How can we punish the TSA Gate Rapers?

[bokonon]

They already soaked a guy in his own urine, I assume colostomy bags will be another issue.

I don't think it would be unreasonable to ask that people empty colostomy and urostomy bags prior to or during screening. TSA screeners may need to be educated (the screener who soaked the guy reportedly said he didn't know what a urostomy bag was), but if they're screening for prosthetics they'll probably want to screen bags of solids and liquids too.

 

[Drewbot]

I don't think it would be unreasonable to ask that people empty colostomy and urostomy bags prior to or during screening. TSA screeners may need to be educated (the screener who soaked the guy reportedly said he didn't know what a urostomy bag was), but if they're screening for prosthetics they'll probably want to screen bags of solids and liquids too.

They should also investigate the Stoma itself, to see if any plastique is stored in the hole in their abdomen.

 

[sadhatter]

So um, if you don't like the policies, dont fly seems like the best option.

This reminds me of the people that would call in to mci to get phone service, when told of what they needed ( usually some form of identification, sometimes a deposit.) they would get angry and demand another option. At which point they would be informed that they can always not get phone service.

If you don't like the hoops you have to jump through to get something, don't jump through them, but don't expect to get the service as well. I may not feel like wearing shoes one day, but that doesn't mean i should expect a convience store to revoke their " no shoes no shirt " policy.

Flying is not a right, never has been. This would be different if health care required a groping, but this is a service offered by a company that has no obligation to offer it. If you find their policies offensive, show that by not using them. People got along just fine without flight, for quite some time, i am sure we can still do so.

If i opened a restaurant that required people to be slapped in the face before entering, i should expect not to get that much buisness. But in the same sense when i tell people that the slap is required, they shouldn't be surprized when they get slapped.

 

[TragicMonkey]

but this is a service offered by a company that has no obligation to offer it. If you find their policies offensive, show that by not using them.

No, it's not. This isn't the airlines' doing, this is a government agency mandating these these things, performed by government agency employees.

 

[bokonon]

They should also investigate the Stoma itself, to see if any plastique is stored in the hole in their abdomen.

Your sarcasm suggests you do think it's unreasonable to ask people to empty bags of waste before boarding. Since a urostomy bag could contain flamable liquid, and a colostomy bag could contain plastic explosive, may I inquire as to why you would find such a requirement unreasonable?

 

[I Ratant]

The "government" interferes all the time in everyone's business.
We hire them to do that.
This particular interference is less than comfortable for the victims, and hasn't been shown to be effective at all.
The resistance by the plane's passengers is the detriment to any attempts by a person or persons to interrupt any flight directly.
That's why the bombs in the printer parts.
Scanning didn't/couldn't/wouldn't find these, some snitch alerted the Saudis.

 

[sadhatter]

No, it's not. This isn't the airlines' doing, this is a government agency mandating these these things, performed by government agency employees.

And again, the fact that flying is not a right is the crux of the matter. You can simply not fly. It is not any type of guarenteed right. If you don't want to get punched in the face , don't box. Currently if you don't want to get groped, don't fly.

Or you could simply not get so offended at a groping. It is a security measure, and despite the best straw men we can make, i doubt seriously that the person having to grab a 10 50 year old men by the bozac is loving it.

 

[sadhatter]

This just in, doctors , to check for prostate cancer are forced to molest patients. Where will it end?

Arnt strawmen fun?

 

[TraneWreck]

This just in, doctors , to check for prostate cancer are forced to molest patients. Where will it end?

Arnt strawmen fun?

Would you submit to a body cavity search in an airport?

A pat-down cannot reveal items smuggled by such means. We don't know we're safe until millions of rubber gloves and endless gallons of lube are used in the pursuit of security.

 

[TragicMonkey]

And again, the fact that flying is not a right is the crux of the matter. You can simply not fly. It is not any type of guarenteed right. If you don't want to get punched in the face , don't box. Currently if you don't want to get groped, don't fly.

And there's not an explicit right to eat Doritos, either, yet if the government employed agents to stand around and smack them from your hands it would be an unjustifiable overreaching of government power, wouldn't it?

Or you could simply not get so offended at a groping. It is a security measure, and despite the best straw men we can make, i doubt seriously that the person having to grab a 10 50 year old men by the bozac is loving it.

Who said I'm offended by groping? This isn't a thread in politics about Democrats and Republicans, that everybody has chosen one side or another and those sides come complete with a list of what everybody on them agrees to believe. One can oppose these new policies on grounds besides "offense at groping".

 

[EGarrett]

Is this some kind of game you're playing, or do you really not understand my argument?

100% effective security is impossible; we will be attacked again.

When that attack happens, political opponents of the President (especially if that person is a Democrat) will be blamed for security failures, whether there were any or not.

Thus, if an attack occurs in the next two years, Obama will be blamed by Romney or Palin or whoever for failing to keep America safe. This implies, of course, that there was some actual way to prevent said attack.

The people making these political attacks will have no actual solution that would have stopped said attack from occuring (the security problem), but will ramble on anyway, never advancing a positive idea, and complaining about vague things like Democratic wimpiness and the need to double-down on the war on terror.

This is why Obama CANNOT get rid of the scanners or stop the pat-downs. If a bomb goes off in a plane after he ordered the machines removed, he would be impeached.

If that wasn't clear, could you please explain what you're having trouble with instead of just repeating the same sentence over and over?

I'm asking just to make an important point to everyone in this discussion. The issue that this scanning and groping has been instituted to deal with is supposedly weaknesses in our security. Like you've said, and I've seen from others, the problem is that a terrorist is likely to attempt an attack on an airline in the next 2 years? Due to a recent, unsuccessful and clumsy underwear bomb attempt? Does this justify significantly inconveniencing and violating the privacy rights of literally hundreds of millions of airline passengers over that same time period? Is this a net increase of happiness?

It's also possible that a pilot or airline technician may misread his instruments and cause a plane to potentially come near to crashing in flight...it has happened many times...does this mean we have an airline incompetency problem and should force every passenger to read a flight technical manual so they can be aware of what their pilots of technicians are likely doing to fix the problem?

This question is directed at everyone. I'm curious as to how a sad failed attempted underwear bomb somehow means our current security measures are insufficient and must be increased to a degree of unprecedented invasiveness?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Would you submit to a body cavity search in an airport?

A pat-down cannot reveal items smuggled by such means. We don't know we're safe until millions of rubber gloves and endless gallons of lube are used in the pursuit of security.

A butt search wouldn't reveal anything that has been recently swallowed. The passengers should be forced to drink an emetic, and vomit over sieves, and the vomit investigated for contraband.

 

[sadhatter]

Would you submit to a body cavity search in an airport?

A pat-down cannot reveal items smuggled by such means. We don't know we're safe until millions of rubber gloves and endless gallons of lube are used in the pursuit of security.

It depends, how badly do i need to fly?

If it is for a medical condition, probably.

If it is for a concert, depends on the band.

If it is for a vacation, i would pick a different place, or find another mode of transportation.

You have to go through many unpleasent things in life, and sometimes the tradeoff isn't worth it. Sometimes it is. It is up to people to use their judgement is a unpleasent proceedure by a trained individual worth it? I can't answer the question for you, but just because your answer may be no, doesn't mean that a new set of rules has to be written.

Again, if this was something that was a guarenteed right, i would be with everyone else. But flying is by no means a right guarenteed by any form of law.

 

[TragicMonkey]

This question is directed at everyone. I'm curious as to how a sad failed attempted underwear bomb somehow means our current security measures are insufficient and must be increased to a degree of unprecedented invasiveness?

Especially since wasn't the underwear bomb attempt last December? If these new procedures are vitally necessary to protect us from another such attempt, then why did it take a year to implement them? (And, of course, if they're not necessary to protect us from another such attempt, why do them at all?)

 

[sadhatter]

And there's not an explicit right to eat Doritos, either, yet if the government employed agents to stand around and smack them from your hands it would be an unjustifiable overreaching of government power, wouldn't it?



Who said I'm offended by groping? This isn't a thread in politics about Democrats and Republicans, that everybody has chosen one side or another and those sides come complete with a list of what everybody on them agrees to believe. One can oppose these new policies on grounds besides "offense at groping".

To the doritos analogy, it is simply flawed. First off there is no, literally no tradeoff for the action. Me eating a dorito, in no logical way could cause someone harm. So any action they take would have to be proportionate to the amount of harm that could be caused.

SEcond, your analogy states that they are stopping you from eating the dorito, which is false. You really, could have used the same situation. A prodding for the priveledge to eat a dorito. In the airline example, the government isn't stopping you from flying, you are. You choose not to go through the proceedure, which ends up in you not flying. There is no thug waiting to punch you into submission as you walk through the airport.


If the government was making people rip off a finger, yeah that would be wrong. But an unpleasent proceedure preformed by a professional is different than asking someone to let out an ounce of blood.

The government bans, or sets up restrictions on all kinds of things. From medicine to pornography, this is just another one. Silly, inconvient, but not evil. You can't sell liquor witout a liscense, and now you can't fly without a finger up the....you get the point.

 

[bokonon]

If they start doing random body cavity searches (and that doesn't seem likely at the moment, but you never know), they should hire doctors to do them and make it part of medical screening for Obamacare.

 

[I Ratant]

And there's not an explicit right to eat Doritos, either, yet if the government employed agents to stand around and smack them from your hands it would be an unjustifiable overreaching of government power, wouldn't it?
...

.

.
On the Metro link trains here, I've heard of people having their mouths forced open to remove the gum they were chewing, and candy bars confiscated.

 

[I Ratant]

A butt search wouldn't reveal anything that has been recently swallowed. The passengers should be forced to drink an emetic, and vomit over sieves, and the vomit investigated for contraband.

.
And squat and cough.

 

[TragicMonkey]

So any action they take would have to be proportionate to the amount of harm that could be caused.

Precisely. And what people are disagreeing about is whether these new TSA procedures are disproportionate. Some say yes, they are. That's what the argument's about--that the good derived isn't worth the harm caused.

 

[Ducky]

Out of curiosity Ducky, do you set off the metal detectors? I know my friends with various joint replacements got some sort of doctor's note about it.

I wonder how many more doctor's notes will be required to explain various medical ailments now visible to the new scanners. They already soaked a guy in his own urine, I assume colostomy bags will be another issue.

Depends on how sensitive they've cranked up the metal detectors. I invariably set them off at LAX, but never do at MSP.