TSA mess and the police

[LuvOrlando]

Yes...that must be it. You know, I AM terrified of flying, but not because of terrorists. I'm terrified of MECHANICAL FAILURE. Terrorists are just as likely to bomb the mall on black Friday as they are to blow up a plane.

I'm also NOT afraid of being "molested" by a TSA agent. I've already had the real deal, so being patted down in the presence of a thousand other travellers isn't going to do me in.

The point is...I'm not afraid. I don't care. Big difference.

I mentioned earlier (and seemed to be the ONLY one on the hysteria-laden thread to do so) a possible alternative. Unless I'm on ignore (and I may be, since my opinion isn't jiving with the thread "owner"), everyone seemed to just scootch on by my remark, so I'll give it another try.

1. Employ sniffer-dogs to ferret out hazardous material that might be capable of blowing up the aircraft.

2. Make it mandatory to have a uniformed and ARMED LEO on every flight. One in front and one in back. Any passenger displaying even a little aggressive behavior gets tazed without warning....or maybe they could just get a warning and then shot?

You like? Cause, I'm okay with all of that too.

So are you for or against the new changes? You mention alternatives which sort of sounds like you would like a different approach but then mock people's issues with the new changes. Where do you stand?

I'd be fine with the dog idea and actually think it's a much smarter idea than what is going on right now. I saw it come up multiple times and let it go because I don't feel the need to say something about every idea becaue I don't want to monopolize things, I didn't realize my silence was being taken the wrong way. Sorry for that, it was unintentional.

 

[JLTraveling]

I mentioned earlier (and seemed to be the ONLY one on the hysteria-laden thread to do so) a possible alternative. Unless I'm on ignore (and I may be, since my opinion isn't jiving with the thread "owner"), everyone seemed to just scootch on by my remark, so I'll give it another try.

1. Employ sniffer-dogs to ferret out hazardous material that might be capable of blowing up the aircraft.

2. Make it mandatory to have a uniformed and ARMED LEO on every flight. One in front and one in back. Any passenger displaying even a little aggressive behavior gets tazed without warning....or maybe they could just get a warning and then shot?

You like? Cause, I'm okay with all of that too.

Actually, you're not the only one to mention it. I'm one of the "hysterical" posters and I brought up dogs a long time ago. I didn't specifically mentioned the armed LEO on each flight, but I'm good with it (tazing, not necessarily actually shooting without a REALLY good reason).

I personally think the LEO may be a bit of overkill, but it's not invasive, so it doesn't bother me. I think the dogs would be a LOT more effective than these other procedures, and they don't even need to stick their noses directly in people's crotches...they can alert just by walking down a row of people.

If we get dogs and armed LEOs, are you cool with leaving our shoes on and carrying our coffee while walking through an old-school metal detector?

 

[Jennasis]

So are you for or against the new changes? You mention alternatives which sort of sounds like you would like a different approach but then mock people's issues with the new changes. Where do you stand?

I DON'T CARE. It's all fine with me. Pat me down, scan me. I will detest flying regardless (but not for the security screenings). So I guess I'm FOR it.

I gave alternatives because none of the "sky is falling" folks around here offered anything else as an option. At least not that I could recall...40+ pages is a lot.

But I think the dogs could be quite effective. LEO's might drive the price of a ticket up but we can't have our cake and eat it too.

 

[LuvOrlando]

I DON'T CARE. It's all fine with me. Pat me down, scan me. I will detest flying regardless (but not for the security screenings). So I guess I'm FOR it.

I gave alternatives because none of the "sky is falling" folks around here offered anything else as an option. At least not that I could recall...40+ pages is a lot.

The option I favor was leave things as they were a few months ago and I think I said it a number of times. I would have been fine with the addition of dogs or chemical sniffers. I'm even ok with the scanner and pat downs if someone triggers some red flag. I'm not ok with the whole thing all the time.

For the record, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. If you are ok with it then I am ok with you being ok with it, I have zero issue with the idea you don't care what they do. You have nothing to do with me. I'm not ok with it happening to me & mine.

 

[Jennasis]

Actually, you're not the only one to mention it. I'm one of the "hysterical" posters and I brought up dogs a long time ago. I didn't specifically mentioned the armed LEO on each flight, but I'm good with it (tazing, not necessarily actually shooting without a REALLY good reason).

I personally think the LEO may be a bit of overkill, but it's not invasive, so it doesn't bother me. I think the dogs would be a LOT more effective than these other procedures, and they don't even need to stick their noses directly in people's crotches...they can alert just by walking down a row of people.

If we get dogs and armed LEOs, are you cool with leaving our shoes on and carrying our coffee while walking through an old-school metal detector?

I DON'T CARE.. I'm more concerned about the engine falling off from lazy mechanics or bad engineering.

 

[Huggles]

The weird thing about this thread is that the people who are pro new searches try to come off all tough but the truth is they are frightened out of their minds over the idea of being faced with what the men and women in the armed forces deal with every day. They are so paralyzed with this fear that they are attacking anyone and anything that threatens to tug away the thin apron they believe is shielding them from the real world and they embrace any promise of protection without question.

For a long time we were all terrified but now things seem to be changing. I know I've changed but I don't think I knew it until these new search methods were rolled out. Now with 2011 in front of me I'm just not afraid any more... at least not the way I was and it's a bit of a surprise. I think what's going on is there is a segment of the population who is now ready to stop running in retreat. Some seem ready to face the enemy head on and stand and fight if it ever came to that (on the street, in an airplane, wherever) and those who are still running at all costs are trying to drag the rest of us with them because they view us as a threat.

Here is how I see it. There are men and woman away at war fighting to protect me & mine and I think about that every day. The least I can do is make sure the US is the same place it was when they left when they get back. It's ok with me that lots of other people are still running in fear, I'm not trying to convince them, I'm not going to attack them or put them down but neither can I join them. The animals who hurt us all 9/11 have taken enough from me, they don't get my body and kids too.

Thing is, the men and women who are serving in Afghanistan will understand more than most, the need for such searches as THEY are the ones who have dealt with suicide bombers and IEDs during their deployment.

I am not afraid of flying nor am I running away, I am merely carrying on my life confident in the knowledge that the Govt puts in place what it thinks is required. I am not looking over my shoulder at all times, instead I continue my life as normal, taking care of my family and travelling by whatever means is required.
I take it that you don't approve of the Govt assessed levels of alert either?
Surely being afraid ( you imply fear of molestation of your children) of the TSA searches (home security) is worse than being afraid of implied threats of terrorism?

 

[Jennasis]

The option I favor was leave things as they were a few months ago and I think I said it a number of times. I would have been fine with the addition of dogs or chemical sniffers. I'm even ok with the scanner and pat downs if someone triggers some red flag. I'm not ok with the whole thing all the time.

For the record, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. If you are ok with it then I am ok with you being ok with it, I'm ok with the idea you don't care what they do. You have nothing to do with me. I'm not ok with it happening to me & mine.

And if you triggered a red flag? let's say the dog decides you smell like plastique. Will you throw a hissy about being pulled out of line for a full on pat-down. Or will you submit?

 

[LuvOrlando]

And if you triggered a red flag? let's say the dog decides you smell like plastique. Will you throw a hissy about being pulled out of line for a full on pat-down. Or will you submit?

I would absolutely submit without question, same goes for my kids.

I have no problem with it being a level 2 search, if they have a REASON to suspect me then so be it. I am not ok with it being the default.

 

[OceanAnnie]

IMO, The object of the terrorists isn't in the delivery so much as it is destroying Americans and our way of life.

The security measures create another problem, throngs of people waiting in line to get through security at the airport. That is a prime opportunity for an attack. The same terrorist objectives would apply. Destroy a large number of Americans and tie it to American industry. It would still be a "2 for 1" hit.

It doesn't have the same imagery as an exploding plane, but the impact would be just as damaging.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Which part? What exactly is it you all ARE fighting for if not increased protections because you are terrified that you might end up face to face with a terrorist?

The quoted section, the part about [obviously] being "scared out of my mind" to face what our troops do. That completely lost me.

I'm with Jennasis. I DON'T CARE what the TSA requires me to do before allowing me to board a flight. I really don't. If they expect me to stand on one leg, well, that's discriminatory because I'm disabled. If they want me to strip down to my underwear in a relatively private location? I DON'T CARE. I'm not modest, and there's WAY too much of me for anyone to be excited by the sight of me in my (clean) Walmart-purchased foundation garments.

They don't have to do any of this, you understand. I'm completely safe. I'm the last person anyone would expect to have nefarious intent. All you need to do is look at me. Trust me.

 

[Jennasis]

I would absolutely submit without question, same goes for my kids.

I have no problem with it being a level 2 search, I am not ok with it being the default.

So you'd trust a DOG's judgment, but not a human's.


Fascinating.

 

[surfgirl]

The weird thing about this thread is that the people who are pro new searches try to come off all tough but the truth is they are frightened out of their minds over the idea of being faced with what the men and women in the armed forces deal with every day. They are so paralyzed with this fear that they are attacking anyone and anything that threatens to tug away the thin apron they believe is shielding them from the real world and they embrace any promise of protection without question.

For a long time we were all terrified but now things seem to be changing. I know I've changed but I don't think I knew it until these new search methods were rolled out. Now with 2011 in front of me I'm just not afraid any more... at least not the way I was and it's a bit of a surprise. I think what's going on is there is a segment of the population who is now ready to stop running in retreat. Some seem ready to face the enemy head on and stand and fight if it ever came to that (on the street, in an airplane, wherever) and those who are still running at all costs are trying to drag the rest of us with them because they view us as a threat.

Here is how I see it. There are men and woman away at war fighting to protect me & mine and I think about that every day. The least I can do is make sure the US is the same place it was when they left when they get back. It's ok with me that lots of other people are still running in fear, I'm not trying to convince them, I'm not going to attack them or put them down but neither can I join them. The animals who hurt us all 9/11 have taken enough from me, they don't get my body and kids too.

Terrified? Paralyzed with fear? Running in fear ? Stretching a bit ?

speak for yourself.

I'm not a "the sky is falling" person. I think the patdowns are no big deal. I'm more concerned with equating them with 'molestation', 'groping', 'fondling' since I think that is a dis-service.

What is wrong with me expressing an opinion that you disagree with ? I guess the OP won't answer that, since I'm sure I'm on her 'ignore' list. She is too busy being proud and self-congratulating herself.

I mentioned earlier (and seemed to be the ONLY one on the hysteria-laden thread to do so) a possible alternative. Unless I'm on ignore (and I may be, since my opinion isn't jiving with the thread "owner"), everyone seemed to just scootch on by my remark, so I'll give it another try.

1. Employ sniffer-dogs to ferret out hazardous material that might be capable of blowing up the aircraft.

2. Make it mandatory to have a uniformed and ARMED LEO on every flight. One in front and one in back. Any passenger displaying even a little aggressive behavior gets tazed without warning....or maybe they could just get a warning and then shot?

Jennasis, I thought someone upthread mentioned that it would take years and many dollars to implement the level of bomb-sniffing dogs (since the infrastructure isn't in place). I think the cost of LEO's would be prohibitive, also.

 

[Jennasis]

Terrified? Paralyzed with fear? Running in fear ? Stretching a bit ?

speak for yourself.

I'm not a "the sky is falling" person. I think the patdowns are no big deal. I'm more concerned with equating them with 'molestation', 'groping', 'fondling' since I think that is a dis-service.

What is wrong with me expressing an opinion that you disagree with ? I guess the OP won't answer that, since I'm sure I'm on her 'ignore' list. She is too busy being proud and self-congratulating herself.



Jennasis, I thought someone upthread mentioned that it would take years and many dollars to implement the level of bomb-sniffing dogs (since the infrastructure isn't in place). I think the cost of LEO's would be prohibitive, also.

I said it would be pricey, but we can't have it BOTH ways.

 

[surfgirl]

The option I favor was leave things as they were a few months ago and I think I said it a number of times. .

Did you know patdowns occurred prior to the recent change ?

 

[Huggles]

The quoted section, the part about [obviously] being "scared out of my mind" to face what our troops do. That completely lost me.

I'm with Jennasis. I DON'T CARE what the TSA requires me to do before allowing me to board a flight. I really don't. If they expect me to stand on one leg, well, that's discriminatory because I'm disabled. If they want me to strip down to my underwear in a relatively private location? I DON'T CARE. I'm not modest, and there's WAY too much of me for anyone to be excited by the sight of me in my (clean) Walmart-purchased foundation garments.

They don't have to do any of this, you understand. I'm completely safe. I'm the last person anyone would expect to have nefarious intent. All you need to do is look at me. Trust me.

However, just so you realise that terrorists can and will use all means possible to achieve their ends. Not all fanatics are young fit and able to stand on one leg, so if you do get 'pulled' remember that wheelchairs and artificial limbs can conceal a great many things

Oh, and re the dogs. Please remember that not only are sniffer dogs (and handlers) VERY expensive to train, but they can only work in short-ish 'bursts' so for a large airport you'd be talking a terrific number of dogs and handlers ( and successful dogs and handlers then become targets too)

 

[DMRick]

I still think a poll would be a great layer on this thread. It's such a polarizing issue.

I agree, but think a poll would mean more if it also had one of the answers mention if the person actually actively flies at this time (not just planning a trip in a year, or had one in the past, or thinking of one or has flown in the past and already had no plans to fly and is outraged.). I say that, because we cruise (and fly) often, and so many times people give me all the reasons they would never cruise, and yet, well, they have never cruised. One person told me yesterday she didn't know how we could still fly, because with the new rules, she wouldn't. I asked when she flew last, mentioned it was a pain to get there so early, etc, and then I found she has never flown..just the thought of getting on a plane frightens her.So the new rules wouldn't affect her anyway.

For me, the discomfort I may have to go through to cut hours and hours (or days, if I have to take a boat to get overseas, versus flying) is worth what it takes to get there. I know I have choices, and I chose to fly in spite of what might be unneccessary steps to get there. Just like a friend who will not use her seatbelt in my car (in any car). She believes it's against her civil rights to follow that law. Since it's my car, and the rule of our car, she gets to find other transportation if she wants to go where we are.

My son flew in from Ireland last night with family, and said they had nothing different there. When they got into the US airport in the customs area, there was a dog going around and he sat next to the babies bag, and the gal with him asked if that was the baby's bag, because she said the dog loved babies stuff. The dog sniffed it (and they had lots of liquids in it for the baby) and they moved on. We'll see how it goes when they fly home, out of the US. He said he read somewhere in the airport that children under 12 won't be affected, so I guess that is good, the kids won't have to be frightened as so many were worried about.

We aren't changing any of our plans...we have three flights coming up in the next couple of months, one overseas. I don't know if the new measures will stop someone determined, but it may make someone think it will.

 

[LuvOrlando]

The quoted section, the part about [obviously] being "scared out of my mind" to face what our troops do. That completely lost me.

I'm with Jennasis. I DON'T CARE what the TSA requires me to do before allowing me to board a flight. I really don't. If they expect me to stand on one leg, well, that's discriminatory because I'm disabled. If they want me to strip down to my underwear in a relatively private location? I DON'T CARE. I'm not modest, and there's WAY too much of me for anyone to be excited by the sight of me in my (clean) Walmart-purchased foundation garments.

They don't have to do any of this, you understand. I'm completely safe. I'm the last person anyone would expect to have nefarious intent. All you need to do is look at me. Trust me.

I believe you, I understand where the other side of the issue is coming from because I used to be there not too long ago. The trouble is I'm not in the same place any more. I don't think I realized how much ground I'd given up until I stopped and turned around and that JUST happened for me. I get you might not know what I'm talking about but just know I get it, I get you and where you are coming from 100% and I am respectful of your position.

 

[Muushka]

It is a great option, isn't it? Putting someone on ignore means missing out on some interesting conversation or points, and prevents one from participating in the full discussion It makes a lot of sense when someone's being obnoxious (as does the 'report' button), but little when they're being reasonable and simply don't agree with one's own point of view...

Yes, it is a great option. Thanks for understanding!

For the record, after being on these boards for 10+ years, I have a pretty good idea that there are certain people who argue, belittle, fight just for the fun of it. I find no pleasure or benefit to reading such garbage.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Did you know patdowns occurred prior to the recent change ?

Yes, but they were not the standard, they were level 2. Now it is a default and this particular change is where it all went up in flames.

 

[anna_chronistic]

The option I favor was leave things as they were a few months ago and I think I said it a number of times. I would have been fine with the addition of dogs or chemical sniffers. I'm even ok with the scanner and pat downs if someone triggers some red flag. I'm not ok with the whole thing all the time.

For the record, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. If you are ok with it then I am ok with you being ok with it, I have zero issue with the idea you don't care what they do. You have nothing to do with me. I'm not ok with it happening to me & mine.

Jennasis, I think LuvOrlando, I, and others perhaps are looking at this a different way than you are. Actually, there seem to be multiple discussions (I typed "arguments" at first!) taking place on this thread that are aimed at different goals.

I am presenting (and reading about) the pros and cons of the newly enacted procedures, after reading as much as I can on both sides, explaining why I think the procedures are inappropriate for myriad reasons, and waiting for a clear and cogent explanation of the rationale for the enhanced "security."

These seem to be the arguments in favor of it:
. The government wouldn't enact something it thought was ineffective.
. It will keep us safer.
. It doesn't bother me so it shouldn't bother you, and if it does bother you, you are being ridiculous.
. Flying is a privilege anyway, so if you don't like it, don't fly.
. The radiation won't hurt you.
. Touching of personal areas by a trained professional is nothing to get worked up over.
. Who cares if they take a scan of my whole body?

Am I missing an argument on the "pro" side? Does anyone else see a problem with that list?

The con side has listed exhaustively the reasons these procedures are likely ineffective, possibly harmful, unproven to work, etc. etc. ad nauseum. We've also noted ways around it -- ostomy bags, etc.

Someone said something along the lines of "Just because they can't ask to inspect it doesn't mean it won't go through the scanner." Actually, that's exactly what it means. If someone refuses the scanner, gets a pat-down and refuses to show the contents of his or her apparatus, what will they do? They CANNOT force you to be scanned, and they state that they will not inspect certain medical apparatuses. So do they refuse to let you on the plane?

It would make sense (if any of this ridiculous stuff makes sense), since I heard on the radio today that a woman in a burqua who refuses to be scanned or submit to the enhanced pat-down will not fly. That may have just been posturing on the part of the TSA ... but perhaps not. At least they are being somewhat consistent -- Tyner could not fly without being patted down, so it is only fair that anyone who refuses loses flying "privileges."