Strip-Searched Grandma Says TSA Removed Her Underwear

[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.