News Airport Searches: Too Far or Necessary?

[Proton Soup]

Correct. But then I value life and if we have the ability to prevent a disaster such as this, why shouldn't we do it? We are putting people in a situation where they have no control over what goes on. Therefore there is a responsibility to ensure the safety of the passengers.

and are you going to argue somewhere else that no one is forcing them to fly, so there is no point of arguing their rights? they can't both have control and not have control.

Incorrect. Each time you remove an opportunity, you make it more difficult for a threat to get through to the target. You decrease the chances of the event happening (in this case blowing up / hijacking an aircraft), increasing overall safety. Based on what you've put above, having no security what-so-ever would be equally as safe as current security measures. This is simply untrue.
For every avenue of opportunity you remove, the safer you get. Ultimate safety would involve removing all possible ways for the threat to occur.

this is simply untrue. you do not have infinite resources. the money will be better spent somewhere else if you're only saving one life. it may sound wrong to you to put a price tag on lives, but the fact is that by not doing so, you are devaluing the lives of others. for example, that money may be better spent providing better police protection to crime-ridden neighborhoods.

I don't understand what you are referring to with "pedestrian traffic", can you clarify?

very simple. why are we fixated on acts of terrorism on airplanes? what's to stop a terrorist from walking into a crowd of people entering a subway during rush hour? or, gosh, at the airport?! he doesn't even have to make it past the scanners to kill a bunch of people.

this is really about protecting treasure, isn't it? because airplanes are expensive? or maybe it's to enrich people invested in scanners?

 

[JaredJames]

and are you going to argue somewhere else that no one is forcing them to fly, so there is no point of arguing their rights? they can't both have control and not have control.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. (Think I'm having a dumb day today).

this is simply untrue. you do not have infinite resources. the money will be better spent somewhere else if you're only saving one life. it may sound wrong to you to put a price tag on lives, but the fact is that by not doing so, you are devaluing the lives of others. for example, that money may be better spent providing better police protection to crime-ridden neighborhoods.

Your statement said that by removing one avenue for a possible terrorist attack, they simply move to another. Therefore you are no safer than you were before you removed said avenue.
So, from that I took you to be implying that no matter how much security we put in place we get no safer. In other words it appears you are saying that an airport with no security is equally as safe as an aiport with security. This is not true.

The more security we put in place the safer we get, by making it more difficult for attacks to occur.

Again, I'm not arguing this point wrt the scanners but security in general. EDIT: I'll add that I'm discussing airports/aircraft and their related threats only here. I'm working on the basis that the money is going to airport security in one way or another, but we have to decide how it's spent - which way will be more effective.

very simple. why are we fixated on acts of terrorism on airplanes? what's to stop a terrorist from walking into a crowd of people entering a subway during rush hour?

We've had that, and I can safely say I see no differences between security before and security now. (7/7 bombings)

I don't see how you can improve security in these areas. There is simply too many people for it to be effective. However, even Heathrow (I believe pretty much the busiest passenger wise in the world) wouldn't be that affected by these scanners. They don't slow things up as much as a full body pat-down.

I'd also add that leaving a public place is possible. You see something you don't like you have a chance to get away (circumstances dependent of course). In an aircraft this simply isn't an option.

this is really about protecting treasure, isn't it? because airplanes are expensive? or maybe it's to enrich people invested in scanners?

I'm more for protecting the lives of those on the aircraft. They have absolutely no control on board. In a public area you do have at least some control over what you do / where you go, how you react to people acting suspiciously.

 

[Office_Shredder]

what's to stop a terrorist from walking into a crowd of people entering a subway during rush hour? or, gosh, at the airport?! he doesn't even have to make it past the scanners to kill a bunch of people.

If nothing is stopping them from doing this, but they don't do it, what's the problem? It makes more sense to focus on targets that are being targeted

 

[Proton Soup]

If nothing is stopping them from doing this, but they don't do it, what's the problem? It makes more sense to focus on targets that are being targeted

you mean like buildings? the trade towers were specifically targeted initially (unsuccessfully) on the ground. the 9-11 hijackings were simply a means to an end to destroy the towers. hijackings seem unlikely now, given the new cockpit doors. if anything, they should frisk pilots instead of passengers.

the targets seem to be high profile items. the trade towers were an international symbol of american empire. blowing up planes may be a bit passe now. even the recent toner cartridges were addressed to synagogues.

 

[Proton Soup]

I'm more for protecting the lives of those on the aircraft. They have absolutely no control on board. In a public area you do have at least some control over what you do / where you go, how you react to people acting suspiciously.

no, you only have an illusion of control.

 

[Al68]

At least there's a silver lining here: http://www.examiner.com/pop-culture...-woman-bikini-at-lax-and-man-underwear-at-ny"

 

[JaredJames]

no, you only have an illusion of control.

Ah, so I can't leave the train station anytime I want? I can't move from one end of the platform to the other? I can't move away from the suspicious bloke looking rather nervous?

In a public place such as a train station, I have an element of control over what happens. On an aircraft, I can do none of the above.

 

[WhoWee]

Ah, so I can't leave the train station anytime I want? I can't move from one end of the platform to the other? I can't move away from the suspicious bloke looking rather nervous?

In a public place such as a train station, I have an element of control over what happens. On an aircraft, I can do none of the above.

Do you know that was post number 666 for you - just saying.

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

...Once we rent a seat on the airplane, isn't it our perogative to protect our life while in that seat as well? In the US, we don't have a right to be protected by law enforcement, why should we then be forced to rely on law enforcement for out protection?

Not exactly the same. In an aircraft, the crew (= landlord) is constantly present and it's them who have the final say, because their life is also at risk if you fight against an attacker. Putting a bullet hole in an apartment wall won't risk blowing a fuel tank and make everyone fall from very high. The ground law enforcement protects the in-flight crew, and the crew protects you.

I think if guns had been allowed on 9/11, the evildoers would have been prepared for it and the ending would have been similar.

 

[Proton Soup]

Ah, so I can't leave the train station anytime I want? I can't move from one end of the platform to the other? I can't move away from the suspicious bloke looking rather nervous?

In a public place such as a train station, I have an element of control over what happens. On an aircraft, I can do none of the above.

you're assuming he would look nervous in the scenario you think you could escape from. but all he has to do is arrive in a hurried state like any other passenger and then detonate. he doesn't have to sit and stew in his anxiety for hours like yourself. your feeling of control is just an illusion, tho. all that being on the plane adds is a time delay to the random event of being killed by a terrorist.

the only difference between the two is the claustrophobic anxiety you experience from being on the plane. so, it's not a safety concern, it's a matter of how the situation makes you feel. and if you can be dismissive of how some people feel about being violated by the new security procedures, then it's just as easy to dismiss your anxiety about feeling helpless on a plane. so, if the new procedures are dropped, you can simply not fly if it makes you uncomfortable.

 

[mugaliens]

Yes, this is a very stark an un-pragmatic way to look at it, but this is the core of the issue. Before terrorist intervention interstate travel (and re-entering the country) didn't require these things. Because of terrorism, we have become a society of _______________. Fill in the blank; I can't decide what to put there.

"Quivering, blithering over-reactive, empire-building power-mongers, governmentally speaking"

Just a guess...

 

[BobG]

For all those people moaning about their rights. As mentioned above flights are conditional. They agree to let you on, after you agree to jump through whatever hoops they want.

Like I said before, you can buy your own plane and not have the hassle of searches before boarding.

So your rights aren't in anyway touched by this. Noones forcing you to be searched becuase you don't have to board a charter or plublic flight, and noones stopping you flying becuase there is always the option of going private with your own lovely jet.

No one can force you to fly. If you choose to have a job that requires you to fly to visit employers / customers than you accept the fact you are going to have to submit to security checks to do so.

If you don't like it, don't have a job that requires you to fly.

I don't buy the argument that modern travel is a privilege, not a right.

Air travel has become so intertwined into modern commerce that you can't consider it a private enterprise even if the particular airport you're using is privately owned. It's become similar to the role rivers used to play in travel and commerce, and, in the case of rivers, travel and commerce trumped personal property rights. In other words, a property owner may own the property on both sides of the river, but he doesn't own the water, the river or the river bed (rivers tend to fluctuate in their beds if they're not constrained by massive levee systems).

One key indicator that air travel can't be considered a private enterprise in the traditional sense - a privately owned airport couldn't opt to eliminate security checks for passengers. The security checks are mandatory for all commercial air transport - it's not an option that all airport owners and airline owners just happened to agree upon.

Just because a form of transportation or a form of communication is a recent development not envisioned by the authors of the Constitution doesn't mean that people don't have a right to use those modern developments. One of the phrases that bug me the most is "Driving is a privilege, not a right". Driving is a right; however the skills necessary to do it safely warrant some infringements on people's rights - so in that sense, it's not quite a right as unlimited as the right to free speech (we let people say what they want even if they don't know how to spell).

Likewise, people have an implied right to fly; but it, too, warrants some limitations on those rights in some situations just because of the nature of the technology.

Whether you're talking about metal detectors, baggage X-ray machines, backscatter imagers, or pat downs, you're infringing on people's rights to be free of random searches. The debate is about whether the infringements are reasonable compared to the threat. The less intrusive the infringement, the smaller the risk needed to make the infringement reasonable.

In other words, whether the measures are reasonable or not is a topic worthy of debate, where as, the idea that travelers have no right to modern travel dismisses the topic entirely on false grounds - it's not a free market choice that consumers can pick and choose between (the private companies involved don't have a choice about the safety measures either).

 

[JaredJames]

I'm sorry bob, I don't buy any arguments regarding things being a persons "right", flying, driving or otherwise.

Driving and flying alike are both heavily dependent on each persons own financial circumstances. If you can afford it, you can do it. If you can't, then you simply aren't able to.

I don't want a debate on this, but I felt if you wanted to put your view on the matter it would be fair for me to put an opposing one in place.

 

[trautlein]

I don't have a huge problem with it, but I feel like if we allow the government to keep infringing on the edge of our rights, sooner or later they'll start taking away from the rights that actually matter, and nobody will think twice to stop them. That's why I'm not comfortable with the TSA's new protocol.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I don't buy the argument that modern travel is a privilege, not a right.

It's a service being provided for a fee with conditions. If you don't like those conditions, then you can complain about them all you want but it certainly doesn't violate your rights as there is an alternative available.

Whether you're talking about metal detectors, baggage X-ray machines, backscatter imagers, or pat downs, you're infringing on people's rights to be free of random searches.

It's hardly random if you've consented to security measures when you buy a ticket. Small print is lovely isn't it.

The security checks are mandatory for all commercial air transport

Buy a private jet, no security checks for boarding them.

 

[WhoWee]

you mean like buildings? the trade towers were specifically targeted initially (unsuccessfully) on the ground. the 9-11 hijackings were simply a means to an end to destroy the towers. hijackings seem unlikely now, given the new cockpit doors. if anything, they should frisk pilots instead of passengers.

the targets seem to be high profile items. the trade towers were an international symbol of american empire. blowing up planes may be a bit passe now. even the recent toner cartridges were addressed to synagogues.

An airplane doesn't need to target a building to cause mass casualties. The Christmas bomber last year intended to explode the airliner over a populated section of Detroit. We can't re-locate airports to remote locations away from population centers - or even re-route air traffic away from people in general.

I'm also concerned about the vulnerability of large crowds - remember the Olympic bombing in Atlanta and the recent plot in Oregon? I shudder to think how many fuel trucks are on the highway at any given time. They are both portable and lethal in the wrong hands.

Hopefully airliners aren't permitted to fly over stadiums?

 

[Proton Soup]

An airplane doesn't need to target a building to cause mass casualties. The Christmas bomber last year intended to explode the airliner over a populated section of Detroit. We can't re-locate airports to remote locations away from population centers - or even re-route air traffic away from people in general.

I'm also concerned about the vulnerability of large crowds - remember the Olympic bombing in Atlanta and the recent plot in Oregon? I shudder to think how many fuel trucks are on the highway at any given time. They are both portable and lethal in the wrong hands.

Hopefully airliners aren't permitted to fly over stadiums?

i think you overestimate the targeting capability of a guy sitting in coach. the chance of hitting a target as small as a stadium would be ridiculously low.

airliners drop out of the sky often enough, and the only time i can remember one taking out large numbers of people on the ground is 9-11 with hijackers actually steering the plane.

 

[WhoWee]

i think you overestimate the targeting capability of a guy sitting in coach. the chance of hitting a target as small as a stadium would be ridiculously low.

airliners drop out of the sky often enough, and the only time i can remember one taking out large numbers of people on the ground is 9-11 with hijackers actually steering the plane.

I don't think targeting would be a big concern if an aircraft exploded above a stadium. Also, I was thinking about stadium or race track locations near airports.

 

[Al68]

It's a service being provided for a fee with conditions.

This is false. The "conditions" being imposed are not part of any service agreement, they are not imposed as a condition by either party to the agreement. The "conditions" are interference by a third party (government).

That doesn't mean the interference is unjustified, but it does mean that it cannot be justified as a "condition" imposed by an agreement between the parties, because it isn't.

 

[JaredJames]

The conditions are there regardless of who puts them there and if signed they become binding.

On rental agreements (at least in the UK), the government imposes certain restrictions/conditions which must be in the terms of the contract - they are to protect lanlords / renters in various situations.

On signing the contract, both parties agree to adhere to these conditions, even though neither party put them there.

I'd also add that you agree to submit to security checks. Who performs these checks is irrelevant.

 

[Al68]

The conditions are there regardless of who puts them there and if signed they become binding.

On rental agreements (at least in the UK), the government imposes certain restrictions/conditions which must be in the terms of the contract - they are to protect lanlords / renters in various situations.

On signing the contract, both parties agree to adhere to these conditions, even though neither party put them there.

Exactly, and in the case of those rental agreements, one could not logically justify such "restrictions/conditions" on the basis that they were voluntarily and mutually chosen by the parties to the contract.

 

[JaredJames]

You still agree to them. If you don't like them you don't have to sign.

You are agreeing with the airline to submit to security checks. I don't see why who performs them is relevant.

You go to a nightclub and they require security checks on entrance, you agree to submit to these checks to get in. The security checks are performed by security officers working for an outside agency, not the club. They are simply there to perform the checks.

 

[Al68]

You still agree to them. If you don't like them you don't have to sign.

You agree to them under duress imposed by a third party. The duress imposed by the third party cannot be justified by the subsequent agreement to the terms imposed by the duress. That's just faulty logic.

The restrictions in this case, as well as for flying, must be justified in another way or not at all.

You are agreeing with the airline to submit to security checks. I don't see why who performs them is relevant.

I wasn't referring to conditions agreed to by the parties. I was referring to restrictions imposed by government.

You go to a nightclub and they require security checks on entrance, you agree to submit to these checks to get in. The security checks are performed by security officers working for an outside agency, not the club. They are simply there to perform the checks.

Exactly. And if those security checks were mandated by government, they would have to be justified by government.

Can't we just cut the crap? There is no reason to pretend to not understand the difference between private agreements and the government using force to imposed their will against citizens.

 

[xxChrisxx]

There is no reason to pretend to not understand the difference between private agreements and the government using force to imposed their will against citizens.

'Force' and 'duress' imply there is simply no other option, when in fact you have two options a: go on a private plane not a commercial flight b: don't fly. It's not anyones fault including the US govt that you can't afford the hassle free alternative.

Poor? Sorry you'll have to jump through hoops. Don't like it, become rich. simples.

 

[CRGreathouse]

'Force' and 'duress' imply there is simply no other option, when in fact you have two options a: go on a private plane not a commercial flight b: don't fly. It's not anyones fault including the US govt that you can't afford the hassle free alternative.

Poor? Sorry you'll have to jump through hoops. Don't like it, become rich. simples.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."

 

[FlexGunship]

Bad laws and rules have loopholes or downright silly repercussions. The new TSA invasive search rules are bad rules.

Bend them, twist them, and make everyone feel awkward.

"I'd like to skip the backscatter and be patted down."
"Okay."
"In private."
"Sure."
"And I'm a little sexually confused lately, so, it should probably be a woman..."
"Uhh..."
"...and a man."
"Sir..."
"And maybe they could hug a little?"
"I seriously doubt..."
"Do you have any dogs that could help?"​

At some point, they'll just give up because of all of the nonsense. Or, at least I hope they do.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I completely forgot about the rule that requires TSA agents to stand there and listen to you until you finish giving instructions on how your search should be performed

 

[FlexGunship]

I completely forgot about the rule that requires TSA agents to stand there and listen to you until you finish giving instructions on how your search should be performed

Actually, they can't touch you without permission. So, yes, they are forced to listen to you. There is an excellent precedent for this. (Citation: http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter )

Until you explicitly give them permission to touch your genitals, it's still considered sexual assault. You are allowed to specify the gender of the person performing the pat down and you are allowed to request it be done in private.

What's the alternative? The police can only arrest you at the direction of the TSA.

 

[WhoWee]

Actually, they can't touch you without permission. So, yes, they are forced to listen to you. There is an excellent precedent for this. (Citation: http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter )

Until you explicitly give them permission to touch your genitals, it's still considered sexual assault. You are allowed to specify the gender of the person performing the pat down and you are allowed to request it be done in private.

What's the alternative? The police can only arrest you at the direction of the TSA.

Personally, I'm not willing to test any of their limits - I have a "stay off 60 minutes" rule.

 

[BobG]

I completely forgot about the rule that requires TSA agents to stand there and listen to you until you finish giving instructions on how your search should be performed

You mean this rule?

Think before you speak. Belligerent behavior, inappropriate jokes and threats will not be tolerated. They will result in delays and possibly missing your flight. Local law enforcement may be called as necessary.

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/screening_experience.shtm

 

[BobG]

Actually, they can't touch you without permission. So, yes, they are forced to listen to you. There is an excellent precedent for this. (Citation: http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter )

Until you explicitly give them permission to touch your genitals, it's still considered sexual assault. You are allowed to specify the gender of the person performing the pat down and you are allowed to request it be done in private.

What's the alternative? The police can only arrest you at the direction of the TSA.

This is the incident that was mentioned in posts #8 and #16.

It's a different kind of problem. The person wasn't boarding a flight. The only reason he had to undergo any security check is because the international gates and the accompanying immigration checkpoints exited out into the general boarding area.

In other words, his was a problem of how to get from the departure gate to the airport exit without going through the general boarding area. In his case, security officers gave him a personal escort through the boarding area to the 'outside' part of the airport. It also might be worth noting that it took him 2.5 hours to get from the airplane's gate to the outside of the airport. That might seem a good trade-off to some.

That won't help you if you're arriving at the airport intending to get on a flight.

 

[FlexGunship]

In other words, his was a problem of how to get from the departure gate to the airport exit without going through the general boarding area. In his case, security officers gave him a personal escort through the boarding area to the 'outside' part of the airport. It also might be worth noting that it took him 2.5 hours to get from the airplane's gate to the outside of the airport. That might seem a good trade-off to some.

1. The only difference between the two forms of screening is that in one case you could miss a flight, and in the other you couldn't. The guidelines are the same.
2. 2.5 hours is a good first try. Hopefully, as a society, we can get the time down to a few minutes. The script will be routine, and everyone will know their parts.

Can't solve the problem all at once. But this is a good start.

EDIT: Sorry, I should be clear in my stance. The TSA compulsory sexual assault rules are a violation of human decency in my opinion. Prior to terrorist activity, I could fly on an inter-state plane without being photographed naked or subjected to having my "junk" touched. Now, as a direct result of terrorist activity, we are terrorizing each other. I, for one, see this as a problem that needs to be solved.

 

[Al68]

'Force' and 'duress' imply there is simply no other option...

No they don't. They mean that force or duress is being used to limit choices.

 

[NobodySpecial]

In other words, his was a problem of how to get from the departure gate to the airport exit without going through the general boarding area.

In this case presumably cock-up rather than conspiracy, but it does raise an interesting point. What do you do with a US citizen, on US soil, trying to enter his own country who refuses to go through the check - send him back to where he came from ?

It also might be worth noting that it took him 2.5 hours to get from the airplane's gate to the outside of the airport. That might seem a good trade-off to some.

In the sense that it would have been quicker for Rosa Parks to just sit at the back of the bus, or Gandhi to have stayed as a rich lawyer.

 

[JaredJames]

Under the definition of duress within contract law, this is the only section I feel applies here:

Lack of reasonable alternative (but to accept the other party's terms). If there is an available legal remedy, an available market substitute (in the form of funds, goods, or services), or any other sources of funds this element is not met.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress#The_elements_of_economic_duress

However, it depends what you consider reasonable. To me, driving is a reasonable alternative for shorter trips, but anything over 500 miles and it's not reasonable. But then I'd also weigh in the cost of the trip. If it costs the same or less to drive than to fly, regardless of distance I'd consider it fairly reasonable. So it's a matter of preference for this one and what a court would see as reasonable.

So given it's a case of do it or don't fly, for international flights I can completely understand the 'duress' aspect. But for internal flights I'm not so sure, especially for a country like Britain where driving anywhere isn't that bad.

I'd also add here that it's no different to a number of other situations, such as the nightclub example people keep mentioning. With the nightclubs it is a case of be searched or bugger off. Now given every club I can go to involves this pat down pre-entry procedure, there is no reasonable alternative and yet no one complains about it.

As I've said in other threads, it seems like Americans have double standards. You are happy to accept searches for clubs and not make noise about them but the moment it's something regarding the government it's the worst thing ever and must be stopped.
From my perspective, being searched before boarding a private aircraft is no different to being searched before entering a private club. The only difference between the two is who does the searching. Perhaps you would prefer if the airport had it's own security, privately funded by ticket price increases, that you agree to on the ticket between you and the airline, who searched you instead?

 

[JaredJames]

In this case presumably cock-up rather than conspiracy, but it does raise an interesting point. What do you do with a US citizen, on US soil, trying to enter his own country who refuses to go through the check - send him back to where he came from ?

As I understand it, you can't prevent a US citizen entering the country.

 

[WhoWee]

In this case presumably cock-up rather than conspiracy, but it does raise an interesting point. What do you do with a US citizen, on US soil, trying to enter his own country who refuses to go through the check - send him back to where he came from ?


In the sense that it would have been quicker for Rosa Parks to just sit at the back of the bus, or Gandhi to have stayed as a rich lawyer.

Seems a little dramatic - aren't passengers expected to arrive 2 hours early...some might consider it reasonable to spend as much time leaving?

 

[FlexGunship]

Seems a little dramatic - aren't passengers expected to arrive 2 hours early...some might consider it reasonable to spend as much time leaving?

Yeah, it didn't used to be like that. But now it is. There is a direct causal link between terrorist activity and U.S. citizen acting terrorized.

Not to be cliche, but "they won."

 

[JaredJames]

Well in all fairness, their goal seems to be wiping out anyone who doesn't subscribe to their religious beliefs. So in that respect, they haven't won.

The question is, would you rather sit on an aircraft knowing nothing changed after 9/11 and that knives and the like could be on board with a passenger so easily? Or would you prefer to know that everything possible is being done to ensure your safety?

It's slack security that allows things like this to occur in the first place.

 

[Al68]

Under the definition of duress within contract law, this is the only section I feel applies here:...

However, it depends what you consider reasonable. To me, driving is a reasonable alternative for shorter trips, but anything over 500 miles and it's not reasonable.

That definition does not even remotely apply here. I wasn't referring to anyone accepting the "terms of the other party to a contract". We were talking about "terms" imposed by force by a third party (government).

By that standard, I could use force against my neighbor to prevent him from driving to work, or wearing a blue shirt, since he has other reasonable options.

The use of force by government must be justified. The fact that the recipient of the force "had other options" does not negate the need to justify the use of force. This is not that hard to understand.

 

[WhoWee]

Well in all fairness, their goal seems to be wiping out anyone who doesn't subscribe to their religious beliefs. So in that respect, they haven't won.

The question is, would you rather sit on an aircraft knowing nothing changed after 9/11 and that knives and the like could be on board with a passenger so easily? Or would you prefer to know that everything possible is being done to ensure your safety?

It's slack security that allows things like this to occur in the first place.

Careful - it sound like you might know who "they" are - somebody with a religious motive(?) couldn't this lead to profiling (that is actually having a focused plan).

 

[FlexGunship]

Well in all fairness, their goal seems to be wiping out anyone who doesn't subscribe to their religious beliefs. So in that respect, they haven't won.

Disagree. Their goal was to terrorize individuals into submission. Their global goal is, of course, conversion of religion. This is the same difference between the goal of a strafing run and a war. You can't say the strafing run wasn't a victory just because the war isn't over.

The question is, would you rather sit on an aircraft knowing nothing changed after 9/11 and that knives and the like could be on board with a passenger so easily? Or would you prefer to know that everything possible is being done to ensure your safety?

http://thestir.cafemom.com/baby/113023/tsa_targets_breastfeeding_mother
http://www.businessinsider.com/tsa-...2010-11#an-8-year-old-boy-removes-his-shirt-1
http://www.businessinsider.com/tsa-...ivor-leaves-humiliated-covered-in-own-urine-2
http://www.businessinsider.com/tsa-...-3-year-old-girl-frightened-by-tsa-pat-down-8

THIS IS WRONG. End of statement. It is abuse, humiliation, and sometimes worse! There is a middle ground. There is a place between here and no security.

The idea that we so casually dismiss a "few victims" is disgusting, frankly. This is exactly why we have a government: to protect us from this type of abuse of power.

 

[FlexGunship]

Careful - it sound like you might know who "they" are - somebody with a religious motive(?) couldn't this lead to profiling (that is actually having a focused plan).

Profiling is quickly becoming a necessary evil. It amounts to religious and racial prejudice, but frankly, it's better than no plan at all. That's an opinion that I haven't held until recently.

 

[WhoWee]

Profiling is quickly becoming a necessary evil. It amounts to religious and racial prejudice, but frankly, it's better than no plan at all. That's an opinion that I haven't held until recently.

I don't know how to avoid profiling? If you want to pretend that the process doesn't profile and fits a PC definition - fine. But in reality, the training process has to teach personnel what to look for - whatever that means.

 

[FlexGunship]

I don't know how to avoid profiling? If you want to pretend that the process doesn't profile and fits a PC definition - fine. But in reality, the training process has to teach personnel what to look for - whatever that means.

I agree.

I don't know of any "scared 3 year old girl" bombers. Or any "crying rape victim" hijackers. I've never read a story about "attractive underage girls" building dirty bombs. And, I don't think I've heard about any "elderly bladder cancer survivors forced to strip and then covered in their own urine" blowing up any religious buildings.

If you're not outraged, then you don't know enough! (http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/201...ves-bladder-cancer-survivor-covered-in-urine/)

 

[JaredJames]

Profiling is a necessary evil.

It's like in the UK where they want to reduce knife crime by performing random searches.

Now it's known the type of person likely to be carrying, but because of not wanting to target specific groups they have to search all groups equally. So now you end up with pensioners being searched for knives. What a load of BS.
If we know it's teenagers in hooded jackets, hanging around dark corners who are likely to be carrying then you target them. But thanks to the PC brigade we're stuck with random searches on everyone.

So if we know the profile of a person likely to be a terrorist, is it wrong to focus attention on them?

 

[talk2glenn]

You are happy to accept searches for clubs and not make noise about them but the moment it's something regarding the government it's the worst thing ever and must be stopped.

According to the Supreme Court, a club is private, and an airport is public. An individual can opt out of entering a club, if he disagrees with the admissions policies. The state, however, cannot legally conduct searches of everyone entering the same property, because it is private - the property owner, and not the government, gets to determine who can and cannot under, subject to the law but given constitutional protections (4th amendment, in this case).

An individual can also opt out of entering an airport, if he disagrees with the admissions policies. And because airports are public property, the state (as the property owner) can set the admissions requirements, up to and including searches.

It's not quite this cut and dry, of course. Even on public property, we suffer only diminished constitutional protection. On public school grounds, for example, the state can restrict free speech up to a point, but not ban in outright. Specifically, the test on school ground is whether or not the speech interferes with the process of educating. Similarly, at airports, your rights are diminished, but not eliminated. The state may conduct searches and seizures as reasonable and necessary, given technology, to discover and seize weapons and provide for the safety of passengers and aircraft. It remains an open question as to whether the courts would uphold the so-called "enhanced pat downs" or the body scanners. My guess is that the scanners are lawful, but the enhanced patdown procedure -as it currently stands - may be too vague and broadly enforced (randomly at some airports, apparently - not just to those who fail less invasive screenings) to pass muster.

 

[JaredJames]

Aircraft are private vehicles.

So on this basis, if the owners of the aircraft all turned around and said you must submit to a search by TSA (whatever their requirements) before you get on their aircraft, would you accept these terms?

 

[FlexGunship]

Aircraft are private vehicles.

So on this basis, if the owners of the aircraft all turned around and said you must submit to a search by TSA (whatever their requirements) before you get on their aircraft, would you accept these terms?

I would actually feel better about this for one very specific reason: choice.

Surely, if it were up to the discretion of airlines to decide which security measures best serve their customers, then free market forces would take over. There would be a competitive push to create the MOST secure airline with the LEAST invasive security measures. There would be actual competition to serve the customer best.

Instead, we have a federally mandated operation which means it will never get better. There will never be competition. No one with a "better idea" will make any more money. The door is shut on the idea-train.

EDIT: I should add that this would probably lead to new and more free expression of civil liberties. Liberties that many people are uncomfortable with. If a pilot (or flight attendant) gets to decide who is searched, I think you would find that a very freaking practical guideline would start to be enforced automatically. Don't like how picky they are, fly a different airline!

 

[JaredJames]

You misread my post.

The TSA would still be there, doing what they do now. However, instead of you being 'forced' by the government, the aircraft owners would insist you had them or don't fly. The owners wouldn't dictate what measures took place. Nothing would change, only who was demanding the security checks.