You have all seen the furore about intrusive searches/xrays at airports. Do you think we have become a little paranoid and used the excuse of finding one suspect in millions of travellers as an excuse to implement draconian measures.
US airport security pat-down protest | Passenger strips off | TSA (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/strip-search-with-a-difference-passenger-arrested-after-stripping-to-avoid-pat-down-20101122-183og.html)
Now personally I find the circumstances of this incident ridiculous on a number of levels and I can't help but think american homeland security, etc, take themselves a little bit too seriously, Is this because they are desperate to justify their existence? Even such an exaulted person as the first lady has said she would not like to submit to these procedures, so if it isn't good enough for the leaders, it should not be good enough for the people, that is true democracy. Why should I have to teach democracy?

The former security chief for El-Al was interviewed the other day and said his airline has a set of questions asked of each pre-flight passenger. So far, he said, this seems to help the airline figure out who might be dangerous and who isn't. I didn't hear the logistics of it, but it certainly sounds better than what's going on. We're being punished for wanting to be safe.

From therightscoop.com --

You've probably seen this guy before, and the reason we keep seeing him is because the government can't do anything right. Isaac Yeffet worked as the Security Chief for El Al Airlines in Israel and claims they know how to stop terrorists and they can do it and stay out of your anal cavities. In fact the technology they use to prevent terrorists from boarding and blowing up airlines is so advanced that they can just walk up to you and determine if you are a terrorist. What pray tell is this technology?

Talking. Doing mini-interviews with passengers that may be exhibiting questionable behaviors.

WOWZA!!!!!

Just think for a second. If you were a bomber and you knew that there was the potential that some agent would come up to you and start talking while in the airport, it might make you think twice before even entering. Most people are so nervous when they are about to do something like blowing up an air plane, that all it takes is a single conversation to reveal themselves and their dastardly deeds.

But talking isn't all they do. They know who you are before you even come to the airport. They've done their research. They know everything they need to know, and they never have to look at you naked unless they've already determined that you are a threat.

I'd go for that system any day of the week.

The head of El-Al was interviewed the the day and said his airline has a set of questions asked of each pre-flight passenger. So far, he said, this seems to help the airline figure out who might be dangerous and who isn't. I didn't hear the logistics of it, but it certainly sounds better than what's going on. We're being punished for wanting to be safe.

And of course Israel and its airline has has many more real threats to deal with than the american bound airlines. The israeli's might, of course, use racial, and dare we say, religious profiling, but then that is more realistic that searching everything that moves. I truly think that upsetting a few Muslins is not too high a price to pay than inconveniencing everyoneelse, who by the way are innocent bystanders. What happened to observation and honing in on anyone behaving in a suspicious manner.

The reality is you are safe and not one airline passenger has been saved by these intrusive searches.Suspect had explosives hidden in underwear | Video | 7online.com (http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/video?id=7192775)

How many passengers does El Al carry annually (3.6 million)compared to American carriers (hint O'Hare annually serves almost 45 million passengers) ? Their interview system would not work here... Nor would the cost associated with their security procedures.
http://www.jpost.com/Business/BusinessNews/Article.aspx?id=193216


But talking isn't all they do. They know who you are before you even come to the airport. They've done their research. They know everything they need to know,
In principle I agree with this approach... But there are time constraints with this ;especially with the profiling restrictions here . Keep in mind;El Al caters mostly to Semite passengers from Israel. Yes indeed they know who they are before they come to the airport.

The reality is you are safe and not one airline passenger has been saved by these intrusive searches
Correct . This is a reactive approach. After 9-11 we couldn't carry sharp objects.After the shoe bomber we had to take off our shoes. Another incident involved carrying liquids on board... Last year's underware bomb attempt prompted the new measures.

What you miss is that in each case .The jihadist penetrated the security perimeter ,and it was luck and passenger quick reaction that prevented a worse incident... but make no mistake ;in each of these incidents ,the attack was successful if only because they were able to get the weapon on board.

I don't like the brutish way these screenings are being conducted.. I am not convinced they aren't necessary.

Hello:

Me? Having been in a pretty secure place, and having noticed it filled with drugs and other contraband, I became convinced that anybody can slip anything through security checks that have become mundane... Knowing that, I suggested that we go after the enemy instead of us. Maybe if we had Bin Laden in the slammer, or dead this thing would be over... But, George W. Bush had other things on his mind rather than ending the war...

So, Bin Laden is doing his thing, we are still being treated like the enemy... It's really kind of STUPID, costs a LOT of money, and DOESN'T protect us one iota. I was asked the other day if I flew. I said NO. I ain't STUPID.

excon

If Bin Laden was killed the whole movement would just go away ? I don't think so.

If Bin Laden was killed the whole movement would just go away ? I don't think so.Hello again, tom:

Well, I didn't simply mean killing one dude.. If you remember, I was for leveling Afghanistan. I'm not a guy who goes to war to pu$$y foot around with it... Nope, I'm not. I'm in to WINNING, and WINNING big. Had we done THAT, it might be over. In fact, I think it would be.

But, it's becoming clear that the public is NOT going to put up with this unconstitutional instrusion, and it's going to end anyway - for the WRONG reasons, and we'll be vulnerable once again... Yup, it's STUPID.

excon

What you miss is that in each case .The jihadist penetrated the security perimeter ,and it was luck and passenger quick reaction that prevented a worse incident....but make no mistake ;in each of these incidents ,the attack was successful if only because they were able to get the weapon on board.

.

I don't miss the point Tom the jihadist penetrated security on each instance because each time the attack was different. Being reactive isn't the answer. The israeli's are proactive and much more successful. The terrorists are succeeding because they are succeeding in spreading terror and causing disruption. Do they really care that the bomb didn't go off? So you will continue to be PC and search everyone intrusively when you know that the person you are after has a high probability of avoiding your methods. What you are doing is using fear as a tactic and not very successfully

Oh I agree with the profiling and aggressive prosecution of the war . Quess we'll have to wait until Quatas is attacked to see how the Aussies respond.

The terrorists are succeeding because they are succeeding in spreading terror and causing disruption
I don't know anyone who wants to be blown out of the sky . When questioned the vast majority of Americans approve of the "inconvenience " . Then again ;most Americans don't fly.

I wonder how much trade and tourism business is being lost over this. This TSA uproar is news all over the place. I personally know of two couples who have changed their vacation plans to go elsewhere (Bermuda) instead of flying to the US as they had originally intended.

I wonder how much trade and tourism business is being lost over this.

The Airlines needed a gvt bailout after 9-11 .

You know what I'm staggered by? 13,322 people died from falls in the USA in the year 2000, and yet there is no Federally-mandated physical coordination test prior to the ascent of a ladder or stairs. Such a test is imperative to protect the citizens of America from attacks by gravity, and should be implemented immediately. If you are either unable to pass the exam or unwilling to take it, you have the right to opt out in favor of using our nation's great system of elevators, in which you can reach many of your desired destinations. Remember that using stairs and ladders is a privilege, not a right.

Funny:rolleyes:

Accidents happen .Air travellers accept the possibility that their plane can crash land . What they don't accept is the possibility that they will be killed by a preventable jihadist attack .

Hello again,

Me? I'm struck by NK's remarks... IF this had been handled as a CRIMINAL case from the get go, Bin Laden and his minions would be dead or in jail, we wouldn't have started TWO unnecessary wars, 1,000's of people would still be alive, there would be NO Gitmo, and we'd STILL be free to fly - or perhaps EMAIL a friend in privacy...

But, we went a different direction... We declared war on OURSELVES, and we brought ourselves to our knees. We may NOT recover... Bin Laden might win (with our help)..

excon

Yeah good luck getting extradition of OBL from his state sponsored Talban run Afghanistan. Even Clintoon understood AQ had to be treated as a war enemy .

yeah good luck getting extradition of OBL from his state sponsored Talban run Afghanistan. Hello again, tom:

I'm not talking about sending a polite letter.. Our civilian forces ARE involved in warlike action ALL over the globe. The CIA has militaristic forces. So does the DEA. I'll bet there are others. Look. If we can target an American citizen for assassination, then surely we could knock off Bin Laden.

In the beginning, Al Quaida was a rag tag bunch of desert rats. We Could have took 'em out. But, we went in another direction... In fact, the direction we went, in my view, acted as the BIGGEST recruitment tool Al Quaida could have hopped for.

Yup. We declared war on ourselves, and we're winning. The war against Al Quaida?? That one we're losing.

excon

Correct . This is a reactive approach. After 9-11 we couldn't carry sharp objects.After the shoe bomber we had to take off our shoes. Another incident involved carrying liquids on board....Last year's underware bomb attempt prompted the new measures.

We'll all just have to fly naked after a cavity search.

Must suck to be in a country where you are scared all the time.

We'll all just have to fly naked after a cavity search.Hello again, Steve:

I must remind you that cavity searches are routine in the joint - yet lots and lots of contraband gets through. No matter HOW intrusive we are, we will NOT stop a dedicated terrorist. While we RE act to what they do, they're already figuring out their next move. As a matter of fact, the next attack will probably come from a woman with a prosthetic breast. Certainly, we KNOW searching there is going to be stopped. Even IF we made ourselves into a POLICE STATE, we're not going to stop a dedicated terrorist.

excon

Forgot to engage the sarcasm font.

Forgot to engage the sarcasm font.Hello again, Steve:

Oh, I understood the sarcasm.. What else can you do? Once a government VIOLATES a citizens rights, the discussion about how FAR they should go in VIOLATING a citizens rights begins to take on a Kafkaesque flavor. It's a discussion you'd expect the Mad Hatter to have.

excon

The funny thing is that I have flown periodically my whole adult life. (metal detectors, X-ray machines and checks by private security officials). These were put in place to stop hijackings that were prevalent in the late 60's early 70's . Later DB Cooper introduced the idea that a passenger could bring a bomb on board .
I don't recall such outrage about the security screening that was routine and in place in the 3 decades prior to 9-11.

When exactly did it become an intrusive Constitutional violation ? Oh yeah ,when it involved the Bush Administration.

When exactly did it become an intrusive Constitutional violation ? Oh yeah ,when it involved the Bush Administration.Hello again, tom:

Not really. Putting my briefcase on the exray machine was a Constitutional violation too. I kind of like to move around freely WITHOUT being subject to search, like the Constitution says I can.

We've ALWAYS had crime. I think we should go after the criminals and NOT you and me, like the Constitution says. But, that isn't what we do. Call me a Constitutional purist. I'll live with it.

excon

Well I'm convinced the biggest gripe is that airport security was nationalized . Therefore my solution is to privatize it again.

Well, it looks like we are getting our lives back. We now have the option to purchase nifty underwear that will allow us to go through the screening process without getting groped in our special places! Afraid of the TSA body scanners? Try this new underwear - AfterDawn (http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2010/11/22/afraid_of_the_tsa_body_scanners_try_this_new_under wear)

Inventor Jeff Buske has said he has created new clothing products that should protect flyers from TSA body scanner radiation.
Additionally, the new bras and underwear should help flyers who want to keep their private parts a mystery.

Dubbed "Rocky Flats Gear," Buske says he does not care about the politics of the situation, but instead wants to protect citizens from unwanted radiation.

Isn't that nice of him? He doesn't care about the politics.



I sure hope he invents the underwear hat soon.

Isn't that nice of him? He doesn't care about the politics. Actually this is the interesting part of all this: I think constituents from both political sides are fed up with the TSA.

oh I agree with the profiling and aggressive prosecution of the war . Quess we'll have to wait until Quatas is attacked to see how the Aussies respond.

I don't know anyone who wants to be blown out of the sky . When questioned the vast majority of Americans approve of the "inconvenience " . Then again ;most Americans don't fly.

Outside of Lockabe I don't think there have been many americans blown out of the sky, particularly when departing america.

There are many more airlines fly in and out of Australia than Qantas, Tom, each one has a risk of being attacked because of its destination, so far component manufacturers have caused more damage and disruption than terrorists. We have security measures at our airports but they are less intrusive than yours, but I have seen the nonsense of bottles of water confiscated and tubes of toothpaste searched even in my own luggage. All this searching is to be able to say we have a deterrent

94% of U.S. T'giving travelers are going somewhere by car. Amtrak (train) use is up.

Well I'm convinced the biggest gripe is that airport security was nationalized . Therefore my solution is to privatize it again.

So you think it would be a good idea to privatise it how would that solve this problem?
Airport pat-down leaves traveller covered in urine | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/airport-pat-down-leaves-traveller-covered-in-urine/story-e6frfq80-1225958372649)

Actually this is the interesting part of all this: I think constituents from both political sides are fed up with the TSA.
LOL! I wasn't thinking about that. I thought his choice of words was funny. This isn't about politics. It is about the guy's bank account. He is going to bamboozle some people into thinking they are going to be safe from radiation and the groping hands of the TSA. How much area does that little fig leaf cover? Ovaries, testes, colon, liver, kidneys, brain,. are all still being bombarded with radiation. Not to mention after walking through the screener, the TSA worker bees will still grope you because they need to verify nothing is left uninspected.


=====
Paraclete, I saw that guy being interviewed this morning. Very disturbing incident. I really felt for the guy.

Well I'm convinced the biggest gripe is that airport security was nationalized . Therefore my solution is to privatize it again.
Like Mayor Daley did the parking meters in Chicago?

Parking Meter Bill Passes, Bid Adieu to Free Sundays and Holidays - Chicagoist (http://chicagoist.com/2008/12/04/parking_meter_bill_passes_bid_adieu.php)

Easy . Travellers would have a choice since it is doubtful that all Airlines would adopt the same approach. Why not allow the airlines the responsibility ? They have the most to lose if a plane goes down .They have the biggest investment in ensuring a safe passage.

Also passengers can't sue the TSA for their ham-handed brutish behavior . But they could sue private security for these initimate probes that go beyond what most localities have determined are sexual assaults.

I'm not saying that the TSA has done a terrible job with security .But they are unaccountable as demonstrated by their harsh punitive reaction to people daring to opt out of the new x-ray spec devices.

The TSA was just another bad Democrat idea.

Yeah I said it!

A massive new airline security bureaucracy was a Democrat idea after 9-11 . The Republicans under D*ck (administrators... it's ridiculous I can't write a persons name because sometimes people use it as an obscenity!! ) Armey and Jim DeMint initially opposed it. The idea of a new federal work force manning the airport security was not something the Republicans believed in. But they lost that battle.

Everyone here thinks they don't make anything safer . So why not eliminate the TSA ? It would be a great first step in the government downsizing needed to eliminate the national debt.

WG ;NYC meters are not privatized .Still Nanny state Mayor Bloomberg is jacking up meter rates as a way to close the budget gap.

Look . Liberal States and municipalities have over-spent for as long as I can remember . Now they are paying the piper because you can't always rely on a robust economy where tax revenues flow.

The TSA was just another bad Democrat idea.

Yeah I said it!

A massive new airline security bureaucracy was a Democrat idea after 9-11
Transportation Security Administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Administration)

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is an agency of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security responsible for security in all modes of transportation in the U.S.[1]

The TSA was created as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act passed by the U.S. Congress, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 19, 2001. Originally organized in the U.S. Department of Transportation, the TSA was moved to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on March 25, 2003.

The idea of a new federal work force manning the airport security was not something the Republicans believed in. But they lost that battle.Hello again, tom:

How is it that the Republicans lost battles when they were in charge, but seem to win 'em all now that they're not? Are you telling me, that the Democrats STOOD UP to the Republicans?? Yeah, right...

excon

No kidding .
I am aware that Bush signed it into law. I gave you the Congress opponents .It wasn't Dems .They were all on board . Note I did not mention the President or any Dem. As opponents ( even though they later made a big political issue about the Patriot Act ) .

Wiki is not giving you the whole story. TSA was a Democrat idea.

Ex Republicans were in charge of the House only before 2002 . As you surely recall Jeffords switched parties and gave the Dems the majority in the Senate until the midterm elections .

Why didn't Bush veto it?

Interesting article: Who is behind the push for the body scanners? (http://rt.com/usa/news/naked-body-scanners-usa/)


The US media has had a field day, reporting the pros and cons of body scanning machines and pat-downs in the name of security. But one question they failed to ask is: who is behind the push for the body scanners?

As it turns out, former Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, now runs a security and risk management firm and one of his clients is Rapiscan, one of the biggest manufacturers of body scanning machines in the country. While the media continues to interview Chertoff about the value of body scanning machines, they fail to point out that he will benefit financially from the implementation of the machines.

"He's abusing his relationship with the public by pretending to be a public servant and talking about how these body scanners are going to make us safer… He stands to benefit because he's getting paid by the manufacturing companies to go all over the television networks saying that these scanners are the solution to security," said Kate Hanni, the director of Flyersrights.org, a non-profit dedicated to passengers rights.

Sponsor (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SN01447:@@@D&summ2=m&): Sen Hollings, Ernest F. D-SC

Democrat cosponsors (out of 30 total):

Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] - 9/21/2001
Sen Breaux, John B. [LA] - 9/21/2001
Sen Cantwell, Maria [WA] - 10/9/2001
Sen Carnahan, Jean [MO] - 9/21/2001
Sen Cleland, Max [GA] - 9/21/2001
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] - 9/21/2001
Sen Daschle, Thomas A. [SD] - 9/21/2001
Sen Dayton, Mark [MN] - 10/1/2001
Sen Dorgan, Byron L. [ND] - 9/21/2001
Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] - 10/4/2001
Sen Edwards, John [NC] - 9/21/2001
Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] - 9/26/2001
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 9/21/2001
Sen Inouye, Daniel K. [HI] - 9/21/2001
Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] - 9/21/2001
Sen Lincoln, Blanche L. [AR] - 10/15/2001
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] - 9/21/2001
Sen Nelson, Bill [FL] - 9/21/2001
Sen Reid, Harry [NV] - 9/21/2001
Sen Rockefeller, John D. IV [WV] - 9/21/2001
Sen Wellstone, Paul D. [MN] - 9/21/2001
Sen Wyden, Ron [OR] - 9/21/2001

If my math is correct that's 22 out of 30 Democrat cosponsors to a Democrat sponsored bill.

If my math is correct that's 22 out of 30 Democrat cosponsors to a Democrat sponsored bill.Hello again, Steve:

Those bastards. Hornswaggled again by those lefies.

excon