Strip-Searched Grandma Says TSA Removed Her Underwear

[Shadow]

An 84-year-old New York grandmother says she was “mortified” after being strip-searched by TSA agents at John F. Kennedy International Airport last week.
Lenore Zimmerman of Long Island said she was on her way to Fort Lauderdale, Fla., when security whisked her away to a private room without explanation after she asked to forgo the full-body scan, fearing it might interfere with her defibrillator.
“They took me into a private room and pulled down my slacks and pulled down my underwear” without explanation or apology, Zimmerman told ABC News.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/12/strip-searched-grandma-says-tsa-removed-her-underwear/

[Noir]

That is unbelievable, if true.

[jimnyc]

That is unbelievable, if true.

Agreed, but I'm leaning towards not true. Not only does the TSA deny it happened, the only footage available supports their story, including the timeline. I believe a lot of the shit being blamed on the TSA, but this one seems to odd to be true. The video "should" show her in the screening room a lot longer, and a fuss about the place afterwards, which it doesn't. And if she was in/out fairly quick as the TSA and footage suggest, then why is she stating she was in there forever and missed her flight as a result?

The TSA needs SOME sort of oversight as to what happens in these rooms, to protect not only the passengers but also themselves.

[Shadow]

Agreed, but I'm leaning towards not true. Not only does the TSA deny it happened, the only footage available supports their story, including the timeline. I believe a lot of the shit being blamed on the TSA, but this one seems to odd to be true. The video "should" show her in the screening room a lot longer, and a fuss about the place afterwards, which it doesn't. And if she was in/out fairly quick as the TSA and footage suggest, then why is she stating she was in there forever and missed her flight as a result?

The TSA needs SOME sort of oversight as to what happens in these rooms, to protect not only the passengers but also themselves.


I'm surprised they haven't thought of doing that already. Unless they think it has the potiential to backfire on them.

[cadet]

I'm surprised they haven't thought of doing that already. Unless they think it has the potiential to backfire on them.

Well, then they could be sued for filming people being searched, and of course, somebody would claim they're selling sex tapes.

[Kathianne]

Well, then they could be sued for filming people being searched, and of course, somebody would claim they're selling sex tapes.

and you can bet that some idiot would be taped watching such searches and laughing or jerking off. Seriously.

[Psychoblues]

I'm certain the TSA agents really got off looking at that 85 year old woman. I was once a Security Manager at a casino. I often responded to various situations involving women. If I needed to be in a private situation with her I always had a female officer with me. If the situation was of a personal nature I turned the matter over to my female accomplice and got another female to accompany her. I don't think we ever encountered a single problem with that policy.

Psychoblues

[Noir]

I'm certain the TSA agents really got off looking at that 85 year old woman. I was once a Security Manager at a casino. I often responded to various situations involving women. If I needed to be in a private situation with her I always had a female officer with me. If the situation was of a personal nature I turned the matter over to my female accomplice and got another female to accompany her. I don't think we ever encountered a single problem with that policy.

Psychoblues

If you read the story you'd know the TSA agents invloved were women. And in any case you can't just assume they're in the wrong with no supporting evidence.

[Psychoblues]

If you read the story you'd know the TSA agents invloved were women. And in any case you can't just assume they're in the wrong with no supporting evidence.

Noir, I haven't assumed anything at all and I am in agreement with all you and others say here. I was simply sharing my own personal experiences and that we never had a single problem with it. What if those TSA agents were geezer dykes and were lusting after the old broad?

:laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues

[ConHog]

This story stinks to high heaven.

PS I would be SHOCKED if there isn't a video of the woman being searched. That's pretty much standard operating procedure for 2 reasons.

1. Provide video evidence in case a trial is necessary

2. Provide video evidence in case of claims like this.

[Psychoblues]

This story stinks to high heaven.

PS I would be SHOCKED if there isn't a video of the woman being searched. That's pretty much standard operating procedure for 2 reasons.

1. Provide video evidence in case a trial is necessary

2. Provide video evidence in case of claims like this.

You would be very wrong, CH. There is video like that in jail, prisons, military interrogation and other formal detention entities but simple airport screening, incident interviewing and the likes are almost never videotaped and I know of none except in jails and prisons that would videotape anyone in their most private or naked conditions. And like you, I think the story stinks to high heaven.

Psychoblues

[ConHog]

You would be very wrong, CH. There is video like that in jail, prisons, military interrogation and other formal detention entities but simple airport screening, incident interviewing and the likes are almost never videotaped and I know of none except in jails and prisons that would videotape anyone in their most private or naked conditions. And like you, I think the story stinks to high heaven.

Psychoblues

I have no idea what you're talking about PB, but when the TSA takes you into a private room to search you, you are in fact formally being detained. I say again, I would be SHOCKED if such searches aren't recorded, and I don't believe ANYONE has ever been told to strip down without VERY good cause IE a dog hit for drugs or explosives.

[Psychoblues]

I have no idea what you're talking about PB, but when the TSA takes you into a private room to search you, you are in fact formally being detained. I say again, I would be SHOCKED if such searches aren't recorded, and I don't believe ANYONE has ever been told to strip down without VERY good cause IE a dog hit for drugs or explosives.

Those people are not, I repeat, are not under arrest of any kind and TSA would be taking on a tremendous risk and responsibility that they DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE if they were to be caught videotaping these exams. This does not prevent them from being sued anyway but with more than one agent in the examining room the burden of proof will lie on the complainant to credibly dispute the eyewitness accounts, notes and narratives of the examiners and that would be a tough nut to crack for any legal team.


Psychoblues

[ConHog]

Those people are not, I repeat, are not under arrest of any kind and TSA would be taking on a tremendous risk and responsibility that they DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE if they were to be caught videotaping these exams. This does not prevent them from being sued anyway but with more than one agent in the examining room the burden of proof will lie on the complainant to credibly dispute the eyewitness accounts, notes and narratives of the examiners and that would be a tough nut to crack for any legal team.


Psychoblues

detained =/= arrested. And certainly when you are taken into a backroom for questioning and or searching by the TSA you are being detained, legally no different than if you are pulled over by a police officer. You're not under arrest then either, but try driving away and see what happens.

[revelarts]

I'm not sure why this story isn't credible to some, based on what we already seen the TSA do before it;s not far fetched.
And the woman doesn't seem to have an agenda. I'm mean is she just a crazy old biddy or something?
either way the TSA has done enough other dirty deeds that this is just another log on the fire.
I hope the TSA is abolished soon.

[ConHog]

I'm not sure why this story isn't credible to some, based on what we already seen the TSA do before it;s not far fetched.
And the woman doesn't seem to have an agenda. I'm mean is she just a crazy old biddy or something?
either way the TSA has done enough other dirty deeds that this is just another log on the fire.
I hope the TSA is abolished soon.

Color me SHOCKED that you would join in a thread bashing the government employees who are doing their part in protecting you.

[jimnyc]

I'm not sure why this story isn't credible to some, based on what we already seen the TSA do before it;s not far fetched.
And the woman doesn't seem to have an agenda. I'm mean is she just a crazy old biddy or something?
either way the TSA has done enough other dirty deeds that this is just another log on the fire.
I hope the TSA is abolished soon.

You would call these employees guilty solely based on what other TSA agents have done in the past? How about judging them based on the facts?

[ConHog]

You would call these employees guilty solely based on what other TSA agents have done in the past? How about judging them based on the facts?

He would call them guilty based on the SOLE fact that they are TSA employees. You know that, and I know that.

[Shadow]

Another elderly flier claims TSA strip-search at JFK


Ruth Sherman, an 88-year-old frequent flier with JetBlue, has flown from New York to Florida many times, but never has she been taken aside and asked to pull her pants down and show her colostomy bag, as she asserts occurred at Kennedy Airport recently.
It makes Sherman the second elderly woman in recent days to claim that TSA agents forced her to expose herself during a pre-flight security screening. Lenore Zimmerman, a Long Beach, N.Y., resident, says she was required by TSA security screeners to take off her pants (http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/03/9191260-84-year-old-woman-i-was-strip-searched-at-jfk) as part of a search on Nov. 29. That search likewise took place at the JetBlue terminal at Kennedy.

Snip...

“It was awful,” Sherman told msnbc.com from her home in Sunrise, Fla. “They asked me to come into another room. I said ‘Don’t touch me — you have dirty hands.’ I had on plain sweatpants and a top. They made me pull my sweatpants down with my underwear. They invaded my privacy.
“I was so taken aback. I’m on medication, and I didn’t want to get high blood pressure. It was a horrible situation.”
"TSA is currently reviewing recent allegations of passengers who flew out of JFK, " spokesperson Greg Soule said in a statement. "Our preliminary review of each of these claims indicates all screening procedures were followed."
One thing is known, Soule told msnbc.com earlier Monday: “Is removal of underwear proper for (someone with) a colostomy bag? The answer is no.”
JetBlue had little to say. “We’re cooperating with the TSA and ask that you refer to them for additional information,” said Allison Steinberg, a spokeswoman for the airline.

http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/05/9228082-another-elderly-flier-claims-tsa-strip-search-at-jfk

[ConHog]

Another elderly flier claims TSA strip-search at JFK


Ruth Sherman, an 88-year-old frequent flier with JetBlue, has flown from New York to Florida many times, but never has she been taken aside and asked to pull her pants down and show her colostomy bag, as she asserts occurred at Kennedy Airport recently.
It makes Sherman the second elderly woman in recent days to claim that TSA agents forced her to expose herself during a pre-flight security screening. Lenore Zimmerman, a Long Beach, N.Y., resident, says she was required by TSA security screeners to take off her pants (http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/03/9191260-84-year-old-woman-i-was-strip-searched-at-jfk) as part of a search on Nov. 29. That search likewise took place at the JetBlue terminal at Kennedy.

Snip...

“It was awful,” Sherman told msnbc.com from her home in Sunrise, Fla. “They asked me to come into another room. I said ‘Don’t touch me — you have dirty hands.’ I had on plain sweatpants and a top. They made me pull my sweatpants down with my underwear. They invaded my privacy.
“I was so taken aback. I’m on medication, and I didn’t want to get high blood pressure. It was a horrible situation.”
"TSA is currently reviewing recent allegations of passengers who flew out of JFK, " spokesperson Greg Soule said in a statement. "Our preliminary review of each of these claims indicates all screening procedures were followed."
One thing is known, Soule told msnbc.com earlier Monday: “Is removal of underwear proper for (someone with) a colostomy bag? The answer is no.”
JetBlue had little to say. “We’re cooperating with the TSA and ask that you refer to them for additional information,” said Allison Steinberg, a spokeswoman for the airline.

http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/05/9228082-another-elderly-flier-claims-tsa-strip-search-at-jfk



Here is part of the problem right here. You have fliers, old ladies even, being rude to TSA and just what expecting them to take it and be all smiles and lollipops? I wonder if the lady had been polite and explained her situation had things played out differently. Not to say I agree with her being strip searched, but two wrongs don't make a right either.

[Kathianne]

Here is part of the problem right here. You have fliers, old ladies even, being rude to TSA and just what expecting them to take it and be all smiles and lollipops? I wonder if the lady had been polite and explained her situation had things played out differently. Not to say I agree with her being strip searched, but two wrongs don't make a right either.

Back braces, Depends, colostomy bags? You too might just be a tad testy and embarrassed!

http://www.local10.com/news/Elderly-complain-about-pants-search-at-airport/-/1717324/4881644/-/ov0t3e/-/index.html


NEW YORK - With age come such things as catheters, colostomy bags and adult diapers. Now add another indignity to getting old — having to drop your pants and show these things to a complete stranger.


Two women in their 80s put the Transportation Security Administration on the defensive this week by going public about their embarrassment during screenings in a private room at John F. Kennedy International Airport. One claimed she was forced to lower her pants and underwear in front of an agent so that her back brace could be inspected. Another said agents made her pull down her waistband to show her colostomy bag.


While not confirming some of the details, the TSA said a preliminary review shows officers followed the agency's procedures in both cases. But experts said the potential for such searches will increase as the U.S. population ages and receives prosthetics and other medical devices, some of which cannot go through screening machines.


<aside>"You have pacemakers, you have artificial hips, you have artificial knees," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. "As we get older and we keep ourselves together, it's going to take more and more surgery. There's going to be more and more medical improvements, but that can create what appears to be a security issue."


Prosthetic devices can set off metal detectors, and certain devices such as catheters and bags are visible on body scanners, making those passengers candidates for more thorough inspections. Metal detectors and wands can disrupt some devices such as implanted defibrillators, so those passengers must ask for pat-downs instead.
Ruth Sherman, 88, of Sunrise, Fla., said she was mortified when inspectors pulled her aside and asked about the bulge in her pants as she arrived for a flight to Fort Lauderdale, Fla., on Nov. 28.


"I said, 'I have a bag here,'" she said on Monday, pointing to the bulge, which is bigger or smaller depending on what she eats. "They didn't understand."


She said they escorted her to another room where two female agents "made me lower my sweatpants, and I was really very humiliated." She said she stood with her arms and legs outstretched, warning the agents not to touch her colostomy bag. Touching the bag can cause pain, she said...

...The TSA says it has been trying to tailor its screening procedures for different types of passengers. In September it eliminated pat-downs for most children under 12 because of complaints from parents. In October it began testing an express screening program for frequent fliers at four airports.


The agency has formed an advisory committee of 70 disability groups to help adapt its screening techniques.
TSA chief John Pistole has said the agency is trying to train screeners to more quickly identify medical devices, such as catheters, to save passengers from embarrassment. He also said the agency might give preference to senior citizens going through the screening lines.



</aside>
It's been more than a decade of this now, more than enough time for better solutions.

[ConHog]

Back braces, Depends, colostomy bags? You too might just be a tad testy and embarrassed!

http://www.local10.com/news/Elderly-complain-about-pants-search-at-airport/-/1717324/4881644/-/ov0t3e/-/index.html



</aside>
It's been more than a decade of this now, more than enough time for better solutions.

Of course, I was speaking more in general terms than this one specific instance Kath. Like when you see people starting shit with the cops then going crazy when the cops retaliate. See the OWS retards for example.

[Kathianne]

Of course, I was speaking more in general terms than this one specific instance Kath. Like when you see people starting shit with the cops then going crazy when the cops retaliate. See the OWS retards for example.

Well that makes sense, except this thread WAS about the TSA and the elderly. :rolleyes:

[ConHog]

Well that makes sense, except this thread WAS about the TSA and the elderly. :rolleyes:

As if this thread exists in a vacuum? I think this old lady is lying. I also think that some people go into airports looking to piss off the TSA hoping to get a bad reaction. If THOSE people went away then we would see less of the real problems. It's that simple.

[Kathianne]

As if this thread exists in a vacuum? I think this old lady is lying. I also think that some people go into airports looking to piss off the TSA hoping to get a bad reaction. If THOSE people went away then we would see less of the real problems. It's that simple.

All 3 are lying? Their son, daughter too? Really? They brought it upon themselves. Right.

One has wee wee in her Depends. One a colostomy bad. One who's back brace, while in a wheel chair, brought them to the TSA terrorists forefront? Get a grip.

[revelarts]

As if this thread exists in a vacuum? I think this old lady is lying. I also think that some people go into airports looking to piss off the TSA hoping to get a bad reaction. If THOSE people went away then we would see less of the real problems. It's that simple.
Count me SHOCKED that Con will defend gov't thuggery and abuse against the people it's suppose to be serving and get their paychecks from. Assuming the people MUST be the problem that the gov't/cops/military can't be wrong, unless provoked then... well it's OK...they have a every right to pull an old ladies draws off.

[ConHog]

Count me SHOCKED that Con will defend gov't thuggery and abuse against the people it's suppose to be serving and get their paychecks from. Assuming the people MUST be the problem that the gov't/cops/military can't be wrong, unless provoked then... well it's OK...they have a every right to pull an old ladies draws off.


Except that isn't what I said at all.

[jimnyc]

Count me SHOCKED that Con will defend gov't thuggery and abuse against the people it's suppose to be serving and get their paychecks from. Assuming the people MUST be the problem that the gov't/cops/military can't be wrong, unless provoked then... well it's OK...they have a every right to pull an old ladies draws off.

How did the first woman, the one you immediately blamed the TSA for, be in the screening room for 11 minutes according to cameras and yet have been an hour late and missed her flight? Why does her story go against what the cameras showed? I didn't see you reply to my question earlier...

[ConHog]

How did the first woman, the one you immediately blamed the TSA for, be in the screening room for 11 minutes according to cameras and yet have been an hour late and missed her flight? Why does her story go against what the cameras showed? I didn't see you reply to my question earlier...

Careful Jim, if you question this woman's veracity you will be accused of being a big government thug. Gotta believe EVERY anti government story regardless of facts don't you know?

[jimnyc]

Careful Jim, if you question this woman's veracity you will be accused of being a big government thug. Gotta believe EVERY anti government story regardless of facts don't you know?

I've seen issues from the TSA that are horrid, and need to be corrected. Then I see issues where the passengers are looking for trouble. I've seen issues where it seems as if the complainer is potentially lying. I just think each case needs to be addressed separately, even if the TSA needs addressing as a whole. But to automatically accuse employees of wrongdoing because of who they work for is wrong.

[ConHog]

I've seen issues from the TSA that are horrid, and need to be corrected. Then I see issues where the passengers are looking for trouble. I've seen issues where it seems as if the complainer is potentially lying. I just think each case needs to be addressed separately, even if the TSA needs addressing as a whole. But to automatically accuse employees of wrongdoing because of who they work for is wrong.

Agreed completely.

[Kathianne]

How did the first woman, the one you immediately blamed the TSA for, be in the screening room for 11 minutes according to cameras and yet have been an hour late and missed her flight? Why does her story go against what the cameras showed? I didn't see you reply to my question earlier...

Hmmm, seems you skipped my post on 3 and now CH is glomming onto this post of yours. It wasn't one. Indeed, TSA is now saying that they've 'been working on' how to deal with elder issues, like 10 years + isn't enough time?

[ConHog]

Hmmm, seems you skipped my post on 3 and now CH is glomming onto this post of yours. It wasn't one. Indeed, TSA is now saying that they've 'been working on' how to deal with elder issues, like 10 years + isn't enough time?

Hundreds of thousands of people manage to fly every year without encountering ANY problems with the TSA, so this acting like they just can't do anything right is silly. Nothing they do is going to prevent EVERY bad encounter from happening.

Now I notice YOU refuse to admit that yes in fact there are people who go out of there way to provoke the TSA.

[jimnyc]

Hmmm, seems you skipped my post on 3 and now CH is glomming onto this post of yours. It wasn't one. Indeed, TSA is now saying that they've 'been working on' how to deal with elder issues, like 10 years + isn't enough time?

I read your posts. I was still speaking about the complaint from the OP. I'm sure there are many valid complaints out there, and quite possibly the subsequent complaints since the OP. I was strictly stating that the woman in the 1st post, her story doesn't seem to add up, and that TSA agents themselves shouldn't automatically considered guilty when complaints are made, just because they are employed by the TSA. Each case is different. For 3 women complaining, there are thousands at the same time having no issues. That doesn't excuse other complaints, but shows that not all TSA agents are doing anything inappropriate.

[Kathianne]

I read your posts. I was still speaking about the complaint from the OP. I'm sure there are many valid complaints out there, and quite possibly the subsequent complaints since the OP. I was strictly stating that the woman in the 1st post, her story doesn't seem to add up, and that TSA agents themselves shouldn't automatically considered guilty when complaints are made, just because they are employed by the TSA. Each case is different. For 3 women complaining, there are thousands at the same time having no issues. That doesn't excuse other complaints, but shows that not all TSA agents are doing anything inappropriate.

No one said all. The point was that really granny or baby shouldn't be put through something akin to rape, when there isn't the profiling, MO if you will, to warrant such. Probably why TSA is working on it. Gag.

[Kathianne]

I read your posts. I was still speaking about the complaint from the OP. I'm sure there are many valid complaints out there, and quite possibly the subsequent complaints since the OP. I was strictly stating that the woman in the 1st post, her story doesn't seem to add up, and that TSA agents themselves shouldn't automatically considered guilty when complaints are made, just because they are employed by the TSA. Each case is different. For 3 women complaining, there are thousands at the same time having no issues. That doesn't excuse other complaints, but shows that not all TSA agents are doing anything inappropriate.

What you quoted wasn't directed towards you. Still and all, I just really couldn't care what 'you are sure of.'

[ConHog]

No one said all. The point was that really granny or baby shouldn't be put through something akin to rape, when there isn't the profiling, MO if you will, to warrant such. Probably why TSA is working on it. Gag.

A strip search isn't akin to rape. Good grief............. Now if they did a cavity search you MIGHT have a point.

[Kathianne]

A strip search isn't akin to rape. Good grief............. Now if they did a cavity search you MIGHT have a point.

I have a point, that you are too prejudiced to see it isn't my problem. Thankfully most law enforcement people aren't of your ilk.

[ConHog]

I have a point, that you are too prejudiced to see it isn't my problem. Thankfully most law enforcement people aren't of your ilk.

Your point is that the strip search that probably never happened is akin to rape? :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

No one said all. The point was that really granny or baby shouldn't be put through something akin to rape, when there isn't the profiling, MO if you will, to warrant such. Probably why TSA is working on it. Gag.

I think some rape victims would take offense to the comparison. I think some people are having their civil liberties violated, and I hope they succeed in any and all lawsuits that arise out of it. And maybe there are a handful of cases that actually rise to the level of assault, or a lesser sex offense, but certainly not rape.


What you quoted wasn't directed towards you. Still and all, I just really couldn't care what 'you are sure of.'

You quoted my post, and that's what I quote from you. As to the bold... Then why would you reply to me? Why the attitude about a reply I made that is actually quite mild?

[revelarts]

I'm not sure why this story isn't credible to some, based on what we already seen the TSA do before it;s not far fetched.
And the woman doesn't seem to have an agenda. I'm mean is she just a crazy old biddy or something?
either way the TSA has done enough other dirty deeds that this is just another log on the fire.
I hope the TSA is abolished soon.


You would call these employees guilty solely based on what other TSA agents have done in the past? How about judging them based on the facts?

He would call them guilty based on the SOLE fact that they are TSA employees. You know that, and I know that.
I didn't call them guilty, I just don't think it's far fetched.
When more facts come out we could be a bit more sure of what went on.
What do you think we'll get in the way of details from the TSA? Can the person sue and and a real investigation done?


As far as being guilty for being the TSA ... what..
I've always been agaist the TSA and all of the BS faux security, taking off shoes, no liquids, and pedophilia, geriatriphilla general purpose feel-ya.
TSA is not just a waste, it's another stripe against freedoms in the U.S..

here's a couple of former Air Marshalls and FAA red team security people talking about the lack of real security to this day. TSA is security theater and it is a crime that it still exist, every strip searched offense is just adding insult to injury.
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oTXq3JnXwoU?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

[Kathianne]

Actually the rape analogy works pretty well. These folks will likely be traumatized enough to never fly again, perhaps even find it hard to leave their homes again. Likely blaming themselves for putting themselves in the position of being there. Wrong place, wrong time, wrong employees.

Blaming the victim doesn't work in raper or this instance either.

As for CH saying there are 'some people' that are baiting or trying to entrap the TSA, that is likely. What isn't are people with real physical issues and in their 70's-90's.

What if it had been one of your moms? You'd still feel that it was her fault?

[jimnyc]

Actually the rape analogy works pretty well. These folks will likely be traumatized enough to never fly again, perhaps even find it hard to leave their homes again. Likely blaming themselves for putting themselves in the position of being there. Wrong place, wrong time, wrong employees.

Blaming the victim doesn't work in raper or this instance either.

Speaking solely about the OP...

You can't really say "blaming the victim" as you don't really know whether or not she is a victim, unless you solely listen to her complaint and ignore the TSA's words and the videotape. If she was "abused" in any way, heads should roll. The evidence thus far doesn't point to that being the case, and her own words don't add up.

And again, actual rape victims would probably take offense to comparing their violent abuses to that of someone who had some sort of strip search. While certainly not pleasant to go through, it's a far cry from rape.

[fj1200]

True or not. Privatize the TSA!

[jimnyc]

True or not. Privatize the TSA!

No argument here. I think the majority of the problems are because of the administration and guidelines, and not the screeners who take the majority of the heat. Get the government out of the entire thing and let the carriers hire independent security agencies.

Now, supposing this happens, or something close to that - what will be next if a private company performs "similar" searches to protect their employer/airlines?

[ConHog]

True or not. Privatize the TSA!


I'm not sure that would cure anything or is wise. Do you think the airlines would pay more to get a more professional person doing the security?

The simple solution is of course this.

"If you wish to fly , you MUST walk through the scanner. There will be NO hand pat downs, and NO hand searches. NO EXCEPTIONS PERIOD"

And if you're that scared of a big bad scanner, drive.

[revelarts]

I'm not sure that would cure anything or is wise. Do you think the airlines would pay more to get a more professional person doing the security?

The simple solution is of course this.

"If you wish to fly , you MUST walk through the scanner. There will be NO hand pat downs, and NO hand searches. NO EXCEPTIONS PERIOD"

And if you're that scared of a big bad scanner, drive.


True or not. Privatize the TSA!


No argument here. I think the majority of the problems are because of the administration and guidelines, and not the screeners who take the majority of the heat. Get the government out of the entire thing and let the carriers hire independent security agencies.

Now, supposing this happens, or something close to that - what will be next if a private company performs "similar" searches to protect their employer/airlines?


you know the story about the 2 guys who had a truck full of apples on the side of the road all day and didnt sell any. at the end of the day one guy said to the other "You know what the problem is, we need a bigger truck."

The TSA is a piece of junk and the scanners will not stop many types of explosives.
if the cockpit doors are hardened from take off to landing and your pilots are screened during hires and periodically you'll never have another hijacked plane flying into a building period. end of story. so no more 9-11 style tragedies ever.


Explosives on a plane is much harder to deal with but baggage screening is the most important, and is not done well now, goofballs with exotic personal explosives devices are not the real issue Plus NONE of the previous hijackers/terrorist have been lil old white ladies, 2-7 year old kids, old veterans in wheel chairs with colostomy bags etc.. it's a useless waste of time.
We knew the people of 911 pre 911 through the old laws and technics , none of those hijackers were lone wolves. the major crime/terrorist plans should be handled before anyone ever reaches a plane by federal and state law enforcement. but just like random shootings at McDonald, schools or churches some terrorism/crimes you just can't stop. An alert and armed/active citizenry is our best defense in those cases. Not another brigade of uniformed mall cops.

[ConHog]

you know the story about the 2 guys who had a truck full of apples on the side of the road all day and didnt sell any. at the end of the day one guy said to the other "You know what the problem is, we need a bigger truck."

The TSA is a piece of junk and the scanners will not stop many types of explosives.
if the cockpit doors are hardened from take off to landing and your pilots are screened during hires and periodically you'll never have another hijacked plane flying into a building period. end of story. so no more 9-11 style tragedies ever.


Explosives on a plane is much harder to deal with but baggage screening is the most important, and is not done well now, goofballs with exotic personal explosives devices are not the real issue Plus NONE of the previous hijackers/terrorist have been lil old white ladies, 2-7 year old kids, old veterans in wheel chairs with colostomy bags etc.. it's a useless waste of time.
We knew the people of 911 pre 911 through the old laws and technics , none of those hijackers were lone wolves. the major crime/terrorist plans should be handled before anyone ever reaches a plane by federal and state law enforcement. but just like random shootings at McDonald, schools or churches some terrorism/crimes you just can't stop. An alert and armed/active citizenry is our best defense in those cases. Not another brigade of uniformed mall cops.

Actually, if the TSA were allowed to profile, that would cure many things.

[Kathianne]

I'm not sure that would cure anything or is wise. Do you think the airlines would pay more to get a more professional person doing the security?

The simple solution is of course this.

"If you wish to fly , you MUST walk through the scanner. There will be NO hand pat downs, and NO hand searches. NO EXCEPTIONS PERIOD"

And if you're that scared of a big bad scanner, drive.

:rolleyes: http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/specialneeds/editorial_1374.shtm#1

[ConHog]

:rolleyes: http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/specialneeds/editorial_1374.shtm#1

My fault, I should have said that medical exceptions would be allowed obviously. What I was more gearing towards were people who just didn't WANT to go through the scanner.

[Kathianne]

My fault, I should have said that medical exceptions would be allowed obviously. What I was more gearing towards were people who just didn't WANT to go through the scanner.

The OP, the one you've been ragging on since the beginning:


An 84-year-old New York grandmother says she was “mortified” after being strip-searched by TSA agents at John F. Kennedy International Airport last week.
Lenore Zimmerman of Long Island said she was on her way to Fort Lauderdale, Fla., when security whisked her away to a private room without explanation after she asked to forgo the full-body scan, fearing it might interfere with her defibrillator.
“They took me into a private room and pulled down my slacks and pulled down my underwear” without explanation or apology, Zimmerman told ABC News.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...her-underwear/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/12/strip-searched-grandma-says-tsa-removed-her-underwear/)

[fj1200]

No argument here. I think the majority of the problems are because of the administration and guidelines, and not the screeners who take the majority of the heat. Get the government out of the entire thing and let the carriers hire independent security agencies.

Now, supposing this happens, or something close to that - what will be next if a private company performs "similar" searches to protect their employer/airlines?

They are more directly culpable to their customers as well as subject to civil suit where the TSA may have governmental immunity.

[Kathianne]

They are more directly culpable to their customers as well as subject to civil suit where the TSA may have governmental immunity.

Suing the government is pretty much an exercise in futility, they know it.

[fj1200]

I'm not sure that would cure anything or is wise. Do you think the airlines would pay more to get a more professional person doing the security?

The simple solution is of course this.

"If you wish to fly , you MUST walk through the scanner. There will be NO hand pat downs, and NO hand searches. NO EXCEPTIONS PERIOD"

And if you're that scared of a big bad scanner, drive.

It would most definitely cure the disease of TSA. Wise? Certainly more wise than what we have now.

Why do you assume the only way to ensure safety is the full body scanner?

[jimnyc]

They are more directly culpable to their customers as well as subject to civil suit where the TSA may have governmental immunity.

But that's not going to stop them from using scanners and performing searches, it'll just have them perform more training and have them on their toes. But any competent company promising "security" will still lead down the same paths. They may even videotape every last second to make sure that people are treated respectfully and not abused in any manner. But that's still not going to make the masses happy that don't want any searches at all, which is not going to happen. And then there will be endless lawsuits from people who simply don't want to be screened/Xrayed/Manually.

[jimnyc]

It would most definitely cure the disease of TSA. Wise? Certainly more wise than what we have now.

Why do you assume the only way to ensure safety is the full body scanner?

With bombs being able to be made out of liquids, implants, sneakers, underwear... Something needs to be done to ensure each passenger is checked/screened before they get on an airplane. Or don't make it mandatory. Then there will be airlines that screen and airlines that don't. I know which one I'm flying!

[logroller]

With bombs being able to be made out of liquids, implants, sneakers, underwear... Something needs to be done to ensure each passenger is checked/screened before they get on an airplane. Or don't make it mandatory. Then there will be airlines that screen and airlines that don't. I know which one I'm flying!

People might still fly those airlines, but I definitely wouldn't buy a round-trip ticket.

[ConHog]

The OP, the one you've been ragging on since the beginning:



http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...her-underwear/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/12/strip-searched-grandma-says-tsa-removed-her-underwear/)

Kath, please show ANYWHERE where I ragged on her for requesting the pat down. Oops , I didn't . I merely stated that I think she's lying about being strip searched.

[Kathianne]

Kath, please show ANYWHERE where I ragged on her for requesting the pat down. Oops , I didn't . I merely stated that I think she's lying about being strip searched.

Let's guess. 'strip search' has a particular meaning in your quasi cop lingo? What about your quasi school superintendent lingo? Your majestic military MP lingo? In this one elderly woman's with a defibralator, she asked for a pat down, per TSA instructions, as I already linked to. Instead she had to strip from the waist down, she felt violated, as I said, commiserate with rape.

CH:
1. She's a lying old bag, just trying to screw those wonderful TSA guys
2. There are many lying scum old folks out there.
3. Make a rule of no exceptions, no how, no way. Want one? Walk or take a bus.
4. After seeing TSA posted alerts, Ch, "Of course I meant an exemption for medical conditions.
5. Now it's, "Kath, please show ANYWHERE where I ragged on her for requesting the pat down." uh huh, after calling her a problem person for not going through what they wanted.
6. She saw having to show her privates as a 'strip search.' CH disagrees. Of course, since he's the quasi cop, hero in his own mind for being an MP in military, now a stay at home dad, husband of toughest DA in Arkansas, hater of CA, he has every right to call grannies as he sees em. He's one tough dude. Duton't let his dick hit you on getting out of here.

[ConHog]

Let's guess. 'strip search' has a particular meaning in your quasi cop lingo? What about your quasi school superintendent lingo? Your majestic military MP lingo? In this one elderly woman's with a defibralator, she asked for a pat down, per TSA instructions, as I already linked to. Instead she had to strip from the waist down, she felt violated, as I said, commiserate with rape.

CH:
1. She's a lying old bag, just trying to screw those wonderful TSA guys
2. There are many lying scum old folks out there.
3. Make a rule of no exceptions, no how, no way. Want one? Walk or take a bus.
4. After seeing TSA posted alerts, Ch, "Of course I meant an exemption for medical conditions.
5. Now it's, "Kath, please show ANYWHERE where I ragged on her for requesting the pat down." uh huh, after calling her a problem person for not going through what they wanted.
6. She saw having to show her privates as a 'strip search.' CH disagrees. Of course, since he's the quasi cop, hero in his own mind for being an MP in military, now a stay at home dad, husband of toughest DA in Arkansas, hater of CA, he has every right to call grannies as he sees em. He's one tough dude. Duton't let his dick hit you on getting out of here.

LOL you;ll have to flame harder than that to get my attention my dear.

[Kathianne]

That wasn't a flame, that was a substantive post. You know it, I know it, God knows it.
LOL you;ll have to flame harder than that to get my attention my dear.;)

[ConHog]

That wasn't a flame, that was a substantive post. You know it, I know it, God knows it. ;)

No, it was a flame. PERIOD.

[Kathianne]

No, it was a flame. PERIOD.

Go ahead a spin a summary all you like. That isn't a flame.

[Abbey Marie]

But that's not going to stop them from using scanners and performing searches, it'll just have them perform more training and have them on their toes. But any competent company promising "security" will still lead down the same paths. They may even videotape every last second to make sure that people are treated respectfully and not abused in any manner. But that's still not going to make the masses happy that don't want any searches at all, which is not going to happen. And then there will be endless lawsuits from people who simply don't want to be screened/Xrayed/Manually.

Bottom line for me: Given the choice between boarding a plane where passengers are body-scanned or fully searched, or one where we skirt these searches because of "privacy", I'll choose to board the plane with fully-searched passengers every time.

And if I could choose to fly with an airline that profiles, I'd choose them every time too.

[ConHog]

Bottom line for me: Given the choice between boarding a plane where passengers are body-scanned or fully searched, or one where we skirt these searches because of "privacy", I'll choose to board the plane with fully-searched passengers every time.

And if I could choose to fly with an airline that profiles, I'd choose them every time too.

Some idiots would not though and that plane could then be used to destroy a building full of people. So that's a non starter IMHO.

[Abbey Marie]

Some idiots would not though and that plane could then be used to destroy a building full of people. So that's a non starter IMHO.

No argument here.

[fj1200]

Bottom line for me: Given the choice between boarding a plane where passengers are body-scanned or fully searched, or one where we skirt these searches because of "privacy", I'll choose to board the plane with fully-searched passengers every time.

And if I could choose to fly with an airline that profiles, I'd choose them every time too.


Some idiots would not though and that plane could then be used to destroy a building full of people. So that's a non starter IMHO.

It seems you two have bought it haven't you? Our safety can only be assured by government gift no matter how hamfisted it may be.

[fj1200]

But that's not going to stop them from using scanners and performing searches, it'll just have them perform more training and have them on their toes. But any competent company promising "security" will still lead down the same paths. They may even videotape every last second to make sure that people are treated respectfully and not abused in any manner. But that's still not going to make the masses happy that don't want any searches at all, which is not going to happen. And then there will be endless lawsuits from people who simply don't want to be screened/Xrayed/Manually.

Do you think society benefits from a free market and competition?

[ConHog]

It seems you two have bought it haven't you? Our safety can only be assured by government gift no matter how hamfisted it may be.

Incorrect. I happen to believe airline security can operate without being hamfisted. Certainly the TSA has problems, and just as certainly some fliers just need to shut the fuck up and stop trying to cause problems.

[fj1200]

Incorrect. I happen to believe airline security can operate without being hamfisted. Certainly the TSA has problems, and just as certainly some fliers just need to shut the fuck up and stop trying to cause problems.

Your words say otherwise.

[ConHog]

Your words say otherwise.

No they don't. Just because I think the lady in the OP is a liar, I have also clearly said that I think that there really are cases where the TSA has messed up or done things wrong.

[jimnyc]

Do you think society benefits from a free market and competition?

It doesn't matter whether it does or not - the searches will still be necessary whether a private company does them "better" or not. Most people are mad simply because they have to be searched, not at how they were searched. Yes, there are many complaints about how they were searched, and for each of those, 50 people making videos and complaining as they wait in line. But the point is, searches in general ARE going to continue, in this day and age, whether we like it or not. Some will be happy that there will be less of the intrusive searches. Some will be happy that they will be able to sue easier. And many will still bitch and moan simply because there are searches being performed.

[Gunny]

An 84-year-old New York grandmother says she was “mortified” after being strip-searched by TSA agents at John F. Kennedy International Airport last week.
Lenore Zimmerman of Long Island said she was on her way to Fort Lauderdale, Fla., when security whisked her away to a private room without explanation after she asked to forgo the full-body scan, fearing it might interfere with her defibrillator.
“They took me into a private room and pulled down my slacks and pulled down my underwear” without explanation or apology, Zimmerman told ABC News.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/12/strip-searched-grandma-says-tsa-removed-her-underwear/

Yeah, but if you were strip-searching some towel-head f-ing Arab it'd be profiling and a crime.

[fj1200]

It doesn't matter whether it does or not...

I'll assume your answer is really yes, society benefits. Security by TSA is akin to a government regulated monopolistic enterprise where you have no option other than the one you are told you will use; monopolies and government are almost by definition slow and unresponsive. Security provided by multiple other entities, to Federal standards, promotes incentives to serve the same function more quickly, more efficiently, and more responsively. Why is the assumption held that if we don't have the exact searches performed only by the TSA that we are somehow not safe?

[jimnyc]

I'll assume your answer is really yes, society benefits. Security by TSA is akin to a government regulated monopolistic enterprise where you have no option other than the one you are told you will use; monopolies and government are almost by definition slow and unresponsive. Security provided by multiple other entities, to Federal standards, promotes incentives to serve the same function more quickly, more efficiently, and more responsively. Why is the assumption held that if we don't have the exact searches performed only by the TSA that we are somehow not safe?

Who said "exact" searches? The fact is, SEARCHES will remain, some more invasive than others, depending on the situation. And my point is, short of no searches at all, many will still bitch and moan.

[fj1200]

Isn't your premise that we need the TSA provided searches to be safe?

[ConHog]

Isn't your premise that we need the TSA provided searches to be safe?

My premise is that if 90% of the people would just shut up and go through the scanner that the 10% who for whatever reason legitimately can't go through the scanner would probably be able to get through THAT quicker as well.

Oh and I would like to see people who make false claims about treatment by the TSA thrown in jail, all they are doing is giving less credibility to those who really are mishandled by the TSA.

[fj1200]

My premise is that if 90% of the people would just shut up...

I think we all understand that.

[Gunny]

My premise is that if 90% of the people would just shut up and go through the scanner that the 10% who for whatever reason legitimately can't go through the scanner would probably be able to get through THAT quicker as well.

Oh and I would like to see people who make false claims about treatment by the TSA thrown in jail, all they are doing is giving less credibility to those who really are mishandled by the TSA.

It ain't the 90% of people. It's the 90% of pussies that think someone else needs to protect them. If the 10% of pussies would shut up and people could legally carry weapons, the fuckers that prey on the 10% of pussies that for some reason get to make the rules would be too scared for their lives to try jack shit.

[revelarts]

Reality check time.
Don't be bambolazzed by the TSA scam that you are safer becuase of them. My wife thinks she's safer in the house becuase I lock the flimsy SCREEN door. it makes her FEEL safer. no matter what i say it doesn't convince her that the lil cheap lock isn't really doing any us real service. But at least the lock is cheap.


....
As far as being guilty for being the TSA ... what..
I've always been agaist the TSA and all of the BS faux security, taking off shoes, no liquids, and pedophilia, geriatriphilla general purpose feel-ya.
TSA is not just a waste, it's another stripe against freedoms in the U.S..

here's a couple of former Air Marshalls and FAA red team security people talking about the lack of real security to this day. TSA is security theater and it is a crime that it still exist, every strip searched offense is just adding insult to injury.
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oTXq3JnXwoU?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>


My premise is that if 90% of the people would just shut up and go through the scanner that the 10% who for whatever reason legitimately can't go through the scanner would probably be able to get through THAT quicker as well.

i'll add,

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/r_VPVSNq5ek?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Pc4Nrm_-U88?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/v0AqSpQyKlU?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>



<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OFqcchy2PW4?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

Airport body scanners useless say German police

(AFP) – Jul 30, 2011
BERLIN — Body scanners being tested at Germany's Hamburg airport have had a thumbs down from the police, who say they trigger an alarm unnecessarily in seven out of 10 cases, a newspaper said Saturday.
The weekly Welt am Sonntag, quoting a police report, said 35 percent of the 730,000 passengers checked by the scanners set off the alarm more than once despite being innocent.
The report said the machines were confused by several layers of clothing, boots, zip fasteners and even pleats, while in 10 percent of cases the passenger's posture set them off.
The police called for the scanners to be made less sensitive to movements and certain types of clothing and the software to be improved. They also said the US manufacturer L3 Communications should make them work faster.
In the wake of the 10-month trial which began on September 27 last year, German federal police see no interest in carrying out any more tests with the scanners until new more effective models become available, Welt am Sonntag said.
The European parliament backed on July 6 the deployment of body scanners at airports, but on condition that travellers have the right to refuse to walk through the controversial machines.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jGUyRTjF-WA40GLjIMEo6dFgSxlw?docId=CNG.d76d1890df3edca8dd08 181cb6808c7f.881




A GAO analysis found the scanners probably would not have snared the Christmas Day bomber.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2010/11/16/let-markets-civilize-airport-security#ixzz1fxYL2JOK





A leading Israeli airport security expert says the federal government has wasted millions of dollars to install “useless” imaging machines at airports across the country.

“I don’t know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747,” Rafi Sela told parliamentarians probing the state of aviation safety in Canada on Thursday. “That’s why we haven’t put them in our airport.”

Sela, former chief security officer at the Israel Airport Authority and a 30-year veteran in airport security and defence technology, helped design the security apparatus at Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion International Airport. He spoke to MPs on the House of Commons transport committee via video conference from Kfar Vradim, Israel....
http://prof77.wordpress.com/2010/04/24/full-body-scanners-useless-air-security-expert-says/



November 2011
A harshly critical new report by congressional investigators (http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/267126/house-gop-report-a-call-for-tsa-reform.pdf) says that despite spending close to $60 billion on the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), screening is based on “theatrics” that has failed to catch any terrorists, while passengers and crew are still the most effective line of defense. Air travel, meanwhile, is no safer than it was before September 11, 2001. Instead of focusing on security, the agency has become “an enormous, inflexible and distracted bureaucracy, more concerned with human resource management and consolidating power,” according to the investigation released on November 16. “Today, TSA's screening policies are based in theatrics. They are typical, bureaucratic responses to failed security policies meant to assuage the concerns of the traveling public.”

The Joint Majority Staff Report entitled "A Decade Later: A Call for TSA Reform (http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/267126/house-gop-report-a-call-for-tsa-reform.pdf)" sharply criticized the widespread waste and inefficiency that is rife throughout the “bloated bureaucracy.” The agency also suffers from a lack of administrative competency, investigators found.

According to the report, TSA has more than 65,000 employees. That means it has more personnel than the Departments of Labor, Energy, Education, Housing and Urban Development, and State — combined. And its own “classified” performance results “do not reflect a good return on this taxpayer investment,” investigators said.

Yet somehow, the agency keeps growing. “TSA is a top-heavy bureaucracy with 3,986 headquarters personnel and 9,656 administrative staff in the field,” the report noted, with U.S. representatives saying the D.C. headquarters staff earn more than $100,000 a year on average. “Since 2001, TSA staff has grown from 16,500 to over 65,000, a near 400% increase.”

Despite the overwhelming TSA presence at U.S. airports, and all of the groping and security theater, more than 25,000 security breaches have occurred in the last 10 years. "The ability of TSA screeners to stop prohibited items from being carried through the sterile areas of the airports fared no better than the performance of screeners prior to September 11, 2001," former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General Richard Skinner was quoted as saying in the report.

The investigation also concluded that despite wasting almost a billion dollars so far on the TSA’s so-called “behavior detection program,” not a single terrorist has been caught. Even more alarming: At least 17 known terrorists traveled unmolested in the area of two dozen times through airports where TSA employs its “behavior detection officers.” None of the terrorists were even stopped.

So, to compensate for its failure to catch any real terrorists, the program expanded — without congressional approval — to seek out petty criminals as well. TSA bureaucrats managed to find more than 1,000 people to arrest on drug charges, immigration violations, and other crimes.

But not a single person identified by TSA bureaucrats has been charged with a terror-related offense so far. Indeed, “passengers and crew offer our first and most effective line of defense,” the report noted...

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/9826-congressional-report-tsa-useless-despite-60-billion


We need to stop being driven by feelings, appearance and hype if we are serious about terrorism or safety, the TSA is an expenses unconstitutional dark joke and needs to be abolished not reformed.

[jimnyc]

Isn't your premise that we need the TSA provided searches to be safe?

Not sure who you are asking this of as you didn't quote or address anyone... but if me, my point is that people want to know the plane they are flying on is safe, from both packages and passengers. The "searches" will remain whether it's the TSA or a private company running the show. The bitching will therefore remain. Those that bitch should find a way to fly that is more suitable to their liking.

[jimnyc]

Rev - you're forgetting that WITHOUT security you're opening up the possibility that something will happen. Security has been a part of flying long before 9/11 and will continue long into the future. If you don't like the security, you are free to drive, or walk, or take a private carrier. You bitch about the TSA, and if and when they disappear, are you going to continually rant about whoever the private contractor is that gets the security details? I assure you that screening and potential pat downs or searches will still exist. Or is it just the TSA because they are a government entity?

[fj1200]

Not sure who you are asking this of as you didn't quote or address anyone... but if me, my point is that people want to know the plane they are flying on is safe, from both packages and passengers. The "searches" will remain whether it's the TSA or a private company running the show. The bitching will therefore remain. Those that bitch should find a way to fly that is more suitable to their liking.

Your's was the post above. Who says the plane will be unsafe?


Rev - you're forgetting that WITHOUT security...

Who's premise is that?

[revelarts]

Rev - you're forgetting that WITHOUT security you're opening up the possibility that something will happen. Security has been a part of flying long before 9/11 and will continue long into the future. If you don't like the security, you are free to drive, or walk, or take a private carrier. You bitch about the TSA, and if and when they disappear, are you going to continually rant about whoever the private contractor is that gets the security details? I assure you that screening and potential pat downs or searches will still exist. Or is it just the TSA because they are a government entity?
um did you read any of my post above Jim? what is it about the the TSA is useless is not clear. I can add or substitute other significant problems to have them abolished and the scanners removed but useless should be enough.
"while passengers and crew are still the most effective line of defense. ""

[jimnyc]

Your's was the post above. Who says the plane will be unsafe?



Who's premise is that?

Nobody "says" planes will be unsafe, but proper security and screening is better than ignoring the potential for disaster. Who said planes were unsafe prior to 9/11? And why was there security prior to that, up to and including searches if deemed appropriate?


um did you read any of my post above Jim? what is it about the the TSA is useless is not clear. I can add or substitute other significant problems to have them abolished and the scanners removed but useless should be enough.
"while passengers and crew are still the most effective line of defense. ""

That's simply an opinion. It's been 10 years since the worst terror attack ever, you can't simply state that the TSA, screening and searches are useless, and simply rely on passengers. As soon as you toss out the security as useless, domestic or foreign terrorists will use it to their advantage. Then what will you say when another plane is downed - "Oh well, at least we aren't hassled with searches anymore"?

[revelarts]

Don't let the facts confuse you Jim, carry on.

[ConHog]

It ain't the 90% of people. It's the 90% of pussies that think someone else needs to protect them. If the 10% of pussies would shut up and people could legally carry weapons, the fuckers that prey on the 10% of pussies that for some reason get to make the rules would be too scared for their lives to try jack shit.

So you advocate allowing anyone to carry guns on planes? First of all, I've seen some of the idiots out there who carry guns, second of all what is a gun going to do to combat a crazy dude with a bomb on a plane?

[jimnyc]

Don't let the facts confuse you Jim, carry on.

Hey Rev, if you can't discuss an issue, go back and forth, and disagree like adults - then you are invited to kindly go fuck yourself. You stated your OPINION and did your usual ranting while posting fucking youtube videos and articles you could find that support your OPINION. When someone disagrees with you, you accuse them of ignoring "facts". Learn the difference between the 2 and come back without your diapers. At least I recognize I post opinions, and when necessary I post facts to backup what I can. But I don't whine like a bitch and bail from a discussion because someone doesn't see my opinions as fact.

But anyway, adios then! :finger3:

[jimnyc]

November 2011
A harshly critical new report by congressional investigators (http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/267126/house-gop-report-a-call-for-tsa-reform.pdf) says that despite spending close to $60 billion on the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), screening is based on “theatrics” that has failed to catch any terrorists, while passengers and crew are still the most effective line of defense. Air travel, meanwhile, is no safer than it was before September 11, 2001.

Here's a perfect example...

Your HUGE fucking letters make it sound as if the TSA is useless and it "has failed to catch any terrorists".

Tell me then, Rev - what terrorists did it miss?

[Abbey Marie]

Since searching passengers is also method of deterrence, how can anyone know how many terrorist attacks we have avoided that might have been carried out? Making the statement that we "haven't caught any terrorists" is missing the point.

[revelarts]

Here's a perfect example...

Your HUGE fucking letters make it sound as if the TSA is useless and it "has failed to catch any terrorists".

Tell me then, Rev - what terrorists did it miss?



""The ability of TSA screeners to stop prohibited items from being carried through the sterile areas of the airports fared no better than the performance of screeners prior to September 11, 2001," former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General Richard Skinner was quoted as saying in the report."

Useless.

". . . little more than overpriced metal detectors with a “beam me up Scotty” futuristic design. . . . [because] while metal objects (like guns and knives) can be easily visualized in the body scanner images, there is “poor detection capability for a wide range of dangerous objects composed of low atomic number elements, such as plastics or ceramics. . . . [and] objects in body cavities will not be detected by these machines."
http://prof77.wordpress.com/2010/04/24/full-body-scanners-useless-air-security-expert-says/

Scanners Useless.





Since searching passengers is also method of deterrence, how can anyone know how many terrorist attacks we have avoided that might have been carried out? Making the statement that we "haven't caught any terrorists" is missing the point.
Who's to say they deterred any? That's an assumption. We can say it's deterred innocent people from flying, that's a fact. But without ANY evididence why assume that the TSA has deterred a determined terrorist. I say BS, if a terrorist really wanted to commit an act the TSA jokes would not be deterrent the same as a mall cops not deterring a determined shooter. And a screen door is not going to deter a determined thief.

[ConHog]

""The ability of TSA screeners to stop prohibited items from being carried through the sterile areas of the airports fared no better than the performance of screeners prior to September 11, 2001," former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General Richard Skinner was quoted as saying in the report."

Useless.

". . . little more than overpriced metal detectors with a “beam me up Scotty” futuristic design. . . . while metal objects (like guns and knives) can be easily visualized in the body scanner images, there is “poor detection capability for a wide range of dangerous objects composed of low atomic number elements, such as plastics or ceramics. . . . [and] objects in body cavities will not be detected by these machines."
http://prof77.wordpress.com/2010/04/24/full-body-scanners-useless-air-security-expert-says/

[B]Scanners Useless.







Who's to say they deterred any? That's an assumption. We can say it's deterred innocent people from flying, that's a fact. But without ANY evididence why assume that the TSA has deterred a determined terrorist. I say BS, if a terrorist really wanted to commit an act the TSA jokes would not be deterrent the same as a mall cops not deterring a determined shooter. And a screen door is not going to deter a determined thief.

Wait a minute. Are you really saying that because these scanners might not detect a ceramic knife someone has shoved up their ass that they are useless? LOL

[ConHog]

Who's to say they deterred any? That's an assumption. We can say it's deterred innocent people from flying, that's a fact. But without ANY evididence why assume that the TSA has deterred a determined terrorist. I say BS, if a terrorist really wanted to commit an act the TSA jokes would not be deterrent the same as a mall cops not deterring a determined shooter. And a screen door is not going to deter a determined thief.



A) Have you noticed that in fact AQ has not blown up another plane since 9/11? That's called deterred

B) Have you any proof that innocent folk have chosen not to fly because of the TSA?


By the way, NOTHING will stop a person if they are intent on causing harm, so is your answer then why bother at all since if someone were determined they would cause harm anyway?

[jimnyc]

Rev, it was YOU who made the huge letters to say that the TSA "has failed to catch any terrorists". You do know what FAIL means, correct? So where have they failed to stop a terrorist?

[jimnyc]

Who's to say they deterred any? That's an assumption.

Abso-fucking-lutely hilarious! It's an assumption in this manner - but it's a FACT when you state the opposite. BOTH are assumptions without a terrorist being caught or getting away with an attack. But you see it as a fact on your side and only assumptions the other way.

[ConHog]

Rev, it was YOU who made the huge letters to say that the TSA "has failed to catch any terrorists". You do know what FAIL means, correct? So where have they failed to stop a terrorist?



Exactly. Rev's stance is like putting a state trooper in his car at the end of a bar's driveway for 10 years and then at the end of the 10 years saying "see that cop didn't stop a single drunk driver, they just CHOSE not to drink and drive out of that bar, completely coincidental that he was there."

[revelarts]

Exactly. Rev's stance is like putting a state trooper in his car at the end of a bar's driveway for 10 years and then at the end of the 10 years saying "see that cop didn't stop a single drunk driver, they just CHOSE not to drink and drink out of that bar, completely coincidental that he was there."

A drunk driver would get cuaght, they would forget the cop is there after a month or a few drinks.

But a terrorist plans to commit a crime despite the fact that a cop is on the corner, no matter what.

I'm not sure why you folks think that no TSA = no security. Pre 9-11 there was security, SOME of the changes made fter 9-11 made flying safer but NOT the TSA. Hardening the cockpit doors mean ZERO Hijacking period. that's not TSA.
Better bag screening, which hasn't improved since the TSA, would help.

most of the other crap is BS. the Israelis know better, the Germans know better, the congress knows better, the terrorist know better. But Jim and Con somehow think the TSA is good security.

[jimnyc]

But Jim and Con somehow think the TSA is good security.

Show where I EVER posted this, or are you going back to just making shit up that was never said? I said security will be there, whether the TSA or not. Searches will be there. I defended why I thought there needed to be security. I even stated that a private company would probably be better as they'll videotape the whole thing, have better training & be open to suits - which would make them work harder and better. But NOWHERE did I ever state what you are implying. You're just making shit up to further your argument, and it's lame. That's like 50x you've done that to me since you've been a member here. I could win debates too if I just changed what the other person says instead of what they actually said.

[ConHog]

A drunk driver would get cuaght, they would forget the cop is there after a month or a few drinks.

But a terrorist plans to commit a crime despite the fact that a cop is on the corner, no matter what.

I'm not sure why you folks think that no TSA = no security. Pre 9-11 there was security, SOME of the changes made fter 9-11 made flying safer but NOT the TSA. Hardening the cockpit doors mean ZERO Hijacking period. that's not TSA.
Better bag screening, which hasn't improved since the TSA, would help.

most of the other crap is BS. the Israelis know better, the Germans know better, the congress knows better, the terrorist know better. But Jim and Con somehow think the TSA is good security.

No they wouldn't forget. They'd pull in see the cop car and choose another bar. Same as the terrorists pull in see the TSA and choose another way to try to attack us. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Abbey Marie]

A drunk driver would get cuaght, they would forget the cop is there after a month or a few drinks.

But a terrorist plans to commit a crime despite the fact that a cop is on the corner, no matter what.

I'm not sure why you folks think that no TSA = no security. Pre 9-11 there was security, SOME of the changes made fter 9-11 made flying safer but NOT the TSA. Hardening the cockpit doors mean ZERO Hijacking period. that's not TSA.
Better bag screening, which hasn't improved since the TSA, would help.

most of the other crap is BS. the Israelis know better, the Germans know better, the congress knows better, the terrorist know better. But Jim and Con somehow think the TSA is good security.

Rev, do the Israelis profile? I think most of us would agree that profiling is a valuable tool.

Also, your post above says that the TSA is useless because body scanners miss some things such as ceramics. Would you be happy with the TSA using a body scanner if it caught more materials?

[ConHog]

Rev, do the Israelis profile? I think most of us would agree that profiling is a valuable tool.

Also, your post above says that the TSA is useless because body scanners miss some things such as ceramics. Would you be happy with the TSA using a body scanner if it caught more materials?

Of course he wouldn't. I honestly think Rev would be happy if a terrorist attack on a plan WAS successful and many died so that he could point and say "see the TSA sucks" Actually, I 100% GUARANTEE that he would be thrilled to see that happen, even though is smart enough to deny that truth.

[revelarts]

Rev, do the Israelis profile? I think most of us would agree that profiling is a valuable tool.


At least profiling is effective if it's done properly and not just "he's a young Muslim traveling from deerborne NY to Atlanta he's a must be a terrorist"
but sure real laser like profiling and screening makes sense.



Also, your post above says that the TSA is useless because body scanners miss some things such as ceramics. Would you be happy with the TSA using a body scanner if it caught more materials?

But the scanners miss some items and the TSA screeners miss the rest. the combo = useless.
But if it were a better device it would make some sense to use it on those profiled but not on everyone. for several reasons, it's not proven safe, it's invasive nigh on pornographic and most people in the world are not terrorist. screening everyone is just stupid. And No I do not like the gov't stopping to Scan people or police check points as we travel. It's bad policy. and bad precedent against our freedoms, Airlines doing it is MUCH better.
however I posted at story a while back where a group was using trained mice to detect bomb materials on people that went by, they was extremely accurate, and completely unobtrusive. something like that would be acceptable and effective i think.

[ConHog]

At least profiling is effective if it's done properly and not just "he's a young Muslim traveling from deerborne NY to Atlanta he's a must be a terrorist"
but sure real laser like profiling and screening makes sense.


But the scanners miss some items and the TSA screeners miss the rest. the combo = useless.
But if it were a better device it would make some sense to use it on those profiled but not on everyone. for several reasons, it's not proven safe, it's invasive nigh on pornographic and most people in the world are not terrorist. screening everyone is just stupid.
however I posted at story a while back where a group was using trained mice to detect bomb materials on people that went by, they was extremely accurate, and completely unobtrusive. something like that would be acceptable and effective i think.

Dude, doesn't catch everything does NOT equal useless. I think and hope you are smart enough to realize that.

And you want airport security to use mice? Disgusting, how unsanitary.

[revelarts]

Bye-bye sniffer dogs! Now, trained mice to sniff out terrorists at airports!

London, Feb 3 : Israeli researchers have developed a new detector where trained teams of mice will sniff would-be bombers and drugs at airports.

Researchers say it is more accurate than using dogs, pat downs and x-ray machines, reports the Daily Mail.

It looks like a metal detector or full-body scanner, but one side of it houses three concealed cartridges, each containing eight specially trained mice.

The animals work four-hour shifts, milling around in an allocated cartridge while sniffing air pumped in from outside.

When they pick up traces of explosives or drugs, they flee to a side chamber, triggering an alarm, according to New Scientist.

To avoid false positives, more than one mouse must run away.

"It is as if they are smelling a cat and escaping. We detect the escape," inventor, Eran Lumbroso, of BioExplorers Company said.

The device was field tested last year on 1,000 shoppers in a Tel Aviv mall when the mice successfully picked out the 22 people with mock explosives in their pockets. http://www.newkerala.com/news/world/...ws-138812.html (http://www.newkerala.com/news/world/fullnews-138812.html)


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?30615-Trained-mice-to-sniff-out-terrorists-at-airports!&highlight=mice

[DragonStryk72]

Color me SHOCKED that you would join in a thread bashing the government employees who are doing their part in protecting you.

But they aren't, CH. In fact, they're pretty much wasting time and resources with all these random searches, and putting attention away from the actual people who could be threats. Even if you're willing to take the same dump they did on the fourth amendment, TSA is still acting in a manner that is in opposition of creating a truly secure environment. Study after study, and even the founder of the TSA, have agreed on this. Really, the whole thing just seems to cost more money, and make us all more paranoid, so I'm not really seeing the worth in it.

[ConHog]

But they aren't, CH. In fact, they're pretty much wasting time and resources with all these random searches, and putting attention away from the actual people who could be threats. Even if you're willing to take the same dump they did on the fourth amendment, TSA is still acting in a manner that is in opposition of creating a truly secure environment. Study after study, and even the founder of the TSA, have agreed on this. Really, the whole thing just seems to cost more money, and make us all more paranoid, so I'm not really seeing the worth in it.

There is no dump on the 4th Amendment , you consent to the search when you go into an airport KNOWING you're going to be searched.

[jimnyc]

But they aren't, CH. In fact, they're pretty much wasting time and resources with all these random searches, and putting attention away from the actual people who could be threats. Even if you're willing to take the same dump they did on the fourth amendment, TSA is still acting in a manner that is in opposition of creating a truly secure environment. Study after study, and even the founder of the TSA, have agreed on this. Really, the whole thing just seems to cost more money, and make us all more paranoid, so I'm not really seeing the worth in it.

The fourth amendment guards against illegal searches/seizures. How can it possibly be illegal if you KNOW you're going to be searched and can easily NOT be searched if you so choose. It's a contract you enter with the carrier and AGREE to when you purchase tickets. If you don't like the conditions of the contract, don't enter into the agreement. But it is not a violation of the 4th amendment, not by a longshot.

[ConHog]

The fourth amendment guards against illegal searches/seizures. How can it possibly be illegal if you KNOW you're going to be searched and can easily NOT be searched if you so choose. It's a contract you enter with the carrier and AGREE to when you purchase tickets. If you don't like the conditions of the contract, don't enter into the agreement. But it is not a violation of the 4th amendment, not by a longshot.

I can't believe how many people will misconstrue the COTUS to try to get it to fit their agenda.

[Kathianne]

The fourth amendment guards against illegal searches/seizures. How can it possibly be illegal if you KNOW you're going to be searched and can easily NOT be searched if you so choose. It's a contract you enter with the carrier and AGREE to when you purchase tickets. If you don't like the conditions of the contract, don't enter into the agreement. But it is not a violation of the 4th amendment, not by a longshot.

I have to agree with this.

[logroller]

The fourth amendment guards against illegal searches/seizures. How can it possibly be illegal if you KNOW you're going to be searched and can easily NOT be searched if you so choose. It's a contract you enter with the carrier and AGREE to when you purchase tickets. If you don't like the conditions of the contract, don't enter into the agreement. But it is not a violation of the 4th amendment, not by a longshot.

I agree with you, but it is important to differentiate between the right to privacy in one's person and the privilege of commercial flight. Clearly impositions, such as searches, can be made upon a privilege, so long as the conditions are not excessively burdensome--A relative balance between what rights must be impinged necessarily to protect the rights of others. Its a social contract, not a private one.

For example, who imposes the search clauses of said contract? The govt does really, not the airline. Who pays for it? We all do, whether or not we enter the conditional agreement to fly; hence it is not a purely private agreement one can opt out of. The extent to which it is excessively burdensome is debatable; but given the reported inefficacy of said searches, the means fail to the justify the ends. In so far as one can knowingly avoid the burden of search, I suppose it is exempted from 4th Amendment protections prima facie; but so long as the We incur a burden absent equal levels protection-- the burden is excessive. IMHO.

[ConHog]

I agree with you, but it is important to differentiate between the right to privacy in one's person and the privilege of commercial flight. Clearly impositions, such as searches, can be made upon a privilege, so long as the conditions are not excessively burdensome--A relative balance between what rights must be impinged necessarily to protect the rights of others. Its a social contract, not a private one.

For example, who imposes the search clauses of said contract? The govt does really, not the airline. Who pays for it? We all do, whether or not we enter the conditional agreement to fly; hence it is not a purely private agreement one can opt out of. The extent to which it is excessively burdensome is debatable; but given the reported inefficacy of said searches, the means fail to the justify the ends. In so far as one can knowingly avoid the burden of search, I suppose it is exempted from 4th Amendment protections prima facie; but so long as the We incur a burden absent equal levels protection-- the burden is excessive. IMHO.

Wrong, and here is why.

The airlines have consented to allowing the government to search EVERYTHING and everyone to board THEIR planes. The 4th Amendment would extend to them, not to the passengers. That is the way it works. Why do you think no person has EVER sued the government for violating their 4th Amendment rights with these searches? B/c every lawyer knows that case would be a dog.

[jimnyc]

I agree with you, but it is important to differentiate between the right to privacy in one's person and the privilege of commercial flight. Clearly impositions, such as searches, can be made upon a privilege, so long as the conditions are not excessively burdensome--A relative balance between what rights must be impinged necessarily to protect the rights of others. Its a social contract, not a private one.

For example, who imposes the search clauses of said contract? The govt does really, not the airline. Who pays for it? We all do, whether or not we enter the conditional agreement to fly; hence it is not a purely private agreement one can opt out of. The extent to which it is excessively burdensome is debatable; but given the reported inefficacy of said searches, the means fail to the justify the ends. In so far as one can knowingly avoid the burden of search, I suppose it is exempted from 4th Amendment protections prima facie; but so long as the We incur a burden absent equal levels protection-- the burden is excessive. IMHO.

And full circle back to my original point - take the government out of the loop and make the security a complete private enterprise. The screening/searching remains. They place this in the "contract/TOS" you agree to when purchasing the ticket. It would be 100% legal and no violation of the 4th amendment. And when the airlines ante up for private security, who do you think will pay for it? That's right, they'll just hike prices a bit to cover the cost.

All the blame goes to the government right now, but I'll bet anyone here that if/when it goes private you will see very similar limitations, restrictions & searches.

[ConHog]

And full circle back to my original point - take the government out of the loop and make the security a complete private enterprise. The screening/searching remains. They place this in the "contract/TOS" you agree to when purchasing the ticket. It would be 100% legal and no violation of the 4th amendment. And when the airlines ante up for private security, who do you think will pay for it? That's right, they'll just hike prices a bit to cover the cost.

All the blame goes to the government right now, but I'll bet anyone here that if/when it goes private you will see very similar limitations, restrictions & searches.


And bye bye $100 round trip tickets to Vegas to. :laugh:

Seriously though, NO airline would EVER volunteer to take over security from the government for a very simple reason. Liability.

You damn well know that these same folks who are screaming about the TSA would sue Southwest Airline's pants off if their private security ever allowed a terrorist to get through and do some damage.

Private security will NEVER happen, because the airlines don't want it to happen.

[Kathianne]

And full circle back to my original point - take the government out of the loop and make the security a complete private enterprise. The screening/searching remains. They place this in the "contract/TOS" you agree to when purchasing the ticket. It would be 100% legal and no violation of the 4th amendment. And when the airlines ante up for private security, who do you think will pay for it? That's right, they'll just hike prices a bit to cover the cost.

All the blame goes to the government right now, but I'll bet anyone here that if/when it goes private you will see very similar limitations, restrictions & searches.

That would be fine by me. 'We' shouldn't have to pay for those flying. Those flying should get a fair deal, which is more than a bit questionable now. Make it private and make ticket holders pay the costs.

Make the security people liable for their actions or inactions.

[ConHog]

That would be fine by me. 'We' shouldn't have to pay for those flying. Those flying should get a fair deal, which is more than a bit questionable now. Make it private and make ticket holders pay the costs.

Make the security people liable for their actions or inactions.

Couldn't you say that about any government service though Kath? My parents haven't had a child in school in about 15 years , yet they paid through the nose every year in property tax to support public schools and have been all that time. Why not put the burden on parents who do have kids in school?

Plus, there is the obvious problem of figuring out who has potentially been saved from being collateral damage of a plane wreck (think thousands killed in the towers) and then figure out how much the airlines should charge them to help make sure that they don't become actual collateral damage.

[Kathianne]

Couldn't you say that about any government service though Kath? My parents haven't had a child in school in about 15 years , yet they paid through the nose every year in property tax to support public schools and have been all that time. Why not put the burden on parents who do have kids in school?

Plus, there is the obvious problem of figuring out who has potentially been saved from being collateral damage of a plane wreck (think thousands killed in the towers) and then figure out how much the airlines should charge them to help make sure that they don't become actual collateral damage.

School quality directly impacts property values. We all benefit in immediate and long term. Not so with flying. That's something that benefits only the one flying and perhaps their business, way too removed to make 'all of us' subsidize. Let the flyers, companies, and stock holders pay for, not me.

[ConHog]

School quality directly impacts property values. We all benefit in immediate and long term. Not so with flying. That's something that benefits only the one flying and perhaps their business, way too removed to make 'all of us' subsidize. Let the flyers, companies, and stock holders pay for, not me.

and the people who weren't flying but don't become victims of an airline mishap because of security? No financial obligation for them to help make sure that doesn't happen?

[Kathianne]

and the people who weren't flying but don't become victims of an airline mishap because of security? No financial obligation for them to help make sure that doesn't happen?

When all those folks are feeling the pain, planes won't be flying. The numbers would be impossible to figure, so out there they are.

Really, get a grip.

[ConHog]

When all those folks are feeling the pain, planes won't be flying. The numbers would be impossible to figure, so out there they are.

Really, get a grip.



Get a grip? Your solution is to privatize and let only fliers pay for something that benefits more than just them. You can't deny that if a plane is blow up mid flight that far more people will be impacted then just the passengers.

What's next? How about a mileage based fee on highway taxes? If you don't drive, you don't pay.

[Kathianne]

Get a grip? Your solution is to privatize and let only fliers pay for something that benefits more than just them. You can't deny that if a plane is blow up mid flight that far more people will be impacted then just the passengers.

What's next? How about a mileage based fee on highway taxes? If you don't drive, you don't pay.

and you are saying everyone should pay for the flyers security, since if they are targeted successfully, poor folks might be killed!

Pay before you die! Just in case you are in the .000000001.

[ConHog]

and you are saying everyone should pay for the flyers security, since if they are targeted successfully, poor folks might be killed!

Pay before you die! Just in case you are in the .000000001.

Sure, no different than funding police in case you're one of the small statistical numbers that has need of one every year. Or the way we all fund the military just in case we are invaded. Etc etc.

Hell, when it comes to it, I could say why do I have to help fund NASA, when I frankly couldn't care less about them?

Now, does that mean I'm saying that the TSA shouldn't have rules to follow and that they shouldn't operate a financially sound program? No , of course it doesn't mean that. But noway fliers and fliers alone could , or should, bear the burden of paying for them alone.

[Gunny]

Isn't your premise that we need the TSA provided searches to be safe?

Uh huh. And who cried loudest on 9-12? The left was crying their fucking asses off for Bush to protect them.

Let's go the next step ... Herr Obama and the Gesta ... errr ... TSA.

What a fucking winning team. I suggest you government suck-up fucks don't come around my house when you actually show your hand. If you think I'm going to cave, it'll be after I run out of ammo. And I've been stocking it for years.

How's THAT going to work for you?

[Kathianne]

Sure, no different than funding police in case you're one of the small statistical numbers that has need of one every year. Or the way we all fund the military just in case we are invaded. Etc etc.

Hell, when it comes to it, I could say why do I have to help fund NASA, when I frankly couldn't care less about them?

Now, does that mean I'm saying that the TSA shouldn't have rules to follow and that they shouldn't operate a financially sound program? No , of course it doesn't mean that. But noway fliers and fliers alone could , or should, bear the burden of paying for them alone.

Sorry, flying is NOT a right, a point you've repeated over and over again. If one flies, one plays by the rules set. As I said earlier with Jim, the reason it's not a 4th amendment problem. Just don't fly.

Nope, not equivalent with the police. Not nearly as close as my rape analogy was. Really.

[revelarts]

I way out in the freedom ether here but I'll just mention this as food for thought.
Who grants a privileged?

Travel is a right.
In the case of airlines the planes are privately owned, the gov't has no right or privileged to regulate travel of a free people, it's not among the constitutional powers granted by the people.
This privileged stuff is a myth, created over the decades by slippery slope legislation and regulations. Technically if someone has a plane they can fly whoever and whenever they want. the gov't didn't buy the plane or own the sky or have the authority to grant Americans the "privileged" of various modes of transportation.

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/s4RAzwmHnbA?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/s4RAzwmHnbA?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

[jimnyc]

I way out in the freedom ether here but I'll just mention this as food for thought.
Who grants a privileged?

Travel is a right.
In the case of airlines the planes are privately owned, the gov't has no right or privileged to regulate travel of a free people, it's not among the constitutional powers granted by the people.
This privileged stuff is a myth, created over the decades by slippery slope legislation and regulations. Technically if someone has a plane they can fly whoever and whenever they want. the gov't didn't buy the plane or own the sky or have the authority to grant Americans the "privileged" of various modes of transportation.

And those that own a plane who can fly whoever and whenever they want - they can also require screenings/searches as a part of the agreement to fly you, whether performed by the government or a private company.

[ConHog]

I way out in the freedom ether here but I'll just mention this as food for thought.
Who grants a privileged?

Travel is a right.
In the case of airlines the planes are privately owned, the gov't has no right or privileged to regulate travel of a free people, it's not among the constitutional powers granted by the people.
This privileged stuff is a myth, created over the decades by slippery slope legislation and regulations. Technically if someone has a plane they can fly whoever and whenever they want. the gov't didn't buy the plane or own the sky or have the authority to grant Americans the "privileged" of various modes of transportation.

Actually Rev, the government DOES in fact own the skies. Jetliners can only fly in designated areas, and those areas are "owned" by the FAA.

But, let's look at a couple of the other crazy things you've said in this post to.

Travel is a right. Well, no it isn't , or rather it isn't a right that you are guaranteed will never be violated by the government, if it were it would be enumerated in the COTUS. However, even if travel WERE a right, flying in a plane certainly isn't.

Technically, one can NOT fly anyone they want wherever they want if they own a plane. But, let's just assume for the sake of argument that that is true. It goes back to what I was saying earlier. IF that were a right, it would be a right that extended to the carriers, not the passengers. Let me give you an analogy. If you klll someone and hide the murder weapon at your friends house and the cops then enter your friend's house without a warrant and find that murder weapon you would NOT be able to claim that your 4th Amendment rights were violated. Now certainly your friend would have his own legal recourse if he so chose to take it; but the murder weapon would be in as evidence in a trial because you had no standing to claim a constitutional breach. Same thing here. You have no standing, the carriers do. Since they aren't complaining, that tells me one thing. They are okay with the TSA (even if I'm sure they'd rather things were done differently in many cases.)

[ConHog]

And those that own a plane who can fly whoever and whenever they want - they can also require screenings/searches as a part of the agreement to fly you, whether performed by the government or a private company.

That is what Rev is blatantly ignoring. IF the airlines were so opposed to the TSA these 10 years later we probably would know . Haven't heard a peep from them though.

[revelarts]

Actually Rev, the government DOES in fact own the skies. Jetliners can only fly in designated areas, and those areas are "owned" by the FAA.

But, let's look at a couple of the other crazy things you've said in this post to.

Travel is a right. Well, no it isn't , or rather it isn't a right that you are guaranteed will never be violated by the government, if it were it would be enumerated in the COTUS. However, even if travel WERE a right, flying in a plane certainly isn't.

Technically, one can NOT fly anyone they want wherever they want if they own a plane. But, let's just assume for the sake of argument that that is true. It goes back to what I was saying earlier. IF that were a right, it would be a right that extended to the carriers, not the passengers. Let me give you an analogy. If you klll someone and hide the murder weapon at your friends house and the cops then enter your friend's house without a warrant and find that murder weapon you would NOT be able to claim that your 4th Amendment rights were violated. Now certainly your friend would have his own legal recourse if he so chose to take it; but the murder weapon would be in as evidence in a trial because you had no standing to claim a constitutional breach. Same thing here. You have no standing, the carriers do. Since they aren't complaining, that tells me one thing. They are okay with the TSA (even if I'm sure they'd rather things were done differently in many cases.)



The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
9th amendment

looks like your Construing stuff Con.

And BTW the airlines and airports did have the option and some were using the option to self secure without the TSA and others were about to follow because the TSA is so pitiful and useless but the gov't decided to take away the option. just this year. The gov't doesn't like competition showing them up.

[fj1200]

And full circle back to my original point - take the government out of the loop and make the security a complete private enterprise. The screening/searching remains. They place this in the "contract/TOS" you agree to when purchasing the ticket. It would be 100% legal and no violation of the 4th amendment. And when the airlines ante up for private security, who do you think will pay for it? That's right, they'll just hike prices a bit to cover the cost.

All the blame goes to the government right now, but I'll bet anyone here that if/when it goes private you will see very similar limitations, restrictions & searches.

Do you think a private enterprise is more concerned about effective methods of detection or more about the theater of safety? I'd guess the former.


And bye bye $100 round trip tickets to Vegas to. :laugh:

Seriously though, NO airline would EVER volunteer to take over security from the government for a very simple reason. Liability.

You damn well know that these same folks who are screaming about the TSA would sue Southwest Airline's pants off if their private security ever allowed a terrorist to get through and do some damage.

Private security will NEVER happen, because the airlines don't want it to happen.

So why should airlines be insulated from the true cost of their product? If you never fly why should you subsidize that flight?

[fj1200]

Couldn't you say that about any government service though Kath? My parents haven't had a child in school in about 15 years , yet they paid through the nose every year in property tax to support public schools and have been all that time. Why not put the burden on parents who do have kids in school?

Plus, there is the obvious problem of figuring out who has potentially been saved from being collateral damage of a plane wreck (think thousands killed in the towers) and then figure out how much the airlines should charge them to help make sure that they don't become actual collateral damage.

Your parents benefit from an educated populace.

I'm not sure why you still operate under the assumption that no TSA = No safety. Plus there are plenty of insurance companies that will write that policy or your friendly neighborhood congressman will sponsor a bill that limits their liability.

[fj1200]

Get a grip? Your solution is to privatize and let only fliers pay for something that benefits more than just them. You can't deny that if a plane is blow up mid flight that far more people will be impacted then just the passengers.

What's next? How about a mileage based fee on highway taxes? If you don't drive, you don't pay.

Why did the plane blow up?

Oh, and gas taxes.

[jimnyc]

Do you think a private enterprise is more concerned about effective methods of detection or more about the theater of safety? I'd guess the former.

A private company? They will be most concerned about money and the effectiveness of their job. Do you really think ANY security company will suddenly start letting passengers board planes, unchecked, and consider that to be appropriate security?

[fj1200]

That is what Rev is blatantly ignoring. IF the airlines were so opposed to the TSA these 10 years later we probably would know . Haven't heard a peep from them though.

Why would they be opposed? You've just given them a huge subsidy and completely removed the liability from them.

[jimnyc]

I'm not sure why you still operate under the assumption that no TSA = No safety.

I don't think anyone is saying that. I think it's no security can, and likely will, lead to another attack of sorts. There HAS to be security of sorts on passengers at the point of entry, as there was long before 9/11.

[fj1200]

A private company? They will be most concerned about money and the effectiveness of their job. Do you really think ANY security company will suddenly start letting passengers board planes, unchecked, and consider that to be appropriate security?

No, and I didn't say otherwise. I'd rather have competitive pressures determine the best way to provide security than government fiat.

[fj1200]

Uh huh. And who cried loudest on 9-12? The left was crying their fucking asses off for Bush to protect them.

Let's go the next step ... Herr Obama and the Gesta ... errr ... TSA.

What a fucking winning team. I suggest you government suck-up fucks don't come around my house when you actually show your hand. If you think I'm going to cave, it'll be after I run out of ammo. And I've been stocking it for years.

How's THAT going to work for you?

I'm not sure which box you're trying to put me in.

[jimnyc]

No, and I didn't say otherwise. I'd rather have competitive pressures determine the best way to provide security than government fiat.

And I'd rather see competition rule too, and get private companies in there instead of the TSA. But screening and searches will still exist, whether done by the government or a private company.

[fj1200]

I don't think anyone is saying that. I think it's no security can, and likely will, lead to another attack of sorts. There HAS to be security of sorts on passengers at the point of entry, as there was long before 9/11.

It seems that CH is. Every argument against privatization is all the planes that are going to blow up midair and/or crash into buildings. I had assumed that was your position as well but I was wrong about that. It took my thick head a little while to realize that you're saying security will happen, privatized or not.

[revelarts]

TSA shuts door on private airport screening program

"Washington (CNN) -- A program that allows airports to replace government screeners with private screeners is being brought to a standstill, just a month after the Transportation Security Administration said it was "neutral" on the program.

TSA chief John Pistole said Friday he has decided not to expand the program beyond the current 16 airports, saying he does not see any advantage to it.

Though little known, the Screening Partnership Program allowed airports to replace government screeners with private contractors who wear TSA-like uniforms, meet TSA standards and work under TSA oversight. Among the airports that have "opted out" of government screening are San Francisco and Kansas City.

The push to "opt out" gained attention in December amid the fury over the TSA's enhanced pat downs, which some travelers called intrusive.

Rep. John Mica, a Republican from Florida, wrote a letter encouraging airports to privatize their airport screeners, saying they would be more responsive to the public.

At that time, the TSA said it neither endorsed nor opposed private screening.

"If airports chose this route, we are going to work with them to do it," a TSA spokesman said in late December.

But on Friday, the TSA denied an application by Springfield-Branson Airport in Missouri to privatize its checkpoint workforce, and in a statement, Pistole indicated other applications likewise will be denied.

"I examined the contractor screening program and decided not to expand the program beyond the current 16 airports as I do not see any clear or substantial advantage to do so at this time," Pistole said."
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/01/29/tsa.private/



He said airports that currently use contractor screening will continue to be allowed to...



for your safety that's all


aviation online magazine
http://avstop.com/march_2011/tsa_coo..._screening.htm (http://avstop.com/march_2011/tsa_cooked_the_books_on_costs_federal_vs_private_s creening.htm)

TSA Cooked The Books For Years On Costs, Federal Vs Private Screening
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a letter to Transportation Committee Chairman John L. Mica (R-FL) that confirms the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has used faulty data and withheld information when evaluating and comparing the costs of the all-federal screening model and an alternative federal-private screening program.

The Screening Partnership Program was established in the Aviation Transportation Security Act (ATSA) after September 11, 2001, to enable airport authorities to “opt-out” of all-federal screening and instead use private screening contractors under federal standards, supervision and oversight. Previously, TSA has misleadingly claimed that the cost of the privatized screening program is at least 17 percent higher than the cost of using screeners who are TSA employees.

“In essence, TSA cooked the books to try to eliminate the federal-private screening program,” Mica said. “GAO found that TSA ignored critical data relating to costs. In fact, according to TSA’s own revised cost study, the cost differential between the two screening models is closer to three percent, likely within the margin of error,” Mica said.

“And that still doesn’t account for various other ignored factors, including the cost taxpayers incur from TSA’s high attrition rate and the full cost of TSA’s bloated and unnecessary bureaucratic overhead. “I am investigating the full cost differential between the two screening models, and I believe the federal-private program model will prove to be less expensive and provide the best model for U.S. aviation security,” Mica said.

TSA has only accounted for a fraction of their personnel located at privatized airports, which result in duplicative costs that still have not been factored into estimates. Mica also said the federal-private screening model, through previous GAO evaluations, has performed significantly better than or equal to the all-government model. ...


...“I have also asked GAO to continue to review what other factors gave the all-government model a cost advantage. It is my intent to make certain that TSA cannot arbitrarily deny any future application from an airport to participate in the private screening program. “I am confident that the private sector can not only perform better, but do so at a lower cost to the taxpayers,” Mica added.






It can be done privately cheaper and better, (better wouldn't take much)

[jimnyc]

It seems that CH is. Every argument against privatization is all the planes that are going to blow up midair and/or crash into buildings. I had assumed that was your position as well but I was wrong about that. It took my thick head a little while to realize that you're saying security will happen, privatized or not.

I don't like the TSA. I don't support them as an agency or as a government entity. I don't like the actions of certain number of their employees who obviously went too far. I think I am biased though as I dislike pretty much any government agency, unless for the very few times I am getting money from one of them. If they disappeared tomorrow I wouldn't cry. If they were sued and people were in fact violated, I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if the TSA lost an arm and a leg in fines and monies paid out. I support "them" in no way at all. But, I do support the idea of security being necessary. I would support privatizing this job. I would support accountability. I would support everything being taped at all times.

Outside of that, I'm just saying that my opinion is that we still need to have appropriate security at the gates to check all passengers, including crew. I also believe, and can almost guarantee, and private company employed to perform this job is going to continue screening and searches in some fashion. It'll probably be enough to make some happy, but some others will undoubtedly still bitch and moan.

[jimnyc]

It can be done privately cheaper and better, (better wouldn't take much)



If your issue is cost, I agree. But the first article you posted slowly supports what I have been saying, that the "checkpoint" will likely be about the same whether it's the TSA or private companies.

[ConHog]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
9th amendment

looks like your Construing stuff Con.

And BTW the airlines and airports did have the option and some were using the option to self secure without the TSA and others were about to follow because the TSA is so pitiful and useless but the gov't decided to take away the option. just this year. The gov't doesn't like competition showing them up.

There is a difference between a right, and a constitutional right. ONLY constitutional rights are guaranteed to never be violated by the government. Travel is not one such right.

[ConHog]

It seems that CH is. Every argument against privatization is all the planes that are going to blow up midair and/or crash into buildings. I had assumed that was your position as well but I was wrong about that. It took my thick head a little while to realize that you're saying security will happen, privatized or not.

Incorrect. What I AM saying is that the private airlines are just fine with the government screening their passengers, so they won't be clamoring for a change in the way things are done. And like Jim says, screening is going to happen either way. So what exactly is the difference here?

Oh, as for cost. IF the government got out of screening and left it to the airlines themselves, does anyone here really believe that the taxpayers wouldn't be subsidizing that? And of course that's nothing but a strawman anyway, what does cost have to do with whether the searches are illegal or not?

[fj1200]

Incorrect. What I AM saying is that the private airlines are just fine with the government screening their passengers, so they won't be clamoring for a change in the way things are done. And like Jim says, screening is going to happen either way. So what exactly is the difference here?

Oh, as for cost. IF the government got out of screening and left it to the airlines themselves, does anyone here really believe that the taxpayers wouldn't be subsidizing that? And of course that's nothing but a strawman anyway, what does cost have to do with whether the searches are illegal or not?

Like I said, airlines are perfectly OK with accepting a subsidy and lack of responsibility. I'll take that handout too. I also completely agree that screening will happen. And there is a huge difference I can't think of how to make it any more obvious.

Why should taxpayers subsidize screening? And I don't recall saying the searches were illegal.

[ConHog]

Like I said, airlines are perfectly OK with accepting a subsidy and lack of responsibility. I'll take that handout too. I also completely agree that screening will happen. And there is a huge difference I can't think of how to make it any more obvious.

Why should taxpayers subsidize screening? And I don't recall saying the searches were illegal.

Taxpayers should subsidize screening because it helps prevent another 9/11, which I'm sure you'd agree affected far more than just the airplane passengers involved.

Oh, you're right. YOU didn't say it was illegal. Others in this thread have though, and I certainly didn't mean to imply you said something you didn't.

[revelarts]

Right to Travel


DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS,
HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS






By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)




For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:
CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.


CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.
CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.


CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel. ....


http://www.apfn.org/apfn/travel.htm

Principal applies to the air, lakes and rivers tunnels and any other known or unkown modes of transport.

The constitution give authority to the gov't from the people. the right to restrict travel is NOT GRANTED to the Federal Gov't.

Your thinking like a dictator, Fascist or Commie in believing that the state grants rights or can violate any right that hasn't been expressly given to or protected for the people.



And Just because the go'vt does it -all the time- doesn't make it lawful or constitutional.

[ConHog]

applies to the air, lakes and rivers tunnels and any other known or unkonwn modes of transport.

The constitution give authority to the gov't from the people. the right to restrict travel is NOT GRANTED to the Federal Gov't.

Your thinking like a dictator, Fascist or Commie in believing that the state grants rights or can violate any right it hasn't been expressly given too the people.

It doesn't matter how big the letters you use are two things don't change.

1. Requiring security checks before boarding a flight in NO WAY limits your ability to get on a plane.
2. Flying is NOT the only way to travel. Or do you maintain that no one actually traveled anywhere prior to 1913?




PS - I don't know why you keep talking about rights created by the COTUS. The COTUS does not create rights. All it does is guarantee that certain rights won't be violated by the government ( at least that is all it was SUPPOSED to do in regards to rights.)

[fj1200]

Taxpayers should subsidize screening because it helps prevent another 9/11, which I'm sure you'd agree affected far more than just the airplane passengers involved.

No they shouldn't. Air travelers should pay for screening. Did you agree with the bailouts? GM, Banks, etc.?

[logroller]

Wrong, and here is why.

The airlines have consented to allowing the government to search EVERYTHING and everyone to board THEIR planes. The 4th Amendment would extend to them, not to the passengers. That is the way it works. Why do you think no person has EVER sued the government for violating their 4th Amendment rights with these searches? B/c every lawyer knows that case would be a dog.

Like I said, its prima facie because the government is administering the search in accordance with laws dictated by Congress. The fact of the matter is many of these rather costly government subsidized searches aren't actually making it proportionally safer to fly, only passing the costs onto a greater number of people. So, of course the airlines allow it, if they didn't they'd have to bear the true cost of the travel service they provide; instead they trade their right to privacy, and by extension the rights of their passengers, so that they can keep their costs low enough to compete with other forms of travel. But you knew that already--


And bye bye $100 round trip tickets to Vegas to. :laugh:

Seriously though, NO airline would EVER volunteer to take over security from the government for a very simple reason. Liability.

You damn well know that these same folks who are screaming about the TSA would sue Southwest Airline's pants off if their private security ever allowed a terrorist to get through and do some damage.

Private security will NEVER happen, because the airlines don't want it to happen.




Incorrect. What I AM saying is that the private airlines are just fine with the government screening their passengers, so they won't be clamoring for a change in the way things are done. And like Jim says, screening is going to happen either way. So what exactly is the difference here?

Oh, as for cost. IF the government got out of screening and left it to the airlines themselves, does anyone here really believe that the taxpayers wouldn't be subsidizing that? And of course that's nothing but a strawman anyway, what does cost have to do with whether the searches are illegal or not?

The difference is the airline would have to bear the cost, which they'd pass onto the passengers; who could opt out of said search and cost in favor of the next best travel alternative. I don't see how taxpayers would be paying for it--so yes, I do believe that. Explain how it would be otherwise.

The legality of searches is constrained by what is considered to be 'excessively burdensome', typically a matter of time forgone in said search, and whether one can avoid it. People fly because its faster than other means of travel, so its a time saver, added search time is negligible; and yes, people can avoid it-- Clearly it would pass a 4th amendment test. My point is the subsidization of air travel is unfair, because it limits the competitive advantage of inferior means of transportation, which should be drastically cheaper-- but aren't, because we subsidize airlines, shield them from liability, and search their passengers to keep flight costs down. Where does it say that we have a right to cheap air travel, that's what I want to know; because that's all these laws do.

[ConHog]

Like I said, its prima facie because the government is administering the search in accordance with laws dictated by Congress. The fact of the matter is many of these rather costly government subsidized searches aren't actually making it proportionally safer to fly, only passing the costs onto a greater number of people. So, of course the airlines allow it, if they didn't they'd have to bear the true cost of the travel service they provide; instead they trade their right to privacy, and by extension the rights of their passengers, so that they can keep their costs low enough to compete with other forms of travel. But you knew that already--







The difference is the airline would have to bear the cost, which they'd pass onto the passengers; who could opt out of said search and cost in favor of the next best travel alternative. I don't see how taxpayers would be paying for it--so yes, I do believe that. Explain how it would be otherwise.

The legality of searches is constrained by what is considered to be 'excessively burdensome', typically a matter of time forgone in said search, and whether one can avoid it. People fly because its faster than other means of travel, so its a time saver, added search time is negligible; and yes, people can avoid it-- Clearly it would pass a 4th amendment test. My point is the subsidization of air travel is unfair, because it limits the competitive advantage of inferior means of transportation, which should be drastically cheaper-- but aren't, because we subsidize airlines, shield them from liability, and search their passengers to keep flight costs down. Where does it say that we have a right to cheap air travel, that's what I want to know; because that's all these laws do.


Please tell me a time when our government DIDN'T subsidize one form of transportation or another. Amtrak , I've never ridden on their trains in my life, yet my tax dollars have went to support them; just as an example.


This is nothing but smoke and mirrors so you all can continue bitching about the TSA. Call it unconstitutional and when shown that it is not run to well why should the government be paying for it, then when someone lists a reason go back to its unconstitutional , hoping and praying that no one ever notices that you actually are just wanting to bitch about the TSA regardless of facts.
Please either explain how this is different or link me to a post of yours bemoaning the subsidization of Amtrak. In either case I could provide other examples.

[logroller]

Please tell me a time when our government DIDN'T subsidize one form of transportation or another. Amtrak , I've never ridden on their trains in my life, yet my tax dollars have went to support them; just as an example.


This is nothing but smoke and mirrors so you all can continue bitching about the TSA. Call it unconstitutional and when shown that it is not run to well why should the government be paying for it, then when someone lists a reason go back to its unconstitutional , hoping and praying that no one ever notices that you actually are just wanting to bitch about the TSA regardless of facts.
Please either explain how this is different or link me to a post of yours bemoaning the subsidization of Amtrak. In either case I could provide other examples.

Rails are how this govt juggernaut really got going during westward expansion, you're spot on there; but at least then it was unincorporated federal land. Do away with all of these subsidies; aside from international passage, I don't see a reason for the fed's involvment-- it's just another power grab.

[ConHog]

Rails are how this govt juggernaut really got going during westward expansion, you're spot on there; but at least then it was unincorporated federal land. Do away with all of these subsidies; aside from international passage, I don't see a reason for the fed's involvment-- it's just another power grab.


So you really and truly don't think that if ANYTHING falls under under the interstate commerce clause that it would be air travel? Not to mention that the US government is tasked with providing for the safety of this nation, American Airlines sure shouldn't have to bear that responsibility.

[logroller]

So you really and truly don't think that if ANYTHING falls under under the interstate commerce clause that it would be air travel? Not to mention that the US government is tasked with providing for the safety of this nation, American Airlines sure shouldn't have to bear that responsibility.

Well, when there's a major airline disaster, I assure you its a federal matter. When they get sued, in federal court, for the damages they cause, held liable for the true cost, the airlines will become safer or fail on their own accord, leaving the remaining companies to become safer or face the same fate. Either way, the nation won't slip into anarchy and lawlessness. We just won't fly as much. Enjoy a scenic drive rather than an in flight movie. :thumb:

Not sure how you derive "providing for the safety of this nation" from "...provide for the common defence and general welfare..." How common are airline disasters? How general is air travel? I guarantee both would be lesser if the airlines weren't subsidized by govt. What's that saying-- "when socialism fails...":poke:

[Kathianne]

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/09/2127231/tsa-facing-death-by-a-thousand-cuts


OverTheGeicoE writes "The Transportation Security Administration is getting a lot of negative attention, much of it from the U.S. government itself. A recent congressional report blasted the TSA for being incompetent and ineffective (http://republicans.transportation.house.gov/Media/file/112th/Aviation/2011-11-16-TSA_Reform_Report.pdf) (PDF). A bill to force the TSA to reduce its screening of active duty U.S. military members and their families was approved unanimously by the House of Representatives (http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/29/9092808-house-approves-new-tsa-rules-for-us-military). After a TSA employee was arrested for sexually assaulting a woman while in uniform (http://ourtaxdollarsatwork.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/tsa-agent-harold-glen-rodman-arrested-in-manassas-virginia-charged-after-raping-woman-while-wearing-uniform/), a bill has been introduced to prevent TSA agents from wearing police-style uniforms and badges (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70185.html) or using the title 'officer.' The bill's sponsor calls these practices 'an insult to real cops.' The FBI is getting involved by changing its definition of rape in a way that might expose the TSA's 'enhanced pat-down' screeners to prosecution (http://rt.com/usa/news/tsa-rapists-definition-rape-389/). Lastly, public support for the TSA's use of X-ray body scanners drops dramatically (http://www.propublica.org/article/coffee-tea-or-cancer-americans-oppose-x-ray-body-scanners) when people realize there is a cancer risk."




I guess frequent fliers will all eventually have to opt out of scanning, when their health deteriorates due to cancer.

[ConHog]

Well, when there's a major airline disaster, I assure you its a federal matter. When they get sued, in federal court, for the damages they cause, held liable for the true cost, the airlines will become safer or fail on their own accord, leaving the remaining companies to become safer or face the same fate. Either way, the nation won't slip into anarchy and lawlessness. We just won't fly as much. Enjoy a scenic drive rather than an in flight movie. :thumb:

Not sure how you derive "providing for the safety of this nation" from "...provide for the common defence and general welfare..." How common are airline disasters? How general is air travel? I guarantee both would be lesser if the airlines weren't subsidized by govt. What's that saying-- "when socialism fails...":poke:

This thread is getting ridiculous. You have changed your argument from "the searches are illegal" to "the government shouldn't be paying for these searches" to " the x ray machines are dangerous" to " a few TSA agents have sexually assaulted people." What's next?

Or just admit that you're just being anti government for the sake of being anti government and move on.

[logroller]

This thread is getting ridiculous. You have changed your argument from "the searches are illegal" to "the government shouldn't be paying for these searches" to " the x ray machines are dangerous" to " a few TSA agents have sexually assaulted people." What's next?

Or just admit that you're just being anti government for the sake of being anti government and move on.

The searches are legal because the govt makes the law-- its the foundation for administrative law-- if the govt does it, it's legal. Of course I accept this, I have little recourse, other than motivating others to change the law. But that doesn't mean have to accept that govt is going to get more and more power and there's nothing I can do about it. I can't do it alone, but together We can. Just admit that stifling my attempt to inform others is necessary to the growth of govt, and that calling for me to move on is doing just that. :slap:

[ConHog]

The searches are legal because the govt makes the law-- its the foundation for administrative law-- if the govt does it, it's legal. Of course I accept this, I have little recourse, other than motivating others to change the law. But that doesn't mean have to accept that govt is going to get more and more power and there's nothing I can do about it. I can't do it alone, but together We can. Just admit that stifling my attempt to inform others is necessary to the growth of govt, and that calling for me to move on is doing just that. :slap:

I have never, and will never, attempt to stifle anyone. I am merely laughing at your paranoia.

[LuvRPgrl]

I have never, and will never, attempt to stifle anyone. I am merely laughing at your paranoia.

somehow, I doubt that.

[ConHog]

somehow, I doubt that.

Which part?

[logroller]

I have never, and will never, attempt to stifle anyone. I am merely laughing at your paranoia.

So its your belief the government hasn't been gaining more and more power? No need to wear a foil hat, just take off your rose colored glasses.

[Kathianne]

So its your belief the government hasn't been gaining more and more power? No need to wear a foil hat, just take off your rose colored glasses.

As far as I can tell, he's not 'arguing' for increased government control, just defends it where it is. He's no problem with gestapo type tactics, which in his mind are caused by those undergoing them, not through fault of the legally deputized brownshirts.

[ConHog]

As far as I can tell, he's not 'arguing' for increased government control, just defends it where it is. He's no problem with gestapo type tactics, which in his mind are caused by those undergoing them, not through fault of the legally deputized brownshirts.

Actually, what I am saying is that there are SOME serious issues with the TSA , but the tinfoil brigade is doing those who would solve those problems no favors by believing every single claim that is made against the TSA without any proof.

[logroller]

Actually, what I am saying is that there are SOME serious issues with the TSA , but the tinfoil brigade is doing those who would solve those problems no favors by believing every single claim that is made against the TSA without any proof.

I get what you're saying, I talking about bigger freedom picture; its a foregone conclusion, that what granny has in her panties is not of your or my concern, right? I'm not particularly concerned with TSA's methods, as I haven't flown since 1993 and I haven't plans to fly anytime soon. Cancer causing body scanner? :gives: I smoke.

Rather, the issue I take up is the existence of TSA; not because I don't believe We need safe air travel, but because I don't believe We need air travel at all. Let's not forget air travel wasn't always what it is today. All interstate routes were dictated by the Feds until it was deregulated in 1978; amid fears the rigid system of government control would lead to massive bankruptcies as was seen in the rail industry. (Hmm, why did the rail industry suffer, rigid rules and govt sponsored alternatives, like air travel.) But they deregulate... massive BKs anyways. OK, prop it up some more. Ah shit, terrorists. Better create this new govt dept to guard against terror...and we get the underwear bomber. And who diffused that situation, a govt entity, or regular old citizens? All the while, billions spent by government to provide us with air travel, to provide and protect us, the meek citizens-- only to be let down, time and time again, and sold on some curative new deal. I'm sure you can understand why I have my doubts.

[Kathianne]

Actually, what I am saying is that there are SOME serious issues with the TSA , but the tinfoil brigade is doing those who would solve those problems no favors by believing every single claim that is made against the TSA without any proof.

Actually as Logroller has implied, getting government run entities to change or the laws governing them to change would never happen without an outraged public. It's not easy to get the public outraged, so sometimes death by a thousand cuts is the most effective action to take. Politicians fear thousands of knives, ask Caesar.

[ConHog]

Actually as Logroller has implied, getting government run entities to change or the laws governing them to change would never happen without an outraged public. It's not easy to get the public outraged, so sometimes death by a thousand cuts is the most effective action to take. Politicians fear thousands of knives, ask Caesar.

Sure, and outraged citizens when there is a real reason to be outraged is fine; but I think you'll agree that the internet is full of fauxrage. And outright lies, and that an inordinate number of people on the internet just glom onto any sensational story they can and believe it, many simply because they want to believe it.

This old lady claims she was strip searched without a single shred of evidence to back it up and some of yall just eat it up as gospel. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty, or does that not apply if you work for the mean old government?

[Kathianne]

Sure, and outraged citizens when there is a real reason to be outraged is fine; but I think you'll agree that the internet is full of fauxrage. And outright lies, and that an inordinate number of people on the internet just glom onto any sensational story they can and believe it, many simply because they want to believe it.

This old lady claims she was strip searched without a single shred of evidence to back it up and some of yall just eat it up as gospel. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty, or does that not apply if you work for the mean old government?

Well except for the fact I linked to days ago that indeed it happened, accordingly TSA says they are looking into it. Indeed, this morning on my way home from the hospital, heard that TSA is now asking for anyone who has not filed a complaint, but feels they were searched inappropriately as a result of asking not to go through the scanners to contact them.

[ConHog]

Well except for the fact I linked to days ago that indeed it happened, accordingly TSA says they are looking into it. Indeed, this morning on my way home from the hospital, heard that TSA is now asking for anyone who has not filed a complaint, but feels they were searched inappropriately as a result of asking not to go through the scanners to contact them.

I must have missed it, please re link where the TSA admitted this woman was strip searched.

I never said some weren't hand searched inappropriately, but that isn't quite the same thing as a strip search.

Also, I have in fact done similar searches, and it's a fact that people make complaints about them no matter what. There is a fine line between a thorough search and an invasive one, and many people who are not trained to do the searches simply don't know where that line is, and many others don't care. They don't want to be searched and so they complain no matter what.

Now if you're arguing that perhaps an 80 year old woman doesn't need to be patted down at the airport, I would probably agree with you. The TSA needs to be allowed to profile and concentrate on people who fit the parameters of a terrorist, but because of PC bullshit , they are not allowed to.

Also, it is a fact that if we did announce that old people and children would no longer be searched it would only be a matter of time before some terrorist used an old person or a child as an unsuspecting pack mule to get a weapon of some sort onto a plane.

There has to be a median here somewhere, you can't have the TSA abusing fliers, that's for sure. But on the other hand, you can't just say fuck it and not screen passengers either.

[Kathianne]

I must have missed it, please re link where the TSA admitted this woman was strip searched.

I never said some weren't hand searched inappropriately, but that isn't quite the same thing as a strip search.

Also, I have in fact done similar searches, and it's a fact that people make complaints about them no matter what. There is a fine line between a thorough search and an invasive one, and many people who are not trained to do the searches simply don't know where that line is, and many others don't care. They don't want to be searched and so they complain no matter what.

Now if you're arguing that perhaps an 80 year old woman doesn't need to be patted down at the airport, I would probably agree with you. The TSA needs to be allowed to profile and concentrate on people who fit the parameters of a terrorist, but because of PC bullshit , they are not allowed to.

Also, it is a fact that if we did announce that old people and children would no longer be searched it would only be a matter of time before some terrorist used an old person or a child as an unsuspecting pack mule to get a weapon of some sort onto a plane.

There has to be a median here somewhere, you can't have the TSA abusing fliers, that's for sure. But on the other hand, you can't just say fuck it and not screen passengers either.

You're semantics games are old, it's not just I that feels that way. I never said stripped searched, I believe the terms I used were humiliated, ashamed, embarrassed, and rape. The last caused a ruckus, but really the point was made.

Look, self-professed super cop, the general public is not expected to know the lingo of cop speak, stop acting as if they are. An 80 year old trying to fly on a public airline, that request the alternative to an scanner cannot be expected to figure that they are going to tell her to drop her Depends. For freaking out loud, she was in a wheel chair, accompanied by a family member who'd already been cleared. Neither were in clothing that would scream-'profile these folks.' She had a defib and seems to even have had the papers to show it.

Exactly how is the public to know if TSA employees are abusive or the rules they are really following are just wrong, if anyone complaining is to 'STFU' as you've stated numerous times?

[ConHog]

You're semantics games are old, it's not just I that feels that way. I never said stripped searched, I believe the terms I used were humiliated, ashamed, embarrassed, and rape. The last caused a ruckus, but really the point was made.

Look, self-professed super cop, the general public is not expected to know the lingo of cop speak, stop acting as if they are. An 80 year old trying to fly on a public airline, that request the alternative to an scanner cannot be expected to figure that they are going to tell her to drop her Depends. For freaking out loud, she was in a wheel chair, accompanied by a family member who'd already been cleared. Neither were in clothing that would scream-'profile these folks.' She had a defib and seems to even have had the papers to show it.

Exactly how is the public to know if TSA employees are abusive or the rules they are really following are just wrong, if anyone complaining is to 'STFU' as you've stated numerous times?

You know, you keep talking about how I have insulted you, yet it is YOU who keeps insulting me. Maybe you should thread ban yourself. I'm done conversing with you on this subject, as you obviously are not interested in my opinions and merely want to insult.

Bet if I insulted you, a thread ban, at minimum, would happen.

[Kathianne]

You know, you keep talking about how I have insulted you, yet it is YOU who keeps insulting me. Maybe you should thread ban yourself. I'm done conversing with you on this subject, as you obviously are not interested in my opinions and merely want to insult.

Bet if I insulted you, a thread ban, at minimum, would happen.

What insult? That you consider yourself a super cop? You've made that more than crystal. If you found that reference insulting, I do apologize.

Now a stand up person would respond to the real gist of the post, not the one part they choose to make an excuse.

[LuvRPgrl]

Sure, and outraged citizens when there is a real reason to be outraged is fine; but I think you'll agree that the internet is full of fauxrage. And outright lies, and that an inordinate number of people on the internet just glom onto any sensational story they can and believe it, many simply because they want to believe it.

This old lady claims she was strip searched without a single shred of evidence to back it up and some of yall just eat it up as gospel. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty, or does that not apply if you work for the mean old government?

WHAT about avg american citizens wanting to travel? We are guilty until proven innocent, thats what the searches are for, isnt it.?

[ConHog]

WHAT about avg american citizens wanting to travel? We are guilty until proven innocent, thats what the searches are for, isnt it.?

So now we're back to the utterly ridiculous notion that searches should be done away with?

By the way , where is the thread about metal detectors to get into court houses, or even schools?

[Kathianne]

You know, you keep talking about how I have insulted you, yet it is YOU who keeps insulting me. Maybe you should thread ban yourself. I'm done conversing with you on this subject, as you obviously are not interested in my opinions and merely want to insult.

Bet if I insulted you, a thread ban, at minimum, would happen.

Hmm, I've not complained on the board about your insults or baiting or any of that stuff, seems you have a private source that may or may not have things down literally. Now that I know you are such a sensitive person though, that certainly was hidden in your postings to others, especially OCA and PB. However, I will *bump* an edited version of what seems to have upset you. Perhaps you can bring yourself to respond? :



http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Kathianne http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=509598#post509598)

I never said stripped searched, I believe the terms I used were humiliated, ashamed, embarrassed, and rape. The last caused a ruckus, but really the point was made.

The general public is not expected to know the lingo of cop speak. An 80 year old trying to fly on a public airline, that request the alternative to an scanner cannot be expected to figure that they are going to tell her to drop her Depends. For freaking out loud, she was in a wheel chair, accompanied by a family member who'd already been cleared. Neither were in clothing that would scream-'profile these folks.' She had a defib and seems to even have had the papers to show it.

Exactly how is the public to know if TSA employees are abusive or the rules they are really following are just wrong, if anyone complaining is to 'STFU' as you've stated numerous times?

[Shadow]

Apparently the TSA's heavy handedness may be catching up with them finally.


Lawmaker wants to strip TSA officers of badges


Airport screeners at Hartsfield-Jackson (http://g.ajc.com/r/Fk/) International Airport and other airports around the country would be stripped of their police-like uniforms under a bill introduced in Congress.

If passed and signed by the president, the bill would prohibit TSA employees from using the title “officer” and wearing uniforms with badges unless they have received federal law enforcement training.
TSA screeners have long come under fire for what critics call heavy-handedness when it comes to searches of airline passengers as part of heightened security following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Recently, two women in their 80s (http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/elderly-complain-about-pants-1251646.html)complained of being stripped-searched at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York. A Dallas woman traveling (http://www.ajc.com/news/tsa-checked-afro-for-1186071.html) through Hartsfield-Jackson (http://g.ajc.com/r/Fk/) said TSA agents demanded to search her afro hair style for weapons in September.

The TSA said it has about 50,000 officers nationwide, including about 1,100 at Hartsfield-Jackson (http://g.ajc.com/r/Fk/).
The lead sponsor of H.R. 3608, which has been referred to a House committee, is U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who has more than two dozen fellow Republicans signing on to the bill, according to The Hill.com. (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/198357-house-gop-looks-to-strip-tsa-screeners-of-officer-title)
In a release, Blackburn said the TSA screeners have impersonated real law enforcement officers and some have committed crimes doing so. She cited instances in New Jersey and Virginia, including an alleged rape by a screener showing his TSA badge.
The lawmaker also complained about aggressive airport searches.

http://www.ajc.com/news/lawmaker-wants-to-strip-1255675.html

[Kathianne]

Apparently the TSA's heavy handedness may be catching up with them finally.


Lawmaker wants to strip TSA officers of badges


Airport screeners at Hartsfield-Jackson (http://g.ajc.com/r/Fk/) International Airport and other airports around the country would be stripped of their police-like uniforms under a bill introduced in Congress.

If passed and signed by the president, the bill would prohibit TSA employees from using the title “officer” and wearing uniforms with badges unless they have received federal law enforcement training.
TSA screeners have long come under fire for what critics call heavy-handedness when it comes to searches of airline passengers as part of heightened security following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Recently, two women in their 80s (http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/elderly-complain-about-pants-1251646.html)complained of being stripped-searched at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York. A Dallas woman traveling (http://www.ajc.com/news/tsa-checked-afro-for-1186071.html) through Hartsfield-Jackson (http://g.ajc.com/r/Fk/) said TSA agents demanded to search her afro hair style for weapons in September.

The TSA said it has about 50,000 officers nationwide, including about 1,100 at Hartsfield-Jackson (http://g.ajc.com/r/Fk/).
The lead sponsor of H.R. 3608, which has been referred to a House committee, is U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who has more than two dozen fellow Republicans signing on to the bill, according to The Hill.com. (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/198357-house-gop-looks-to-strip-tsa-screeners-of-officer-title)
In a release, Blackburn said the TSA screeners have impersonated real law enforcement officers and some have committed crimes doing so. She cited instances in New Jersey and Virginia, including an alleged rape by a screener showing his TSA badge.
The lawmaker also complained about aggressive airport searches.

http://www.ajc.com/news/lawmaker-wants-to-strip-1255675.html

Yep, death by a thousand cuts.

[revelarts]

So now we're back to the utterly ridiculous notion that searches should be done away with?...

You just plain ignore all the reports that show we are no safer becuase of the searches than we were pre- search TSA.

the studies have been done and and done again but you keep insisting that it does some good.
as if repeating it makes it true. sorry Con , it's not working it should be stopped. AND there are aother reasons it should have never started.



...By the way , where is the thread about metal detectors to get into court houses, or even schools?
don't get me started...

[logroller]

I must have missed it, please re link where the TSA admitted this woman was strip searched.

I never said some weren't hand searched inappropriately, but that isn't quite the same thing as a strip search.

Also, I have in fact done similar searches, and it's a fact that people make complaints about them no matter what. There is a fine line between a thorough search and an invasive one, and many people who are not trained to do the searches simply don't know where that line is, and many others don't care. They don't want to be searched and so they complain no matter what.

Now if you're arguing that perhaps an 80 year old woman doesn't need to be patted down at the airport, I would probably agree with you. The TSA needs to be allowed to profile and concentrate on people who fit the parameters of a terrorist, but because of PC bullshit , they are not allowed to.

Also, it is a fact that if we did announce that old people and children would no longer be searched it would only be a matter of time before some terrorist used an old person or a child as an unsuspecting pack mule to get a weapon of some sort onto a plane.

There has to be a median here somewhere, you can't have the TSA abusing fliers, that's for sure. But on the other hand, you can't just say fuck it and not screen passengers either.
Agreed. Private screening services. Then when violations occur it wont, quite literally, take an act of Congress to correct such behavior.

[Abbey Marie]

If privatizing is the answer, how would you all feel about privatized water boarding? :laugh2:

[logroller]

If privatizing is the answer, how would you all feel about privatized water boarding? :laugh2:

I know people who would pay for the privilege.

[LuvRPgrl]

If you read the story you'd know the TSA agents invloved were women. And in any case you can't just assume they're in the wrong with no supporting evidence.

In your wildest imagination, what kind of supporting evidence could you have in aN Eclosed small room with nobody other than other agents there, assuming there is no video?

[LuvRPgrl]

No, it was a flame. PERIOD.

seems you dont know what a flame is.
attacking your arguement is not a flame
attacking you personally, ie, you idiot, you have a small brain and a small dick,,,,thats a flame.

cmon now, wiggle your way out of that one,,,"uh, I wasnt talking about this thread, but threads in general,,,err,
You were rude to me so you deserved it,,,,
If I could have profiled you, it wouldnt have happened,,,,
until you can prove it, it didnt happen....
entrapment.........
Hey Im a ranger, tried, true and tough. My wanger is bigger than yours,,,just to look at me is scary.....(just cuz you scare yourself in the mirror doesnt mean you scare others with your looks, maybe people run when they see you cuz you smell)

oh, and I could kick your ass, but thats stupid talking about it, we will never meet, but I could still kick your ass, but its stupid for you to say such a thing cuz you would be scared just looking at me,,,,and I COULD kick your ass. And it just is not right talking about ass kicking online, we should stop it, truce? But I could still kick your ass, but if you continue talking about it, you are an idiot, even though I could kick your ass,,,,,,,,,,,so, truce? (even though I could kick your ass)

_
ANY OF THAT SOUND FAMILIAR CH?

[LuvRPgrl]

Bottom line for me: Given the choice between boarding a plane where passengers are body-scanned or fully searched, or one where we skirt these searches because of "privacy", I'll choose to board the plane with fully-searched passengers every time.

And if I could choose to fly with an airline that profiles, I'd choose them every time too.
why does it have to be either/or?

[LuvRPgrl]

Since searching passengers is also method of deterrence, how can anyone know how many terrorist attacks we have avoided that might have been carried out? Making the statement that we "haven't caught any terrorists" is missing the point.

sounds like obama, "if we hadnt put our country trillions of dollars in debt, it would have been worse."
'
'

[Abbey Marie]

why does it have to be either/or?

Well, let's see. You either fully search, or you don't.

[fj1200]

The real question is why are some who are normally opposed to government intervening in the private sector now fully supportive of government intervention in the private sector?

[jimnyc]

The real question is why are some who are normally opposed to government intervening in the private sector now fully supportive of government intervention in the private sector?

I think you're mistaking people being in support of searching and ensuring security on planes for people who support the government... I think most everyone in here has stated or agreed they would rather see the security left up to a private enterprise. I really don't see anyone here strictly supporting the TSA and stating THEY are essential but rather the SECURITY and a lot of the searching that goes along with it is essential.

[fj1200]

I think you're mistaking people being in support of searching and ensuring security on planes for people who support the government... I think most everyone in here has stated or agreed they would rather see the security left up to a private enterprise. I really don't see anyone here strictly supporting the TSA and stating THEY are essential but rather the SECURITY and a lot of the searching that goes along with it is essential.

There is certainly a continuum of positions but I think there are some who are solidly on the side of a government entity being the one to do the search. I think this thread would have died awhile ago if not the case.

[jimnyc]

There is certainly a continuum of positions but I think there are some who are solidly on the side of a government entity being the one to do the search. I think this thread would have died awhile ago if not the case.

Well, I won't go further than I have in support then if that's the case, I'll let everyone live by their own words. I must have missed something along the way then. But let's see a show of hands - is there anyone who supports the government be the one continuing the airport security over a private enterprise/company?

[ConHog]

Well, I won't go further than I have in support then if that's the case, I'll let everyone live by their own words. I must have missed something along the way then. But let's see a show of hands - is there anyone who supports the government be the one continuing the airport security over a private enterprise/company?

Yeah, I do. For the same reason I support the FDA being in charge of screening drugs (hell why don't we make Phizer pay for those labs.) The same way we don't let CBS monitor their own airwaves to make sure no bad language airs. Or well I think you see where I'm headed.

Now, does that mean the TSA should be able to do whatever they want? Of course not, no more than the FDA or FCC can do whatever the hell they like; but let's just imagine that each airline managed their own security. That's what at least 8 different major airlines all using different standards AND AND here is the biggie. Private airlines simply wouldn't have access to government databases, and here is a simple fact. Moreso than searches of each individual person what the TSA does is compare passenger lists to no fly lists as well as other government databases to cull people from flying who we don't want on planes .

For a non terrorism related example, consider this.

Let's imagine someone is wanted by the FBI for whatever reason. Under the current system. The moment they try to board a plane their name pops up on a TSA computer as wanted by the FBI bingo bango they are apprehended.

Now, let's consider if Southwest Airlines was running their own security. First of all, they wouldn't even have access to the FBI database, and second of all even if they did. Are their private security people going to attempt to apprehend an FBI fugitive? I doubt it, and as private security people they wouldn't have no authority to hold him anyway ( I guess they could attempt a citizen's arrest, but LOL)

Anyway, there are a myriad of reasons why a government entity should run airline security. And yes I know I'll be accused of being a supercop here, but the frank point is some of yall just don't know exactly what our various government agencies do otherwise you would certainly understand that the TSA does FAR more than strip search and or rape old ladies, and that you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Oh, and there is the simple fact that the TSA isn't going anywhere so energy is better spent fixing the problems they do have then trying to do away with them altogether.

[revelarts]

Sheesh, Where's neg rep when you need it? ^

[jimnyc]

There is certainly a continuum of positions but I think there are some who are solidly on the side of a government entity being the one to do the search. I think this thread would have died awhile ago if not the case.

My bad, I honestly thought those arguing in favor of continuing strong security didn't care if it were a private company doing so. CH has made it clear he wants it to be the TSA. Not condemning any stance myself, as I'm in favor of the security and wouldn't care if it changed into private hands...


Yeah, I do. For the same reason I support the FDA being in charge of screening drugs (hell why don't we make Phizer pay for those labs.) The same way we don't let CBS monitor their own airwaves to make sure no bad language airs. Or well I think you see where I'm headed.

Now, does that mean the TSA should be able to do whatever they want? Of course not, no more than the FDA or FCC can do whatever the hell they like; but let's just imagine that each airline managed their own security. That's what at least 8 different major airlines all using different standards AND AND here is the biggie. Private airlines simply wouldn't have access to government databases, and here is a simple fact. Moreso than searches of each individual person what the TSA does is compare passenger lists to no fly lists as well as other government databases to cull people from flying who we don't want on planes .

For a non terrorism related example, consider this.

Let's imagine someone is wanted by the FBI for whatever reason. Under the current system. The moment they try to board a plane their name pops up on a TSA computer as wanted by the FBI bingo bango they are apprehended.

Now, let's consider if Southwest Airlines was running their own security. First of all, they wouldn't even have access to the FBI database, and second of all even if they did. Are their private security people going to attempt to apprehend an FBI fugitive? I doubt it, and as private security people they wouldn't have no authority to hold him anyway ( I guess they could attempt a citizen's arrest, but LOL)

Anyway, there are a myriad of reasons why a government entity should run airline security. And yes I know I'll be accused of being a supercop here, but the frank point is some of yall just don't know exactly what our various government agencies do otherwise you would certainly understand that the TSA does FAR more than strip search and or rape old ladies, and that you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Oh, and there is the simple fact that the TSA isn't going anywhere so energy is better spent fixing the problems they do have then trying to do away with them altogether.

But you do make a few good points that would need to be addressed if security went private. They would certainly need to be better than "ABC security", must have the authorization to arrest. I would imagine they would need some sort of cross referenced database. Maybe not "access" in the usual manner, but maybe a system that would check against certain databases. It's above my pay grade to say how that would happen!

Those angry at the TSA want them to have accountability, and whatever changes people would want to see by changing to a private company, the government would need to do the same with the TSA to make them "happy". And I say that happy in a manner that we both know some folks will never be happy, no matter what changes are made, unless security screenings are done away with altogether, which hopefully won't happen.

[jimnyc]

Sheesh, Where's neg rep when you need it? ^

Why would you neg rep his "reputation" over that reply? Did I misread something?

[ConHog]

My bad, I honestly thought those arguing in favor of continuing strong security didn't care if it were a private company doing so. CH has made it clear he wants it to be the TSA. Not condemning any stance myself, as I'm in favor of the security and wouldn't care if it changed into private hands...



But you do make a few good points that would need to be addressed if security went private. They would certainly need to be better than "ABC security", must have the authorization to arrest. I would imagine they would need some sort of cross referenced database. Maybe not "access" in the usual manner, but maybe a system that would check against certain databases. It's above my pay grade to say how that would happen!

Those angry at the TSA want them to have accountability, and whatever changes people would want to see by changing to a private company, the government would need to do the same with the TSA to make them "happy". And I say that happy in a manner that we both know some folks will never be happy, no matter what changes are made, unless security screenings are done away with altogether, which hopefully won't happen.

I agree, there should be MAJOR oversight. Perhaps an oversight committee made up of civilians, TSA officials, industry officials, etc etc. to address the complaints. I sure would have no problem with that. It would essentially be an outside "agency" policing the police.

[ConHog]

Sheesh, Where's neg rep when you need it? ^


You can certainly give me neg rep for my post. I encourage you to do so if you feel I have I posted something silly, or foolish. I average about 15 positive reps a day , so you're one negative certainly isn't going to do me any harm. :laugh:

[ConHog]

Why would you neg rep his "reputation" over that reply? Did I misread something?


Because I support the man don't you know LOL

[revelarts]

Why would you neg rep his "reputation" over that reply? Did I misread something?
just general frustration, I never neg reped anyone, but this "the Gov't can do it better and we are better off with gov't watching and policing practically every freaking thing" and not seeing a problem with it just sends me over the edge. Con makes sense in other areas but there's a blind spot as big as Kansas on the idea of security and policing. "gov't is good that's the bottom line anyone who says different just "hates" gov't."
I'm not into name calling but con I got one for ya
"Police state Charlie"
no disrepect or hard feelings on my part but , when your on the subject of "security" that's what i hear coming from you.
"If the People would just shut the F- up do as the police say, get in line to be searched and background checked at school, City hall, the airports, the pharmacy, the highway , the train stations, at home where ever the gov't says , there'd be nooo trouble and we'd all be safe."

that's how it comes across to me anyway. And it's frustrating to hear an American talk like that.

[jimnyc]

Was just asking, damn! :laugh2: :poke:

But for what it's worth:


"If the People would just shut the F- up do as the police say, get in line to be searched and background checked at school, City hall, the airports, the pharmacy, the highway , the train stations, at home where ever the gov't says , there'd be nooo trouble and we'd all be safe."

I think you're exaggerating a bit there and putting words in his mouth. While he has defended the TSA, and even wants them in charge going forward, I've seen him quite a few times now agree that there needs to be many changes. I don't think he's ever even hinted at things like you wrote above.

But let me poke you in the head one more time at least before the 2 of you duke it out :poke:

[LuvRPgrl]

Well, let's see. You either fully search, or you don't.

I was thinking you meant either strip search or no searching whatsoever

[revelarts]

Was just asking, damn! :laugh2: :poke:

But for what it's worth:



I think you're exaggerating a bit there and putting words in his mouth. While he has defended the TSA, and even wants them in charge going forward, I've seen him quite a few times now agree that there needs to be many changes. I don't think he's ever even hinted at things like you wrote above.

But let me poke you in the head one more time at least before the 2 of you duke it out :poke:

Here are are samples of the words directly from his mouth..



My premise is that if 90% of the people would just shut up and go through the scanner that the 10% who for whatever reason legitimately can't go through the scanner would probably be able to get through THAT quicker as well….

Oh and I would like to see people who make false claims about treatment by the TSA thrown in jail, all they are doing is giving less credibility to those who really are mishandled by the TSA….

Or just admit that you're just being anti government for the sake of being anti government and move on….

Taxpayers should subsidize screening because it helps prevent another 9/11, which I'm sure you'd agree affected far more than just the airplane passengers involved….

1. Requiring security checks before boarding a flight in NO WAY limits your ability to get on a plane….

Sure, no different than funding police in case you're one of the small statistical numbers that has need of one every year. Or the way we all fund the military just in case we are invaded. Etc etc….

I support the FDA.. FCC… Anyway, there are a myriad of reasons why a government entity should run airline security….

Travel is a right. Well, no it isn't , or rather it isn't a right that you are guaranteed will never be violated by the government, if it were it would be enumerated in the COTUS. However, even if travel WERE a right, flying in a plane certainly isn't…..

[jimnyc]

Here are are samples of the words directly from his mouth..

Let me repeat what you said:


"If the People would just shut the F- up do as the police say, get in line to be searched and background checked at school, City hall, the airports, the pharmacy, the highway , the train stations, at home where ever the gov't says , there'd be nooo trouble and we'd all be safe."

and what he said in reality:


My premise is that if 90% of the people would just shut up and go through the scanner that the 10% who for whatever reason legitimately can't go through the scanner would probably be able to get through THAT quicker as well….

Never used the "F" word, never said it about school, city hall, pharmacy, highway, trains, or wherever the government says. But anyway, what he really said and what you chose to make it appear that he said are VERY VERY far apart. You like to take what others say, twist it, exaggerate it, fake it, and then pass it off as a quote. It's a cheap tactic. It would be nicer to see you arguing the points rather than making things up for effect.

[ConHog]

just general frustration, I never neg reped anyone, but this "the Gov't can do it better and we are better off with gov't watching and policing practically every freaking thing" and not seeing a problem with it just sends me over the edge. Con makes sense in other areas but there's a blind spot as big as Kansas on the idea of security and policing. "gov't is good that's the bottom line anyone who says different just "hates" gov't."
I'm not into name calling but con I got one for ya
"Police state Charlie"
no disrepect or hard feelings on my part but , when your on the subject of "security" that's what i hear coming from you.
"If the People would just shut the F- up do as the police say, get in line to be searched and background checked at school, City hall, the airports, the pharmacy, the highway , the train stations, at home where ever the gov't says , there'd be nooo trouble and we'd all be safe."

that's how it comes across to me anyway. And it's frustrating to hear an American talk like that.

No worries on my part. You haven't been nasty about our differences of opinion and I shant either.

But, you ARE putting words in my mouth friend. I certainly think you should be able to get the meds that your medical instabilities require without being strip searched.


:laugh2:

[ConHog]

Here are are samples of the words directly from his mouth..

Actually, those are words directly from my fingers, not my mouth. :laugh: But, let's examine what you've highlighted.


My premise is that if 90% of the people would just shut up and go through the scanner that the 10% who for whatever reason legitimately can't go through the scanner would probably be able to get through THAT quicker as well….


I stand by this. My best guess based off my own flying experiences is that is that 80% of those who fly just walk right through the scan machines without giving them a second though because they realize that they are in fact not a big deal. A further 10% have legitimate reasons why they can't go through the scanners and so they choose the alternative and likewise breeze right through it with no problems whatsoever. But that last 10% , oh no they don't want to be searched at ALL and so by God they are 10X louder than the other 90% combined and actually make the TSA's job even harder and cause more delays for everyone then if they would just shut the fuck up.

Let me tell you from own real life experiences - cue the supercop comments - I served no knock warrants for the last 10 years of my career. In all the time , we came across MANY people who were in fact guilty of nothing more than being friends with a jackass who did meth or what have you, but we still had to search them , and in most cases handcuff them if they were in the house we were serving a warrant on . Most people understood that although they didn't do anything to deserve that other than wrong place wrong time and yet they understood that the safety of those around them triumphed their MINOR inconvenience and that things go smoother for them and everyone around them if they just relax and be cooperative.

In fact, here is why you would lose if you ever did get a case before the SCOTUS. The Court has already ruled in Michigan vs Sitz that the state has the right to minimally infringe on your rights when they can show that public security needs outweigh the loss of your freedom. And of course even that is irrelevant because the right to refuse the searches belongs to the airlines, not the passengers. I mean if you get pulled over for speeding and the cop wants to search your car, who does he ask ? You, or some random dude who happens to be hitching a ride in your back seat?


it isn't a right that you are guaranteed will never be violated by the government

I don't even know why you highlighted this one. Do you really not understand that only those rights specifically listed in the COTUS as inviolate by the government are in fact guaranteed to always be protected from being violated? Else why not just write

First Amendment: Nothing deemed as a right may ever be taken away from citizens by the government

[fj1200]

Yeah, I do. For the same reason I support the FDA being in charge of screening drugs (hell why don't we make Phizer pay for those labs.) The same way we don't let CBS monitor their own airwaves to make sure no bad language airs. Or well I think you see where I'm headed.

Now, does that mean the TSA should be able to do whatever they want? Of course not, no more than the FDA or FCC can do whatever the hell they like; but let's just imagine that each airline managed their own security. That's what at least 8 different major airlines all using different standards AND AND here is the biggie. Private airlines simply wouldn't have access to government databases, and here is a simple fact. Moreso than searches of each individual person what the TSA does is compare passenger lists to no fly lists as well as other government databases to cull people from flying who we don't want on planes .

For a non terrorism related example, consider this.

Let's imagine someone is wanted by the FBI for whatever reason. Under the current system. The moment they try to board a plane their name pops up on a TSA computer as wanted by the FBI bingo bango they are apprehended.

Now, let's consider if Southwest Airlines was running their own security. First of all, they wouldn't even have access to the FBI database, and second of all even if they did. Are their private security people going to attempt to apprehend an FBI fugitive? I doubt it, and as private security people they wouldn't have no authority to hold him anyway ( I guess they could attempt a citizen's arrest, but LOL)

Anyway, there are a myriad of reasons why a government entity should run airline security. And yes I know I'll be accused of being a supercop here, but the frank point is some of yall just don't know exactly what our various government agencies do otherwise you would certainly understand that the TSA does FAR more than strip search and or rape old ladies, and that you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Oh, and there is the simple fact that the TSA isn't going anywhere so energy is better spent fixing the problems they do have then trying to do away with them altogether.

I don't believe the FDA is the entity that actually does the studies that they base approval on; The drug companies run the tests and present the findings to the FDA. At that point the FDA approves or not; They are performing a regulatory function.
I'm pretty sure the networks have their own regulatory sections that sign off on shows for public consumption; They are performing a regulatory function and not having someone tasked with watching TV 24 hours a day.
Banks and brokerage firms perform various BSA functions when opening an account; Checking against an OFAC list for example. The firms perform the actions based on rules passed to them, there are no Federal officers checking accounts against a Federal database; the agencies are performing a regulatory function. (TBH I don't recall the databased we compared against but I think it's Federal in nature as everytime someone named Charles Taylor opened an account, we had to make sure he wasn't a Liberian dictator)

The point is that a private firm can run security based on rules given to them by a regulatory agency. I have no problem if they check every name against a database to ensure that the no-fly list is adhered too, they do it when you open a brokerage account. And there's no way that you can tell me that the bumpkins that they have to fill those roles are in anyway trained to fill the role that you present that they are. There is a bill proposed right now to strip TSA agents of their badges until they complete Federal Officer Training.


But you do make a few good points that would need to be addressed if security went private. They would certainly need to be better than "ABC security", must have the authorization to arrest. I would imagine they would need some sort of cross referenced database. Maybe not "access" in the usual manner, but maybe a system that would check against certain databases. It's above my pay grade to say how that would happen!

Those angry at the TSA want them to have accountability, and whatever changes people would want to see by changing to a private company, the government would need to do the same with the TSA to make them "happy". And I say that happy in a manner that we both know some folks will never be happy, no matter what changes are made, unless security screenings are done away with altogether, which hopefully won't happen.

A database check would take about 5 minutes to set up, probably less since it's in effect right now unless you think the TSA doesn't know who's flying until they walk past the supercops. ;)

[ConHog]

I don't believe the FDA is the entity that actually does the studies that they base approval on; The drug companies run the tests and present the findings to the FDA. At that point the FDA approves or not; They are performing a regulatory function.
I'm pretty sure the networks have their own regulatory sections that sign off on shows for public consumption; They are performing a regulatory function and not having someone tasked with watching TV 24 hours a day.
Banks and brokerage firms perform various BSA functions when opening an account; Checking against an OFAC list for example. The firms perform the actions based on rules passed to them, there are no Federal officers checking accounts against a Federal database; the agencies are performing a regulatory function. (TBH I don't recall the databased we compared against but I think it's Federal in nature as everytime someone named Charles Taylor opened an account, we had to make sure he wasn't a Liberian dictator)

The point is that a private firm can run security based on rules given to them by a regulatory agency. I have no problem if they check every name against a database to ensure that the no-fly list is adhered too, they do it when you open a brokerage account. And there's no way that you can tell me that the bumpkins that they have to fill those roles are in anyway trained to fill the role that you present that they are. There is a bill proposed right now to strip TSA agents of their badges until they complete Federal Officer Training.



A database check would take about 5 minutes to set up, probably less since it's in effect right now unless you think the TSA doesn't know who's flying until they walk past the supercops. ;)


Your post contains about a million different subtopics that I would like to address, but I'm not a big fan of the multiquote so I'll pick a few of em apart one at a time.


FDA testing

http://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm143534.htm

At the end of Phase 2, the FDA and sponsors try to come to an agreement on how the large-scale studies in Phase 3 should be done. How often the FDA meets with a sponsor varies, but this is one of two most common meeting points prior to submission of a new drug application. The other most common time is pre-NDA--right before a new drug application is submitted.

So clearly the FDA is INTIMATELY involved in the testing process, if not actually doing the testing themselves.

FCC regulations

Really, so when a network breaks FCC regulations they fine themselves? I don't think so.

Database checks

Again, there are WAY more databases involved than there is in opening a bank account. By the way, banks don't actually check any ID against ANY databases when you open account, all they do is collect the information. Anyone can open an account as long as they have the proper forms of ID to satisfy the filing requirements. Not so with flying. Your name is not only compared to those forms of ID it is checked against multiple databases which are constantly being updated to reflect new warrants issued, new intel , etc etc. And there is NOWAY the government is going to allow private companies to have access to this data. Nor should they.




PS - I'm fine with requiring all TSA agents to qualify as federal agents before giving them a badge. I sure had to go through the Glynnco training.

[ConHog]

I've lost track, has it been proven yet that the grandma was stripped or raped?

[Kathianne]

Actually, those are words directly from my fingers, not my mouth. :laugh: But, let's examine what you've highlighted.


My premise is that if 90% of the people would just shut up and go through the scanner that the 10% who for whatever reason legitimately can't go through the scanner would probably be able to get through THAT quicker as well….


I stand by this. My best guess based off my own flying experiences is that is that 80% of those who fly just walk right through the scan machines without giving them a second though because they realize that they are in fact not a big deal. A further 10% have legitimate reasons why they can't go through the scanners and so they choose the alternative and likewise breeze right through it with no problems whatsoever. But that last 10% , oh no they don't want to be searched at ALL and so by God they are 10X louder than the other 90% combined and actually make the TSA's job even harder and cause more delays for everyone then if they would just shut the fuck up.

...

Except this grandmother didn't resist anything, she requested for health reasons to avoid the full body scan:


An 84-year-old New York grandmother says she was “mortified” after being strip-searched by TSA agents at John F. Kennedy International Airport last week.
Lenore Zimmerman of Long Island said she was on her way to Fort Lauderdale, Fla., when security whisked her away to a private room without explanation after she asked to forgo the full-body scan, fearing it might interfere with her defibrillator.
“They took me into a private room and pulled down my slacks and pulled down my underwear” without explanation or apology, Zimmerman told ABC News.
http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ap_Lenore_Zimmerman_jt_111203_wblog.jpg
“I said, you know, I’ve been coming down for Florida for 10 years and I’ve always been patted down but I’ve never been strip-searched, why I am being strip-searched now? … They had no answer,” Zimmerman said.


When she tried to lift a lightweight walker off her lap, the metal bars banged against her leg, cutting her.



“I’m on a blood thinner and I bled like a pig so they called an ambulance and I said, ‘please don’t take me to the hospital, just bandage me up,’” she said.


The TSA called a medic, but the process took so long that Zimmerman missed her 1 p.m. flight and had to wait more than two hours to catch the next one, she said.


But the TSA said no strip search was conducted and proper procedures were followed.


“While we regret that the passenger feels she had an unpleasant screening experience, TSA does not include strip searches as part of our security protocols and one was not conducted in this case,” the TSA said in a statement about the incident...



She doesn't know the 'official definition of strip search,' but this wasn't what had occurred in her past travels.

Meanwhile TSA is attempting to cover their bases, without much luck. As mentioned, they've had over a decade to get things right:

http://www.gsnmagazine.com/node/25201?c=airport_aviation_security


TSA clarifies JKF agents’ search, lawmakers call for passenger advocate officers Mon, 2011-12-12 07:39 AM By: Mark Rockwell (http://www.gsnmagazine.com/author/21449/mark_rockwell)



<tbody>
http://www.gsnmagazine.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/fullsize/schumerweb_0.jpg


Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY)


</tbody>
The Transportation Security Officers that performed the screening on an 85-year-old woman at JFK International Airport mistakenly asked her to remove a back brace, but did not perform a strip search, said the TSA on Dec. 11.


In a clarification of a string of November screening incidents at JFK airport, the agency said on Web blog page, its TSOs thought a back brace worn by Lenore Zimmerman was a money belt, which are subject to removal and search, according to its policies. At the same time, two New York lawmakers called for the agency to designate an officer at airports around the country who could step in for passengers who have concerns and complaints about specific security screenings.


Zimmerman is contemplating a law suit against the agency for what she said was a strip search during her screening in a private room in late November at the airport. Two more elderly women claim they were also subjected to strip searches at the airport. The agency in its Dec. 11 post again firmly stated it does not, and never has, conducted strip searches of passengers.


On the same day, two New York lawmakers called for the creation of a TSA “passenger advocate” that could intervene for passengers who feel they’re not being treated fairly in the screening process. US Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and New York State Senator Michael Gianaris (D-Queens) want TSA officers to undergo training for dispute resolution and want a TSA agent at all airports designated as an on-duty advocate for passengers with concerns or complaints about the screening process. They also called for the agency to investigate what happened in the JFK cases.


The TSA’s blog said there was a “bit of miscommunication” during Zimmerman’s search. It said its officers were told she was wearing a money belt and didn’t know she was actually wearing a back brace. “Unlike medical braces and supports, money belts must be removed since they’re not providing any type of medical benefit,” it said. “After the passenger removed the item, it was then determined to be a Velcro fastened support brace and not a money belt. Since the item had already been removed, our officers had it X-rayed and returned it to the passenger who was then clear to travel,” it explained.


“We truly regret these passengers feel they had a bad screening experience. Our goal is to provide the highest level of security while ensuring that all passengers are treated with dignity and respect,” it said, adding that it works with a coalition of advocacy groups representing those with disabilities and medical conditions understand their conditions and adapt screening procedures accordingly...

[ConHog]

Except this grandmother didn't resist anything, she requested for health reasons to avoid the full body scan:



She doesn't know the 'official definition of strip search,' but this wasn't what had occurred in her past travels.

Meanwhile TSA is attempting to cover their bases, without much luck. As mentioned, they've had over a decade to get things right:

http://www.gsnmagazine.com/node/25201?c=airport_aviation_security

So, they mistook a back brace for a money belt and had her remove that, but somehow that equals a strip search akin to rape?

Oh, and I read in your little excerpt that she is considering a lawsuit, I need know no more about this liar.

She wasn't strip searched.

[Kathianne]

So, they mistook a back brace for a money belt and had her remove that, but somehow that equals a strip search akin to rape?

Oh, and I read in your little excerpt that she is considering a lawsuit, I need know no more about this liar.

She wasn't strip searched.

Perhaps you should attend some reading comprehension classes, would do you good. Same with conversations and how to conduct.

Then again, you are looking more for everyone else to STFU! CH has spoken!

[Abbey Marie]

I was thinking you meant either strip search or no searching whatsoever

Oh, I see. No, I didn't mean that.

[ConHog]

Perhaps you should attend some reading comprehension classes, would do you good. Same with conversations and how to conduct.

Then again, you are looking more for everyone else to STFU! CH has spoken!

What the hell is wrong with you lately?

What did I misread? The TSA guy clearly said his agents thought it was a money belt which they are required to remove. that's a mistake, not an intentional violation of her alleged rights.

I think if we took an honest vote about who is being more reasonable and factual as well as sticking to the topic of this thread I would mop up the floor with you Kath. Please try sticking to the topic without your continued attacks . I've seen you thread ban others for less than what you yourself have done in THIS thread and you're ruining the conversation I'd like to have with some who I disagree with but am having a civil discussion with.

[Abbey Marie]

I don't believe the FDA is the entity that actually does the studies that they base approval on; The drug companies run the tests and present the findings to the FDA. At that point the FDA approves or not; They are performing a regulatory function.
...


Validation companies generally come in and test for FDA- readiness for drug making/delivery processes at least. I know two people who work for or own Validation companies.

[logroller]

Yeah, I do. For the same reason I support the FDA being in charge of screening drugs (hell why don't we make Phizer pay for those labs.) The same way we don't let CBS monitor their own airwaves to make sure no bad language airs. Or well I think you see where I'm headed.

Now, does that mean the TSA should be able to do whatever they want? Of course not, no more than the FDA or FCC can do whatever the hell they like; but let's just imagine that each airline managed their own security. That's what at least 8 different major airlines all using different standards AND AND here is the biggie. Private airlines simply wouldn't have access to government databases, and here is a simple fact. Moreso than searches of each individual person what the TSA does is compare passenger lists to no fly lists as well as other government databases to cull people from flying who we don't want on planes...

Oh, and there is the simple fact that the TSA isn't going anywhere so energy is better spent fixing the problems they do have then trying to do away with them altogether.

Right because BigPharma doesn't have any influence over the FDA, right; nor lobby for more favorable treatment? :rolleyes: Check out Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act

I believe networks do, in fact, have their own censors. Nonetheless, the government has an illustrious past regarding censorship of media--see: McCarthyism.

"'TSA isn't going anywhere so energy is better spent' coming up with new and expanded roles of government into the daily lives of Americans."

My energy is better spent opposing this.

[revelarts]

Just to mention the FDA, to often, like the bank regulation agencies of the gov't, it's become a revolving door for big phrama and big agra, the heads and higher ups of the FDA were a big pharma excecs. Or when some bureaucrats leave the FDA they have good jobs waiting for them in big pharma , if they treated big pharma right that is. Not exactly making the reviews process or conclusions unbiased.

for example ...
"Michael R. Taylor, was appointed Deputy Commissioner for Foods at the FDA. Taylor is a former top executive (VP Public Policy), attorney and lobbyist with Monsanto and has had prior positions with law firms, the USDA and the FDA.Veterans Today wrote in the article about Taylor, "During his former stint in the FDA during the Clinton administration, he helped write the rules to allow rBGH (Bovine Growth Hormone) into the American food system and our children’s milk. Which is perhaps why the FDA staffer who wrote Taylor’s bio seems to have all-but-forgotten his decade-plus of Monsanto work."

http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Revolving-Door.htm



While I agree with part of the FDA And USDA's stated functions, as an oversight body but I think they should act more like the GAO or consumer reports and not have authority to stop or regulate anything but the truthfulness of the contents of any product and give honest evaluations of claims and post possible risk like cigarettes.
And Without the delayed bribes of the revolving doors for officials and reviewers.
but i digress

[ConHog]

Right because BigPharma doesn't have any influence over the FDA, right; nor lobby for more favorable treatment? :rolleyes: Check out Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act

I believe networks do, in fact, have their own censors. Nonetheless, the government has an illustrious past regarding censorship of media--see: McCarthyism.

"'TSA isn't going anywhere so energy is better spent' coming up with new and expanded roles of government into the daily lives of Americans."

My energy is better spent opposing this.

Wait, what? So you argue that the airlines have more influence over the TSA than they would if the security was private? LOL otherwise why bring that up at all?

Also, you of course completely altered my quote about the TSA not going anywhere, but I'm sure you had no nefarious reasons for doing so , so I will not complain. BUT I said to change the TSA for the better, not to give them more power.

[ConHog]

Just to mention the FDA, to often, like the bank regulation agencies of the gov't, it's become a revolving door for big phrama and big agra, the heads and higher ups of the FDA were a big pharma excecs. Or when some bureaucrats leave the FDA they have good jobs waiting for them in big pharma , if they treated big pharma right that is. Not exactly making the reviews process or conclusions unbiased.

for example ...
"Michael R. Taylor, was appointed Deputy Commissioner for Foods at the FDA. Taylor is a former top executive (VP Public Policy), attorney and lobbyist with Monsanto and has had prior positions with law firms, the USDA and the FDA.Veterans Today wrote in the article about Taylor, "During his former stint in the FDA during the Clinton administration, he helped write the rules to allow rBGH (Bovine Growth Hormone) into the American food system and our children’s milk. Which is perhaps why the FDA staffer who wrote Taylor’s bio seems to have all-but-forgotten his decade-plus of Monsanto work."

http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Revolving-Door.htm





While I agree with part of the FDA And USDA's stated functions, as an oversight body but I think they should act more like the GAO or consumer reports and not have authority to stop or regulate anything but the truthfulness of the contents of any product and give honest evaluations of claims and post possible risk like cigarettes.
And Without the delayed bribes of the revolving doors for officials and reviewers.
but i digress

Irrelevant to this debate unless you are also claiming the airlines wield more influence over the TSA then they would over private security.

[logroller]

Wait, what? So you argue that the airlines have more influence over the TSA than they would if the security was private? LOL otherwise why bring that up at all?

Also, you of course completely altered my quote about the TSA not going anywhere, but I'm sure you had no nefarious reasons for doing so , so I will not complain. BUT I said to change the TSA for the better, not to give them more power.

I was talking about the FDA, not TSA; remember--you brought it up. What they have in common is they have govt intervene to further their interest in profits by having govt,(read:taxpayers), cover their exorbitant costs.

My interpretation of what you said was in my post--- I quoted yours verbatim.

[ConHog]

I was talking about the FDA, not TSA; remember--you brought it up. What they have in common is they have govt intervene to further their interest in profits by having govt,(read:taxpayers), cover their exorbitant costs.

My interpretation of what you said was in my post--- I quoted yours verbatim.

Oh good grief, what couldn't the private sector do cheaper than the government? Want a private Army to?


and like I said, this is all strawman anyway. THIS thread is supposed to be about alleged constitutional violations by the TSA, not cost issues, or anything else.

[fj1200]

Your post contains about a million different subtopics that I would like to address, but I'm not a big fan of the multiquote so I'll pick a few of em apart one at a time.

FDA testing

http://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm143534.htm

So clearly the FDA is INTIMATELY involved in the testing process, if not actually doing the testing themselves.

I have no such compunction against multiquoting. I never said that they were not involved in the process; can you show me where they do the testing?


FCC regulations

Really, so when a network breaks FCC regulations they fine themselves? I don't think so.

That's not the issue; are their regulators sitting in network offices and watching the shows before they air?


Database checks

Again, there are WAY more databases involved than there is in opening a bank account. By the way, banks don't actually check any ID against ANY databases when you open account... And there is NOWAY the government is going to allow private companies to have access to this data. Nor should they.

Wrong, although I can't speak directly to banks but brokerage firms are required under Know Your Customer rules to validate who is opening the account complete with ID. When I ran the checks for the firm I was with we specifically had to bump our entire investor list against the d-base daily and check all new investors prior to depositing the check.


4. Customer Identification ProgramsSection 326 of the USA PATRIOT Act amended the BSA to require financial institutions, including broker-dealers, to establish written customer identification programs (CIP). Treasury’s implementing rule requires a broker-dealer’s CIP to include, at a minimum, procedures for:

obtaining customer identifying information from each customer prior to account opening;
verifying the identity of each customer, to the extent reasonable and practicable, within a reasonable time before or after account opening;
making and maintaining a record of information obtained relating to identity verification;
determining whether a customer appears on any list of known or suspected terrorist organizations designated by Treasury within a reasonable time after account opening or earlier;3 (http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/ocie/amlsourcetool.htm#P171_10411) and
providing each customer with adequate notice, prior to opening an account, that information is being requested to verify the customer’s identity.

http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/ocie/amlsourcetool.htm#4

So checks happen; regardless do you really think airlines are NOT having the flight lists checked prior to check-in?


Validation companies generally come in and test for FDA- readiness for drug making/delivery processes at least. I know two people who work for or own Validation companies.

Sounds like they're testing as a regulator would test. Do they do actual drug testing?

[ConHog]

I have no such compunction against multiquoting. I never said that they were not involved in the process; can you show me where they do the testing?



That's not the issue; are their regulators sitting in network offices and watching the shows before they air?



Wrong, although I can't speak directly to banks but brokerage firms are required under Know Your Customer rules to validate who is opening the account complete with ID. When I ran the checks for the firm I was with we specifically had to bump our entire investor list against the d-base daily and check all new investors prior to depositing the check.


http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/ocie/amlsourcetool.htm#4

So checks happen; regardless do you really think airlines are NOT having the flight lists checked prior to check-in?



Sounds like they're testing as a regulator would test. Do they do actual drug testing?

Of course they are having them checked, BY THE TSA.

[fj1200]

:facepalm:

[ConHog]

Still see no proof that this woman was strip searched and or raped..............

[logroller]

Still see no proof that this woman was strip searched and or raped..............
If she were-- I'm sure there was exigent circumstance.:rolleyes:

What triggered the search; a national security threat or trying to board an airline?

Is terrorism so intimately tied to air travel that one can't fly without posing a national security threat? If so, than we need to take a serious look at the viability of air travel period, quit bailing out airlines on the taxpayer's dime, and let those who wish to fly bear the full cost of utilizing terrorist friendly vehicles.

I'm free to not fly, but I'm not free to not pay for those who do--I have a problem with this, as do others.

[logroller]

Oh good grief, what couldn't the private sector do cheaper than the government? Want a private Army to?


and like I said, this is all strawman anyway. THIS thread is supposed to be about alleged constitutional violations by the TSA, not cost issues, or anything else.

Not cheaper, rather, more profitable and reeking of cronyism. Ever heard of Kenneth Brown Roots(KBR)?

Not the first time a thread got hijacked, and doubtfully the last. :laugh:

[ConHog]

If she were-- I'm sure there was exigent circumstance.:rolleyes:

What triggered the search; a national security threat or trying to board an airline?

Is terrorism so intimately tied to air travel that one can't fly without posing a national security threat? If so, than we need to take a serious look at the viability of air travel period, quit bailing out airlines on the taxpayer's dime, and let those who wish to fly bear the full cost of utilizing terrorist friendly vehicles.

I'm free to not fly, but I'm not free to not pay for those who do--I have a problem with this, as do others.

As I've said , when I see you posting about a myriad other much more egregious wastes of money than the TSA I will take your complaint seriously Until then it is pure faux rage.

[logroller]

As I've said , when I see you posting about a myriad other much more egregious wastes of money than the TSA I will take your complaint seriously Until then it is pure faux rage.

How bout you show me where I validated 'more egregious' non-constitutional govt spending. Besides, it doesn't change the issue with TSA being an over-reach by govt. Though your reasoning speaks volumes of how govt does operate-- we waste plenty in other places, why not here too?

[LuvRPgrl]

Oh good grief, what couldn't the private sector do cheaper than the government? Want a private Army to?


and like I said, this is all strawman anyway. THIS thread is supposed to be about alleged constitutional violations by the TSA, not cost issues, or anything else.
private army, yea, whats wrong with that?Y You have heard of mercenaries before havent you?

[revelarts]

Oh good grief, what couldn't the private sector do cheaper than the government? Want a private Army to?


and like I said, this is all strawman anyway. THIS thread is supposed to be about alleged constitutional violations by the TSA, not cost issues, or anything else.


private army, yea, whats wrong with that?Y You have heard of mercenaries before havent you?
And the Milita as outlined in the constitution.
Only the Navy was to be federally maintained. "no standing armies" was part of the original idea.
Those crazy old constitution writers, thought standing armies might be dangerous to liberty.

[fj1200]

What triggered the search; a national security threat or trying to board an airline?

Everyone starts out guilty, that's just the essence of our system... right?

[ConHog]

How bout you show me where I validated 'more egregious' non-constitutional govt spending. Besides, it doesn't change the issue with TSA being an over-reach by govt. Though your reasoning speaks volumes of how govt does operate-- we waste plenty in other places, why not here too?

Again, I'm not sure how you can possibly say with a straight face that providing for the safety of this country maybe doesn't securing air travel. We seen exactly what happens when there is a whole in ANY aspect of our national security back on 9/11/01.

And ONCE again, what does THIS have to do with the fact that this old lady was not strip searched?

[ConHog]

This comment proves to me that some people are just divorced from reality on this issue.


Well...the 80 year old grandma that you keep harping on has not been proven to be a "liar"...infact she has her kids backing her up (plus other grandma's with similar stories about the very same TSA agents). At any rate she is taking the TSA to court and doesn't seem to be backing down on this.

Sorry Shadow, but how would the kids have any clue about what happened in the room? I PROMISE you that old lady wasn't strip searched in front of her kids.

She is lying. She had a back brace, someone mistook it for a money belt and asked her to remove it. That's a mistake to be sure, but some nefarious strip search akin to rape? Nope.

I want them to hold the TSA accountable when they screw up to, but I also wish they would hold liars accountable to. Let this old lady have her day in court, if they rule for her fine pay her some money, if they find against her , throw her old ass in jail. Then the liars would stop lying and people who have LEGITIMATE gripes could see their complaints addressed more quickly.

[revelarts]

This comment proves to me that some people are just divorced from reality on this issue.


Well...the 80 year old grandma that you keep harping on has not been proven to be a "liar"...infact she has her kids backing her up (plus other grandma's with similar stories about the very same TSA agents). At any rate she is taking the TSA to court and doesn't seem to be backing down on this.

Sorry Shadow, but how would the kids have any clue about what happened in the room? I PROMISE you that old lady wasn't strip searched in front of her kids.

She is lying. She had a back brace, someone mistook it for a money belt and asked her to remove it. That's a mistake to be sure, but some nefarious strip search akin to rape? Nope.

I want them to hold the TSA accountable when they screw up to, but I also wish they would hold liars accountable to. Let this old lady have her day in court, if they rule for her fine pay her some money, if they find against her , throw her old ass in jail. Then the liars would stop lying and people who have LEGITIMATE gripes could see their complaints addressed more quickly.

I wish every public official, cop, judge and bureaucrat who lied spent time in jail, we'd be a lot better off and safer.

[ConHog]

I wish every public official, cop, judge and bureaucrat who lied spent time in jail, we'd be a lot better off and safer.


WHo lied? Everyone lies. We'd have some awful crowded prisons and a completely empty Washington DC. Now if you meant you wished that every government employee who did something illegal was in jail. you bet I'm with you.

Oh, and falsely accusing someone of a crime is illegal, so what this old bitch is doing rises above a lie as well. Lying in and of itself shouldn't land anyone in prison.

[LuvRPgrl]

WHo lied? Everyone lies. We'd have some awful crowded prisons and a completely empty Washington DC. Now if you meant you wished that every government employee who did something illegal was in jail. you bet I'm with you.

Oh, and falsely accusing someone of a crime is illegal, so what this old bitch is doing rises above a lie as well. Lying in and of itself shouldn't land anyone in prison.

public officials, ie cops, judges etc, are public servants, supposedly anyways, which means we are technically their boss(es). If I lied to my boss, at minimum I would lose my job. To compare a cop who lies, to a drug user who lies, is incredibly stupid and inept. Public officials are suppose to be held to a higher standard because they have much more power over the general public. But ;in fact, and I know you support this, but in fact they are held to a lower standard. They do things most of us would get jailed for, and they get a slap on the wrists, if we are lucky

[LuvRPgrl]

This comment proves to me that some people are just divorced from reality on this issue.


Well...the 80 year old grandma that you keep harping on has not been proven to be a "liar"...infact she has her kids backing her up (plus other grandma's with similar stories about the very same TSA agents). At any rate she is taking the TSA to court and doesn't seem to be backing down on this.

Sorry Shadow, but how would the kids have any clue about what happened in the room? I PROMISE you that old lady wasn't strip searched in front of her kids.

She is lying. She had a back brace, someone mistook it for a money belt and asked her to remove it. That's a mistake to be sure, but some nefarious strip search akin to rape? Nope.

I want them to hold the TSA accountable when they screw up to, but I also wish they would hold liars accountable to. Let this old lady have her day in court, if they rule for her fine pay her some money, if they find against her , throw her old ass in jail. Then the liars would stop lying and people who have LEGITIMATE gripes could see their complaints addressed more quickly.

talk about divorced from reality. IF two parties have conflicting stories, the cops dont lie, so the civilian must be, and thats what we will accept unless the perp civilian can prove the cops are lying, even though the perp has to do everything the cops make them, which includes going to places where there are no witnesses and there wont be any way to prove anything.

LIVING IN ;YOUR MIND MUST BE A SCARY THING.

[ConHog]

public officials, ie cops, judges etc, are public servants, supposedly anyways, which means we are technically their boss(es). If I lied to my boss, at minimum I would lose my job. To compare a cop who lies, to a drug user who lies, is incredibly stupid and inept. Public officials are suppose to be held to a higher standard because they have much more power over the general public. But ;in fact, and I know you support this, but in fact they are held to a lower standard. They do things most of us would get jailed for, and they get a slap on the wrists, if we are lucky

Please sir, humor me by proving you know I support allowing public servants have a lower standard than regular people. Because I have surely posted exactly the opposite of that in MANY threads.

Lying in and of itself is not a jailable offense, nor should it be, for ANYONE. Now if that public officials lie is an attempt to cover up illegal behavior (and by illegal I am talking about either illegal or unethical according to the rules of whatever body that person works for) then losing their jobs and or jail time should be the result of that.

I await your proof that I support what you claim I support.

[ConHog]

talk about divorced from reality. IF two parties have conflicting stories, the cops dont lie, so the civilian must be, and thats what we will accept unless the perp civilian can prove the cops are lying, even though the perp has to do everything the cops make them, which includes going to places where there are no witnesses and there wont be any way to prove anything.

LIVING IN ;YOUR MIND MUST BE A SCARY THING.

SO you just admitted that in your opinion cops should not benefit from the innocent until proven guilty rule of law that governs our country?

Woman accuses TSA of strip searching her but can't provide a shred of evidence to back up that claim yet you call the TSA guilty and tell them to provide evidence that they didn't do it? That is Napoleonic Law sir, and we have never lived under such in the USA. The accused have the right to the presumption of innocence in this country, even if they do wear badges.

[ConHog]

Please sir, humor me by proving you know I support allowing public servants have a lower standard than regular people. Because I have surely posted exactly the opposite of that in MANY threads.

Lying in and of itself is not a jailable offense, nor should it be, for ANYONE. Now if that public officials lie is an attempt to cover up illegal behavior (and by illegal I am talking about either illegal or unethical according to the rules of whatever body that person works for) then losing their jobs and or jail time should be the result of that.

I await your proof that I support what you claim I support.

^ 4.5 hours later and still no proof that I would support allowing the police etc etc to have lower standards than society as a whole? Color me shocked.

[LuvRPgrl]

^ 4.5 hours later and still no proof that I would support allowing the police etc etc to have lower standards than society as a whole? Color me shocked.
.

ewww, 4.5 hours later.....dude, some of us have a life. Just got home, time to sleep, I blather with ya tommorrow,

[LuvRPgrl]

SO you just admitted that in your opinion cops should not benefit from the innocent until proven guilty rule of law that governs our country?

Woman accuses TSA of strip searching her but can't provide a shred of evidence to back up that claim yet you call the TSA guilty and tell them to provide evidence that they didn't do it? That is Napoleonic Law sir, and we have never lived under such in the USA. The accused have the right to the presumption of innocence in this country, even if they do wear badges.

which part of your brain are you using, cuz most of it isnt working dude.
I didnt say any;thing about cops being guilty until proven innocent.,
But the cops are responsable for making sure that if anything happens, there will be evidence of it, not some locked up little room with no video. Why no video?
.
.What are they trying to hide? The cops always say, if you are going to hire an attorney, then you must be guilty cuz your trying to hide something, if you were innocent, then you wouldnt hire an attorney.
So why dont they have cameras taping the searches, what are they afraid of showing?

[LuvRPgrl]

This story stinks to high heaven.

PS I would be SHOCKED if there isn't a video of the woman being searched. That's pretty much standard operating procedure for 2 reasons.

1. Provide video evidence in case a trial is necessary

2. Provide video evidence in case of claims like this.
so why no video????????????? What are they hiding, what are they afraid of?

[LuvRPgrl]

I I don't believe ANYONE has ever been told to strip down without VERY good cause IE a dog hit for drugs or explosives.

so, guilty until proven innocent,.?
You actually believe nobody has ever been strip searched erroneously?
So, that means if the TSA THINKS you are guilty, then you are, by your standards.

[LuvRPgrl]

Here is part of the problem right here. You have fliers, old ladies even, being rude to TSA and just what expecting them to take it and be all smiles and lollipops? I wonder if the lady had been polite and explained her situation had things played out differently. Not to say I agree with her being strip searched, but two wrongs don't make a right either.

so here is a classic example of CH double speak out of both sides of his big mouth. The fliers are wrong because they are being rude, but, at the same time, I dont support strip searches. This way, no matter what you say, I can claim either I agree with you or I dont. And if you claim I said something, I can show you where I just said the opposite, no matter which side it's on.
.....So, I must smile and be polite if I dont want to be strip searched? What the hell is that? Why should I be smiling at someone who is making me wait in line for hours, arrive 3 hours before my departure time, will take away the most inane, stupid things like toe nail clippers, tweezers, and my shoes? Why should I smile if , against my will, they are going to go through my most personal of possesions? No way jose, fuck them, and fuck you. I harrass them as much as I can, cuz even when I didnt, they still did all those searches.
........AND CLAIMING WE EXPECT THEM to be all smiles and lollipops is a lie, I dont give a rats ass if they smile, just dont stick your fucking finger up my ass looking for bombs, and humiliating me. And yea, RAPE is about humiliation, thats why often they use an object to put up the anus of the victim. Its about humiliation, and if you arent humiliated by someone sticking their finger up your ass, while hundreds of people are on the other side of a 3/4 wall, simply because I didnt smile at them while they go through my most personal of possesions in public, then you are the biggest lemming of them all.


As if this thread exists in a vacuum? I think this old lady is lying. I also think that some people go into airports looking to piss off the TSA hoping to get a bad reaction. If THOSE people went away then we would see less of the real problems. It's that simple.

so, if a TSA employee gets pissed at someone, for legitimate reasons, OR NOT, then they have the right to strip search that person? Wouldnt it make more sense that the person isnt a terrorist IF they hassled a TSA empolyee and brought attention to themselves? Terrorists dont work that way, they want to blend in, unseen, un noticed. Thats basic terrorism 101.
But they like exercising their power at times because wifey or hubby didnt suck them off last night.

[LuvRPgrl]

CH, c'mon man, its been 4.5 minutes now, are you running away? no answers???

[LuvRPgrl]

Hundreds of thousands of people manage to fly every year without encountering ANY problems with the TSA, so this acting like they just can't do anything right is silly. Nothing they do is going to prevent EVERY bad encounter from happening.

Now I notice YOU refuse to admit that yes in fact there are people who go out of there way to provoke the TSA.
ok, sorry about this folks, but Im trying to do the multi quote thing.
You consider having to arrive 2-3 hours early isnt a problem????
Nobody said they cant do anything right, they do quite well at taking breaks,

THIER, NOT THERE, and so what? Is it illegal to be rude?

[ConHog]

which part of your brain are you using, cuz most of it isnt working dude.
I didnt say any;thing about cops being guilty until proven innocent.,
But the cops are responsable for making sure that if anything happens, there will be evidence of it, not some locked up little room with no video. Why no video?
.
.What are they trying to hide? The cops always say, if you are going to hire an attorney, then you must be guilty cuz your trying to hide something, if you were innocent, then you wouldnt hire an attorney.
So why dont they have cameras taping the searches, what are they afraid of showing?

So now you're putting words in cops mouths to, not just mine? :laugh2:

[LuvRPgrl]

Here is part of the problem right here. You have fliers, old ladies even, being rude to TSA and just what expecting them to take it and be all smiles and lollipops? I wonder if the lady had been polite and explained, her situation had things played out differently. Not to say I agree with her being strip searched, but two wrongs don't make a right either.

Here is a classic example of CH talking out both sides of his mouth. What he says above allows him to claim he is opposed to what the TSA (TOTALLY SICK ASSHOLES), OR on the other hand, he can claim the fliers are wrong cuz they are rude to the TSA.
R U SURE you arent a politician?
So, anyways, there IS NO FUCKING LAW THAT SAYS I SHOULD SMILE at someone forcing me to stand in line for hours, taking aways stupidly pathetic things like tweezers and toe nail clippers and shoes, and going through all of my personal stuff, FUCK YOU, AND FUCK ;THEM, I harras them as much as I can.
:laugh:
But hey, I fully understand, maybe they have had a bad hair day, you cant expect them to act professional all the time, and they do have to stop them terrorists,,, but I really dont support them doing strip searches.

[LuvRPgrl]

Hundreds of thousands of people manage to fly every year without encountering ANY problems with the TSA, so this acting like they just can't do anything right is silly. Nothing they do is going to prevent EVERY bad encounter from happening.

Now I notice YOU refuse to admit that yes in fact there are people who go out of there way to provoke the TSA.


So now you're putting words in cops mouths to, not just mine? :laugh2:

too, not to.
Nope, Im repeating what I hear over and over again. And you know its what they think, even if they dont say it.

[ConHog]

too, not to.
Nope, Im repeating what I hear over and over again. And you know its what they think, even if they dont say it.

LOL so you are able to read minds? How awesome for you.

[ConHog]

Here is a classic example of CH talking out both sides of his mouth. What he says above allows him to claim he is opposed to what the TSA (TOTALLY SICK ASSHOLES), OR on the other hand, he can claim the fliers are wrong cuz they are rude to the TSA.
R U SURE you arent a politician?
So, anyways, there IS NO FUCKING LAW THAT SAYS I SHOULD SMILE at someone forcing me to stand in line for hours, taking aways stupidly pathetic things like tweezers and toe nail clippers and shoes, and going through all of my personal stuff, FUCK YOU, AND FUCK ;THEM, I harras them as much as I can.
:laugh:
But hey, I fully understand, maybe they have had a bad hair day, you cant expect them to act professional all the time, and they do have to stop them terrorists,,, but I really dont support them doing strip searches.

More of your lies? I have not once said I oppose the TSA. I HAVE said that I think some of their policies are stupid, and that some of their employees have no business being federal agents.