So much for "freedom".

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/tsa-fondles-women-and-children-refusing-airport-naked-body-scanners.html - http://www.prisonplanet.com/tsa-fondles-women-and-children-refusing-airport-naked-body-scanners.html

 

What do you think?

He's a fan of the Israeli system of personal interviews conducted by experts for each passenger. 

However, he has yet to explain how that would be paid for or how it would not slow down security lines. 

 

While it may be an invasion of personal privacy a bit, as mentioned before I feel that it's worth it to prevent the stressful situation of your airplane suddenly losing half of its seats.

 

As a printer, I am outraged over the blatant discrimination and bias against my fellow well endowed 16 ounce high capacity printer cartridges.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/08/bans-cargo-shipments-somalia/ - http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/08/bans-cargo-shipments-somalia/

 

Yeah, but we do alot of checks you guys dont see when you rent a car.

While this thread has all the appearances of a characteristic 'drive by' post, I'll repeat my question (slightly fixed up)

 

 

I don't fly. I take the motorhome...

 

And I already said, we need to use the same procedures that Israel does... (it was in the other thread about airline security).

 

This whole thing is just pathetic, sending children to be naked body scanned, or groped... Unbelievable that Americans would allow that kind of behavior... Especially when security is such a joke in this country. You can just walk over the boarder or send stuff in the mail or cargo containers. It is a pretty pathetic attempt and making people "feel" safe, when the statistics prove the current system is a waste.

 

 

The lawsuits will start and stop this practice.

 

I am a fan of profiling... Israel does it, and clearly it works, but our politically correct culture doesn't want to acknowledge the threat that we are currently facing presented by muslims. (extremists of course...)

 

Just  look at the headlines from around the world...

 

‘Eiffel Tower, Buckingham Palace among terror targets'
Jerusalem Post

German-based cell in latest European jihad plot recruited from same Hamburg mosque where 9/11 plotters met
Jihad Watch

EXCLUSIVE: Witnesses in Defense Dept. Report Suggest Cover-Up of 9/11 Findings
Fox News

Ground Zero Mosque: Our family has received death threats, says wife of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf
New York Daily News

Hundreds of activists from Muslim countries planning new Gaza-bound flotilla
AP

Muslim Cleric: ‘The Flag of Islam Will One Day Fly Over the White House'
ABC

A nation of immigrants must include Muslims
Boston Globe

U.S. Plans Law Enforcement 'Surge' On Trains
Stepped-Up Security on Amtrak Trains; 11 Suspects Arrested in France
ABC News

A U.S. Cartoonist in Hiding: The Molly Norris Precedent
Scripps Howard News Service

New Jersey Muslim who worked in nuke plants spoke openly of jihad warfare
Jihad Watch

Campbell's Soup goes halal with approval from Hamas-linked ISNA <Islamic Society of North America>
Jihad Watch

US could absorb a terror attack and bounce back: official
AFP

(Bill) Clinton: Mosque Should Be Dedicated To Muslims Killed On 9-11
VERTEX News

First civilian trial of a Guantanamo Bay detainee halted
Guardian UK

Wilders's Anti - Islam Film Screened In Dutch Court
Reuters

Man appeals 'jihad book' conviction
Sydney Morning Herald, Australia

Muslims Force Expat Christian Teacher to Flee Maldives
Crosswalk.com

Channel 4 to show drama imagining Prince Harry's capture by Taliban
Telegraph UK

Iran says ‘western plot' to blame for computer worm
Jerusalem Post

Barack Obama accused of exaggerating terror threat for political gain
Guardian.co.uk

The West is being 'outmanoeuvred' by violent Islamist extremists: Tony Blair
Telegraph, UK

Ground Zero Mosque Developers: Fox News is "Hypocritical," Has Ties to "Truthers"
PunditPress

Real Estate Collapse Spells Havoc in Dubai
New York Times

Saudis arrest Filipino Catholics at mass-report
Agence France-Presse

Iran president thanks Pope for condemning Koran threat
BBC

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2010

Year After Obama Won Nobel, World Looks for Signs of Peace
Increased Fighting in Afghanistan, Stalled Negotiations in Middle East
ABC

Top House Dem warns U.S. 'unprepared' for dirty-bomb attack
The Hill

Hamas Fundraising in Orlando Mosque
CBN

U.S. Embassy sponsors Irish Muslim business conference
Imam calls for Sharia Law in all business dealings
IrishCentral.com

Far-right Belgian could face massive fine for Mecca slur
AFP

Washington Calls on Americans to Avoid Traveling to Lebanon
Naharnet

Bill Maher Applauds Osama Bin Laden for His Stance on Global Warming
Newsbusters

Dearborn schools settle with coach who claimed he lost his job over Christian beliefs
AP

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/09/knew-cargo-planes-vulnerable-years/ - http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/09/knew-cargo-planes-vulnerable-years/

 

"WASHINGTON -- Despite knowing for decades that terrorists could sneak bombs onto planes, the U.S. government failed to close obvious security gaps amid pressure from shipping companies fearful tighter controls would cost too much and delay deliveries."

 

 

 

 

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/breaking/Pentagon-Has-No-Clue-Who-Launched-Missile-in-SoCal-106954903.html - http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/breaking/Pentagon-Has-No-Clue-Who-Launched-Missile-in-SoCal-106954903.html

 

unreal...

 

 

And that is the problem...

 

who is attacking America?...  Muslim extremists.

 

who are we searching with our security? Everyone.

 

Notice the issue... Why check everyone when clearly the threat is from Muslim extremists... It isn't "mean" to search the people that are clearly out to kill you, and not search the non threats.

 

In fact it is logical. Why waste your resources searching young children, when there is no threat from them? Or old women... No old women have blown themselves up killing others...

 

And yet, we pretend that this is making us safer.

 

currently, we have muslim extremists that are typically male... by a large extent. So stop searching old women and children.

 

 

 

 

If I owned a business, and two to three times a year a green person entered yelled about how great his god was and shot up the place.

 

In your world, I would search every single customer...

 

Maybe I could just put in security that looked for the green guys, and searched them.

When clearly the threat was from the green guy...

 

 

Any muslim would understand the problem was from the extreme members of their religion and understand the issue, and added security, as I am sure they wouldn't want to be blown up either...

 

Searching children and old women has only put focus on stupidity of political correctness.

You know how children have this funny little habit of believing most anything their parents ever tell them? They've taught their children their beliefs since they were born, if they knew children didn't get searched because they weren't quite Muslim enough, they'd just hide whatever they wanted to bring onto the plane with the kid. I'm sure not all extremists are single people with no children. Another flaw, since middle eastern looking people (I'm assuming that's what you mean by Muslim) are being targeted by security, they might make it a point to recruit non-middle eastern people for their operation? The biggest flaw, I will get to here in a minute.

Not to mention the fact that what you are proposing is blatant discrimination. The main problem with your theory is a pretty big one though; the fact that the majority of terrorist attacks in the US are not from Muslim extremists, as you claimed. 

On a side-note though: I still don't like the idea of these searches. Honestly, all the various detection methods we have in place right now, what makes them think this is going to work any better?

This.

Stand a Bosnian Muslim next to an Indonesian Muslim next to a Lebanese Christian. Who do you think will get picked out of the lineup?

FE, you have utterly ignored your previous vehement affirmation that Muslims ought to be treated equally to all people. Now you're saying that a fifth of the world population ought to be subjected to particularly discriminatory treatment because of a miniscule minority who share an identifiable trait with them.

Which is it? Muslims are equal to all others, or it is justifiable to profile those who one believes are Muslim? You're contradicting yourself. You cannot say that individuals ought to be evaluated based on their own actions and not because of ethnic or racial traits on one hand, and then say that's it's acceptable to segregate and profile the scary Muslims on the other. 

Either Muslims are equal and shall be treated as such, or they are second class citizens subject to arbitrary social control not imposed on others. There's no middle ground. Which is it?

 

I never said to only search muslims... How do you tell which person is a muslim... or a muslim extremist?

 

If someone is murdered, and you have video of the person who did the murder and it is a white guy, do you focus your investigation on Black women?

 

And yet, that is exactly what is going on in airports all over the country now.

 

Can't have discrimination now can we...

 

That would be racial profiling, boo haa, can't do that...

 

Are you guys really that dense?

 

 

The government has a good idea of the typical terrorist. Search those people... I didn't say ethnicity, as muslims could be anyone, but muslim terrorists aren't 80 year old grandmothers, or 4 year old little girls.

 

So to send them through the naked scanner, or grope them for "safety" sake is rediculous, and a complete disreguard for the fourth amendment. You know those papers that used to mean we had rights...

 

Clearly you guys need to read up on Americans rights, as searching everyone with a naked body scanner, or groping them clearly violates the law, as they can't think EVERYONE is a credible threat. This type of thinking is what is wrong with security in our country.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreasonable_Search_and_Seizure - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreasonable_Search_and_Seizure

 

 

 

Bri, listen, in debate, when a premise is destroyed by facts, that point isn't continued to be fronted as factual...

 

And yet, you continually do that with stuff like this.

 

brihard wrote: Now you're saying that a fifth of the world population ought to be subjected to particularly discriminatory treatment because of a miniscule minority who share an identifiable trait with them.

 

Many people on this forum have pointed out to you that it is not a miniscule minority, but in fact a large segment of the muslim world that finds no problem with destroying America, and Israel.

 

For you to keep repeating this lie, makes all your points seem disingenuous.

Then who are they? What is the criteria for search in the FEaper world? 

Except that you're saying 'Hey, that white guy might murder someone because other white people have committed murders!' Your claim is premised on an assumption that because people who are Muslim have committed crimes, all Muslims must therefore be suspect to a greater degree than others to such a degree as to convey statistical significance.

Let's look at this again though, because it's amusing: You say "I never said look only at Muslims". That is NOT the same as saying "I did not say treat Muslims differently". I read this as you would have everyone looked at, but Muslims would get to be somehow more special yet. You then immediately say "If a white guy committed a murder would you not look for a white guy?" which can only be read as justifying targeting security effors based on a specific identifiable trait.

 

The Reaper wrote: Can't have discrimination now can we...   That would be racial profiling, boo haa, can't do that...

Discrimination and equality cannot coexist. You yourself stated that Muslims are equal. Now you are saying it would be acceptable to discriminate against them. Pick one; you can't even stay consistent with your own words. Either Muslims are second class people or not.

 

The Reaper wrote: Are you guys really that dense?

Are you really that afraid? 

 

The Reaper wrote: The government has a good idea of the typical terrorist. Search those people... I didn't say ethnicity, as muslims could be anyone, but muslim terrorists aren't 80 year old grandmothers, or 4 year old little girls.

The very nature of security is that it targets actions which are atypical. Terrorists do not typically attack airliners; threats to airliners are rather rare. So you've automatically focused incorrectly on what you view as a 'typical' terrorist. Of course, focusing only on the typical establishes a pattern that the enemy will see and exploit. Keep targeting middle eastern young males? They'll find an old Bosnian woman.

Oh hey, I know you like JihadWatch...

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/11/grandmother-commits-first-hamas-suicide-attack-in-two-years.html - http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/11/grandmother-commits-first-hamas-suicide-attack-in-two-years.html

 

Here's a fun one... 'Girl of 13 becomes youngest suicide bomber in day of carnage'

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5126873.ece - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5126873.ece

I know you've no meaningful experience working in security (or, for that matter, watching out for suicide bombers). I do. If you focus on the obvious you've already failed.

The Reaper wrote: So to send them through the naked scanner, or grope them for "safety" sake is rediculous, and a complete disreguard for the fourth amendment. You know those papers that used to mean we had rights...

By 'we' you apparently mean some concept of 'we' that is exclusive of anyone who you think is Muslim. If the rights of others are not equally significant to you than your own rights, then your claim to 'rights' is merely selfishness, possibly tinged with an unhealthy degree of paranoia.

 

The Reaper wrote: Clearly you guys need to read up on Americans rights, as searching everyone with a naked body scanner, or groping them clearly violates the law, as they can't think EVERYONE is a credible threat. This type of thinking is what is wrong with security in our country.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreasonable_Search_and_Seizure - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreasonable_Search_and_Seizure

No, as an individual voluntarily waives certain expectations of privacy when electing to use a service such as air transportation where they are subject to certain increased intrusions in order to guarantee security. If these intrusions were unlawful they would be successfully challenged in court.

I personally feel that airline security overall is excessive, but I do not accept that there is any justifiable legitimacy in targeting Muslims. Either more security for all or not.

 

The Reaper wrote: Bri, listen, in debate, when a premise is destroyed by facts, that point isn't continued to be fronted as factual...   And yet, you continually do that with stuff like this.

I focus more on empirical evidence, such as the miniscule number of actual terrorist attacks or plots targeting aircraft. Even if every terrorist attack that has ever happened is incorporated into the data, the risks of a Muslim being an actual terrorist actor are still so small that being Muslim is not a statistically valid predictor of being a threat. An individual is far more likely to be another sort of violent offender, or drug dealer, or what have you than to be a terrorist.

 

The Reaper wrote: brihard wrote: Now you're saying that a fifth of the world population ought to be subjected to particularly discriminatory treatment because of a miniscule minority who share an identifiable trait with them.   Many people on this forum have pointed out to you that it is not a miniscule minority, but in fact a large segment of the muslim world that finds no problem with destroying America, and Israel.   For you to keep repeating this lie, makes all your points seem disingenuous.

-------------
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/04/video-how-does-israel-protect-air-travel/ - http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/04/video-how-does-israel-protect-air-travel/

 

watch the video in the above link.

As has already been pointed out, the Israeli system is far to resource intensive for North America.

And I will point out that Israel actively profiles those they believe are higher risk based on arbitrary grounds. That is inconsistent with your pledge of a presumption of absolute equality of all people.

If there is a specific threat that a Yemeni national is targeting a specific flight or airport, then there is some merit in using such information is available. There is a difference between targeted security and general profiling, which is simply arbitrary random security with a veneer of legitimacy based largely on factors that lack statistical significance but that play well to ignorant populist notions.

So again, I invite you to reconcile your advocacy of a system that does profile Muslims (which is a discrimination against them) with your claim to adhere to a belief that Muslims are entitled to and must be afforded equal rights, protections and dignities as all others. I'm no longer convinced that you do in fact believe that. If an individual receives different treatment in security because of race, religion, or ethnicity, absent a very specific threat, then that is NOT treating them equally.

Again, I'll ask: How do we implement a system of personal interviews of all passengers across our airport system and not have an increase in cost and wait time?

Again, I'll point out that the entire country of Israel has 12 airports. They use the "Israeli system" in - best I can find - two of those 12. Of the hundreds and hundreds of airports the U.S. has, we have 78 with more than 1 million passengers per-year. 

Seventy-eight airports with 1 million vs. 12 airports total.

Not only that, Israel makes an effort to expansively interview "People of higher risk." Which is much easier to do in Israel due to the average population they have coming and going. 

How would you, again, propose that we isolate and detect those of being "higher risk," in the U.S.? 

 

haha, same here.

You have dodged this point a little too often FE.  What say you?

 

 

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize we had to respond to every straw man presented...

 

 

If whale were given time in the real world, working along side large companies, he would realize that any system can be increased once the parameters have been determined. It is the reason, my breakfast from McDonalds that I just finished tasted the exact same as usual, no matter what store I purchased it from...

 

And it was cheap too. Only $2.68...

 

Clearly you guys that are trumpeting this straw man really don't understand how to develop a system of procedures that when followed achieve a given standard.

 

But, since I have a few minutes, and lots of business experience I will answer the straw man.

 

 

So according to whale, there is no way the Israel system will work because we have more people and airports...

 

Could we do one plane the same way they do Israel's airlines?...

 

Clearly,

 

Could we do one airport?...

 

Obviously. So once we figure out the procedure, could we hire more people to do those jobs that are needed? And replicate it at any and all airports...

 

No, we have no one looking for jobs... oh wait.

 

MAYBE we, instead of inventing a "new" layer of government, (homeland security) just use the current available military, hmm similar to the way Israel does?... hmm... I should have mentioned that, oh wait. I DID.

 

We currently train MP to handle security like this, but we are too stupid to use them in airports... Instead we have to create a new level of government and give them a massive budget to "protect" our airlines, when they are busy groping women and children... (to keep us 'safe' and all).

 

I know, I know, your strawman is focused on costs... Because in your mind security if free now... And Israels has to be very, very, very expensive...

 

Exactly what does it cost to ask 3 questions of the majority of passengers? They do that now, btw... they are just inane questions like (do you have any liquids, put all your metal objects on the belt, raise your arms)

 

Or spend 15 minutes on ones that are pulled out?

 

I have tons of friends that fly all the time, and they average a lot longer than 15 minutes per screening now, so it clearly wouldn't take LONGER, but actually less time. As you are looking for clues that are exhibitied by terrorists, and that has to do with psychology, looking for the telltale signs of deceit, and manipulation. It is a much more effective way to screen PEOPLE instead of banning liquids. Every try flying with a baby now that you can't carry a baby bottle with milk...

 

BTW it would be Waaaaay less than we are spending now. Look up the cost of ONE of those naked body scan machines...

 

Homeland security budget this year is http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/budget_bib_fy2010.pdf - $55,000,000,000 . of which a large part is used on "security" at airports, and the boarder. Put it back into the military where it should be, and train those soldiers that we have all over the place to do these jobs. We wouldn't even have to hire anyone I bet, as we are already paying them in the military.

 

Course it wouldn't give the government a huge new level of power, and new departments to soak up tax dollars... No way this could be about power, instead of safety.

 

It isn't rocket science, and it would actually cost a lot less than we are spending now.

 

55 BILLION budget for Homeland security. Well, at least the system worked with the panty bomber, according to the Director of homeland security. lol

 

Mack can probably talk more about that, at least on the Air Force side.  

As for not having to hire anyone because we already have them in the military, are you serious?  Did you think that through for even one second?  People in the military are already doing a job, that is why they are there.  If you move them from their current job to go work in an airport, then you would have to hire new people to take the now open jobs.  Or, you could hire new people to take the new jobs.  

So they are clearly not saying they had the best approach otherwise they wouldn't be changing it.

 

And it is already causing delays, and lawsuits will be filed.

 

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/lifestyle/travel/flight-attendants-union-upset-over-new-pat-down-procedures - http://www.abc15.com/dpp/lifestyle/travel/flight-attendants-union-upset-over-new-pat-down-procedures

 

""We don't want them in uniform going through this enhanced screening where their private areas are being touched in public," said Volpe. "They actually make contact with the genital area."

Some passengers have told ABC15 they've already encountered flight delays due to crew members having problems with TSA employees.

"It (delay) was over three hours when they finally found a crew member to take her place," said Les Johnson who says his Charlotte bound flight was delayed. "She (flight attendant) felt that she was groped and supposedly filed a claim."

According to Volpe, complaints from flight attendants are expected to continue to increase and said some flight attendants are planning to file lawsuits.

"They've already contacted the ACLU," said Volpe when referring to some members of the union.  "We don't know if somebody may have had an experience with a sexual assault and its (pat-down) going to drudge up some bad memories.""

 

Oh, and the TSA is lying about the groping...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/tsa-no-fondling-groping-or-squeezing-is-taking-place-at-airports.html - http://www.prisonplanet.com/tsa-no-fondling-groping-or-squeezing-is-taking-place-at-airports.html

 

 

It is the reason, my breakfast from McDonalds that I just finished tasted the exact same as usual, no matter what store I purchased it from...

McDonald's cannot be compared to airline safety here. It's just a poor analogy.

McDonald's is able to keep it's prices down and quality standard because of standardized production practices, vertical supply control and loss leaders.

Which don't really have anything to do with the cost of an airline flight, and how it would either increase or remain the same based on implementation of the Israeli system.

 

there is no way the Israel system will work because we have more people and airports...

That's not what I've said at all. I've pointed out before that it works, clearly, and could work here. It's just that if we do try and implement it here, I don't see any way of doing it that won't lead to increased wait time and travel costs.

So once we figure out the procedure, could we hire more people to do those jobs that are needed? And replicate it at any and all airports...

One, what do we do with the existing TSA staff?

Two, you are still missing the aspect of traffic here. We have busier airports, and more of them. For every one of the 78 of the 1 million plus passenger airports we have in the U.S., there are dozens and dozens of smaller airports. Where are we going to get that many people who are skilled at airport-safety interrogation?

Israel has to hire enough people to staff two airports with this system. If we try and do the same here, again, we're looking for enough to staff 78 if not more.

And, I'd assume, pay them more than we are paying TSA agents to wave us with a wand or look at a metal detector. That money is going to have to come from somewhere.

 

No, we have no one looking for jobs... oh wait.

How many of the current unemployed are skilled at doing airport-safety interrogation?

 

MAYBE we, instead of inventing a "new" layer of government, (homeland security) just use the current available military, hmm similar to the way Israel does?

You do realize, right, that the Israeli military conscription?

And that the U.S. not only has a volunteer army, but is also currently engaged in a war?

Israel has listed number of 1,499,186 available people for their military service, out of a population of about 7.5 million. Compare that with the available military in the U.S.

 

We currently train MP to handle security like this, but we are too stupid to use them in airports...

Are there enough active MPs to use in at least 78 different airports, if not more, with an overseas war currently going on?

Because in your mind security if free now... And Israels has to be very, very, very expensive...

While I appreciate you attempting to read my mind, I am fully aware that the system in Israel is not acting in a cost-prohibitive way. Again, it has everything to do with scale. Israel is implementing their system in two airports out of 12 total. If we want the system to be effective, we'd need to use it in at least 78 airports here.

 

Exactly what does it cost to ask 3 questions of the majority of passengers?

Much more than it costs to have someone with less training look at a scanner or wave you with a wand.

The folks Israel uses are trained in how to detect these things, and paid more to do it that the average TSA agent doing the grunt-work checking.

Or spend 15 minutes on ones that are pulled out?

And, funny enough, if you pull someone out of line to ask them questions, you still need people to run the show in the lines. We're talking about hiring a lot of people.

 

As you are looking for clues that are exhibitied by terrorists, and that has to do with psychology, looking for the telltale signs of deceit, and manipulation.

I'm aware. What I'm saying though is that it takes significant training to be good at doing that, and the people who go through the training for that expect to be paid more.

Again, cost.

 

We wouldn't even have to hire anyone I bet, as we are already paying them in the military.

I somehow don't think you understand just how many people it would take to use this system in the U.S.

I don't know what is tipping me off to that.

 

Course it wouldn't give the government a huge new level of power, and new departments to soak up tax dollars... No way this could be about power, instead of safety.

Wait. You're supporting giving control of airport security to the U.S. Military - a government organization - and thus taking it away from DHS - a government organization.

You're complaining about government controlling a "Huge new level of power," but suggestion another government entity control it.

Just, what?

 

55 BILLION budget for Homeland security.

Yes, and how much was the collective military budget?

Last I checked it was somewhere around $533 billion.

So an agency with a $55 billion budget = bad and worthy of complaint.

And your suggestion is to give over that control to an entity with a $533 billion budget.

I guess I'm confused as to what in the world DHS's budget has to do with anything here?

 

Well, at least the system worked with the panty bomber, according to the Director of homeland security.

Best I can remember, he boarded the plane outside of the U.S.

FE wrote: MAYBE we, instead of inventing a "new" layer of government, (homeland security) just use the current available military, hmm similar to the way Israel does?... hmm... I should have mentioned that, oh wait. I DID.   We currently train MP to handle security like this, but we are too stupid to use them in airports...  Put it back into the military where it should be, and train those soldiers that we have all over the place to do these jobs. We wouldn't even have to hire anyone I bet, as we are already paying them in the military.

The military is not intended for such a role, period, and Israel is not t all an appropriate model for the US to follow. They're a small nation under constant threat of direct attack and insurgency, and they have access to a steady flow of conscripts. It's not appropriate to expect soldiers to fulfill law enforcement tasks in any sort of general context, as we are trained to do entirely different things. It's not a proper use of assets. We can do it - not overly well - in a pinch, but it's not proper to rely on fighting soldiers for internal security of airports.

Soldiers, when not deployed overseas, don't simply sit idly on a base somewhere; they're constantly training so they can fight the next fight. Every guy you pull from real military duties to ask questions at an airport is one less person with adequate training when the balloon goes up in Iran, or in North Korea. Military police are no different: they have real military duties and real roles in the combat environment that they must be prepared for.

It remains abundantly clear that you've never worked in a security or military field, and it appears you're not much one for your own country's laws, either. You really need to stick to talking about what you're actually informed on if you expect people to take your ideas seriously.

I have both deployed overseas in a security role (Kandahar Airfield) in addition to the other stuff I've done over there, and I've also served at home as a member of the military deployed to support a major international summit where we were to be prepared to potentially fill civil security tasks, all of this as a uniformed soldier. I'm not pulling any of what I'm saying out of thin air here- your idea is not appropriate and would only work painfully and with a lot of errors. Bluntly, you're well out of your depth suggesting what you're suggesting.

We can already see this as a trend growing. 

Look at who was chosen to carry out the Christmas Day bombing last year:

His plane ticket was purchased in Ghana, the reports say that his "handler" was a well-dressed Indian man who spoke in an American accent, and the handler kept telling those who asked that he was a Sudanese refugee. 

Obviously the situation was handled incorrectly, because he got on the plane. 

I'm just unsure how racial profiling would have helped here. 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJGvsAgpfig - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJGvsAgpfig

We have metal detectors, explosive detectors, various scanners, cameras, x-ray machines for your luggage, along with full on open the bag and search said luggage, they have search dogs, security guards, etc. How are these searches going to create any added benefit? You are more likely to get struck by http://lh4.ggpht.com/_sjlD_iPMosc/S2PRE9qxVkI/AAAAAAAAAXk/VOO3P5kOxUA/odds-of-airborne-terror-attack%5b7%5d.png?imgmax=800 - lightening repeatedly than you are to be involved in an occurance of airline terrorism. Statistically, being killed as a result of airline related terrorism is one of the most rare and unlikely events that can happen to you in your lifetime.

Speaking only for myself, I'm willing to accept the incredibly marginal increase in the risk of terrorist attacks if it means that civil liberties and basic human dignities are preserved.

I was actually curious about the health impacts of these / other scanners being used.

 

http://pleaseremoveyourshoesmovie.com/ - http://pleaseremoveyourshoesmovie.com/

 

"According to GAO, TSA inspectors spend 33% of their time inspecting, 8% on incidents, 5% investigating, 5% on “outreach”, and 49% of their time on “other.” Other?

10% of useable TSA equipment (worth millions) in transit is stored for 2 years or more due to poor logistical processes.

During the first 3 months of 2007, the TSA Logistics Center received eight explosive detection systems units at a cost of about $7 million.  As of January 2009, all eight explosive detection systems units remained in storage at the Logistics Center.

In December of 2009 TSA leaked a full copy of its 2008 S.O.P., screening protocol, and other security standards onto the internet."

A very bad, unwieldy idea that was backed up by using a breakfast sandwich as a metaphor. 

Also, you've yet to flesh out your idea of profiling, and who we should profile. What would it be based on? Race, religion, name, gender? What? 

As for thoughts on suggestions: 

I think a severe audit of the TSA, from top to bottom, is needed. 

Scrapping the whole thing, I think, is a bad idea that would lead to a sharp decrease in flight safety. However, I do agree that the system has been built up and overlapped over time - probably because of hysteria after Sept. 11 - and is now not acting in an efficient way. 

 

 

You have X ray vision?... Clearly you can't tell if she is in fact cuffed or not... And the guard that "blocks" the poor angle on the cctv footage sure knows where to stand so that NO ONE can tell what is going on...

 

My question is the ticket, as at the end of the video, you can still clearly see the "officer" holding the ticket, and the footage stops before she is escorted out of the line of sight... That is convenient. As with a ticket she could just walk back through, as they are putting her on the outside.

 

So clearly something happens and they cut the footage before everyone leaves the camera viewpoint.

 

This whole thing stinks... No we don't know what happened, but to say she is lying when you clearly can't see if she was cuffed in the second seat is just silly.

 

Watch from 9:35 on, and you can see a officer walk over LEAN DOWN (at 9:41) and either she is painting the girls fingernails, or uncuffing her... you make the call... But the officer then walks away, and the girl gets up.

 

And the ticket is obvious in the officers hand at the end when the footage just ends... way before they all leave the field of vision. If the TSA is being "honest" no way would they end the footage like that...

 

You end raw footage when the subject leaves the scene. This was stopped short...

 

Why?

 

In my mind, that is because they were covering something up.

 

What is with the poor location of the cctv cameras as well... I used to install these systems. Trust me, there is NO way they would have an area with NO visual like that.

 

That doesn't pass the sniff test either.

 

 

something stinks.

 

 

“The current system of background checks may have allowed those convicted of rape and other sexually based offenses to join TSA.” http://www.airsafenews.com/2010/11/is-tsa-allowing-convicted-rapists-to.html - http://www.airsafenews.com/2010/11/is-tsa-allowing-convicted-rapists-to.html

 

And that isn't all...

 

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1238602 - http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1238602

 

"A Transportation Security Agency worker who pats down members of the flying public was charged with multiple child sex crimes targeting an underage girl yesterday." (back in march...)

 

 

yeah, my little girls aren't going near an airport till they get this figured out...

 

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/muslim-group-advises-women-wearing-hijab - http://cnsnews.com/news/article/muslim-group-advises-women-wearing-hijab

 

 

 

 

copy of fatwa against Americans everywhere...

 

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm - http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

Two, I'm confused. First, pat-downs are a bad idea and an intrusion of privacy and an unreasonable search and therefore unconstitutional. Then, you're upset that another group of people are upset about the pat-downs? 

Just, what? 

So rather than defending the many critical flaws pointed out in your plan, you fall back upon "Well, at least I had an idea, even if it would have entailed a massive transfer of authority to the department of defense, an utterly inappropriate use of the military, and a gross violation of federal law." 

Just because you presented a dangerously ill conceived and, frankly, quite dumb idea does not grant you some sort of superiority over the rest of us. It only just reveals how much you're willing to pander to fear, and to toss good sense aside to do so.

You want good sense? Put more air marshalls on planes to deal with actual threats, and meanwhile roll back many of the security protocols to some years ago before they meant such massive intrusions on our privacy. Accept the minutely increased risk in safety as necessary to preserve liberty, and quit living as a society of cowards. Meanwhile, much of the money that would have otherwise been spent on these intrusive and largely useless efforts can instead be dedicated towards proactive intelligence efforts that can lead to more finely targeted security.

Again, if the best you have to fall back on here is your idea which has already been thoroughly picked apart, let's see you defeat our critiques and defend what you perceive as its merits. Otherwise, quit trying to count on a discredited proposal as if having put it forth conveys some kind of merit.