X-Ray, Invasive Patdown or old status quo?

Well, it does have to be in English first, but Espbaldy and I agree. See, speeding and drinking and driving and all manner of transportation accidents make sense to guard against. They are...you know...problems. Terrorism...really? Is that the big boogey man that gets you soiling your shorts? Two terrorist attacks on this country in so many years is not a realistic thing to worry about. Hell, I worry more about getting out of the shower and slipping and hitting my head. That's a real worry.

If we catered to people like yourself more we'd all be living in bubbles. Or worse: At the mercy of mandatory checkpoints.

Edit: I also find it amusing that the people that bitch and moan about the government being intrusive in their lives want more government say when it comes to flying. That's hilaaaariously funny. And I'm sure you'll read this and spit out some half-English reply all the while still not getting the joke.

 

Seeing as how you are not being sexually assaulted and seeing as how it is only used if you refuse to go into the scaners. Yes it is the same. You can't drive recklessly you also can't just do what ever you want in any airport. My right to get on any airplane and have it land safely.

You're willing to step all over my right to life just becasue you don't like what the TSA is doing. When you don't even get sreached if you go through the scanner to being with. And what Mr44 has said over and over is that a moll hill is being made into a mountain.

 

Sexual assault involves sexual contact without consent. Pretty arrogant of you to decide what type of contact that I might consent to.

A stranger--or for that matter, anyone other than my husband--putting their hands anywhere near my vah-jay-jay or boobs for any nonmedical reason--absolutely constitutes sexual assault.

And considering that neither of my children are old enough to consent to having their butts or testicles grabbed, the TSA enhanced pat downs absolutely constitute sexual assault.

Link describing the procedures

I'm not quite sure in what misogynistic universe this doesn't constitute sexual assault, other than a universe in which people are eager to be groped by strangers.

No, I am willing to step all over your right to feel "safe" in order to keep the private parts of my body private, and to allow my very young children to do the same.

Those who are willing to force others to undergo sexual harassment or molestation in order to feel "safe," do not deserve "safety."

 

You gotta love america- we love trading away more and more of our freedoms for the illusion of "safety"
Take a chance for once america, live a little

 

This.

And as I see it, people who support this are trying to sugar-coat a simple fact: we are being asked to allow government agents to either take naked pictures of us or touch our private parts. We are being asked by people like Jill Biden and Janet Napolitano to "suck it up," to which I say, quoting an editorial columnist in the Boston Globe, "You first, Janet. How about demonstrating the new procedures for us if they're not so bad?" Yeah, that's what I thought...

This makes the 1950s Red Scare look like a bad movie.

 

Check out george carlin's routine on airport security next time you are on youtube- It's hilarious and true

 

Again, ENGLISH. E-N-G-L-I-S-H! And it's not trampling over your rights to say that we all should act like adults instead of whining babies like the type who wish to have these scanners and/or pat-downs. It's absolutely a pathetic argument you're putting forth. It makes no sense and is entirely wrong-headed. So wrong-headed that if I were making it I'd go chop me own head off than actually spew it forth for the world to see and to mock.

 

Trying to make one mode of transportation completely safe is incredibly illogical. Even if they could make airplanes completely safe, then terrorists would just target other areas with high concentrations of people. The only purpose of all this extra "security" is so that your average dumb schlub feels more "safe". You have such a small chance statistically of being killed by a terrorist in America it is negligible, but of course authority figures love using terrorism as an excuse to further violate your rights. They've been at it for 9 years now, and no one seems to care enough to challenge this nonsense.

 

Care to explain how that exact same logic can't be applied to terrorist instead of those being screened?...there is always somewhere else they can attack.

It most certainly can and I've always said as much from the beginning of this exchange. I don't know if you're confusing me for someone else, but I've never said that any security method is foolproof, or that a hijacking won't ever occur again. I've not once claimed that anything is going to prevent anything.

I will agree that you just highlighted the opposite of the mentality you're rallying against. It's just as irrational and reactionary to not fly because one is fearful of a terrorist attack, as it is irrational and reactionary to not fly because one is fearful of a pat down or a scanner. They're two sides of the same coin. I'm going to fly regardless of terrorists and/or scanners. Because you're right, you could take the train and that's the day it derails and kills 56 passengers on board.

My point has more to do with the reactions displayed here. I believe it was A-G who just posted that having to go through an airline checkpoint is "worse that the communist scares of the 1950's." Others have posted that getting a pat down is no different that being raped or molested. That's all crazy. That's were the overreaction is, and I think it highlights just how easy Americans have things. The goal is an effective security policy.

I certainly have no problem going along with you guys and adopting an "EL AL" style system in order to get rid of the scanners and pat downs. But I think you should be careful what you wish for, because I think the first time you're diverted to an interrogation room for 45 minutes because you have a connecting flight, or you have to open up your trunk just to drive onto the airport, you'll be screaming for the ease of a 30 sec scanner check. I also notice that AG didn't respond at all regarding her "no fly list" reliance and sacrafices that would need to be put in place with it.

 

Um, yes, I did. I said that I would much rather be "inconvenienced" by being questioned for 45 minutes than have my privates touched by a TSA agent. I can back track and find the exact quote in my post but I know I answered that one.

And I doubt I am the only one in the country who will take the stance that an agent can ask me all the questions he or she wants but Do. Not. Touch. Me.

Having naked pictures taken or having one's sexual organs touched by a stranger is not an "inconvenience", it is sexual assault. I'm appalled that people are asserting that it isn't. What exactly constitutes "sexual assault" to you (general "you")?

As far as the "no fly list," I stand by my original post. If we're putting people on the no fly list simply for converting to Islam, then that's a separate issue that needs to be addressed, but it does not make pat downs of people's sexual organs more acceptable.

 

I'm going to have to call bull**** on this point. It is not the same at all. Whereas a terrorist might strike; it is certainly a guarantee you're either going to get felt up or go through a possibly dangerous x-ray process. False equivocation, I believe. While they both have to do with the same context, they're nowhere in the same league. Also, what happened to voting with your wallet that you bootstrappy conservative types like to tout?

If a-g or anyone else would prefer to kill these airlines by not flying then have at it. Personally I think we've given up too much in the name of security so these companies deserve to go under and the TSA should take all the blame as a result. That's everyone's right as a consumer--that's what you are when you fly. You're not a criminal. You're not some potential terrorist (like the TSA would have you believe) you're a consumer. You're buying a product and if that product is bad or if you don't wish to sign the contract of **** that this product offers then it's certainly reasonable and encouraged not to support them.

Or to sum this shindig up in one go:

[image=http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/778/ps6pe.jpg]

 

Nobody can ever be "safe." So you might as well live a comfortable life instead of living your short number of days with people sticking their hands
in your "no-no regions" everytime you want to visit a relative in another country.

 

Well said. And I will not be flying any time soon.

If buying any product means that I give up my right to dictate who can touch me and when, then I won't be buying the product. And according to a poll I saw recently, some 96 percent of Americans have said that they will be flying less or not at all due to these procedures. It should be interesting to see the outcome, and my hope is that it does not involve a government bailout of the airline industry in the name of "security."

 

Having naked pictures taken or having one's sexual organs touched by a stranger is not an "inconvenience", it is sexual assault. I'm appalled that people are asserting that it isn't. What exactly constitutes "sexual assault" to you (general "you")?

And that goes back to my original assessment, because that doesn't have anything to do with actual policy, practice, procedure, or what the choices are. You're right. Under that preception, there's no difference between any of the above, so there's nothing that I can ever post that would matter.

I'll still say that this has quickly become a non-issue. The busiest travel weekend came and went without incident or protest, because 60 million people focused on what should matter in the first place, and just went on to visit their family/friends/loved ones. The rest can buy their special metalically inked shirts or whatever, and stay at home to watch the extended director's cut of V, for Vendetta, which I might add also misses the entire point of that story.

 

Again, little pebbles falling into a pond and creating ripples. Eventually it'll get so ridiculous even the stupid sheep in this country will wake up. Or not. Americans are rather thick-headed and stupid.

 

That's not entirely accurate.

There are numerous credible reports that the AIT (Advanced Imaging Technology) scanners were shut down at most airports over the holiday weekend, and those airports went back to using the older magnetometers for all passengers. You can't say that the holiday weekend proves that the scanners are a non-issue when they weren't actually used on that holiday weekend.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Seriously? That is rather amusing in light of 44's post.

 

So 44 your argument that because the public goes along with it, that is justification for it?

We have to recognize that there are competing values, and what we hold as important you do not, and what you hold important we do not.

You don't really value privacy or personal space, and find that the security concerns outweigh such objections that you don't even need to really address them other than call them overreactions.

I'm not a fan of the Franklin quote because we do have to choose between freedom and security. I'm specifically advocating for less security and more freedom. Who are you to say I am wrong?

 

I think there's an argument, if not an ironclad one, that if someone is not willing to lift a finger to protest the loss of a freedom, then they don't deserve it. There was a great, well publicized opportunity to protest the new procedures last Wednesday, and virtually no one took part. To me, it's evidence of just how politically apathetic most Americans are. If they even take the time just to vote, then they've already been more politically active than the average citizen. But taking part in a protest or rally or boycott, anything that would inconvenience their relentless zeal for being good and pliant consumers, that's too much to ask for defending basic rights.

An organized protest undertaken by a sizeable minority of frequent fliers is all it would take to end this practice.

For those who haven't even emailed your senators or rep, or sent money to the ACLU, or urged friends and family members to boycott the body scans, you've truly earned the body cavity check.

 

Are you talking about the Opt-Out Day? I feel very strongly about this but if I had flown Wednesday, I would not have participated, because to me being scanned is the lesser of two evils when the other choice is being groped. I think a better way to protest this is not to fly at all, which is exactly what I did.

But...I'm a stay-at-home mom so I don't have to fly on business, my family is all on the East Coast so I can easily either drive or take Amtrak.

On what 44 said, back to my earlier point that there is no way to sugar-coat "having one's private parts touched by a stranger" as anything other than "sexual assault" or "sexual harassment." And the two choices are "naked scan" or "having one's private parts touched by a stranger." Unless there is a choice that I missed. It's not so much that nothing you or anyone who supports this says would matter, unless you are going to infer that from my statement that you can't call "having one's private parts touched by a stranger" by another name simply because that stranger works for the TSA. The federal government is trying to justify this as "necessary for security," an assertion that is not even correct along with being an attempt to sugar coat what it really is. (And that's not a smack at the TSA agents themselves. Other than the wastes of DNA who actually bared a woman's breasts and laughed at her in a security line, I would say that for the majority of them, this is no more pleasant than it is for us.) So if the way to win this debate is to assert that "this is not sexual assault because it's for security," no, I'm not going to buy it.

 

I also have no reason to travel. I almost wish I could, though, so I could protest the patdowns in person.

Personally, I wouodn't accept either screening method. The way I see it is this: you have the choice between being groped and being exposed to harmful radiation while people look under my clothes. I'll take "C", none of the above, thank you very much.

 

FID, KK's post doesn't dispute anything either he or I have been saying, but it's a bit like grasping at straws. Instead of looking at the big picture, there's the one story which indicated that some scanners were deactivated. Yeah, it would have proven something if all of the scanners were turned off under a unified response from the TSA. But "a handful of a fliers at LAX airport reporting that some scanners were turned off"- well, isn't anything more than it is. The link didn't even mention numbers or reasons. If 5 scanners out of 330 were down, what does that illustrate? Especially since the administration is still moving toward purchasing more and using them more frequently.

It's like if someone posted that humans have 2 eyes, and "just to show that it's not neccesarily true" someone posted a link to the one guy in Brazil who was born with a birth defect, and actually has 3 eye-structures. Um, Ok? I still don't understand why everything has to be all or nothing. Scanners are going to be turned off at times, either for maintence, or repair, or whatever. Then, other methods will be used. What's the big deal?

KK, it is a bit disheartening to see you use methods that you have universially rallied against your entire time here. If anyone had posted that link in response to you, the first thing you would have done is ask for numbers, and sources, and the reasons behind the examples before the info bits were finished transmitting. Instead, we have an opinion from a guy not connected in any way to the actual decision:

"Shutting down the 'National Opt-Out Day' by turning off the machines is the only logical move for the TSA,? writes Mike Adams of Natural News. Really? Is that the credible source that said that "most" machines were turned off across the country?

So 44 your argument that because the public goes along with it, that is justification for it?

No, my argument is more in line with what Jabba is posting as well. That's to say that the general public doesn't seem to care either way, so it's no a huge issue. "Justification," or lack thereof, has nothing to do with it.

 

"The general public not caring about it" is not a valid excuse. The fact remains that a sizable group of people don't want to be touched, and as free Americans they should have the right to choose not to be searched or scanned.

 

Come on now we all know that Alan Moore was not talking about Anarchism versus Fascism.

It could not be that people wanted to see that family or that they have bigger worrys such as the economy and healthcare issues. I mean those two things have only been on the minds of people sense 2008 and it's still on ever one's mind far more then the TSA. Again mountain out of a moll hill.

Is there things they can do better? Sure such as letting the TSA have info about the people that should not be flying. But then again that would mean profiling people (and no that does not just mean muslism). But to profile right we have to let the FBI, CIA, local law enforcement be able to do there jobs to the best of there ability with out running to the ACLU. But seeing as how people got up in arms about the US Patroit act this is were we are at. Instead of being able to use there abilities the best they can we get mad at them.

So this is what we get. You can either go into the scanner or get the pat down or not fly. And not ever one is pulled out of line for the pat down any ways not if you go through the scanner.