We all have heard about the backscatter canners and the alternative "enhanced" pattdowns.. the Queen Numbnuts... Janet Napolitano plans to exempt Muslims from having to go through...

I mean Duh... its the Muslims that have a fetish to blow up planes and kill Westerners... NOT Jewish Grandmothers... and the single highest risk group Miss Numbnuts Napolitano wants to exempt?

Napolitano May Exempt Muslims From Airport Pat-Downs | Judicial Watch (http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/nov/napolitano-may-exempt-muslims-airport-pat-downs)

Napolitano May Exempt Muslims From Airport Pat-Downs
ViewDiscussion.Last Updated: Tue, 11/16/2010 - 4:52pm


As the U.S. government retaliates against an American for refusing to allow airport security to grope his genitals, the nation's Homeland Security secretary considers waving the intrusive “pat-downs” for Muslim women who consider them offensive.

The demand came last week from the politically-connected Muslim rights organization that serves as the U.S. front for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Calling the searches “invasive” and “humiliating,” the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) advises Muslim women wearing religious head covers known as hijabs to reject full-body checks before boarding planes.

Those who are selected for the secondary screenings should remind Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers that they are only supposed to pat down the head and neck and that they should not subject Muslim women to a full-body or partial body pat-down, according to CAIR's advisory. It further says that, instead of a body search, Muslim women can request to check their own hijab and have officers perform a chemical swipe of their hands.

While Americans are forced to deal with the degrading searches, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is actually considering exempting Muslims as per CAIR's demands. Madame Secretary confirmed this week that there will be “adjustments” and “more to come” on the issue of Muslim women in hijabs undergoing airport security pat-downs.

In the meantime her agency is targeting a San Diego man who received worldwide media coverage for refusing to let a TSA agent conduct a thorough body search that he felt amounted to a “sexual assault.” Referring to his genitals, the man told the TSA officer; “you touch my junk and I'm going to have you arrested.”

The head of TSA in San Diego called a press conference this week to announce that the agency has launched an investigation into the 31-year-old software programmer who was not allowed to board the plane. The feds plan to prosecute and fine him thousands of dollars for making them look bad. Actually, the official charge is leaving the airport's security area without permission, which is prohibited to prevent terrorism.

Speaking of, TSA's lapses over the years have certainly left the country vulnerable to another terrorist attack. The agency in charge of securing the nation's transportation system has approved background checks for illegal immigrants working in sensitive areas of a busy U.S. airport and has failed miserably to ensure the security of tens of thousands of cargo packages transported daily in the bellies of passenger planes.

Just last week a Massachusetts news station revealed that TSA cleared dozens of illegal immigrants to train as pilots in the U.S. despite “strict security controls” implemented after 9/11. Some of the illegal immigrants provided the station with official TSA documents approving pilot lessons through the agency's alien flight student program. After the story broke, Homeland Security officials promised to “review the process” for clearing foreign nationals to become licensed pilots.

-------------------------------------------

I can see real lissues with the backscatter machines for those who fly frequently... with cumulative radiation levels over time.

But there is a solution for the resistance to "Enhanced" patdowns.


Simply hire some really good looking screeners, male and female. While I may take offence to a burly guy getting a handfull of my nuts... or a Beulah Ballbreaker looking female... I might rather enjoy an attractive female doing it. And the same for a handsome guy screener for the ladies.

I really don't want some big Burly guy patting me down for his jollies, However, if they have French Maids as Screeners, I may not mind, and even understand paying a little extra?

What bugs me most about all this is what are we suppose to say to our children. Dear its up to you microwave or molestaion ?

This stuff is going too far. It needs to stop or there will be an uprising.

If they want to stop terrorizm on planes then allow everyone that holds a valid carry permit to do so while boarding. Problem solved.

But now you are safe. You will be getting safer and safer in the coming months.You're safe. Be thankful to your government. Dem nasty ole Mooslums want to cut your head off and blow you up in mid air. Dont'cha remember? They hate you for your freedoms. Just give up your freedom and you will be safe.
I promise.
What is coming, is very, very bad. But I can't talk about that here. I can't even tell you who the real enemy is. But you will find out... too late.

Except that Janet Incompetano is mulling the idea of excluding Muslims from the procedure... sorta a reverse profiling .

Rep. Jason Chaffetz wrote a letter to TSA chief John Pistole seeking clarification of the new policy .

In the letter he asked "Was there evidence that the new technique is demonstrably more effective at detecting potential security risks or threats than the old technique? Have there been security lapses occasioned by the use of the old method which would have been prevented had the new method been in place? What end do you envision for this method at the conclusion of your testing? How is this method different from the method abandoned in 2004 as inappropriate? "

“I am particularly concerned to ensure that this is not a punitive effort to coerce or intimidate individuals who, entirely within their rights, opt out of the WBI [whole body imaging] screening in favor of the magnetometers and a reasonable pat-down search".

Chaffetz received a vague 14 page letter in reply assuring him that the groping was not punitive (uh huh);and that a pat down of like kind would've stopped the underwear bomber at the gate .

TSA is late to respond to this threat:
Terrorist hid explosives in his bottom - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6212908/Terrorist-hid-explosives-in-his-bottom.html)

DHS and Airport screeners getting their jollies. Hello smoothy:

I see that it only took you 9 years to start complaining about the LOSS of your Fourth Amendment rights... That's not very Tea Party of you... Of course, losing THOSE Constitutional rights has never bothered you before. I don't know why. It STILL doesn't bother you that they search ALL your emails, and ALL your telephone calls... That would bother me MORE than someone approaching my junk. But, it doesn't bother you, because you can't SEE it.. If THAT kind of search is OK with you, you don't have ANY grounds to complain about the one you can see (and feel).

excon

The point that Captain Sully Sullenberg makes is that the TSA's priority of being concerned about what gets on a plane is misguided . They should be concerned instead about who gets on a plane.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxFRPooLHLU&feature=player_embedded
Excon is right in that there is a surrender of rights inherent in this system. It can equally be argued that the Israeli interview of the passengers would be a violation of rights. But the counter argument is that there is no inherent right to be a passenger in a plane ,or for that matter ,an audience at a ball game or rock concert. These are choices one makes .

If we want changes to this system then sooner than later... bloated bureaucracies become easily entrenched. TSA chief John Pistole is unelected and as far as I can tell unaccountable to anyone .He picks and choses policy with impunity.

Ah, so if my wife wears a hijab she can finally get through security without a pat down.

CAIR is already advising Muslim passengers on how to get around the system :

* If you experience any disturbing incidents with the new pat down procedure, particularly if you feel you have been subjected to religious or racial profiling, harassment or unfair treatment, immediately file a complaint with the TSA and report the incident to your local CAIR chapter. …
* If you are selected for secondary screening after you go through the metal detector and it does not go off, and “sss” is not written on your boarding pass, ask the TSA officer if the reason you are being selected is because of your head scarf.

* In this situation, you may be asked to submit to a pat-down or to go through a full body scanner. If you are selected for the scanner, you may ask to go through a pat-down instead.

* Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down.

* You may ask to be taken to a private room for the pat-down procedure.

* Instead of the pat-down, you can always request to pat down your own scarf, including head and neck area, and have the officers perform a chemical swipe of your hands.

CAIR Issues Travel Advisory on New Airport Pat-Downs -- WASHINGTON, Nov. 10, 2010 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cair-issues-travel-advisory-on-new-airport-pat-downs-107052408.html)

Hello smoothy:

I see that it only took you 9 years to start complaining about the LOSS of your Fourth Amendment rights.... That's not very Tea Party of you.... Of course, losing THOSE Constitutional rights has never bothered you before. I dunno why. It STILL doesn't bother you that they search ALL your emails, and ALL your telephone calls... That would bother me MORE than someone approaching my junk. But, it doesn't bother you, because you can't SEE it.. If THAT kind of search is ok with you, you don't have ANY grounds to complain about the one you can see (and feel).

excon

Incidentally... I don't say things in emails that would make me worry about some bot looking for certain words and phrases. I actually say far more inflamitory things in public forums.

I really don't have a problem with airport security, because I WANT them to find and incarcerate the whack jobs , most of whom are Muslim that want to kill innocent civilians in the name of some perverted religion.

Now the people that have the biggest problem with that either hardly ever fly, are oblivious to Islamic attempts to kill more innocent people, or are one of those who actually are upset their attempts to kill innocent civilians are being thwarted.


Now there is a high degree of numb nuts actually doing that job along with others who actually have a clue. Due to the wages paid. People that can't get a better job are happy to get it... and those who are sharp enough to get a better job usually do.

What I find totally unacceptable is that brain damaged half-wit... Janet Napolitano actually wanting to give a blanket exemption to the very group responsible for most worldwide terrorism. The Muslims.


Why she isn't in line to collect unemployment with the rest is completely unfathomible... because she is dumb as a brick as well as totally incompetent at her current job. You could randomly pick a developementally challenged individual and odds are thety would have far more common sense than Janet has. And probibly would do a better job than her as well.


Why Muslims should be exempt from ANYTHING the rest of us who are far less likely to commit terrorism than they are is something Janet No-brains-atano and Obama need to explain... particularly why she hasn't been fired yet.

CAIR is already advising Muslim passengers on how to get around the system :
Ah, so if my wife wears a hijab she can finally get through security without a pat down.Hello again, Steve and tom:

You just wish you had a Christian organization telling your wife how to avoid getting felt up, like the Muslims do.

excon

Incidently......I don't say things in emails that would make me worry about some bot looking for certain words and phrases. Hello again, smoothy:

So, you're just FINE with losing your Fourth Amendment rights... That's not very Tea Party of you. I thought you guys LIKED the Constitution.. Guess not, huh?

excon

Christian groups don't have a history of hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings or blowing them up to kill as many civilians as they can like Muslims do.

Would you give the white supremacists a blanket exemption from being investigated for racist activities? Then why should Muslims get an exemption from the very checks meant to catch terrorists who are most likely to be Muslim.

Im starting to wonder if the full body scanners are a violation of the hippa laws. See this story.

My Left Breast Put Fancy TSA Scanner to the Test (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/06/my-left-breast-put-fancy-tsa-scanner-to-the-test/)

Hello again, Steve and tom:

You just wish you had a Christian organization telling your wife how to avoid getting felt up, like the Muslims do.

Nah, I just I had a government that wasn't so damned stupid.

Nah, I just [wish] I had a government that wasn't so damned stupid.Hello again, Steve:

No argument there..

excon

Im starting to wonder if the full body scanners are a violation of the hippa laws.

Now that's a valid point.

Hello again,

They are a violation of HIPAA. They are a violation of the Fourth Amendment. They are a violation of common sense. They don't work.

Do you think our Founding Fathers didn't know what they were talking about?? Being searched by your government, WITHOUT a warrant, for simply going about your business, is degrading, intrusive, and VERY police state! The Fourth Amendment was put there for a reason...

What did ole Ben say? Something like, people who trade their freedom for security deserve neither and will lose both.

I've said that from the git go. After 9/11 instead of going after the terrorists, the government went after YOU & ME. Now, it's starting to bother you?? What took you so long?

excon

Do you fly often? Do you want Muslims bringing more bombs on board...

Would you think differntly if the next two targets were the Space needle in Seattle and the Golden Gate bridge?

Flying is a privilege, not a right.

People that DON'T want checked for weapons or Bombs don't HAVE to fly. They can drive, take the bus or train. They could even walk.

Is it a perfect system? Nope... but it beats not doing anything at all.

And better more effective systems can always be suggested, I'm sure they are open to ideas that are more effective and efficient.


And as long as Terrorists aren't granted a blanket exemption (by giving Muslims a general exemption)... in which case why should the rest of us have to go through it too. It would defeat the purpose of doing it at all.


And if Janet "sh!t for brains" Napolitano had any intelligence at all, she would not have uttered that stupid comment.


I want to know why she hasn't been fired yet. If the was a republican that spewed that garbage there would be calls for them to be fired.

Do you fly often?

Is it a perfect system? Nope...but it beats not doing anything at all. Hello smoothy:

I'm a private pilot. They don't search me at my local airport. I don't like being searched. I avoid it at every opportunity.

But, I can't help notice some schizophrenia in your posts... On the one hand, you're really pissed because they actually SEARCH you... And, then on the other hand, you say it "beats not doing anything"...

As a dedicated Tea Partier, who thinks government is too BIG, and too INTRUSIVE in our lives, I'd think you'd be going along with me on this... No, huh?

excon

Do you fly often? Do you want Muslims bringing more bombs on board....

Would you think differntly if the next two targets were the Space needle in Seattle and the Golden Gate bridge?

Flying is a privledge, not a right.Hello again, smoothy:

You always manage to hurl an insult, don't you? You're simply incapable of civil discourse... To imply that I'm not a citizen of this great country of ours, and that somehow I wouldn't be bothered if, say Norfolk got bombed, is inflammatory, and wrong.. When I put on the uniform, I protected YOUR rights too.

Secondarily, to suggest that I'm not into security, is silly. As a matter of fact, I make my living in security. I'm just into doing it SMARTLY and CONSTITUTIONALLY. Ben Gurion airport is arguably, the most dangerous airport in the world, yet they don't do what we do. More importantly, WE don't do, what THEY do. I don't know why.

Thirdly, flying IS, of course, a right. We can argue that on another thread if you wish. But, for a Tea Partier, you certainly don't know much about your rights. And, the ones you DO know about, you're willing to give up.

excon

Hello smoothy:

I'm a private pilot. They don't search me at my local airport. I don't like being searched. I avoid it at every opportunity.

But, I can't help notice some schizophrenia in your posts... On the one hand, you're really pissed because they actually SEARCH you... And, then on the other hand, you say it "beats not doing anything"...

As a dedicated Tea Partier, who thinks government is too BIG, and too INTRUSIVE in our lives, I'd think you'd be going along with me on this... No, huh?

excon

Insult? Exactly HOW is picking out Two WEST COAST landmarks an insult... because they already did New York City and Washington DC... why do you think the west coast is more important. Its easy to be so " big whoop" when its 3,500 miles away... when its in your back yard the reality would sink in. And who is to say... they would not consider those as future targets? It's the West coast people that have been the ones argueing "get over it" when it comes to 9/11 related issues... because for the most part... none of that happened in their front yard.

As a private pilot, you would be exempt, same with Charter jets... not as much fun for them to blow themselves up to take out just one or two (or a handful of)people. Its meant more for the cattle cars with wings. More bang for the buck.

Yes I am a bit torqued I can't carry certain things I used to be able to carry in the past... and none of them were dangerous. Its just that I do understand WHY they are doing it, and it was in fact due to a real threat based on real attempts.

I don't run the show or I'd make all Muslims walk... Particularly those that think women should wear body length grain sacks or head scarfs.

The threat is 99.99% Muslim in nature... not children or Grandmothers from Rottencrotch Iowa.

I actually agree with most of the security measures they take... or at least understand why they have to be done. An personally I've had more issues with idiots that work for Nortwest Airlines... than I have any individual I have met with TSA so far. I've actually had no negative incidents with actual TSA people yet. Only morons for certain Airlines, and only two airlines at that. I refuse to fly either of them any longer.

I may WISH we didn't have to do any of them... but I am not burying my head in the sand as to the very real threat we have, mostly from Muslims.

Flying is not a right... You have alternate means of getting where you have to go... its no more of a right than driving. They are both a privilege... huge difference between the two. YOu can get anywhere you have to go without flying. Sure its going to take you longer... but you can still do it.


The argument about driving being a priveledge and not a right has already been hashed out in the courts. Flying is no different.

I think they should go back to pre 9-11 .Let the airlines take care of the security of their planes.
Then the free market could decide which airline was going too far ;not far enough ,or just the right amt. of security.

Smoothy is right in that air travel is not an inherent right. I got frisked by the private security at the Giants game. It was part of the deal . I could've taken a stand and not permitted it... and the Giants could've equally refused admission .

Exactly... submitting to the security checks is voluntary... you can find alternate transportation if you don't want to go through it.

They aren't randomly stopping you on the street making you do it. THAT whould be a far different situation.

I could've taken a stand and not permitted it ....and the Giants could've equally refused admission .Hello again, tom:

I take that stand. I wish more of us did. Maybe then, I'd still have my Fourth Amendment rights. Most people lay down for authority. That's why the government is able to DO what it DOES to us. We are becoming a nation of sheep. We DESERVE a police state.

excon

A 4:15 start gave tailgaters 4 hrs to get properly juiced before the game started.

I'm not into getting hit by projectile beer bottles while enjoying a game. I determine the private security at the Meadowlands was doing me a favor.

Hello again, tom:

I take that stand. I wish more of us did. Maybe then, I'd still have my Fourth Amendment rights. Most people lay down for authority. That's why the government is able to DO what it DOES to us. We are becoming a nation of sheep. We DESERVE a police state.

excon

I was going to a concert one time and they had random security in the crowds before you walk in and they would make a quick pass. To see if you were carrying bottles. The problem is they didn't tell anyone and I knocked the guy out before his hand got near enough to check. I had no idea what he was doing

They didn't arrest me for it because of the way they were doing it they had no recourse. They weren't even in uniform of badged in any way.

Hello again,

I THOUGHT the post was about security... Now, I think it's about politics... It seems the only people who are upset about the TSA, are the ones who thought the TSA was great when George W. Bush forced the TSA upon us.

But, since Obama is running the TSA, the Republicans have miraculously become civil libertarians... Something's fishy. The right wing thinks we have TOO MUCH security?? I ain't buying it. You'll notice they don't mention a thing about the NSA spying on Americans, which is a much more egregious Constitutional violation...

Nope. This is just another attack on Obama. Really... The Republicans worried about civil liberties... Bwa, ha ha ha...

excon

I don't know how you divine that from the comments I've made.

Do I think passenger screening is necessary ? Absolutely . So I am not suddenly a born again libertarian .Do I think the TSA is the best means of doing it ? Nope . That makes me consistent with my conservative free market approach.

I don't know maybe it is cause I went to a lot of hip hop concerts but getting a pat down doesn't bother me. When I was younger I was going to concerts every night and every night I had some big burly dude grabbing my jawn (that's philly for junk). So to me an aggressive pat down doesn't mean anything.

Having to deal with the lines is a PITA... and honestly would have been nice to NOT have to worry about Muslims that were brainwashed by so called Islamic Religious "leaders" whithout the balls to do for themselves what they sucker others into doing for them.

But I do fly often enough to NOT want to fly where everyone else isn't checked as well as they can be. I don't care if THEY die... the problem is they don't want to die by themselves, and I don't want them anywhere near where I am when they do it.

It's a balancing act... deal with the inconvienience or let the terrorists do what they want, where they want, when they want.

I think the inconvienience is the lesser of two evils. Until a better more reliable method is found and proven to be more efffective.

But I'd still rather have a good looking babe do the patdown than a guy.

There is a simple method to overcome all of this smoothy, with minimum checks needed. Muslims can't fly, now the US has the technology to make that work, doesn't it?

There is a simple method to overcome all of this smoothy, with minimum checks needed. Muslims can't fly, now the US has the technology to make that work, doesn't it?

Ah.. and HIGHLY effective... but that's not politically correct... and we all know how the liberals and the ACLU care about political correctness... as long as its not white people who are the target.

Problem with that is definatively identifying who is and who isn't a muslim.

But I do get the drift... and its profiling... most terrorists have been middle eastern as well as muslim. Not 80 year old Jewish grandmothers from Iowa.

It works for law enforcement... It works for the Isrealies... it would work here assuming they could hire enough people of sufficient intelligence to do it.

Ah..and HIGHLY effective ...Hello again, smoothy:

Politically correct?? How about illegal and unconstitutional?? I thought you Tea Party types loved the Constitution... Guess not. I can't imagine the kind of country YOU'D like this place to be. Ok, yes I could - WHITE and Christian...

Exco

Where in the constitution is profiling unconstitutional... when it's the cornerstone of law enforcement and VERY effective.

I suppose you would prohibit even considering Middle eastern passengers as possible terrorists?


Because after all... most (nearly all) of them have been, younger men, Muslim AND Middle eastern or middle eastern decent.


How many have been white, female and elderly after all?

.

It works for law enforcement....It works for the Isrealies....it would work here assuming they could hire enough people of sufficient intelligence to do it.

I knew you would find the flaw in the argument, you don't have enough people with the intelligence to think of it but seriously you could arrange for Muslims only aircraft, etc then if they want to blow something up, they only affect their own. Why is it profiling when we know that it is a specific group who act this way? If it became difficult to travel for all the rest of the Muslim population they would be brought to heal quickly, imagine no US Muslim allowed to fly to Mecca or return to the US by air

Where in the constitution is profiling unconstitutional...Hello again, smoothy:

For a Tea Partier, you sure don't know very much about our country or the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment says, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

That means racial profiling is against the law.. I know you don't understand it... But, that ain't my problem. Go take a Constitutional law class.

excon

Today was national opt-out day for the x-ray machine. Everyone at the airport was to opt-out of the scanner and get patted down. (wonder how that went)

I heard on the news a story where I am from where a female TSA punched another female in the vagina to confirm that she had nothing hidden in her crotch (a little excessive? I think so)

Today was national opt-out day for the x-ray machine. Everyone at the airport was to opt-out of the scanner and get patted down. (wonder how that went)

I heard on the news a story where I am from where a female TSA punched another female in the vagina to confirm that she had nothing hidden in her crotch (a little excessive? I think so)

I heard on the news cast on the radio tonight that the 'opt-out' did not have any effect at all.

The opt-out wasn't to try and get rid of the excessive patdown. It was too make everyone at the airport aware of this new procedure and how excessive it is.

My understanding is that is true however what I was hearing all over the airwaves prior to the op-out that there would be demonstrations in an attempt to slow down the process enough to draw the attention desired.

However as I said, that didn't happen although there were apparently a few demonstrators. Travelers just wanted to get where they were going without too much intrusion (time wasted) I suppose.

I would assume that to be true. I didn't pay too much attention to it. Just heard some things on the radio on the way to work.