didn't leave the area covered in your own urine because someone didn't want to listen to you explain that the cancer surgery you had left the tubes attached to your body a necessary thing. Maybe ....

Or maybe these things did happen to you, and you were okay with it.

Personally, walking through a metal detector set off by change, a cell phone or jewelry is an inconvenience, but seems a reasonable precaution. Taking off my shoes seems stupid - they can't invent a wipe that changes color if I've got bomb residue on my feet? - but you suck it up for safety.

Naked pictures and groin groping seems a little over the top to me. But your perception may vary, based on your own personal experience. :)

[trumad]

6. I've flown 75,000 since April...

And haven't had much of a problem.

Although--- if they start body scanning me I might.

Why? Because I'd get it done to me at least 4-6 times a week and they have not conclusively proven that it is safe.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

10. to the contrary, the increased radiation's a known danger

and they have already quantified how much it increases your cancer risk.

[trumad]

16. Right---

they say it is minimal if you go through one time but they also say that have no solid info if you go through many times.

Also; Some experts are saying it's 10 times worse that what the Government reports.

In other words--- nobody currently knows the exact exposure for multiple scannings.

That's what worries me.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

20. and that assumes that the machines are properly

calibrated and adjusted. The radiation levels vary over time, unless the machine is tested and adjusted each day. Even then, there is variability. These things are not plug and play. They may look modern and sleek from the outside, but they are finicky bastards. Radiation centers that use comparable levels are required to have a full time physicist on staff, checking the output, calibrating, adjusting, and testing. I cannot imagine the TSA doing that.

[somone]

44. TSA would rather hire a proctologist than a physicist

or any other radiation expert who might contradict them.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

49. 75k miles? that means you get a double dose

first, you get zapped in the airport, with these new, heavy duty high radiation devices, then you fly high, getting several x-rays worth of radiation simply from flying at 30,000.

[customerserviceguy]

7. Are you a terrorist?

If not, then it wasn't necessary to search your damn carry-on bags in the first place. The government has more than enough information on American citizens to be able to quickly figure out if we're on the OK list, they can search those who seem to have slipped past the database.

Maybe flying too much has inured you to it. I suppose you can get used to any type of abuse, if you merely regard it as ordinary and unavoidable, without being unnecessary.

[tigereye]

28. exactly - why don't they use some of that information and reduce the

absurd, over-generalized security policies...

[hedgehog]

29. So, government surveillance on all Americans on a day-today basis

in order to spot future terrorists is preferable to searching airline passengers.....

[customerserviceguy]

88. It's already happening

and will never quit. It's been going on since J. Edgar Hoover, and all I'm suggesting is that the government use the information to determine who is absolutely no threat. And that's 99.99999% of us.

[sledgehammer]

38. What?

So only "terrorists" should have their bags searched? And how does one define a terrorist before the fact? And if that info exists, why not just arrest all these terrorists today and end the entire security process altogether.

I don't like the new invasive procedures at all. But to suggest that only "terrorists" should have their carry-on bags checked is a bizarre suggestion.

And it's not only people on the list that should be searched. It should be everyone. Because it's not hard for a terrorist to hold a family ransom, and force one of the family members to take something on board if they are not going to be checked. It happens in bank robberies. No reason it can't happen on flights.

[customerserviceguy]

89. The point is

Ordinary Americans are not terrorists. The whole idea of "guilty until you prove yourself innocent by sexual assault" is unconstitutional.

Your whole scenario involving someone becoming a suicide bomber in order to save a family memmber from a terrorist enemy makes some pretty good screenplay, but it's just fantasy. You're suggesting that someone would blow themselves up in order to trust that a terrorist organization would follow through on releasing one's family members. I'd trust the most bumbling agent of the FBI before I'd trust the most 'principled' terrorist.

[WVRICK13]

8. I Object On Health Reasons

I went through chemo and radiation treatment this year. I don't need anymore exposure to radiation. Couple the scanners with the vans the government has running around scanning random cars with x-rays and we are exposing our citizens to a large health danger. On the other hand, I don't care if I get a pat down, just leave my health out of it.

[PeaceNikki]

13. If you're concerned about radiation, you should look at the exposure during flight

By the time you're at normal jet cruising altitude of, say, 39,000 feet, the total radiation is about 64 times greater than what it is at sea level.

[Pholus]

18. Getting cancer from the trip has a benefit to me. From the scanners? Not so much.

If we were serious about mitigating risk we'd be doing more to secure the interior service portions of the airport and we'd scan more of the cargo. But we don't.

Why should we expose ourselves to ionizing radiation for someone's Kabuki?

[tavalon]

40. Exactly

That, and I've stopped believing it's just a dog and pony show. I think they are trying to get us incrementally used to the abuse of our rights.

[Gin]

59. I agree 100 %

[DirkGently]

62. So, let's just add to that with a pointless underwear X-ray? Cancer risk is cumulative.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

9. Yes.

I just love that extra doses of radiation vs. seeing my loved one groped by some asshole policy choice, that does nothing to increase security.
Remember that last part. This does NOTHING to increase security. It is a bullshit policy, it is backasswards, it comes a year after the TSA received warnings from a concerned dad that his son (already on a do not fly list), without a valid passport, was planning something terrible with a device hidden in his underwear.

[pecwae]

11. No.

There's a handful of "if you have nothing to hide..." members. You're absolutely free to feel comfortable with the continued eroding of the 4th amendment.

[Possumpoint]

12. I Don't Fly

My wife can't fly because of an inability to equate pressure changes rapidly. So that makes it easy to accommodate my beliefs that the scans and pat downs are a violation of my forth amendment rights without probable cause. If I had to fly, I would make a stink about it. Probably get myself in trouble.

[HipChick]

14. I'm with you...this has been going on for about 9 years..

except most of the people I saw getting shakedowns at the airport were people of color,non-white..wasn't much outrage coming out about that..I've been escorted out of an airport by 6 burley TSA agents because they were taking an extra long time with me, as they had a TSA trainee and were doing on the job training with her. Unfortunately, I was trying to catch a flight to Houston to interview for a job. I missed my flight because of their ineptitude, and I guess I was too loud in my objective of their process

[JCMach1]

17. Exactly, they killed my outrage a long time ago...

Seriously, if they will separate a crying 5 year old who is crying for her mom and frisk her out of eye-sight of the parents... :grr:

Honestly, just more par for the course.

[tavalon]

41. I get what you're saying about outrage fatigue

but one thing anyone who knows me (or doesn't) knows that you don't get between me and my child. I would not and will not stand for that.

[End Of The Road]

15. The new procedures are an illogical show of force against most Americans.

99.99% of American air travelers have no intent to do harm to the airplane or its passengers (aside from encroaching on my miniscule seat space). The TSA is well aware of this. But who are they pulling out of line? Stories have included pilots, flight attendants, children, elderly, and some with medical conditions whose explanations and cautions have been ignored by the TSA groper.

This does nothing to protect the safety of travelers. It's all for show -- and it's a very authoritarian show. I've been patted down and wanded and searched before these new procedures took effect, and I was OK with it, but the enhanced patdowns will not be more effective, and I've got to draw the line somewhere. This is where I draw it.

[AimeeS]

22. I think this goes way beyond airport security.

It's great that people are protesting this. If I could fly, I would too. This intrusion into privacy could eventually filter down into every aspect of our private lives. I am a very private person. I would likely completely over react if someone were to touch me inappropriately without my permission. It isn't about having something to hide or not. It's about people keeping their hands off me unless invited.

[End Of The Road]

26. Your first post on DU!

Welcome!

Be forewarned, though -- it gets absolutely crazy around here sometimes.

:hi:

[tigereye]

33. that's the problem - my husband keeps telling me we should do it the way

the Israelis do - they do target people whom they think are a risk and act accordingly. The random nature of the searches here is absurd, as is the over-generalization of previously encountered risk. (i.e. shoe bomber)



Personally, I feel bad for the people who have to do these searches. It wasn't their decision. Some of the video I've seen seems to imply that they are trying to make these searches as "professional" as possible, but it's so intrusive. Very difficult.

[tavalon]

42. It is a show of authoritarian force

I think that's the most succinct I've seen it described yet.

[WinkyDink]

19. I assume you are not a woman, not a child, not infirm nor aged, and not encumbered by a piece of

medical equipment whose revelation would embarrass or even humiliate you?

[KharmaTrain]

21. Build A Better Mousetrap...

...some schmuck will invent a better mouse (G. Carlin). The TSA is all prepared to defend against the last attack not necessarily the next one. Those determined will find a way no matter how high tech the security or intrusive the checks are. I could think of several things and ways that all the best in strip searches and violations of 4th ammendment rights won't mean a thing...and my bets are the "terrorists" (whomever they are) are laughing at how skittish this country is. No I don't want to see planes becoming weapons or falling out of the sky but if this is the best defense, then we've lost not only our personal freedoms but the "war on terror" as well. Once you think these actions are "nothing special" then how would you feel if they decided to check your house or car or be subject to random street searches. Don't think this can happen? Just sit back and let the fear game play on.

While I'm sure some methods have been effective, the ugly truth is if someone wants to inflict massive damage there are many ways it can be done.

[dennis4868]

23. I agree with you!

[hlthe2b]

24. Aren't you still in the UAE? These are new procedures

Have you experienced them in the US? No disrespect, JCMachI but I have traveled across the world as well and never had my genitals and breasts groped. EVER ANYWHERE. And that includes time in Europe having arrived directly from time spent in S. Arabia or Jordon, Egypt or elsewhere in the ME.

[tigereye]

34. curious what is typical for security in other countries- my husband keeps

talking about Israeli policy, but I have no idea what other countries do.

[hlthe2b]

37. they rely on behavioral screening as first line screening...

The Israelis have it down to an art form. But, it is BEHAVIORAL profiling, in contrast to those who want to imply that the rest of the world racially/ethnically profiles... Nothing more than using what we know about behavior to question and look for well established behavioral triggers. Then there are aspects of travel or individual that may trigger more in-depth questioning. Metal detectors, bomb-sniffing dogs, baggage inspection and other technology for second and tertiary screening. But, no country that I know of has ever tried to enact this level of physical inspection (including genital and breast fondling) as a FIRST LINE screening mechanism. Because women may cover in some (but not all) Arab countries, private areas are provided for female agents to confirm identity or to do a pat down. But, when I say pat down, it is not a genital groping, but what we have traditionally thought of as a routine "pat down".... Granted some countries may well be changing procedures and I don't claim to be an expert on world wide security procedures. But, I have lived/worked in the ME and experienced the added security focus that I triggered when returning through Europe.

I have had experience in Paris during a bomb evacuation(which are not uncommon, btw). We were sent from the interior of the ariport outside for a total of one hour after which all resumed. I, however, was the one who was "profiled," having been a blonde woman traveling alone from and arriving in Paris from extended stay in an Arab country. Loaded down with rolled up rugs and all other paraphernalia as well. So, what was my excruciating secondary screening? Trained agents talked with me for a total of 7 minutes at the screening gate. Polite, but firm questioning about where I had been, what I had been doing, who I had stayed with, who had had access to my bags and then, satisfied, was put through the regular baggage and metal detector screening of everyone else.

It works.

[tigereye]

69. see, that's what I mean -I know we want to pretend that no one is being

profiled, but I really think we have at least a fair idea of who is more likely to be someone who will put others at risk. Checking grandmas in wheelchairs, small children, etc. really makes no sense.


And the genital stuff- it's just bizarre.

[JCMach1]

65. I got to try the scanners in Tampa last Summer and saw the patdowns going on without much fuss

I travel quite a lot and am in and out of the US several times a year.

[hlthe2b]

71. Then you haven't experienced the new groping procedures...

They were only put in place a few weeks ago. (that include use of actual complete hand touching, rather than running only the back of the hand over buttocks, in between the legs and over genitals and breasts). There is really no other term for it than groping. It is not the euphemistically termed "pat down" that we have experienced in the past.

[JCMach1]

74. Have had that in other countries... including Germany...

But, if they are trained properly, it should not be such a big deal.

My feeling is that the TSA probably rushed this out without the proper training.

[hlthe2b]

77. That seems evident...

The reports show there is no consistency across agents and airports. Then again, it was never my experience that there was consistency in any TSA procedures and interpretation of these policies.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. You let them take your kid away? That is against their own rules.

From TSA Website, this is a bold headlin on that site:

We will not ask you to do anything that will separate you from your child or children.

You should have refuse to let them take your child out of your sight. Apparently you did not even ask them to show you the regulations permitting such a thing.

[JCMach1]

67. This was 2003... They still had the National guard with rifles at the airport...

and no, we didn't say no. We had to fly.

[Bluenorthwest]

27. You live and fly in Saudi Arabia.

Just for those reading the thread. I wonder how your life compares to ours here, security wise, on a daily basis? Do you live in a 'compound'? Is it guarded with armed personnel? Tell us. Does your wife get to dress as she pleases? Drive a car? Tell us!

[hlthe2b]

46. Actually, the UAE, I believe

The United Arab Emirates are so different from S. Arabia, but it is an Arab country, certainly. Women of all nationalities drive in UAE--not in S. Arabia and the UAE is dramatically less restrictive in most ways. Women dress somewhat modestly but many wear western garb. It is a capitalist wet dream, a country of intense excesses, which attracts Americans and other westerners by the droves.

[Bluenorthwest]

50. Ah, well then UAE is just like Paris!

The TSA rules do not permit the separation of a child from parents. Claiming that they do is dangerous to others. Period.
People should know that TSA is not leagallly allowed to separte you from your child at anytime ever during a security check. No freaking way should they take a 5 year old for private 'frisking'. That is not allowed under their rules.

[hlthe2b]

51. ???

Did you mean to reply to me in such a seemingly snarky way? ("Ah, well than UAE is just like Paris"--??) I'm not the OP, just trying to make a clarification based on my own experience. I agree that separating a child is horrendous and I would have gotten myself arrested to prevent it. I believe the OP is speaking to TSA having done that, not international authorities. 'Can't speculate more than that. :shrug:

Perhaps you confused me with someone else? I certainly am not defending this policy. Quite the contrary, if you have read any of my numerous posts.

[Bluenorthwest]

53. Sorry, thought you were the OP

And my point, which is important, is that the TSA is NOT legally allowed to separate parents from children. It is a danger to tell people that they are allowed to do so. They are not.
And the OP is not bothering to reply. I did assume you were the op and did not check the name, so sorry.
I just want people to know that TSA is not leagally permitted to separate them from their kids just because this poster is claiming that happened. That is my entire point. If that happend to the poster and it was TSA, it was illegal, and should be reported.

[hlthe2b]

58. Yes... it should be reported.

Thanks for your response. ;)

[JCMach1]

Wow! UAE and KSA are very different... I wear mostly what I like

even shorts, t-shirts and tank tops... My wife drives... She and my daughters wear what they like. However, we also try to be respectful of the culture we live in...

We don't live in a compound, but we do live on a campus that does have security. However, we could live anywhere with no problems.

Crime is virtually non-existent... Healthcare costs less than $100 a month for the whole family and hospital visits on a non voluntary basis are covered at 100%. And that's with a free-market... just equipped with government price controls on services and drugs.

I make 3 to 4x what I would make in the same job in the states tax free for the first 91K (sic, I don't remember what it was last year). There are no local taxes.

Having said that, there are problems here as well that I have elaborated on any time issues come up about the UAE.

Related to the security issue. The UAE invested heavily in the latest technology after 9/11. That includes some of the sniffer technology that the US decided was too expensive. They used biometrics for passport control long before the TSA did. The beauty of the system here it is seamless and most of the checks you don't see unless there is a problem. This includes luggage screening... This all well and good UNTIL

You need to travel home to the US!!! Then the nightmare begins! Then, everything gets checked again at the gates with xray. They also do individual checking of carryons, and often use the bomb detecting swabs. Then, come the patdowns. The difference is they do it in a private, curtained area.

[stray cat]

30. Only in the real world where most don't think it is one of the most important issues of our day

[stray cat]

31. For those worried about radiation avoid cell phones and brick houses

[tavalon]

43. I'm worried about creeping fascism

What should I avoid?

[alcibiades_mystery]

32. I don't think it's a big deal either

of course, that means I'm a groveling slave willing to let me vaunted "liberty" be eroded day by day!

The sloganeering and stupidity on this issue is perhaps the only remarkable thing about it. People done lost they minds.

[tavalon]

45. What would your line in the sand be, then?

I'm not saying it has to be this. I would just like to know at what point the 4th amendment becomes important to you personally?

[treestar]

55. It does not involve the Fourth Amendment.

Everyone is being treated equally - it does not involve suspicion of a crime.

Complain about it as unnecessary to prevent terrorist attacks (and accept that the government should not be blamed if one does occur) but quit the Fourth amendment business. It simply does not apply. There are Supreme Court cases on this.

[DirkGently]

70. That is not correct. "Treating everyone equally" is not even a consideration.

Neither does it matter whether a suspicion of a crime exists. The government cannot, for instance, set up a checkpoint and simply start searching everyone's cars.

You may argue that TSA searches are private, but if the TSA, a government agency, sets the security requirements that even a private security agency would have to follow, the Fourth Amendment would very much apply.

Here's what the TSA itself has to say:

Federal courts upheld warrantless searches of carry-on luggage at airports. Courts characterize the routine administrative search conducted at a security checkpoint as a warrantless search, subject to the reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Such a warrantless search, also known as an administrative search, is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, " confined in good faith to that purpose," and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly. See United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973).

People are also being told they will be fined if they elect to leave the airport after being selected for invasive searches.

There is a very real question as to whether the Underpants Scanner and Groin Grope are "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary," to detect weapons or explosives, or "confined in good faith to that purpose."

http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/optout/spp_faqs.shtm

[tavalon]

80. Unlawful search of person without a warrant

Now, sure, you can tell me that I chose to go on that airplane but you see, I choose differently now. I will not submit to this. And you can say it isn't a fourth amendment issue as much as you want. You're wrong. And in the spirit of Jon Stewart, even though I strongly believe you are wrong, I don't think you're a Nazi.

[pipi_k]

35. As long as you think

it's no big deal for you and don't try to shame others into enjoying...or even tolerating...being scanned and groped.

Different strokes...

:shrug:

[lib2DaBone]

36. The TSA has been heavy-handed, rude and inept since day one...

They are reactionary.. nothing else. Shoe bomber.. take off your shoes... Underwear Bombers... body scans. No nail clippers, no shampoo... all a waste of time.

The TSA just makes the problem worse.

[tavalon]

39. I sincerely hope you are the only one

I doubt it though.

Would it bother you if armed guards came to your house to inspect it for bomb materials? I mean, that could never happen, because it's against the constitution. Except what happens at the airport (since 9/11 and even before, actually) is also forbidden in the constitution (it's actually the same amendment being ignored). Slippery slope. Just because you're used to it, doesn't make it legal or or even moral.

You mention a personal anecdote that to me, would have made sure I was on the front lines protesting this creeping fascism. It really is okay to you that they separated your child from you? That would never, ever, be okay with me.

I've been paying attention and I've been screaming, pretty much all by myself. This wave that just came, I'm happily body surfing because finally it isn't just me screaming. People are waking up to the creeping fascism and the fact that the airports are the training grounds. This needed to happen long ago and I'm thankful that people are finally saying enough is enough!

[nevergiveup]

47. I suspect there are many here who agree with you

but don't want to step in the fray. Personally I think you are spot on.

[Ian David]

48. No, you're not the only one. You know who agrees with you?

HITLER!

[DirkGently]

52. It's emblematic of the creeping, non-functional authoritarianism we've had for years.

... and that's why it's important. Authoritarians have found that "Terrorism" is a fine new Fear button to stomp on to make Americans cower and stop asking questions. Communism worked well for a while. Then the war on drugs, where we saw the emergence of "zero tolerance" policies -- an earlier species of the same type of belated, everyone-is-a-potential-criminal overreaction represented by the TSA's new Naked X-ray machine.

Our frogs have been boiling for a long time under these policies. No one would have thought for a second Americans would put up with being zapped with radiation for the express purpose of having an undertrained security guard examine their underwear, or being groped around the crotch like an incoming convict, before we started strip searching middle school kids and expelling them for giving a friend a Midol, or bringing a cake knife to a school bake sale.

It's ridiculous, lazy, knuckle-dragger logic. You can't keep crack cocaine out of a school by banning aspirin. You don't stop people from bringing real weapons on an airplane by taking their tweezers and hat pins from old ladies.

And you can't stop a terrorist by confiscating a cancer survivor's prosthesis or X-raying a teenager's underwear, or groping a toddler. The entire principle here is WRONG. We are not trading dignity and privacy and our health and our tax dollars for "security."

We are just being manhandled by idiots. And paying them for doing it.

It's not going to stop if we just keep pretending it's another sacrifice we have to make to be safe. That is a LIE. It was a lie when they blacklisted the "commies," and it's a lie now. We are not in danger of old ladies stabbing people with sharpened brooches or kindergardeners with exploding Underoos. Two men lit their shoes and pants on fire and were soundly beaten for it. That's all. As noted above, the next Al Quaeda mission will be the A-hole bomber, and then we'll be asked to lube up and stand on a conveyer belt holding our ankles. This isn't any stupider than that, and it's not going to work any better.

There are simply people in the world who want to peek in your kid's locker and confiscate butter knives and face cream and cold medicine, and look at people in their underwear from a "remote location."

Enough all fucking ready.


Edited for more better words.

[treestar]

54. No. I have to go into courthouses and government buildings a lot

I have never seen any outrage about that.

Right after 911 during the anthrax scares, one of the federal courts wouldn't take papers directly from us. They went into this box like thing at the reception window. Then they all started electronic, online filing.

[Pacifist Patriot]

57. I go into courthouses an average of about once a week.

I put my belongings into a bin that is x-rayed and I walk through a metal detector. I've never been subjected to a body scanner or been patted down at the courthouse, even when I've set off the metal detector with my underwire bra.

Courthouse and government building security verses the invasive procedures of the TSA is not a fair comparison.

[DirkGently]

61. Correct. We're way past metal detectors here.

[treestar]

63. Some people do.

They pat down some people, or use a wand on you when you set it off in some of the ones I've been in.

There are various attitudes. I would not be surprised if they upgrade to the scanner.

[evirus]

56. They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither.

9-11 could have been prevented without pat downs or scanners, we knew about it well in advance.

[Bluenorthwest]

60. TSA is not legally allowed to separate children and parents

Their own website says they will never attempt to do so. This means if they do, you should refuse, for they are not empowered to take your child for private 'frisking' as this OP implies. That is not their policy at all.
Amazed that anyone would had a five year old off to agents who are not permitted to take that child under the law. Amazed that anyone would promote that as acceptable.

[kctim]

64. No big deal?

Haven't you heard?
You HAVE to fear either "facism" or "socialism" nowadays.

[Lucian]

66. Why would you support something that goes against our Fourth Amendment right?

That boggles my mind.

[JCMach1]

68. I guess my position is more nuanced than that... I used-up most of my outrage

years ago when they were wiping their ass with the 4th Amendment.

[Lucian]

82. Yeah, the Patriot Act pretty much took that right away years ago.

But still, it still outrages me. Allowing the TSA to search us in a way that violates our Fourth Amendment right lets the terrorists, who they're trying to stop, win.

[JCMach1]

83. And of course, meanwhile cargo goes mostly unexamined because it would inconvenience the corporation

sending the cargo...

Maybe I should incorporate and register my 'package' with the patent office. Or, write a poem in metallic ink on my penis and sue the TSA for copyright infringement with their scanners!

[Lucian]

84. Exactly.

[Bill McBlueState]

72. I also don't find it (much) more intrusive than what's already happened

But my reaction isn't "no big deal."

It's "Nice of all you to finally wake up and get angry; wish you had been here seven years ago."

[JCMach1]

75. Exactly!

[LostInAnomie]

73. I don't really give a shit.

It's just just the topic DUjour that will probably effect about 1% of people actually on here. It doesn't get much to get the keyboard civil libertarians fired up and indignant though.

I'm probably just an authoritarian lover praying to be made a slave of Big Brother though. So, take what I say with a grain of salt.

[JCMach1]

76. +1, there are bigger threats out there (net neutrality anyone?)

We shouldn't let FOX push our buttons.

[WilliamPitt]

78. Glad you said it.

:hide:

I agree.

[Greyhound]

79. I'm sure you are not, but you're still wrong. This is a very big deal and the implications

are far-reaching and unpredictable. This fact makes it dangerously stupid to pursue this absurd and completely ineffective policy.

[ProudDad]

81. The "underwear" bomber flew in from elsewhere

from a country where the citizens are not the kind of sheep who would allow this bullshit...

Even if it had been able to find what the alleged "bomber" was packing away in his jeans...

(By the way, how many domestically originating jetliners have been brought down by the "evil doers" since 9/11/01?
Trick question

NONE...NOT ONE FUCKING PLANE, OK? OK!!!



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

But, just like the famous WMDs in Iraq, this has NOTHING to do with "security" and everything to do with intimidation...

For reasons of "population control" and CYA, Obama, Janet and their minions have devised a bit higher (obtrusive, degrading) wall...so anyone who REALLY wants to down an airliner will just build a slightly higher ladder...

THERE IS NO DEFENSE THAT CAN'T INEVITABLY BE OVERCOME!!!

But they haven't, have they? Except for a couple amateurish attempts from OVERSEAS originated flights, they haven't even tried.

So where are the WMDs?

Nope, not under here. Nope, not in this guy's crotch or this woman's labia or this man's colostomy bag or this child's training bra...

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

The USAmerican Sheeple (especially) thanks to the hucksters of the consumer/bankster "economy" have mislaid any lingering awareness of a fundamental fact of life; NO ONE GETS OUT OF IT ALIVE... Being sold a phony bill of goods of eternal youth and perfect safety they're willing to destroy their quality of life for a bullshit promise of "safety"...

When I was raised up, we had some courage...too bad it's gone...

It bears repeating that,

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

That should be our motto in Police State USAmerica -- but apparently, it isn't...

[NNN0LHI]

85. I agree. This reminds me of when we had people accusing President Obama of blowing up the moon

People are nuts. More so on anonymous web sites.

Don

[Rowdyboy]

86. They can scan me all they like...hell, they're welcome to sell pics of my "junk" if they can find...

a buyer. I've been showing my hoo-hoo and ta-tas to strangers since the showers in 7th grade PE in 1967. With all the bad shit going down in this country right now what kind of nimrods fixate on "intrusive airport screening"? It boggles the mind. The economy is inthe crapper and we're stuck in two goddamn wars and they worried about someone seeing a scanned version of their penis?

Flying is almost always optional. Don't like the rules, quit whining and ride a freaking Greyhound.

[Kaleva]

87. You're not the only one.

[Rex]

90. You know full well (if you've read any posts here) that you are not.

I give up on this one, freedom is just another word for 'nothing left to lose'.

[Cleobulus]

91. What the fuck? Separating a 5 year old to be frisked...

What the fuck?

[mrmpa]

92. You're right "BS" since 9-11

The US has over reacted since 9-11. The US is not pro-active, but reactive. The question that TSA should be answering is "how do we make it safer to fly?" What they are answering is "how do we stop the next underwear bomber?" Just as there has not been another shoe bomber, there will not be another underwear bomber.

The US has had the right since 9-11 to do what is necessary to make flights safe. However, the US does not have the right to insure this safety by being stupid, and erasing the individual rights of its citizens. TSA needs to stand down and rethink its mission, it needs to find the balance of individual freedom and flight safety. Prior to 9-11 and the TSA there was a balance. The 9-11 bombers infiltrated flight safety, TSA needs to remedy what allowed that to happen. If the TSA was working correctly, the shoe bomber & the underwear bomber would never have gotten on flights. Yes I know they did not board flights in the US, but if TSA was doing its job and working with other countries, there is a chance neither of these men would have gotten on flights.

It is BS since 9-11, because the US is going about flight safety in the wrong way.

[KansasVoter]

93. -1 for letting them scare you so easily!