Not Sure How "Safe" I Would Feel...

[caitycaity]

People are so pee-their-pants scared of the boogeyman terrorists that they are willing to surrender their rights - well, not "their" rights, but the rights of any of those brown-skinned types - in order to obtain an illusory sense of "safety".

wow, that was pretty offensive.

my feelings on this issue have nothing to do with race. and i'm definitely not pee my pants scared of boogeyman terrorists. and i'm not willing to surrender my rights as an american citizen.

one thing to keep in mind -- the person in question in this post was not an american. was he treated badly? if everything was as the op described then yeah, he probably was. was he stripped of any rights? no, i don't think so.

you know i usually agree with you wvrevy, but your post was just as inflammatory and biased as a lot of the propaganda garbage coming from the bush white house these days.

 

[bicker]

Agreed.

 

[Maleficent13]

I'm sorry; as inflammatory as wvrevy's post was, I have to agree with it. I am so tired of seeing people write:

"What have you got to be worried about?? If you're squeaky clean, then you won't mind the gov't poking about your business!"

Well, here's me. Squeaky clean. Born in white bread America, no criminal record, no red flags at all. And guess what...I DO mind the gov't poking about my business. And I do mind when citizens of other countries are treated badly simply because they are from other countries and then it's justified as, "Well, they don't have rights here, they're not citizens." What I mind most is the concept of common decency is attempting to be thrown right out the window.

With freedom comes risks...security is an illusion...no one and nothing is ever completely secure.

 

[wvrevy]

wow, that was pretty offensive.

my feelings on this issue have nothing to do with race. and i'm definitely not pee my pants scared of boogeyman terrorists. and i'm not willing to surrender my rights as an american citizen.

one thing to keep in mind -- the person in question in this post was not an american. was he treated badly? if everything was as the op described then yeah, he probably was. was he stripped of any rights? no, i don't think so.

you know i usually agree with you wvrevy, but your post was just as inflammatory and biased as a lot of the propaganda garbage coming from the bush white house these days.

Sorry, but that's the way I see it. People are so scared of the terrorist boogeyman that they are willing to endorse such things as racial profiling and detainment without trial in this country, and personally, I find that very offensive. See anybody saying that all people should go through vastly increased security, such as what Israel does on their airlines? Of course not. But they're more than willing to have that guy over their in the turban pulled out of line and interrogated. After all, it doesn't negatively impact their own rights, does it?

Was my post inflammatory? Possibly, but I don't think it was incorrect, either. Was it "biased"? If you mean that I am absolutely on the side of the citizen as opposed to the government, you can bet that it was.

 

[caitycaity]

mal and wvrevy - perhaps we agree more than i originally thought.

i don't think agree with long term detainment without trial and i get very annoyed by the people who say "what do you have to be worried about, etc., etc."

nevertheless, just because some middle eastern guy gets questioned, that doesn't necessarily mean it was profiling or that it was unjustified.

 

[Nancy]

Nancy, my post was with regard to the post I quoted. That poster specifically mentioned profiling.

I know..I wasn't really responding just to your post, I just kinda played off it.

 

[DisneyBaby!]

Still waiting for people to say how it could be done better.

You can't always play nice, sometimes you need to kick a, make some enemies. People can always choose NOT to try to blow up buildings or destroy the Infadel. BTW, can anyone tell me the country that does give you more freedom and opportunity? Last I heard, people were literally dieing trying to get in.

 

[wvrevy]

caitycaity - I thought maybe I jus hadn't made myself clear It's not that I have a problem with "some middle eastern guy" being questioned. It's that I have a problem if the only reason he is questioned is because he looks middle eastern. Aside from the injustice of suspecting someone based solely on their skin color, racial profiling is just stupid because it will not work. Would racial profiling have caught John Walker Lindh (the "American Taliban") ? Would it have stopped Timothy McVeigh? As soon as you begin to focus solely on one set of physical characteristics, your enemy will then have free reign to hit you as easily as could be.

I keep seeing people ask what the "better" solution would be. In truth, their are two better solutions, one acceptable and one not. The unacceptable choice would be to vastly increase security in airports so that everyone is searched, and no exceptions. This would be unacceptable to frequent travelers as well as the airline industry, as it would make travel by air much less convenient.

The more acceptable choice is to simply do a truly random search. Yes, there is a chance you will not catch everyone. But at least you won't give the enemy an easy definition of what to avoid.

 

[bicker]

Random searches would not be as effective as non-random searches. A true alternative cannot result in less security and be considered a legitimate "alternative."

 

[tiff211]

Sounds like a case of mistaken identity. Better to err on the side of caution. Terrible for the family but I am sure there are more misses than hits when they stop people. It would probably get a bit pricey if they gave people preferential treatment afterwards. I know that sounds harsh but look at the way of the world now, America should have toughened up long time ago!!!!

 

[ducklite]

It sounds to me like this family would have been much less upset had they received an apology for the delay and a ride back to where they had started.

Anne

 

[Planogirl]

Random searches would not be as effective as non-random searches. A true alternative cannot result in less security and be considered a legitimate "alternative."

I don't necessarily agree. I don't know if by nonrandom searches you mean that it would be best to search everyone or to continue racial profiling. One is effective while the other isn't at all IMO.

Searching everyone would be highly effective. However, it would be cost prohibitive and disruptive. Racial profiling is totally ineffective since it's a simple matter for the terrorist organizations to recruit from races or cultures that are not a part of the profile.

All of this is rather amazing considering how porous our southern border is. A terrorist could slip into the country across the Mexican border quite easily.

 

[caitycaity]

Random searches would not be as effective as non-random searches.

it depends on what kind of non-random search. if you are doing non-random searches based on actual intel, they yeah, non-random will be more efficient.

however, if you are doing non-random searches solely based on racial profiling (not based on any specific intel), then i think random vs. non-random would be about equal. perhaps with random having a slight edge.

regardless it most likely doesn't matter since i am betting that the next major attack on the us will be a different scenario than 9/11.

 

[monsterkitty]

What the OP described in her post happened to my niece, who was only 14 at the time. My niece is a dancer and she travels a lot to clinics and competitions. The first time she went to a week-long dance clinic, she was pulled aside for the "special" screening here at our home airport. Thankfully this was only a short detention. On the return flight, however, she was pulled aside and taken to a secluded area. They began asking her questions, without her parents being present as they were back home. The people questioning her would not let anyone in the room with her. Her dance teacher realized that they would not make the flight so she tried to talk to another TSA agent. They told her that the others could miss the plane and stay here, but they would not be guaranteed seats on another flight, or, they could leave my niece here by herself. Like an adult is going to leave a 14 yo by herself at an airport (yea, I know that does happen, but...) a thousand miles from her home. It took three hours before they released my niece and by that time all flights that were headed to her home airport were done for the day. They all had to find a hotel room, including transportation to the hotel and back to the airport, and then hope they could get on a flight the next day.

Every time she flies she gets pulled aside for additional screening. Every time! Why? The "list" does not contain a name that is the same as hers, or even similar, so why does she get pulled aside? While I don't have proof, I believe it is because she was born in a country that has terrorist connections. At 17, she still doesn't drive so she takes her passport on trips with her for ID. It says where she was born.

My family understands the importance of the added security - my cousin and her husband were in the second tower when it was hit. We know how frightening it was for them. What the answer is, I don't know.

 

[caitycaity]

monster kitty - did the chaperone have an in loco parentis letter? if so, i think she would have had grounds to be in the room.

if not....a good lesson for the chaperone/parents in the future.

i think a lot of americans take things for granted that they really probably shouldn't.

 

[wvrevy]

Random searches would not be as effective as non-random searches. A true alternative cannot result in less security and be considered a legitimate "alternative."

I would respond, but it seems it is unnecessary as a couple people have already done so. Suffice it to say, I disagree completely with your comment. The only thing more effective than a random search would be to search everybody equally. Yes, the people that want to attack us are mostly of middle eastern descent, and mostly will be male. But "mostly" does not equal "always", and once you begin focusing solely on that one characteristic you open yourself even more to attacks from that percentage of the enemy - however small - that does not fit your preconceived notions.

 

[bicker]

I don't necessarily agree.

It's kind-of an axiom, so I'm not sure you can disagree with it: If you bias your sample towards a sub-population that is more likely to yield matches, then that will be more effective than not biasing your sample.

 

[princess pooh]

Every time she flies she gets pulled aside for additional screening. Every time! Why? The "list" does not contain a name that is the same as hers, or even similar, so why does she get pulled aside? While I don't have proof, I believe it is because she was born in a country that has terrorist connections. At 17, she still doesn't drive so she takes her passport on trips with her for ID. It says where she was born.

It's the same thing with my mom every time she flies and I also suspect it's because of the country she was born in. We're usually separated when we go through security at the airport and she's taken for extra screening. We make sure to get to the airport early because we expect it to happen.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

And somehow they should have psychic ability determining Tourist from Terrorist?

Because I was not there for this alleged harrassment - nor were you - I really dont have much of an opinion on it. This is 2nd hand, here-say.

Agreed.

 

[wvrevy]

It's kind-of an axiom, so I'm not sure you can disagree with it: If you bias your sample towards a sub-population that is more likely to yield matches, then that will be more effective than not biasing your sample.

I'm sorry, but since we're not talking about a purely mathematical problem, you are incorrect. Your point would only be valid if the enemy were automatons incapable of coherent thought, and it's safe to say that isn't the case. If you limit your "sample" only to a certain population, then it is easy for them to avoid the area you are "sampling" and, thereby, avoid detection. Focusing solely on the preconceived notion of "male of middle eastern descent" merely ensures that the next attack will be carried out by a female that could walk down the street in the most terrorist-paranoid spot on the globe without drawing attention to herself.

You are over-simplifying the problem, and that could easily lead to disaster if those in power continue to follow that theory.