"Naked" X-Ray Scans At The Airport.. Your Thoughts?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Please! What the Nazi regime did was not racial profiling.
No? When the majority of your attackees are chosen solely because of their race (no, I don't agree that Judaism is a race, it's a religion - but then, I'm not a Nazi), that's not racial profiling?

Racial profiling takes place in America everyday. If you don't think LEO practice it daily, you are fooling yourself. Black guys in a white neighborhood......they get questioned. Young white or black guys hanging out on known drug corners......profiled. Guy from a poor area driving a nice car........pull 'em over. Ugly chick on street corner.......assume she is a prostitute and talk to her. Grandma sitting at a bus stop on that same corner.......keep on driving. Do you honestly think this doesn't already happen in America?
Only one of your examples, the first one, is racial profiling. The others are simply profiling based on certain known characteristics/conditions. Think about it. "Young white or black guys hanging out on known drug corners" CAN'T be racial profiling. Profiling based on a combination of age and location, sure.
 
No? When the majority of your attackees are chosen solely because of their race (no, I don't agree that Judaism is a race, it's a religion - but then, I'm not a Nazi), that's not racial profiling?

Only one of your examples, the first one, is racial profiling. The others are simply profiling based on certain known characteristics/conditions. Think about it. "Young white or black guys hanging out on known drug corners" CAN'T be racial profiling. Profiling based on a combination of age and location, sure.

But you can not possibly compare what the Nazi's did to profiling at an airport, can you? I don't care what word you want to call either one, they aren't anywhere close to being the same.

Again, I don't care what you call it, LEO look at skin color, age and location when they are on duty. At the airport, they would look for young Arab men. I don't see a difference.
 
If you didn't like that reason not to profile based on whether someone is muslim, how about this one:

Nearly a quarter of the world's population is muslim. Therefore, on some flights around 100 people would be selected for secondary screening simply because they are muslim. Additional people would be selected because they 'appear' muslim, even though they are not. Others are selected because they are originating from a muslim country or country with known ties to terrorism. Still others would be selected for various reasons: paid with cash, no checked bags, one way ticket, et al. Soon, well over 50% of the passengers are in the group that needs secondary screening and intense behavioral profiling. This is simply too large of a pool and you still don't catch the terrorist that doesn't 'look' muslim, has an 'American' name, flew from Europe, paid by credit card, and checked bags.
 
Reality is, if those passengers would have been allowed to take guns on the plane, the terrorist would also have found a way to bring guns aboard. These guys managed to pull off a plot that nobody expected them to. I really don't think if guns were allowed on our planes, they would have said,

"gosh darnnit. We managed to take flying lessons, learn the best routes, get through security undetected and get box cutters aboard but now that some passengers may have guns, we are going to take our toys and head home because we just can't figure out how we would get our own guns on the plane."

I don't like these guys anymore than you do but they weren't complete idiots. If we come prepared for a gun battle, rest assure, they will come prepared for a bigger gun battle.

Again I ask, what would guns have done to change that shoe bomber and underwear bomber situations? Nothing. You keep referring back to 9-11. Americans were taken by surprise on 9-11. Nobody expected that. Most people flying today would do whatever was necessary to stop someone that was attempting to blow up a plane or cause trouble in the air - as has been proven multiple times since 9-11 and they did it all without guns.

I said the same thing several pages back but Shrubber must have 'missed' that post as it blew their theory/agenda out of the water! :rolleyes1

Not a single thing would have changed. For one thing the procedure before 9/11 was pretty much to "not" engage highjackers. So I doubt if the passengers would have suddenly opened fire. The passengers on the flight in shanksville supposedly decided to fight back after the passengers were informed from loved ones of what was going on. Until then, they too were doing as they were told by the highjackers (once again according to reports, I of course have no way to know 100%)

Next no one had absolutely any idea they were going to fly the planes into buildings, even while it was happening. I am a NY'er and if you would have remotely suggested pre 9/11 you would have been labeled crazy.

So pretty much we would have had 2000 dead with guns. This ain't the movies where 200 people who are sniper qualify all of a sudden stand up and take out the bad guy while no one around them gets so much as a scratch.

:thumbsup2:thumbsup2:thumbsup2
 

I'm not overly fond of someone being able to see ME through that machine, but if it's to make flying safer-whatever it takes!
 
Ok..just started to read some of these posts (from the bottom up) and as far as profiling goes-I do agree with it. Maybe not just in name but they know what to look for-tickets paid by cash, no luggage, 1 way tickets, sinlgle travelers....along with some of the other comments here-no one wants to be pulled aside & questioned, but the people that blew up planes do have certain similarities. JMO
 
Many of you here know I am African American, so I have a very strong distaste of profiling.

My dh and I are successful in our careers and because of that we drive luxury cars. I am originally from NYC and much of my relatives still live there. Because my 19 year old is dark skinned and driving a luxury vehicle the odds are 50-50 that when he gets on the NJ turnpike he will be stopped, pulled out of his car and have his car searched for illegial drugs. In NJ we have a term for it DWB (driving while black). The state of NJ just settled a multi million dollar lawsuit brought on by 2 AA young men who were pulled over, beaten and arrested FOR NO REASON except the fit the profile of what white officers believe drug dealers look like.

Whenever my son drives to nyc to see his grandparents, we make him stop halfway up the turnpike and call to say he is ok. We sent him to a class (yes, they have seminars on this) on how to interact when talking to the police. All because he is black and we are wealthy.


#2.
Last summer so wackadoodle in Philly decided to snatch her daughter and spend a week at the Grand Floridian. Of course she said that some "Black men" carjack her and her daughter. Well that gave carte blanche for every cop from NJ to Florida to pull over ever Black male in a car. My son and his 3 friends where pulled over, on the way to the movies, made ot get out of the car and stand up against the wall of a bank like common criminals while the local keystone cops checked out their background (yes, I am pissed and suing various issues).
Meanwhile Ms. Sunshine is down at WDW playing mommy.


Racial profilling is dangerous and usually leaves a lot more people with hate but I do recognize that we are living in extrodainary (sp) times. I would have to be reassured that every "safeguard" would be in place so that we don't not simply start harrassing loyal Muslim American citizens out of fear and paranoia.
 
Your comment reminded me of something:

All LEOs cannot fly armed. As I recall, the only LEOs that are allowed to be armed are federal agents and LEOs that were transporting a prisoner. All other LEOs must check their weapons. Why do you think that is?

If guns on a plane are a bad idea then why are air marshalls armed then? And some ( not enough ) pilots?
 
swald91 said:
Ok..just started to read some of these posts (from the bottom up) and as far as profiling goes-I do agree with it. Maybe not just in name but they know what to look for-tickets paid by cash, no luggage, 1 way tickets, sinlgle travelers....
But as LisaR so wisely pointed out, once you start doing more intense searches based on these (or any) criteria, "the bad guys" will do what it takes to blend in - whether it's check luggage, fly here from 'good' countries, travel in pairs/groups... No, instead it makes sense to screen everyone with the same intensity.
 
shrubber said:
If guns on a plane are a bad idea then why are air marshalls armed then? And some ( not enough ) pilots?
You're still not getting it, huh?

Guns on a plane in the hands of relatively untrained persons - read: most of us who aren't LEOs - are dangerous. Put those persons and their guns on a plane and you risk disaster.

Either two different people, or the same person twice (because you apparently refused to understand the example the first time) described a VERY likely scenario:
LisaR said:
If 100 passengers on the Christmas flight would have had a gun, how would it have changed the situation for the BETTER? The passengers sitting next to the guy apparently weren't much help. It sounds like a guy sitting two rows back climbed over people, put out the fire and subdued the guy. Actually, everyone admits the guy didn't put up a fight at all. If someone would have shot him, they would have risked hitting another passenger or putting a hole in the plane. After he set himself on fire, shooting him would have prove to be nothing more than a feel good effort.
Heck, you get a bunch of people with guns, and who've been drinking on the plane, impatient because some passenger in the aisle isn't getting their luggage down quickly enough, or thinking their need to use the restroom outweighs that of the four or five people already waiting, and you've got a really good chance of a tragedy.
 
But as LisaR so wisely pointed out, once you start doing more intense searches based on these (or any) criteria, "the bad guys" will do what it takes to blend in - whether it's check luggage, fly here from 'good' countries, travel in pairs/groups... No, instead it makes sense to screen everyone with the same intensity.

A drunk was crawling about on the sidewalk under a lamppost at night.

A Police Officer came up to him and inquired, "What are you doing?"

The drunk replied, "I'm looking for my car keys."

The Officer looked around in the lamplight, then asked the drunk, "I don't see any car keys. Are you sure you lost them here?"

The drunk replied, "No, I lost them over there", and pointed to an area of the sidewalk deep in shadow.

The policeman then asked, "Well, if you lost them over there, why are you looking over here?"

The drunk looked at him and said, "Because the light is better over here."
 
We live in dangerous times. Our freedoms and ways of life have come under attack by some. We must however remember what it means to be an American and what makes our country so great. We did not become America by responding to terror with fear. We did not gain strength as a country by denying some groups their civil rights. We have become the country that we are by working together with one another. By respecting and treating one another as equals. This is why I must disagree in the strongest of terms when I read posts such as this...



Racial profiling?!?!? If we start treating one group of people differently than other Americans because of name or appearance, than we are no longer equal. This is something that is done when fear outweighs reason. This will not strengthen us as a nation. This will make us appear weak. This will show the terrorists that our will can be broken. That if we become scared enough, we will go against the values that this nation was founded on. We should not go down this dangerous road as a country because we may not like where it leads us.

There are 5 - 8 million Muslims living in the U.S. today. They are citizens like you and me. Should they be treated differently, solely on the basis of their name, or color of their skin? These are contributing, peaceful members of our society. The terrorists who attacked our country on 9/11 were not Muslims. They may have called themselves that, but they were simply agents of evil. The Muslim religion and values are peaceful. It would be ridiculous to punish true Muslims who practice their faith in a peaceful manner, simply because of some crazed extremists who falsely described themselves as being of the Muslim faith.

If we are to go down this road of racial profiling, than we must consider this. America does suffer from domestic terrorism. There are many fringe groups that engage in attacks against abortion clinics. Whatever our own personal views on this issue are is not the subject here. These groups frequently identify themselves as Christians and claim that they are doing God's work in carrying out various bombings and killings. Should we then begin a practice of racial profiling of Christians? We could profile them based on their Christian sounding names and the color of their skin. This sounds ridiculous. I know. These terrorists are not Christians. They simply call themselves that. Should the good Christians of this country be racially profiled because of some terrorists that are claiming to be of the Christian faith? Of course not. True Christians, like Muslims, are peaceful. Yet, this type of action is exactly what is being suggested by the above poster.

Racial profiling was used with great success by the nazis. Do we really want to associate ourselves with nazi methods? We are far too great a country to go down that road. We do need to find better solutions to ensure the safety of our people. But we must not forget our own Declaration of Independence that states that we are all created equal. As soon as we begin profiling and treating others differently based on their name or skin color, then this country will have lost its greatest strength. I have faith that this country can find a solution to these latest attacks on us in a way that holds true the ideals of our Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution. That is to say, the solution must hold true the values that this great nation was founded on, or else we are not who we believe ourselves to be.

What we need is better intelligence. We need our different agencies to communicate information effectively between one another. We need better intelligence infiltrating these terror cells. We need more sophisticated security systems at our airports. All of these solutions can be achieved without racial profiling.

News flash, Muslim is a religion, not a race.
 
If guns on a plane are a bad idea then why are air marshalls armed then? And some ( not enough ) pilots?

Oh thats pretty easy to answer. air marshalls are TRAINED. Simply carrying a piece does not give some one peace of mind or make them suddenly qualified.

As with any area, I want the right people doing the right job. I want my car mechanic working on my car, my oncologist treating my cancer and an air marshall guarding the plane.

I do not want Billy who scored 1000 on space invaders and now decides he's Clint Eastwood on the plane trying to be the hero of the day.

So unless you can guarantee that 300 people who are armed are also trained physically and psychologically, it's a stupid idea.
 
Air Marshals have the highest firearm qualification standards of all law enforcement agencies and are considered some of the best marksman in law enforcement.

Oh yeah, I'm sure all the people packing on a plane would be able to say the same thing. :lmao:

One way, that by no means will guarantee you a position, is to earn a bachelor's, master's or doctoral degree. Some of the requirements for applicants are waived if the applicant has an advanced education and you will have a shot at starting your career with the Federal Air Marshal Service with a higher pay grade. According to the TSA, Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS) applicants must be a U.S. Citizen, 37 years of age at appointment (previous federal law enforcement experience may exempt applicants from the age restriction), must meet stringent physical, health and medical requirements and 3 years of general experience. Such experience may have been gained in administrative, professional, technical, investigative, or other progressively responsible work; or Completion of all requirements for a bachelor's degree in any field. One year of specialized experience equivalent to the FV-G level. Examples include law enforcement experience; e.g., conducting criminal investigations; performing inspections or evaluations to determine compliance with laws and regulations affecting aviation; developing or implementing policies or procedures affecting aviation security; and providing security risk, threat, or vulnerability assessments related to aviation security; or Completion of all requirements for a doctoral degree or three full academic years of graduate education in criminal justice, public administration, police science, law, or aviation management. More information about qualifications and requirements can be found on the TSA website.

Employment begins with Air marshals being required to attend two seven-week courses at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center training site in Artesia, N.M., and at the Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS) academy in Atlantic City, N.J. The training includes marksmanship, physical training, and critical scenarios air marshals may encounter while on the job. Trainees also learn how to manage situations with drunk, high or mentally impaired passengers. There are 21 national field offices nationally and a number of airport based offices, that after successful completion of training an air marshal will be assigned to.


I wonder why they spend so much time and money training and qualifying personel if all it took was the ability to stuff a gun in your pocket?
 
Oh thats pretty easy to answer. air marshalls are TRAINED. Simply carrying a piece does not give some one peace of mind or make them suddenly qualified.

As with any area, I want the right people doing the right job. I want my car mechanic working on my car, my oncologist treating my cancer and an air marshall guarding the plane.

I do not want Billy who scored 1000 on space invaders and now decides he's Clint Eastwood on the plane trying to be the hero of the day.

So unless you can guarantee that 300 people who are armed are also trained physically and psychologically, it's a stupid idea.

Is there some Law of Physics that makes a government employee or hired Sky Marshal on an airplane a better shot than a citizen ?
 
I wonder why they spend so much time and money training and qualifying personel if all it took was the ability to stuff a gun in your pocket?
Guessing here... because they want the air marshalls to be capable of assessing a situation and taking the appropriate action, and then only if it requires the discharge of a firearm they want to be assured the person with the gun won't miss and hit Joe Shrubber by accident?
 
shrubber said:
Is there some Law of Physics that makes a government employee or hired Sky Marshal on an airplane a better shot than a citizen ?
Sigh... no. There's the common sense of accepting only persons who meet a very high set of standards before they even start training, then intensive training. Do you want THAT person on your plane in case of emergency, or are you going to trust the judgment, ability, and marksmanship of Jim Bob and his eighteen cousins with their concealed Colt .45s?

And why concealed????? I still think it's a STUPID idea, but if any government body saw fit to allow every Tom, Dick, and Harry to carry a gun onboard, everyone will know it. What would be the point of concealing the weapons?
 
Sigh... no. There's the common sense of accepting only persons who meet a very high set of standards before they even start training, then intensive training. Do you want THAT person on your plane in case of emergency, or are you going to trust the judgment, ability, and marksmanship of Jim Bob and his eighteen cousins with their concealed Colt .45s?

And why concealed????? I still think it's a STUPID idea, but if any government body saw fit to allow every Tom, Dick, and Harry to carry a gun onboard, everyone will know it. What would be the point of concealing the weapons?

Well, the trained air marshall is not aboard your plane. Estimates run at about 1% to 2% of domestic flights have an air marshall aboard.
 
Is everyone here aware of the procedures in place to deal with a hijacked airborne airliner these days?
 
Is there some Law of Physics that makes a government employee or hired Sky Marshal on an airplane a better shot than a citizen ?

Now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Go back to Eliza61's example. Why not just have some random stranger treat your cancer? Who is to say that the average citizen isn't as skilled as an oncologist? Oh wait.......I know why. Because it is simply ridiculous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.












Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top