How can we punish the TSA Gate Rapers?

[Psi Baba]

I just wonder why the airline industry doesn't spend as much money, time, and effort into making the planes themselves safer as they do with all this security theater. Compare the number of planes that crash due to mechanical failure, pilot error, misunderstood weather anomalies, and other circumstances to the number of planes that crash due to terrorist actions. Why the disparity in the effort at prevention in the two areas?

And why it is that after a plane crash and the NTSB discovers that the problem is something like a critical part that was made out of, say, balsa wood instead of something more durable they are only allowed to suggest that the airlines make an improvement? They cannot order the airlines to make the change. Most of the planes in the air are years past their sell-by dates and airlines are cutting corners everywhere. Getting them to improve the kind of safety that actually costs money takes an act of Congress. But the minute someone acts suspiciously in a security check, the entire screening procedure is changed overnight.

Look at the trend:
--terrorists used bladed weapons to take over aircraft, so blades are no longer permitted on airplanes
--would-be terrorists have attempted to bring explosive liquids onto airplanes, so liquids are no longer permitted on airplanes.
--a would-be terrorist is caught trying light his shoe on fire, so everyone must take off their shoes to get through security.
--a would-be terrorist is caught with bomb materials in his underwear, so everyone must submit to body scans or pat-downs to get through security.
And yet, when the actual terrorists and would-be terrorists have so far all been young Muslim males, where is the appropriate logical response to this security problem? We're supposed to pretend that's a coincidence and act like we don't notice.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Well object all you want to. Some people would rather not have their plane slammed into a building for Allah.

When was the last time that's happened? Why are these procedures instituted now rather than ten years ago? Was there no security at all in place between 2001 and 2010?

 

[tyr_13]

Am I the only moderate here? I don't like these new pat-downs and scanners, I think they are overly invasive, unjustified,won't be sufficiently effective anyway, and they should be discontinued. But I also don't think the TSA employees are all a bunch of Nazis and rapists, and I doubt most of them enjoy these patdowns, and I bet they'd be as happy as the passengers to not have to do them. I don't plan to fly any time soon, but if I do I won't blame the pawns for the stupid policies their overlords dictate, and I certainly won't make a spectacle of myself with protests. The mature course of action is to write, call, or visit your congressional representatives--and the airline, and the airport itself.

Not that I wouldn't look very good in skimpy bike shorts, mind you.

No, you're not the only moderate. See my first post.

 

[Ducky]

That's why the best way to address this is to stop flying. Duh.

Care to help me find a new job, then? I need the current one for the income and health insurance. This effectively means "don't fly" isn't an option.

It's a tired and stupid argument.

 

[BenBurch]

Care to help me find a new job, then? I need the current one for the income and health insurance. This effectively means "don't fly" isn't an option.

It's a tired and stupid argument.

A lot of flying is discretionary. I really hate what flying has become, so I DRIVE or take the train when I travel, unless I have no other way to get to where I am going.

 

[nchammer326]

http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2010/...r-airport-security-measures-violate-any-laws/

The 4th amendment is often cited in airport security cases. Basically, it guarantees people against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. If the government is going to engage in such activity, it must have probable cause and must have obtained a warrant to do so

Early court decisions in the 1970’s established that airport searches did fall under the 4th amendment’s protection, as actions by airport search agents still constituted government action. However, courts still allowed airport searches to go on, despite the lack of individualized probable cause and warrant, by creating exceptions to the 4th amendment.

One of them was the Administrative Search Exception, which applies to searches made under a general regulatory scheme to further an “urgent federal interest.” Thus, airport searches to protect against terrorism and bomb threats clearly meet this requirement, and are exempt from the strict requirements of the 4th amendment. However, the searches must still be carried out in a reasonable fashion and with the minimum amount of intrusion necessary. It is on this last point that passengers opposing the new procedures may have the most compelling arguments.

 

[brenn]

This is a new policy... when's the last time you flew?

Do you think taking nude photos of passengers is acceptable in a free society? Genital groping?

Is there anything you won't give up in the name of security?

I still can't figure out why people care so much - I don't mind going through the scanner or being searched. I've been patted down many times in my life, by males and females. Since the search doesn't bother me at all, I do prefer it to lesser security.

I assume the problem is people who are really concerned about being seen naked or touched. The irony is, a few years of law enforcement experience tells me the people who have the strongest concerns will also be the people the TSA employees least want to see naked or touch.

 

[Thunder]

Do you think taking nude photos of passengers is acceptable in a free society? Genital groping?

no nude photographs are being taken.

no genitals are being groped.

stop reading Prisonplanet.

 

[brenn]

Then they should suck it up and live with the fact that people think they're perverted sickos.

"People" don't - a fringe of nutcases see this as sexual, for some reason and they seem to be projecting their own personalities on the TSA employees. I'd rather not have them flying with me anyhow, so it's a win/win.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I had a pat-down once because the metal scanner kept beeping. But the woman who patted was hot.

 

[Skwinty]

And yet, when the actual terrorists and would-be terrorists have so far all been young Muslim males, where is the appropriate logical response to this security problem? We're supposed to pretend that's a coincidence and act like we don't notice.

Sure, just don't piss the muslims off as it may antagonize them into some more attacks.

IMO, the security measures are called for. But then again, full body searches and detectors of all types are not news to me. If security at my work place, who are armed with pistols and automatic rifles, decide for any reason that I need a full cavity search, then thats me grabbing for my ankles or clearing my desk.

I say build a bridge and get over it already.

 

[I Ratant]

Bumper stickers....

 

[Drewbot]

I will still fly, but I wouldn't think of flying with my family and letting one of them 'pat down' my 7 year old daughter. Scrap the Florida flight, we will drive.

P.S. now I will be putting my family in a more dangerous form of transit. How many people will they really save by driving people away from flying?

 

[Skwinty]

lol

 

[qayak]

"People" don't - a fringe of nutcases see this as sexual, for some reason and they seem to be projecting their own personalities on the TSA employees. I'd rather not have them flying with me anyhow, so it's a win/win.

The people who object to these machines are not the people who would blow up an airplane. They have a legitimate concern whether we agree or not.

The only real concern I have is the health effects. Apparently the units may not be as benign as the manufacturer and TSA would have us believe. The machines using X-rays have some safety concerns while the ones using millimeter waves (like metal detectors) don't seem to. Walking through an X-ray machine once or twice a year, no big deal but for frequent fliers it could be. The X-ray machines use the same level as dental X-ray machines and they have limits of use in Canada. I imagine they do in the US as well. That is where my concern lies.

ETA: haven't researched yet to know what the actual case is.

I just read a report where the head of TSA is worried that people will boycott the machines tomorrow, one of the heaviest travel days of the year, and really screw up schedules. Could be an interesting day.

 

[EGarrett]

Wow, some SHOCKINGLY bad logic in this thread.

It's not sexual assault if it's consentual; and by flying the airlines, you consent to their security procedures. It's in the literature that accompanies the ticket you buy, period.

Of course, and when the government decrees that you must be physically raped in the butt in order to fly, everyone in Hawaii, everyone who works as a travelling business person with deadlines, and everyone flying home on emergency to see their rapidly-dying loved one (as I had to do earlier this year), has consented to being physically raped in the butt.

It doesn't matter what's necessary and what's not necessary or overly-invasive, what matters is that by flying you consent to anything they want to do to you. That's seriously your argument?

I likewise agree that the procedures are over the top, but this "rape" and "sexual assault" manufactured indignation is stupid. Take the damn train - then maybe the government might spend some more money bringing our rail system into the 21st century.

...and WHOSE money would the government be spending to do that?

Nevermind, I don't want to derail this thread by going down the tax-train line.

Not to mention these "clever" reactions will do nothing but slow down the lines even more and really just punish the people who are trying to get to their gates on time. Any sympathies I might have had for someone in front of me being mistreated would turn into "taze that *******" if it turned out he had instigated it.

Of course, and the people staging sit-ins or protests at segregated schools did nothing but slow down the people trying to get to class. And imagine all the tea-lovers who Gandhi deprived. You definitely should NOT use civil disobedience, not because it may or may not be justified, but because it might inconvenience other people. That's seriously your argument?

Wow, killing millions, trying to prevent terrorist attacks, I definitely see how these two things are morally equivalent. Way to cheapen the Nazi analogy.

Of course, because it doesn't matter what's overly invasive and what's actually necessary...anything they do is justified as long as it's explained as being used to prevent terrorist attacks.

By the way, by your own reasoning--justifying things based on the stated goal while ignoring whether the means used are reasonable--you just justified the Nazi's, since they were trying to prevent a second collapse of Germany.

Hate to burst your bubble here but this one is settled law. You need to read United States v. Aukai, 04-10226. There are some lower court rulings out there too.

No, it isn't. And even if it was, this is once again an extremely poor application of logic. Segregation used to be "settled law." That doesn't mean it was valid and not open to debate.

Well object all you want to. Some people would rather not have their plane slammed into a building for Allah.

See what I said above about justifying actions based on goal instead of justifying actions based on them being reasonable and necessary to achieve the goal.

I still can't figure out why people care so much - I don't mind going through the scanner or being searched. I've been patted down many times in my life, by males and females. Since the search doesn't bother me at all, I do prefer it to lesser security.

What if it was your daughter being told to go through a scanner that will put her naked body in front of the men at security (and apparently on the internet), or submit to having her breasts and genitals "inspected"? Can you see it now?

Yes, yes, and gynaecologists love hearing all those remarks about them, too, despite what would happen to the health of half the population if they didn't do their job.

Yes, they're like gynecologists, that's all. Of course.

I'm done.

 

[Ducky]

A lot of flying is discretionary. I really hate what flying has become, so I DRIVE or take the train when I travel, unless I have no other way to get to where I am going.

While that may be true for some, I have yet to find a way to drive to the datacenters in europe and my employer isn't about to lose work days for me to drive across the country 3000 miles to go to domestic data centers.

 

[TraneWreck]

Hey, this is just another side effect of living in a dumb country.

Look at this from Obama's perspective:

Dick Cheney was running around claiming that electing Kerry and then Obama would lead to America getting "hit" again. There's a presumption that Republicans are better and more dedicated at handling security. If another terrorist attack occurs (or I should say, WHEN it occurs), Obama is going to be blamed.

Imagine if Obama steps in and says, "the pat downs are too intrusive, we're ending them," and then a bomb goes off in a plain. These same libertarian folks bitching about the scanners will IMMEDIATELY call for his impeachment. Even if rational people look at the situation and prove that the scanners and the pat-downs couldn't stop the attack, unless Obama can show that he's doing everything he possibly can, he will be destroyed.

Of course, presidents Palin and Romney and whoever will have no actual solution to the security problem, they will just point out that pussy liberals and their civil liberties got folks killed.

If we lived in an adult country, where people realized there's a certain amount of risk that can never be eliminated, then Obama could institute rational policies that balanced security with personal liberty and when a terrorist attacked we would bring them to justice, modify our system as best we can, and move on with our lives realizing bad things often happen and cannot be fully avoided.

Instead, we have hysteria.

 

[EGarrett]

Of course, presidents Palin and Romney and whoever will have no actual solution to the security problem,

What security problem?

 

[roger]

Really? What other Constitutional rights do you give up by flying to grandma's for Thanksgiving?

Free speech - can't make jokes about bombs.

assembly - try cluttering up the aisle and see how long before you are arrested for safety reasons.

being detained - go and try that bomb joke a second time, and see how long you stay in a closet

search - try going through the security line and refusing to having your pockets or luggage searched

right to bear arms - do you need an example?