Why do we have the TSA security measures? Here's why:

[pnwmom]

The airlines were sued after 9/11 because they didn't have adequate screening. The AIRLINES want the screening, and yet many people here are determined to blame Obama.

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Judge-9-11-lawsuits-can-proceed-against-1123861.php

NEW YORK -- Opening the door to scores of Sept. 11 lawsuits against the aviation industry, a judge concluded yesterday that the hijacking and crashing of a jetliner was a "foreseeable risk."

Judge Alvin Hellerstein of U.S. District Court in Manhattan, ruled that the defendants -- American and United airlines, The Boeing Co. and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey -- had a duty to protect the lives of people on the ground, as well as on the hijacked aircraft.

The judge began his long-awaited 49-page opinion simply: "The injured, and the representatives of the thousands who died from the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of Sept. 11, 2001, are entitled to seek compensation."

He said negligent security screening might have contributed to the deaths of 3,000 people in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and the crash of a hijacked plane in Pennsylvania.

SNIP


http://www.examiner.com/airlines-airport-in-national/claims-lowered-9-11-lawsuit-against-american-airlines

According to Bloomberg News, "Cantor Fitzgerald sued the airline three years after the attack, claiming it failed to screen and detect the terrorists, then allowed them to board and commandeer the plane. The firm, in a May 2010 filing, said it sought more than $945 million in damages for the destruction of its offices, furnishings and technological infrastructure, and for business interruption."

As reported by Bloomberg BusinessWeek on Wednesday, January 19, 2011, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, in a pre trial ruling today in New York, disallowed the firm’s demand for some of those damages.

_____________________________________________________

If you don't want to go through the screening, then don't. No one's forcing anyone to buy an airplane ticket. And no one's forcing the airlines to fly without screening passengers.

I'm not thrilled with all the screening. I think the x-ray scanners should be replaced with the radio wave type. But I definitely do not support discriminatory Israeli-style racial, religious, and "behavioral" profiling.

[indepat]

1. Since one cannot be to careful, then surely this begs for poking in each and every orifice in which

an explosive might be stuffed. :shrug: :patriot:

[pnwmom]

2. Blame the airlines then. If they didn't want this it wouldn't be happening. n/t

[LARED]

5. The airlines willingly handed over security to the Feds

For two reasons;

1. Limit their liability
2. Pass off the cost of added security.

[pnwmom]

7. True. n/t

[NightWatcher]

3. the airlines caused NORAD to fall asleep?

Oh, are we still buying the "boxcutters" story? Sorry my bad

[pnwmom]

6. The airlines were sued because of inadequate screening.

The airlines don't want that to happen again. If you want to blame someone -- other than the terrorists -- blame the airlines.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Aerows]

14. Exactly

I don't know WHAT happened, but I know the official "story" has enough holes to float an aircraft carrier through.

[pnwmom]

21. The airlines had to defend themselves against lawsuits. NORAD didn't. n/t

[Angry Dragon]

4. Then the airlines need to be doing it

and not the government

[pnwmom]

8. Why? The airlines don't want the liability, so they've agreed

to let the government handle it -- and they pay for it through taxes and fees. If any airline decided to do its own screening, it would be liable for any incidents -- and they don't want that.

[grasswire]

9. did the discovery process unearth any nuggets for those who..

...don't believe the official story?

[21st Century FDR]

11. Did the airlines sue the bastards who purchased the put options?

Oh right.... we aren't supposed to remember that happened, because if anyone really looked into that story, we all know exactly where that trail would lead......

[TheWraith]

15. You mean the put options which were never claimed, and made no one any money?

The ones that the 9/11 commission eventually decided were a coincidence of a trader trying to short already falling airline stocks, then choosing not to profit when the events unfolded?

[21st Century FDR]

16. Oh is that the revisionist spin on that story now?

Please.... they were purchased BEFORE the towers imploded, not after.

And the "9/11 commission", much like the Warren Commission before it, and the Catfood Commission after it, was deliberately designed to be about AVOIDING the truth, NOT finding it.

[SDuderstadt]

17. If you'd bother to look at the performance...

of the stocks prior to 9/11, there was every reason to short them.

[frylock]

28. the 9/11 commission?!

:rofl:

[customerserviceguy]

12. If it was a forseeable risk for the airlines

then why isn't it also a forseeable risk for the passengers? Or, the people on the ground in a place where we allow commercial aviation?

Yeah, banks don't like to get robbed, but wouldn't there be an outrage if they got the local police departments to frisk and fondle everyone walking into a bank?

This lawsuit needs to be tossed out.

[pnwmom]

22. Because the Courts expect the airlines to have more knowledge

on possible safety risks than an ordinary passenger.

[customerserviceguy]

31. When it comes to aircraft maintenence and weather conditions, sure

But this would be like me trying to sue you for not locking your car doors, on a vehicle that someone carjacked from you, and slammed into me with.

[DCKit]

13. The cockpit doors were never safe.... I agree with the fucked-up ruling. nt

[21st Century FDR]

18. True enough.

Airplane cockpits should be like a bank vault. Not just because of mythical terrorists with razor blades, but for any number of potential problems.

[SDuderstadt]

19. "mythical terrorists"

Please.

[DCKit]

20. Would "hormonal teenage girls" suit you better? 'Cause they could break down those doors. nt

[21st Century FDR]

23. Well, there ARE real terrorists

.....But they don't fly commercial.

[SDuderstadt]

24. Nevermind n/t

[Kaleko]

27. Bulls-eye.

[Marblehead]

25. TSA at train

stations, have nothing to do with airlines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CN9sGGU5wVA&feature=related

[21st Century FDR]

26. What is the point of doing pat down searches AFTER someone has been on the train?

I mean, I'm opposed to the whole fascist fearmongering entirely, but if one is going to be paranoid about it and assume there are "terraists" lurking around every corner, then wouldn't it make more sense to violate them BEFORE they get on a train? :shrug:

[DCKit]

29. Three extra points for your spelling of "terraists".

The rest is spot-on, too.

[saras]

30. Pleasure

It's more fun to violate someone by surprise than when they're expecting it.

[Marblehead]

32. Violate

is the key word, nobody asked me if they could take away my freedoms, they just did it.

[snot]

33. Yes; and I believe I've seen word of scanners at bus stations as well.

[saras]

34. Gonna have to get a two-foot metal penis extension

"No, that's not a sword or a knife. It's my two-foot steel dick. It's not against the law, is it?"