Some of them were on a no fly list. if you remember they ran on at the last minute, past the non manned ,not working metal detectors and jumped on the plane. yes yes yes. The airlines were complicit.
The airlines were told to take care of the cockpit doors. they did not because it was expensive to refit so many planes.
It is valid. You asserted that some people simply MUST! fly. Flying is not a right, nor is it an absolute necessity. You act as if everyone who needed to fly for business would simply die if every airline collapsed tomorrow.
Speaking of reading your entire article:
[QUOTE=Your Article]
“We will handle each incident on a case-by-case basis,” she said.
No one will be forcibly searched or arrested “just because they refuse to go through the security procedures,” Barbera said. “That may rise to the level of suspicious behavior for the TSA, but it wouldn’t rise to the level of suspicious behavior for a deputy,” she said.
[/QUOTE]
Which is in line with exactly what I said.
[QUOTE=me]
Quite likely, you’ll be free to leave. There exists the chance, though, that you may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $11,000. What method the TSA uses to determine which road you go down isn’t known, but I’d guess it has a lot to do with attitude. I’m not aware of any instance in which the TSA has actually pursued the civil penalty.
[/QUOTE]
I hope all of you who are mad about the screening rules are writing letters to your senators and congressmen. This is exactly the sort of thing that a letter writing campaign can change.
Whether or not metal detectors were manned or working is entirely irrelevant. The items they brought on board were not prohibited.
What really gets me is that paranoid-hysteria-of-the-week issues and slippery-slope arguments rarely get lots of traction here at the SDMB.
The fact that there’s been so much anti-TSA nastiness around here lately is indicative of how thoroughly people have been taking leave of their senses over this. All the sexual-molestation imagery, unsubstantiated fear-mongering over scanner radiation, and hyperbolic levels of outrage are not doing much to advance the fight against ignorance.
Er, no, I’m not acting like that. If the airlines disappeared, people would find a way to deal with it, but an individual’s decision to fly or not is on that individual’s shoulders, and for most individuals losing one’s job is not an acceptable alternative. And no, someone choosing to risk invasive procedures than lose their job doesn’t mean the invasive procedures are okay.
The part you quoted is from the sheriff’s department, not the TSA. The TSA WILL hold you for refusing security procedures, but the sheriff’s deputies may or may not get involved.
And as I have said several damned times previously, an explosives detector that was a walk through just like a metal detector, not a freaking backscatter xray makes worlds more fucking sense. You don’t have to pat anybody down. No genital groping, just a calm walk through. If you are still worried, run a scent dog trained for explosives past the line.
I keep thinking back to that scene in Cheech and Chong’s Up in Smoke where a carload of nuns are suspected of smuggling drugs at a border crossing and given extremely aggressive patdowns. The yonger ones are shocked and terrified while the older one is enjoying it immensely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFFhO7yHMzo&feature=related (skip ahead to 6:40)
Or they could always, you know, just go through the scanners.
I did. And the President.
So, If I understand Yogsosoth correctly, the only thing keeping him from blowing up a plane every time he travels by air is that knows he’ll be scanned or groped down to skin level. I find that kind of strange. I’ve never once considered blowing up a plane, and I’ve never once carried a bomb or firearm aboard one.
If it is not the case that the OP intends to blow up a plane every chance he gets, why is he so welcoming of a process that is, for him, an utterly pointless exercise? odd, really odd.
I’m kind of hoping some artisan edits a nice Christmas video for YouTube of the pat down process complete with Carol of the Balls playing in the background.
Possibly. But there’s also a “close to home” aspect, I think: for the great (still mostly white) masses, it’s pretty easy to shrug it off when swarthy turban-guy gets yanked out of line for extra scrutiny, but becomes a lot more “real” when it’s your terrified four-year-old daughter being frisked.
If you accept it eventually, did you really need it in the first place? :dubious:
In reality, there is no way for them to not assume you’re a terrorist and only go after them. Nobody knows who the terrorists are, so to design some kind of smart trap that only targets them would be ineffective. It’s not like terrorists call ahead of time and let us know they’re coming so that we can pat them down. How do you deal with terrorists mixed into a population if we’re not allowed to do security screenings?
If I don’t like black people, should I be able to tell the airline not to have any on my plane? Ok, you say, that’s stupid because race is a protected class. Fine, then what about people with tatoos? I find those people low-class and always up to no good, I want to tell the airlines to ban them on flights I’m on, is that ok? I feel empathy towards those with special needs, but the reality is that they are a small percentage of the population and YOU DON’T NEED TO FLY. Pat downs and security screenings are not an abritrary inconvenience, they are the best things we have right now that we can afford to do that creates a bulwark against people smuggling weapons on board. It’s not perfect but there’s little else we can do. If your OCD friends don’t want to be touched, how come you haven’t complained about how doctors touch you? Or crowded places? Is your answer that doctors should make allowances for such people not to touch them, and crowded malls, restaurants, and stadiums increase the size of their hallways and seats so your friends don’t have to be bumped into? Your OCD friends need to decide if they are willing to trade some touching for the privilege of flying. If they are not, then they shouldn’t fly
I read about that and it was an unfortunate mistake. I hope the TSA will be training their agents to look out for things like that. But it happened to one guy. ONE GUY. He is not a significant random sample. Would you eliminate all pat downs because this happened?
If I understand correctly, and I probably haven’t, some of you want no pat downs or imaging scanners at the airport. Thus your ideal security measures makes you vulnerable to liquid bombs, plastic explosives, and small arms concealed on the person. Is that acceptable? If a guy sneaks a knife onto a plane or conceals a bomb, would you not change any procedures? It’s an acceptable loss considering our freedoms and civil liberties? If Al Qaeda decides to try 9/11 again with a couple more terrorists instead of just 4, enough to break open the cockpit door, you would do nothing because hey, sometimes knives just get on the plane?
I’m in more danger from drunk drivers and red light speeders than bombers.
So yes. It’s acceptable. I’ll gladly take a few risks rather than letting fear rule my actions.
you can’t roll a wheelchair through the backscatter scanner.
I’m sure that’s a comfort to that gentleman. You do realize that if you opt for the scan and they see some kind of bag or device under your clothing than you will have to submit to a pat down anyway, right?
Here’s a second incident where a boy’s sterile backup feeding tube was contaminated by a TSA [del]goon[/del] person: http://www.wftv.com/news/15511359/detail.html
Then there’s the breast cancer patient who was forced to take out and show her breast prosthetic during a pat down: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40278427/ns/travel-news/
If we’re going to insist on humiliating these poor people, then can we at least have someone who’s medically trained, preferably an RN, examine them in private instead of some unqualified person reaching in pants and tugging on things they know nothing about? Is that too fucking much too ask for?
We are molesting and humiliating the weakest and most vulnerable of our citizens. Think about that. Al Qaeda is probably laughing their fucking heads off at what they’ve reduced us to. This is what they want and we’re giving it to them.
That’s not the America I know. How far are we going to go in our attempts to remove every possible damned risk from our lives? What happens if they decide that bombers might stick explosives in their rectums? What happens if they decide to start targeting supermarkets or shopping malls? Is that the kind of security state you want to live in?
Everyone is saying that flying is a choice. Fine, if you’re afraid of a bomb on a plane then make that choice and don’t fucking fly! Don’t force your fears on the rest of us.
Word. Freaking word.
Because people can’t tell I won’t be blowing up a plane by looking at me, or taking me on my word. I accept that I’ll be inconvenienced because someone else might want to blow up a plane. Sacrifice a little in the interest of society
Really now, you’re trying to ascribe your own selfishness to everyone else.
“Why should I be inconvenience if I don’t want to blow up a plane??? Ridiculous!”
I’m not black, but I don’t mind the existence of groups like the NAACP.
I’m don’t do drugs, but I’ll gladly submit to a drug test if it’s a condition of my hiring.
I’m not a woman, but I don’t mind they get maternity leave.
I’m not a child, but I don’t want to blow up all the elementary schools and take back my tax money.
Nothing odd about that
Alright, as long as you’re willing to accept the risks for your convenience, then I have no problem with you. I hope for your sake they make a special airline for people like you where there are no security checks. I won’t be flying on it, but I won’t be opposed to people that do.
Sure, I’m for what you suggest. I would not mind registered nurses or medical professionals included in the security personnel. But in answer to your question, I don’t think anyone has ever asked.
Maybe the America you know is outdated and unprepared for the realities we face today? If they start sticking bombs in their asses, then we’ll step up the security efforts until it becomes too much for people to bear. At a certain point, we just have to accept risk. My line for that point is just a little further back than yours
How many terrorists have the security screenings uncovered, again?
This is your most disingenuous argument yet. Are you seriously equating a physical disability or an emotional trauma with bigotry and racism?
The amount of training that TSA provides its “agents” is roughly comparable to that offered by retail stores for their employees. This is in no way adequate to perform body searches, evaluate medical devices or pharmaceuticals for hazard, or otherwise perform any genuinely effective security measures.
Please stop repeating the myth that the “improved” security procedures today would have prevented the 11 September attacks. The “bombers” in the 11 September attacks didn’t carry any bombs, didn’t sneak aboard any illicit weapons, or otherwise violate what was then a single FAA security regulation until they took out their box cutters and started attacking passengers. Even at that, the amount of damage that they could have performed would have been limited to injury to a few dozen passengers had the simple precaution of securing the flight deck been done, as has been recommended for years previous.
Part of the basic problem with the current security procedures and methods is that they are focused on looking for objects–bombs, knives, guns, whatever–rather than looking for patterns and behaviors of potential terrorists. By the nature of these methods, including scanners, screeners end up with a massive number of false positives, to the point that security lines are often slowed or stopped so that TSA can pat down and tear apart the carry-on luggage of some seventy-year-old grandmother or a preschooler. This type of blind, pointless security theater is worse than asinine; it diverts attention to actual threats. TSA methods are ineffectual pantomime of security, useful only as a government jobs program for people who can’t get hired to perform skilled tasks.
Stranger