Ah signs, yes, the indisputable conveyer of information in a democracy. If there is a sign, then you must know about it :rolleyes:
I carried a bottle of water through security. I had to drink like half of it, but I did. Tell me that’s impossible. Go on.
Maybe I just had less idiotic TSA agents than you did? This guy was obviously well trained
Yes, because that’s what you people are doing. Making the excuse that these pat downs are one step towards cavity searches.
The way 9/11 happened, pat downs and scanners (if we had the technology back then), would have caught the box cutters. So it is incorrect to say that I am fearmongering, when in fact what I fear has happened
Not everything is a small incursion, like I said. Did I not say I supported those women who took their cases to the ACLU? Did I not say that I hope they win if they can prove their case? Yeah, that’s what I thought
It’s also about stopping terrorists. Again, there’s a line where security and liberty push up against how much people are willing to take. As I’ve said before, my line is simply further than yours. No need to assume yours is the standard or should be the standard. People who cry wolf at every single increase in security should, and often do get ignored. You’d be better off arguing that we shouldn’t go further, or that the TSA needs more training, than simply drawing a line in the sand, no matter how much you believe it, and refusing to budge.
Perhaps, but it’s statistically impossible to catch every terrorist. Too much burden, too much time, and too much cost, like I’ve said before. You try to get the most you can get without crossing the line. That’s still sound statistical analysis. Even if you can’t prevent them all, you should try to prevent some, that’s all I’m advocating
It seems that your plan, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that the procedures (as they stand before this current increase) are good enough. You truly cannot see that some people aren’t crazy for advocating just a little more security? I’m not talking about cavity searches, as much as other people would like to put words in my mouth. Whereas you were patted down before with the back of the hand, now it’s the front of the hand. It’s not a huge increase in trouble
Yeah, I don’t really listen to people who think some extra security represents a huge change in our culture. It’s a small increase, and where there are problems, lawyers and courts can battle it out.
You know what is a destruction and demise of our nation and culture? More planes crashing into buildings, stopping all air traffic for a week, loss of billions of dollars in infrastructure, finances, and people in one day. A little bit more security isn’t even a blip on the radar compared to these things that actually happened. And Stranger up there seems to think that better doors are the answer. Unless these are sealed bank vault doors, then I’m not going to trust my life and this country’s wellbeing to a lock
Took them 4 or 5 people to do it though. And Flight 93 was missing one guy and wasn’t able to complete it’s mission. I’d say catching some of the terrorists is still worth it. As for doors, I told Stranger I wasn’t going to talk about it anymore but I’ll make an exception for you: I’d have to really believe these secured doors are secure before trusting my life to a few inches of metal. If we get those big sealing doors like in bank vaults, then sure, stop with the pat downs! Until then, put your arms up and think about baseball!
I’m sorry, it’s my fault that I didn’t make it clear that my statement on preventative deterrence and the paragraph following are 2 different arguments. You seem to think I mixed up the two
To clarify: we do these things to deter people from comitting crimes. Whether you think they work or not is besides the point. Talk to a lawyer if you think you have a case. I’m willing to bet that human nature will make us think twice, even if we come to the same conclusion, when there is actual punishment attached to something
The second paragraph was my argument that what YOU think you deserve is irrelevent. Just because you are not going to blow up a plane doesn’t mean we should make a law catering to you. Therefore, just because you are not a criminal doesn’t mean it’s wrong for the government to pat everyone down, or randomly select people to pat down. Such a method makes sure that the sample is random, so they are not targeting you, no matter how you feel to the contrary.
Why is it that your method of secured doors, which you admit is probably not 100% foolproof, is fine yet mine isn’t? Kind of a double standard there. Only because less people (not “nobody”, like you claimed. Certainly the airlines have complained about secured doors) complain?
Jesus, it’s like everything you say is actually the opposite of reality. The 3-1-1 rule is an absolute. Anything over 3 oz is forbidden. For. Bid. Den. It’s a stupid rule, but it’s in place nonetheless. The fact that you got through security with half a bottle of water means they weren’t paying attention, i.e. not doing their job. And these are the people you’re trusting.
I’m not claiming they’re one step away from cavity searches. I’m claiming they’re invasive enough as is, without need of a slippery slope argument.
And, as has been pointed out to you, boxcutters would have been allowed on 9/11 even if they had been detected. So such security measures wouldn’t have prevented anything. And now, boxcutters would be caught with standard metal detectors anyway, so I don’t see the need for x-rays and patdowns, if that’s your concern.
Anyway, it is correct to say that you’re fearmongering. Like conservative pussies all over this country, you’re willing to give up freedoms based on your fear and misunderstanding of the level of the actual threat. This is how we got the Patriot Act, and why there’s such hysteria among parents about pedophiles and kidnappers, to the point that they won’t let the precious flowers walk home from school (which I did every day from kindergarten until I got a car). You’re scared of the boogeyman, and it affects your ability to think rationally.
Oh, I’m sorry you believe the earth is only 6000 years old. :rolleyes: Certainly someone who knows nothing of airline security and doesn’t realize you can carry bottled water onto a plane has no business arguing about it. Good thing I have carried bottle water onto a plane!
Narrow the sample down enough and you’re sure to get the answer you want!
Fact: Current security measures would have prevented 9/11.
Effectiveness has already been suggested and refuted. If you’re talking about Israel’s airlines, the fact is we simply don’t have the resources to implement what they do. Too many people fly and our population is not nearly as homogenous.
Better get to working on that time machine!
What’s stupid is someone’s completely confident assertion that some futuristic magic door will be a panacea for all terrorist related hijackings. You don’t want to see them first? You don’t want to maybe test it out before you buy them? You must be the world’s worst shopper. :rolleyes: What I’m simply advocating is: show us the doors, test them in planes, have data backing up the fact that they are 99% unforceable and cannot be opened from the inside.
So you don’t want to have better training for them? Or are you so deep in snark mode because you disagree with me that you can’t extricate your head from your ass?
I’ll remember this in the future: Steve MB doesn’t believe TSA agents should have more training. He thinks they are fine just the way they are :rolleyes:
Yes I do get to criticize, and I’m doing it!
All the more reason to have the procedures applied universally, right?
Are you trying to outdo yourself in terms of sheer irrelevance?
Obviously, the reason the terrorists of Flight 93 failed was that the paradigm had shifted from “hijacker” = “clown wanting a soapbox and a free trip to Cuba” to “hijacker” = “mass murderer attempting to use plane as missile”. American citizens were able to adjust to the new reality in minutes. The American government has continued to flail around in every direction, from attacking the wrong country to imposing increasingly absurd Security Kabuki Theater, for a decade.
Here you pack two irrelevancies into one statement. How very efficient of you.
First, there was nothing to “catch” – carrying box cutters on a plane was perfectly legal at the time. Second, even if security had been looking for them, existing metal detectors were more than sufficient to the task.
Obviously the guys I had were smarter or incompetent. I got to keep my water though, so nyah!
And no, it means those are stupid rules. Or I have a nice face
Anyways, I drank like half of it, like I said, that probably convinced them.
Well I simply disagree. No need for anyone to get snippy over it.
Which is why I’ve been continuously advocating that the restrictions aren’t too much, they are in fact too little. Also, I’ve never said that we should stop changing our tactics because everything’s fine with the crotch grabs and naked cams. I kept saying that the TSA probably needs more training, and that those who feel the searches are illegal should take their case to court. Have I not said that? Have I not said that I’d welcome challenges to the procedures because they would spur changes? Besides, you can dial up and down the sensitivity of the metal detectors, so it’s not a sure thing that they would have been found.
No, don’t confuse one instance of increased security as a trend. You’re mistaken if you think, again going back to the cavity searches, that some increase in security in one area assumes I love for us to have no freedoms. Read the first post again. All I said was that I don’t personally object to these new measures and that I don’t consider them a slipperly slope towards anything except a happy ending
No, I’m scared of another 9/11 happening, not a mythical, non-existent boogeyman. I’m afraid that all you people think a fucking door’s gonna stop them once they get on board armed with knives. Place your trust in a god damn door, but don’t cry when it gets opened somehow
And one less terrorist on the plane had nothing to do with it, right? :rolleyes:
Hey, you can masturbate to those heroics all you want, and the truth is probably a combination, but it doesn’t change the fact that the terrorists were missing another body to help secure the passengers.
Obviously not – given how quickly the plane went down after the final cell phone calls were received, the fight (once it started) was clearly too unequal to have been affected by one warm body more or less.
In any case, the relevant threat (now that taking over the plane is no longer a viable option) is a one-man job (smuggling a bomb or similar destructive device onto the plane). Given that there seems to be no shortage of idiots who think that Allah will give them seventy-two virgins (and don’t even wonder why the glory of martyrdom doesn’t rate seventy-two wenches who know what the hell they’re doing in the sack), a scatter-shot strategy of unfocused searching isn’t going to get the job done.
Look, here it is nice and simple. There will be other attacks. There is nothing short of requiring passengers to travel in sterile containers, unconscious and on life support that will prevent the next airborne attack. 9/11 type attacks will happen again. The fed building at Oklahoma City is an example of possible attacks. Your fear is a feather in the cap of terrorism.
Once again, ONLY if the terrorists had been subjected to the scanners and/or enhanced pat-down. But you cannot say with any certainty at all that they would have because…wait for it…those measures are applied RANDOMLY.
Nobody here is “crying wolf at every single increase in security.” Just those that don’t effectively increase security, but rather create the illusion of increased security at the cost of millions in taxpayer dollars as well as the threat to civil liberties and the dignity and health of innocent travelers, which notably include children and the disabled.
And all we are saying is that the line has been crossed wrt backscatter scanners and enhanced patdowns already and has not been measurably demonstrated to prevent any terroristic activities. Rather, enhanced patdowns have been demonstrated to hurt and embarrass travelers who have no recourse to avoid such unnecessary tactics.
You are wrong. I never suggested the security protocol that existed prior to 9/11 was enough. Clearly, it was not. As noted again, securing the cockpit doors is a reasonable security measure that was recommended prior to 9/11, that could have made those terrorists’ goals (i.e., gaining access to the cockpit to use the aircraft as a weapon) significantly more difficult to achieve if not impossible, AND does not present an unreasonable imposition on law-abiding travelers.
Additionally, experts in security have noted that a more comprehensive analysis of threat and better response threat identification and suspicious activity would go a lot farther in actually securing air travel akin to the methods that Israel employs. It wouldn’t hurt to profile travelers by race and origin/destination, but also by demeanor and other metrics that law enforcement tends to use (caveat: IANALEO). That, of course, is not perfect either, but it’s a huge logical step up from frisking random children and all of the physically disabled.
Would it cost more than what you advocate? Probably not since your enhanced security procedures target ALL travelers, but only screen a random portion, whereas my preferred security procedures target only those travelers that appear suspicious using a protocol of intelligence and threat analysis. Maybe someone knows and can compare what Israel spends on securing air travel relative to their GDP or whatever to what the US spends.
Clearly. It’s not a small increase. But you started this thread to complain about those who disagree with you, right? Why are our opinions any less valid than yours? On the contrary, it seems that others have given this topic far more critical thought and consideration than you have.
Only insofar as it creates a fear-inspired juggernaut of massive government spending that creates reactionary and unintelligent security protocols that threatens the civil liberties, health, and dignity of law-abiding American citizens.
How many would-be terrorists has backscatter x-rays and enhanced pat-downs caught? Can you demonstrate the effectiveness of the randomized, intrusive procedures you advocate as sound and effective?
But if they don’t deter people from committing crimes, how do they work? They were doing metal detector screening and patdowns before the underwear bomber, but it didn’t deter him. It didn’t deter the 9/11 terrorists either. There always have been security protocols, just as there have always been laws that do not prevent crime. There are always going to be loopholes. The issue is whether the security provided is worth the cost in terms of money, resources, and threat to our way of life. I contend that backscatter imaging and randomized enhanced patdowns are not. I further contend that those methods make us *less *safe because they funnel resources and money from methods that are based on intelligence and logical threat assessment.
It seems to have been lost on you that under the current security protocol, I would have made it onto the plane in Miami whether I was a terrorist because I, along with the rest of the travelers in the priority pass line, because we were not targeted for enhanced scrutiny. To add to this, I flouted the 3-1-1 rule and brought sunscreen on the plane in contraband amounts and TWO baggies of gels and liquids and was not scrutinized further. Is there any way to tell what I got through security was actually sunscreen and shampoo, not explosive chemicals in cream and gel form? This makes you feel safe? It didn’t make me feel safe, nor do I expect it to.
sigh Because there IS no “100% foolproof” and the method of securing doors doesn’t trample on the dignity, health and, more importantly, civil liberties of innocent American citizens the way backscatter x-rays and enhanced pat-downs demonstrably do.
Actually, that specific mode of attack is no longer a viable option, and even if it were it could be thwarted easily enough by non-intrusive measures (sealing the cockpits, arming the pilots, and using preexisting metal-detector equipment).
The current threat of explosives ought to be addressable by far less intrusive measures such as chemical sniffing. Pity Michael Chertoff didn’t pick that for his post-Cabinet source of income.
Wait, just a minute. You do realize that you are arguing against the effectiveness of a security protocol that restricts ALL passengers while simultaneously arguing for the effectiveness of a protocol that only screens SOME of those same passengers?
Dude, in simple terms, if the terrorists don’t get picked for pornoscans or groping, which isn’t all that likely anyway, you’d better hope the secured cockpit door works.
I wonder when they are going to start using these security protocols in arenas and other crowded venues. Surely, a guy could do some damage at the Super Bowl, eh?
It seems to me, anecdotally, that security is steadily increasing at all areas, and not just transport hubs but at sports events, businesses, etc. As I play road warrior and visit companies all over the US and Europe, I’ve noticed a steady and persistent ramp-up of security. Companies where I used to just walk in the door, check in, and then head to a meeting room now scan my driver’s license, take photos, and sometimes even fingerprint me. And I’m seeing more and more metal detectors at utility offices, which causes untold hell and long lines for folks just wanting to get into work.
One company in North Carolina I go to has a main office where they advise employees to show up 15 minutes early so they can make it through security and get to their cubicle by 8:00. One day I showed up for a visit and the metal detector (their single one) was on the blink…so the hired security banned ALL employees from entering the building for several hours until it was fixed. Thankfully, I had the option of returning to my comfy hotel, ordering a few gallons of coffee, and doing my work via phone and net; all the employees stood outside in the cold and waited, or went back home. Mind you, this isn’t any top-secret installation or anything, or any more or less sensitive than any other utility office. They just came to the conclusion that “9-11 CHANGED EVERYTHING!” I was told they didn’t fix the detector until that afternoon, and more than 1,000 employees sat.
To return to your point, I can easily see a time within 10 years where to get into the Superbowl you need to pass through metal detectors, and send all bags, beernoculars, contraband bratwursts, etc. through an X-Ray. “Please arrive 5-8 hours early for check-in at the convenient TSA-manned Superbowl Super Security Pavilion!” As the cost of scanners decrease and their speed increases, they may within 10 years simply have everyone herd into stadiums under a passive scanning X-Ray, with armed rent-a-cops waiting and twirling their batons to whallop anyone who’s carrying a Leatherman tool, or bringing into the stadium more than 3.4 ounces of liquid. Shoot, they might not even tell anyone about it, I mean, how would you know? Most folks don’t have a dosimeter of any sort.
Hm, is it illegal to own and wear a dosimeter through the damned scanner? Hubby and I actually have our own. Wonder if we could request a statement of exposure for our med files. I keep track of my total lifetime exposure =)
It is not illegal to wear a dosimeter (provided they don’t grab it and stick it on the belt). However, I reckon if you ask for a statement of exposure, one of the following would happen:
A) They would give you the same look that a cat gives you when you tell it to play a five-stringed banjo.
B) They would say “you need to go to our website. I’m sure it’s on there somewhere.”
C) They would subject you to a series of aggressive, brutal, brutal pat-downs and gropings until you decided that you really didn’t want a statement of exposure any more, or you proposed to the TSA worker.
D) A bag goes over your head, and 3 days later you wake up under a Cuban sky. “Welcome to Camp X-Ray! Here’s your prayer mat, your food bowl, and your waste bowl. Do not, repeat, do not mix any of these items up!”
C- damn, I am already married, and I bet mrAru makes more than they do … unless we can convince the government to let me have 2 husbands, or an extra wife …
D - but I am agnostic … can I trade the prayer rug for a hammock?
