TSA mess and the police

[JLTraveling]

I'm kind of stunned byt the number of people who are choosing to take up a pro position about the new searches and radioactive body scans. I respect people's right to disagree but I really don't get the why behind it.

If someone could tell my where the proof is these measures will make us safer then I guess it could be debatable in my own mind. But that's not what is happening. You pro folks are more interested in telling me how come it's not a legal issue than in telling me why it's the right approach. We can argue day and night about that and it's obvious that this is absolutely going to have to be decided in the Supreme Court, the sooner the better IMO, but that's not really the issue is it.

Why, why, why should this be done?

Telling me it's to keep us safe isn't enough because I already feel safe. Nothing has happened recently to make me think i was less safe in July than I am now in November. So again WHY are these measures better than the measures of a few months ago?

FYI, even if someone comes up with a reason I'm still flat out NOT flying with my kids because I reject the idea touching my kids or exposing them to radiation is an acceptable risk. Still, as a thoughtful person I am open to reason in a theoretical sense.

But here's the kicker, I haven't heard anything substantial about a good WHY yet. People keep arguing whether or not my reason for being upset is valid and I won't get side tracked by that. As for the idea that 'just because the experts say so" being good enough for me, it's not. The 'experts' get caught in lie after lie after lie, they have used up all my good faith and have no credibility with me anymore. IF anyone wants me to get behind this mess they need to make an argument TO ME so I can make up my own mind, and it better be a good argument because so far, "Because we say so" isn't working. I'm not buying what they are selling.

Agree 100% with this entire post. I'd especially like to hear an answer from bicker, who seems bent on informing us that we're using extreme, emotionally provoking arguments to stir up a rebellion against the government that is obviously thinking only of our protection (wait, is he the one that accused of using "think of the children" as part of our argument? Hmmm, how ironic is that?). Or perhaps from sbell111, who claims that this is just a quick, little harmless check that violates no freedoms and protects thousands of Americans from a painful death. I would love to know if either poster has actual data to demonstrate that these "checks" do, in fact, keep us safer. Or whether it simply must be true because our government says so.

 

[rie'smom]

Something tells me that no member of Congress is going to submit a bill that requires a reduction in airport security.

I asked that they halt the invasive body pat downs not that they dismantle the TSA.

 

[C.Ann]

Agree 100% with this entire post. I'd especially like to hear an answer from bicker, who seems bent on informing us that we're using extreme, emotionally provoking arguments to stir up a rebellion against the government that is obviously thinking only of our protection (wait, is he the one that accused of using "think of the children" as part of our argument? Hmmm, how ironic is that?)..

I also wanted to compliment you on your posts.. Very well thought out - with many, many valid points and questions that some posters seem to be going out of their way to avoid because the answers would likely lessen their rigid stance..

 

[goofy4tink]

Not picking on you particularly, but I did notice that some posters are calling other posters "hysterical". Is that discourse or hyperbole?

Never called anyone 'hysterical'....think I said something about 'hysterical postings' such as 'the sky is falling, the sky is falling'.

I'm kind of stunned byt the number of people who are choosing to take up a pro position about the new searches and radioactive body scans. I respect people's right to disagree but I really don't get the why behind it.

If someone could tell my where the proof is these measures will make us safer then I guess it could be debatable in my own mind. But that's not what is happening. You pro folks are more interested in telling me how come it's not a legal issue than in telling me why it's the right approach. We can argue day and night about that and it's obvious that this is absolutely going to have to be decided in the Supreme Court, the sooner the better IMO, but that's not really the issue is it.

Why, why, why should this be done?

Telling me it's to keep us safe isn't enough because I already feel safe. Nothing has happened recently to make me think i was less safe in July than I am now in November. So again WHY are these measures better than the measures of a few months ago?

FYI, even if someone comes up with a reason I'm still flat out NOT flying with my kids because I reject the idea touching my kids or exposing them to radiation is an acceptable risk. Still, as a thoughtful person I am open to reason in a theoretical sense.

But here's the kicker, I haven't heard anything substantial about a good WHY yet. People keep arguing whether or not my reason for being upset is valid and I won't get side tracked by that. As for the idea that 'just because the experts say so" being good enough for me, it's not. The 'experts' get caught in lie after lie after lie, they have used up all my good faith and have no credibility with me anymore. IF anyone wants me to get behind this mess they need to make an argument TO ME so I can make up my own mind, and it better be a good argument because so far, "Because we say so" isn't working. I'm not buying what they are selling and just so you don't call me egocentric, take a look at the news because I'm definitely NOT the only one who feels this way.

I am just as entitled to my particular way of thinking as you are...don't particularly care if you agree with me or not.
I am not a proponant of the new 'safety measures'...far from it. What I am against is the hysterical (yep, I used it again!!) posting about invasive body searches. You can rest assured that as soon as the vast majority of the flying public has to deal with this issue, it will be dealt with by those in authority. But as of right now, there just aren't all that many fliers concerned with this. Either they haven't been among the very small percentage of people going through the new scanners or getting the new pat downs, or if they have, it hasn't bothered them. And that's a valid point. What bothers you may very well not bother someone else.
And I resent the feeling that if I choose to hold a different thought than you do, that I am somehow off my rocker...or pro-Nazi...or have no issue living in a police state.
Now...I may feel differently after my trip to WDW in a month. We'll see. But until that happens, I choose to remain relaxed and non-combatent.

 

[C.Ann]

I asked that they halt the invasive body pat downs not that they dismantle the TSA.

 

[NotUrsula]

...
I wouldn't be so sure... they'll lick their finger, stick it up in the air, and check which way the wind is blowing. That's the problem. It's the old "think of the children!" trick, repackaged. Nobody really cares about the objectives that what they're attacking is fulfilling; they only care about their own objectives to attack what they simply don't like, personally.

I disagree, and since I'm presumably included in that "nobody" you're citing, I can tell you that I have considered the objectives, and I think that they are misguided. These particular approaches to security are expensive and open the TSA to a LOT of legal liability, *and* certainly violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the United States Constitution. More important to me, however, is that experiences abroad show that they are not likely to keep us any safer than the search practices in place before September 2001. It's the wrong place to use the available money to the best effect. Hardening the cockpits and teaching crews not to rely on negotiation are very effective measures, but they have nothing to do with screening. Cargo screening, behavioral profiling and the widespread use of dogs are measures that have shown the most preventative efficacy for the amount spent on them. We need to put new money into intelligence gathering rather than the checkpoints.

What Americans need to accept is that an objective to make air travel absolutely safe from terrorists is absolutely unattainable, and is especially so when the measures employed are reactive rather than proactive. They CANNOT keep us perfectly safe, and we need to accept that and stop pouring money down a sandhole on every new gadget that promises that it can. People elsewhere in the world *have* accepted that for the most part, especially in the parts of the world where terrorism is a common occurrence. There is risk inherant in flying (and any form of mass transit, for that matter), and no amount of wishing and zapping is going to entirely eliminate that risk. There is a limit to the price I am willing to pay in a game of diminishing returns.

I personally don't have a problem with occasionally standing in a backscatter machine, though I certainly might if I flew for a living and had to do it multiple times a day. I also don't have a problem with a patdown search *IF* it is conducted by a trained law enforcement officer who has probable cause to believe that I have committed a crime. I'll tolerate the TSA searches, but I don't liike them, and I believe that they are putting the cart before the horse. I have the right to say so, too, but I'm not going to waste my time doing it at a checkpoint where the only effect will be to make my life miserable for awhile. I'm going to say it to my Congressional representative, who actually has the power to investigate and effect change.

 

[sbell111]

There was actually a good example of it in this weeks The Good Wife.

I wouldn't be so sure... they'll lick their finger, stick it up in the air, and check which way the wind is blowing. That's the problem. It's the old "think of the children!" trick, repackaged. Nobody really cares about the objectives that what they're attacking is fulfilling; they only care about their own objectives to attack what they simply don't like, personally.

Imagine the attack ads for the next election (correctly) labelling the politition as soft on terrorism and attempting to weaken our national defense, putting Americans in danger.

 

[dismom2]

I can't say I like it, but it won't and hasn't kept me from flying. We've been patted down, but have not had anyone touch us inappropriately as of yet.

Personally, I don't think TSA is very thorough. I've had them take items from my bags, but then left other liquids that they, technically, should have taken but missed.

I really don't like taking my shoes off. Being somewhat of a germaphobe, It grosses me out to walk where thousands of others have walked bare-footed. I especially cringe when I forget to wear socks . I try hard not to make that mistake anymore. Some airports have those disposable booties you can put on, but most don't.

I'm not keen on the body scanners, either.

I think they should bring in more dogs.

 

[sbell111]

Thank you for the exact quotes. I personally do not consider the checks that they are performing to be minor.
But we will have to agree to disagree.

What we disagree on is whether these security checks violate any of our Constitutional protections.

By the way, for those who have absolutely no problem with this, what else are you willing to give up for security?

I will give up many things that are not Constitutionally mandated freedoms. If push comes to shove, I will even give up commercial air travel.

 

[JLTraveling]

Never called anyone 'hysterical'....think I said something about 'hysterical postings' such as 'the sky is falling, the sky is falling'.


I am just as entitled to my particular way of thinking as you are...don't particularly care if you agree with me or not.
I am not a proponant of the new 'safety measures'...far from it. What I am against is the hysterical (yep, I used it again!!) posting about invasive body searches. You can rest assured that as soon as the vast majority of the flying public has to deal with this issue, it will be dealt with by those in authority. But as of right now, there just aren't all that many fliers concerned with this. Either they haven't been among the very small percentage of people going through the new scanners or getting the new pat downs, or if they have, it hasn't bothered them. And that's a valid point. What bothers you may very well not bother someone else.
And I resent the feeling that if I choose to hold a different thought than you do, that I am somehow off my rocker...or pro-Nazi...or have no issue living in a police state.
Now...I may feel differently after my trip to WDW in a month. We'll see. But until that happens, I choose to remain relaxed and non-combatent.

I realize this wasn't directly addressed to me, but for the record, I don't believe that those who are either in favor of or not bothered by the new procedures are pro-Nazi or have no issue living in a police state. Just like I don't believe that the TSA agents are pedophiles or perverts. My issue is with the policies themselves, not those who enforce or defend them. I do, however, believe that blind faith and complacency (in regards to anything) are a one-way ticket to allowing our lives to be controlled by others.

Whatever position you take on the issues, I think it's important to be informed about them. I value the feedback of those on this thread and in other venues who have taken the time to research the issues, think them through, and come to a conclusion, even if it's different than my own. Those who have chosen not to, whether because the issues don't affect them personally, they are too busy, or any other reason, are certainly entitled to that as well. However, those that sound the warning alarm about those of us who question these policies, SOLELY because we dare to question them, are indulging a very dangerous form of subtle indoctrination. That scares me almost as much as the policies themselves.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Never called anyone 'hysterical'....think I said something about 'hysterical postings' such as 'the sky is falling, the sky is falling'.


I am just as entitled to my particular way of thinking as you are...don't particularly care if you agree with me or not.
I am not a proponant of the new 'safety measures'...far from it. What I am against is the hysterical (yep, I used it again!!) posting about invasive body searches. You can rest assured that as soon as the vast majority of the flying public has to deal with this issue, it will be dealt with by those in authority. But as of right now, there just aren't all that many fliers concerned with this. Either they haven't been among the very small percentage of people going through the new scanners or getting the new pat downs, or if they have, it hasn't bothered them. And that's a valid point. What bothers you may very well not bother someone else.
And I resent the feeling that if I choose to hold a different thought than you do, that I am somehow off my rocker...or pro-Nazi...or have no issue living in a police state.
Now...I may feel differently after my trip to WDW in a month. We'll see. But until that happens, I choose to remain relaxed and non-combatent.

I'm not at all hysterical and I don't think anyone else is either. The allegation that anyone who disagrees with you does so out of irrational fear is inappropriate at best, and offensive at worst. I can only speak for myself when I assure you that in fact I'm exceedingly calm and deliberate. Over the past month I began my annual planning out of next years vacations. I was looking up and researching prices for airfare and good flights times ect because that's what I each and every fall. Then, a few weeks ago I began to notice an uptick in the number of reports about trouble with the airports. At first it was just about the pilots and I wasn't really concerned because I didn't fully absorb the situation. Then this past week the voices of complaint began to reach a gathering crescendo about situations I realized I will not tolerate for myself and my family. I'm ticked because the situation is disruptive to my lifestyle but hysterical, no. Recent reports have lead to my decision to halt any and all plans until the dust settles. Things will either go my way or they won't. If they do I will open my wallet, if they don't I will keep it closed. That's hardly hysterical, it is a rational progression of events.

 

[sbell111]

Telling me it's to keep us safe isn't enough because I already feel safe. Nothing has happened recently to make me think i was less safe in July than I am now in November. So again WHY are these measures better than the measures of a few months ago?

In my toiletry bag is a cheap plastic knife. One time, I accidently carried it through security. It was a violation of security to do so, but I didn't realize that I had made the error until later on and I chose not to turn myself in. I've also seen a few really nice knives that were made out of various polymers and ceramics that would not have registered on the old magnetometers. I'd rather that bad guys never get on airplanes with any of these items.

The screening methods described in this thread would stop people from bringing these items through security. As a bonus they also give us a shot at stopping things like the Xmas day crotch bomb.

 

[sbell111]

I asked that they halt the invasive body pat downs not that they dismantle the TSA.

I wouldn't mind them halting the pat downs as long as everyone is required to go through the body imaging devices. Of course, if something is found to be questionable, the person must either submit to the pat down or be turned away.

 

[pilotwife_02]

I can't say I like it, but it won't and hasn't kept me from flying. We've been patted down, but have not had anyone touch us inappropriately as of yet.

Personally, I don't think TSA is very thorough. I've had them take items from my bags, but then left other liquids that they, technically, should have taken but missed.

I really don't like taking my shoes off. Being somewhat of a germaphobe, It grosses me out to walk where thousands of others have walked bare-footed. I especially cringe when I forget to wear socks . I try hard not to make that mistake anymore. Some airports have those disposable booties you can put on, but most don't.

I'm not keen on the body scanners, either.

I think they should bring in more dogs.

I agree about the dogs AND the unallowable items. I carry a large purse that doubles as a diaper bag and has MANY pockets. I have thought I thoroughly gone through it only to find out a day or two after I have flown that I left a large bottle of anti bacterial gel or lotion or even a bottle of water in my bag and they never caught it. This has happened on more than one occasion.

 

[NotUrsula]

In my toiletry bag is a cheap plastic knife. One time, I accidently carried it through security. It was a violation of security to do so, but I didn't realize that I had made the error until later on and I chose not to turn myself in. I've also seen a few really nice knives that were made out of various polymers and ceramics that would not have registered on the old magnetometers. I'd rather that bad guys never get on airplanes with any of these items.

The screening methods described in this thread would stop people from bringing these items through security. As a bonus they also give us a shot at stopping things like the Xmas day crotch bomb.

Okay. Here's the question, though: if the person who is carrying the knife takes it on in carryon, it should presumably be found via the baggage x-ray. If it is on his person, it might still be detected by a LEO observing behavior, if we had a sufficient number of LEOs observing behavior airside.
But beyond that, what exactly is that person going to be able to accomplish with a ceramic knife now? He won't be able to use it to force his way into the cockpit and hijack the aircraft. Yes, he might kill one or two members of the crew or passengers before someone managed to jump him, but while that would be very bad, it isn't a mass murder. Could he use it to manage to remove floor panels in the head, crawl into the undercarriage, and cut a hydraulic cable in order to bring the aircraft down? Probably not.

Meanwhile, how much money have we just spent on dozens of backscatter machines to save only one or two lives, when we might have used that same money on gathering intelligence to find the guy who is shopping around to buy a military-grade missile and a launcher to go with it?

 

[CathrynRose]

I have thought I thoroughly gone through it only to find out a day or two after I have flown that I left a large bottle of anti bacterial gel or lotion or even a bottle of water in my bag and they never caught it. This has happened on more than one occasion.

 

[CPT Tripss]

I agree about the dogs AND the unallowable items. I carry a large purse that doubles as a diaper bag and has MANY pockets. I have thought I thoroughly gone through it only to find out a day or two after I have flown that I left a large bottle of anti bacterial gel or lotion or even a bottle of water in my bag and they never caught it. This has happened on more than one occasion.

Of course, a lot of us are not the least bit surprised by your experience. We are well aware of how poorly the TSA screeners have done on "red team" tests over the years. All kinds of weapons and bomb components have made it past them.

 

[Let'sGoFlyAKite]

All kinds of weapons and bomb components have made it past them.[/QUOTE]

But my ****s apparently WONT make it past them. They either get to look OR touch......

 

[redlight]

I disagree, and since I'm presumably included in that "nobody" you're citing, I can tell you that I have considered the objectives, and I think that they are misguided. These particular approaches to security are expensive and open the TSA to a LOT of legal liability, *and* certainly violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the United States Constitution. More important to me, however, is that experiences abroad show that they are not likely to keep us any safer than the search practices in place before September 2001. It's the wrong place to use the available money to the best effect. Hardening the cockpits and teaching crews not to rely on negotiation are very effective measures, but they have nothing to do with screening. Cargo screening, behavioral profiling and the widespread use of dogs are measures that have shown the most preventative efficacy for the amount spent on them. We need to put new money into intelligence gathering rather than the checkpoints.

What Americans need to accept is that an objective to make air travel absolutely safe from terrorists is absolutely unattainable, and is especially so when the measures employed are reactive rather than proactive. They CANNOT keep us perfectly safe, and we need to accept that and stop pouring money down a sandhole on every new gadget that promises that it can. People elsewhere in the world *have* accepted that for the most part, especially in the parts of the world where terrorism is a common occurrence. There is risk inherant in flying (and any form of mass transit, for that matter), and no amount of wishing and zapping is going to entirely eliminate that risk. There is a limit to the price I am willing to pay in a game of diminishing returns.

I personally don't have a problem with occasionally standing in a backscatter machine, though I certainly might if I flew for a living and had to do it multiple times a day. I also don't have a problem with a patdown search *IF* it is conducted by a trained law enforcement officer who has probable cause to believe that I have committed a crime. I'll tolerate the TSA searches, but I don't liike them, and I believe that they are putting the cart before the horse. I have the right to say so, too, but I'm not going to waste my time doing it at a checkpoint where the only effect will be to make my life miserable for awhile. I'm going to say it to my Congressional representative, who actually has the power to investigate and effect change.

Thank you for this well argued post. I totally agree.

 

[LuvOrlando]

My DH just came home from a business trip. They did not do anything new in Newark but in St Louis he went through the scanner. He had nothing on him, nothing in his pockets. Even so the TSA agents had him step aside where they questioned him about having something in his pockets, he said no & turned them out. They then asked him if he had something bound to his leg and of course he did not. Still they did the all over body touch with cupped hands and felt ALL THE WAY UP. Of course, they found nothing.

So IF these scanners are supposed to be completely foolproof AND my DH did not have anything on him, WHY exactly did he get the pat down????

Since he was away I didn't get a chance to ask him to weigh in on what's going on here before now but tonight we had a chance to talk and he agreed that it is out of the question for anyone to touch either our DS12 or DD11 in the manner in which he was touched. As for the radioactive situation, he wasn't as bothered by that as he was when he looked on line to see the detail that these scans provide so for that alone, he wants our kids nowhere near it.

So now no-one can say I don't have a direct link to experience, I do and the answer is still a resounding "Not acceptable."