Does MCO have the new Body Scanner that everyone is chatting about?

[taitai]

I saw on Fox news that airports can Opt out! I just read on the Drudge report that the airport in Stanford, FL may.

Yikes!! I would rather have the TSA. Who are they going to contract with? Halliburton? Blackwater? The way those two private sector organizations fleeced the government and jack booted their way across Iraq and Afghanistan, I would be very, very worried. Talk about a group of people on a power trip. Flawed as it may be, I would feel better with the TSA.....

 

[disneyfan55]

Yikes!! I would rather have the TSA. Who are they going to contract with? Halliburton? Blackwater? The way those two private sector organizations fleeced the government and jack booted their way across Iraq and Afghanistan, I would be very, very worried. Talk about a group of people on a power trip. Flawed as it may be, I would feel better with the TSA.....

ok. Most likely once an airport opts out they will have security using dogs etc. TSA only around since 2001 anyway.

 

[disneyfan55]

Just heard that a muslim women just refused pat down and scanner and was allowed to board the plane. sorry only heard the last part of the radio broadcast

 

[CPT Tripss]

No. Not necessarily. A lot of people behave very differently in their out of work life.

The poster was probably referring to Muslims as far as the religious objections. The TSA has now announced they will not accept religious objections. Why should I care what the Pope and Rabbis say about the scanner? Again, I am of the belief that I experience something with my own two eyes before I make a decision.

My experiences have been that people have a difficult time separating their prejudical behaviors by setting. Under stress it comes out.

You don't have to care what the Pope or Rabbis say, you weren't the one that pointed to only Moslem objections . . .

If you get the patdown the two things involved won't be your eyes.

Here's a link - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...ict-XVI-criticises-airport-body-scanners.html

 

[derricksonb]

I'm going to assume, based on the apparent reference to 9/11, that you mean Moslems when you reference religious objections. Just remember that the Pope, as well as a number of prominent Rabbis, have come out against the scanners.

I referenced 9/11 as that event was the catalyst that created the TSA, but was in no way, shape or form singling out a single religion. The religious objections that I've seen on line have mostly come from Jewish and Christian groups citing modesty requirements.

 

[olwyngdh]

I saw on Fox news that airports can Opt out! I just read on the Drudge report that the airport in Stanford, FL may.

Brilliant. Are the going to publish a list of airports opting out so the terrorists will know which ones to use?

 

[CPT Tripss]

Brilliant. Are the going to publish a list of airports opting out so the terrorists will know which ones to use?

You think they don't already know that (and a lot more)?

And just FYI, the airport can NOT opt out of screenings. All they can do is decide to contract the screening out to a private contractor instead of having TSA do it. TSA still calls the shots as far as the requirements.

 

[ccgirl]

True, but the background check screening process failed to spot him. Do you think that his "craziness" may have showed up in his on the job interactions with passengers.


Actually, he said that the WBI scans were voluntary and that if a passenger did not agree to EITHER a WBI or an "up close and personal" body search that the passenger would not be permitted to fly.

I'm going to assume, based on the apparent reference to 9/11, that you mean Moslems when you reference religious objections. Just remember that the Pope, as well as a number of prominent Rabbis, have come out against the scanners.

My experiences have been that people have a difficult time separating their prejudical behaviors by setting. Under stress it comes out.

You don't have to care what the Pope or Rabbis say, you weren't the one that pointed to only Moslem objections . . .

If you get the patdown the two things involved won't be your eyes.

Here's a link - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...ict-XVI-criticises-airport-body-scanners.html

I know about the pat downs. As I have reported many times, my DH has experienced it and there was not any groping as far as we were concerned. I also witnessed a woman getting the enhanced pat down and did not see anything poked, pulled, twisted, prodded etc. Just a pat. No worries here.

 

[CPT Tripss]

I referenced 9/11 as that event was the catalyst that created the TSA, but was in no way, shape or form singling out a single religion. The religious objections that I've seen on line have mostly come from Jewish and Christian groups citing modesty requirements.

Yeah, and we weren't doing airport screening before 9/11? Please let me know that Protestent denominations have gone on record against the WBIs.

 

[olwyngdh]

And just FYI, the airport can NOT opt out of screenings. All they can do is decide to contract the screening out to a private contractor instead of having TSA do it. TSA still calls the shots as far as the requirements.

Good! I was afraid that they had caved and were going to let people through without the new screening. If we are going to do it, it needs to be done everywhere.

 

[derricksonb]

Yeah, and we weren't doing airport screening before 9/11?

Prior to 9/11 airport screening and baggage checks were handled by the individual airlines or private contractors hired by the airlines. Remember the days when a person could freely walk down the concourses to meet/send off a loved one from the gates?

 

[CPT Tripss]

Prior to 9/11 airport screening and baggage checks were handled by the individual airlines or private contractors hired by the airlines. Remember the days when a person could freely walk down the concourses to meet/send off a loved one from the gates?

Yeap, AFTER going through the security contracted by the airport (at least at PHL)!

 

[CPT Tripss]

Good! I was afraid that they had caved and were going to let people through without the new screening. If we are going to do it, it needs to be done everywhere.

Sure are a lot of folks distorting reality to build up fear so that we accept intrusive, ineffective measures.

 

[sam_gordon]

Sure are a lot of folks distorting reality to build up fear so that we accept intrusive, ineffective measures.

I agree with the first half of your statement!

I disagree with "intrusive", and I think the jury is still out on "ineffective".

 

[eliza61]

Sure are a lot of folks distorting reality to build up fear so that we accept intrusive, ineffective measures.

LOL. that's what I've been saying about all the reports calling the TSA agents "Baby rapist, pedophiles, molesters...." etc, etc.

Sort of the pot calling the kettle black...

Every body needs to ratchet down the bull.

 

[ccgirl]

Sure are a lot of folks distorting reality to build up fear so that we accept intrusive, ineffective measures.

I too agree with the first part of your post and disagree with the second. Having gone through it myself, I didn't find any part of it intrusive and I think it's too soon to say if it's effective or not.

That actually brings up a whole new twist on this debate. What exactly does "effective" mean? Does it mean it deters some people? THat x # of weapons (this is just not for terrorism) or other items are found. Just how many is that 'x' number? For me, it's just one. If one weapon, illegal drug, etc is found. That is good for me.

 

[olwyngdh]

Sure are a lot of folks distorting reality to build up fear so that we accept intrusive, ineffective measures.

You obviously missed my point. My point was we either need to do it fully or not at all. I don't really care one way or another. Does it make me feel safer? No, not really. Doesn't make me feel any more threatened either. I am married to a soldier and live on a military base...I get a pretty clear clue what the threat levels are just going to the commissary or the PX. Thankfully, my husband can't tell me a lot, but he thinks these things are no big deal and probably a good idea.

My personal opinion is that we, as a nation, chose these measures when we instated the Patriot Act. It is a natural outcome of that policy. I think this is a lot more minor and a lot less intrusive than other things that act allows. When we fly with my DD8, I am not worried about her getting searched, and I am not worried about the low levels of radiation from the backscatter scanner. It isn't a big enough deal to care about. If they are searching kids when we leave, I will explain to her what is going on and tell her to try to stand still in the machine and not to giggle and squirm if she gets searched because it will make it harder for the person who has to do the search. I have a lot more to care about and worry about in my life without creating drama out of what is really nothing. If you don't like it, don't fly. There are plenty of other options.

 

[CPT Tripss]

I don't doubt the posters who say the search they received did not touch their genitals. I also do not doubt those who report that the search they received did touch their genitals. The latter, is intrusive in my book. YMMV.

TSA has, and it is well documented (you can look it up) had employees who, despite background checks, have committed crimes on the job and who also have committed far more heinious crimes off the job.

By the way, where's the link to support the assertion that the San Diego guy threatened the screener with assault.

 

[disneyfan55]

I don't doubt the posters who say the search they received did not touch their genitals. I also do not doubt those who report that the search they received did touch their genitals. The latter, is intrusive in my book. YMMV.

TSA has, and it is well documented (you can look it up) had employees who, despite background checks, have committed crimes on the job and who also have committed far more heinious crimes off the job.

By the way, where's the link to support the assertion that the San Diego guy threatened the screener with assault.

agree. My husband , retired police, always states that people are drawn to jobs that give a lot of opportunity. There are many occupations that have many employed that are gratified by doing their jobs. This may sound callus but true in some cases. Every day there are more and more that really have had enough with this search. I really don't think these searches will make us safer. Every time someone does something (mostly from out of the country originating flights) liquids, shoe and now underwear AMERICANS have to all be subjected to new rules that really aren't helping since a new way is always found. Dogs would be a much better way to find the bombs.

 

[ccgirl]

I don't doubt the posters who say the search they received did not touch their genitals. I also do not doubt those who report that the search they received did touch their genitals. The latter, is intrusive in my book. YMMV.

TSA has, and it is well documented (you can look it up) had employees who, despite background checks, have committed crimes on the job and who also have committed far more heinious crimes off the job.

By the way, where's the link to support the assertion that the San Diego guy threatened the screener with assault.

I didn't say the genitals weren't touched. I said they weren't groped. TSA, and police, fireman, doctors, nurses, priests have all commited crimes on and off the job. I think it's unfair to even bring that up. Just don't see the point. There are plenty of doctors and dentists convicted of molestation; does that mean you are never going to see a doctor or dentist?