How can we punish the TSA Gate Rapers?

[varwoche]

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...

Incredibly few.

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

Sorry, but when you wrote the title for this thread, you pretty much lost the high ground for calling out asinine hyperbole.

 

[Aoidoi]

Incredibly few.

Though at least an order of magnitude above the number hijacked.

 

[Kaylee]

waittadamnminute!
According to the TSA guy on Channel 5, DFW, last night, the additional measures are only triggered if you blow it on the metal detector or luggage x-ray...
Somebody's lying.

<snip>

Interesting. I agree somebody's lying.

But perhaps the TSA have just decided to change their policy to require passengers to go for a more invasive level of screening ONLY if a TSA agent finds primary cause at the initial level of screening? (As opposed to also require some passengers to go through the more invasive level of screening at random.)

I can no longer find the link, but there was a comment on a blog that went into this idea more thoroughly.

The commenter referenced United States vs. Aukai (2007)

Case Summary: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1265662.html

Summary in non-legalese: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/08/court-says-trav/

This case ruled that once an airline passenger went past the security check point, they could no longer refuse to be searched.

As far as I can tell, the judge didn't say in his opinion that it was key that Aukai was only flagged for a secondary level of screening after probable cause was found at the initial level of screening. However, that was how it played out in that situation.

Perhaps the TSA thinks that if they change their policy and use that case as a precedent, they will be able to win future lawsuits and not have to remove any of the backscatter machines.

'Tis a shame, because except for the manufacturers of the equipment, we would all be better protected if they switched to bomb sniffer dogs. The back scatter machines are a real waste of money.

 

[I Ratant]

Waste of time?
Images from the TSA scanners... (so I'm told!)

 

[Drewbot]

There is always the conspiracy theory out there.

The one I heard, is that Obama is trying to force the airlines into bankruptcy so he can take them over, and have one Government controlled airline system.

 

[BigTex71]

{rant}
My answer: Profiling.

It is not discrimination, it is using your ^%$# brain. If one sector of the population is causing the problem, base the 'random' searches on that sector.

This country has become so 'P.C.' that is has resorted to patting down a 7-year old girl by TSA?! This is ridiculous.
{/rant}

 

[bokonon]

{rant}
My answer: Profiling.

It is not discrimination, it is using your ^%$# brain. If one sector of the population is causing the problem, base the 'random' searches on that sector.

This country has become so 'P.C.' that is has resorted to patting down a 7-year old girl by TSA?! This is ridiculous.
{/rant}

Hell yeah.

9/11 hijackers? Men.

Shoe bomber? Man.

Underwear bomber? Man.

As Johnny Cochran might say, "If she's not a man, you need not scan."

 

[I Ratant]

Unfortunately, there are women bombers.
Chechnya is bedeviled with them.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200409060023

 

[TraneWreck]

Unfortunately, there are women bombers.
Chechnya is bedeviled with them.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200409060023

Yes, and it doesn't take a crystal ball to anticipate how Al Qaeda and other groups would respond to the news, "TSA No Longer Searching Women."

 

[bokonon]

"Unless she's Chechnyan, then you bet we scan."

 

[I Am The Scum]

Hell yeah.

9/11 hijackers? Men.

Shoe bomber? Man.

Underwear bomber? Man.

As Johnny Cochran might say, "If she's not a man, you need not scan."

To take it a step further, if bombs are the new scare, then as far as attempted plane bombings of the past decade are concerned, we have two that concern the US. The shoe bomber was white, and the underwear bomber was black.

There may be other attempted bombings in this country or elsewhere, but nothing springs to mind at the moment.

 

[varwoche]

{rant} My answer: Profiling.

It is not discrimination, it is using your ^%$# brain. If one sector of the population is causing the problem, base the 'random' searches on that sector.

The devil is in the details. Who do you target and who do you de-target?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Waste of time?
Images from the TSA scanners... (so I'm told!)

Good Lord that's hot... look at the size of those femurs!!!

 

[MattusMaximus]

{rant}
My answer: Profiling.

It is not discrimination, it is using your ^%$# brain. If one sector of the population is causing the problem, base the 'random' searches on that sector.

This country has become so 'P.C.' that is has resorted to patting down a 7-year old girl by TSA?! This is ridiculous.
{/rant}

You're right. Because of Timothy McVeigh I think we should require mandatory pat-downs of all white guys.

 

[mhaze]

The devil is in the details. Who do you target and who do you de-target?

The answer is ridiculously simple, and it is in the following direction:

It is not for you to know because you don't have a need to know, and to know it would have a high security clearance level.

This in turn means that politically correct "scan everyone" would cease because they are patently futile, expensive and senseless, and the issue would no longer have to be discussed.

Any concrete set of published rules can be gamed against, hence such a set of rules is not a winning strategy.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Hell yeah.

9/11 hijackers? Men.

Shoe bomber? Man.

Underwear bomber? Man.

As Johnny Cochran might say, "If she's not a man, you need not scan."

That is why they started using female suicide bombers.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Number of people killed on 9/11: ~3000
Number of hijackers: 19
Number of deaths per hijacker: 3000/19 ~ 158

Number of people killed in the OK City bombing: 168

So, per capita, Timothy McVeigh was a worse mass murderer than the 9/11 hijackers, but not by much.

Thus I make my case that we should profile all white males that attempt to fly on planes in the United States. Or, for that matter, those who wish to drive trucks.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The answer is ridiculously simple, and it is in the following direction:

It is not for you to know because you don't have a need to know, and to know it would have a high security clearance level.

This in turn means that politically correct "scan everyone" would cease because they are patently futile, expensive and senseless, and the issue would no longer have to be discussed.

Any concrete set of published rules can be gamed against, hence such a set of rules is not a winning strategy.

Well the other option would be just accept the odd blown up airline and not make such a big deal over such a small number of deaths.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Number of people killed on 9/11: ~3000
Number of hijackers: 19
Number of deaths per hijacker: 3000/19 ~ 158

Number of people killed in the OK City bombing: 168

So, per capita, Timothy McVeigh was a worse mass murderer than the 9/11 hijackers, but not by much.

Thus I make my case that we should profile all white males that attempt to fly on planes in the United States. Or, for that matter, those who wish to drive trucks.

No, just veterans.

 

[mhaze]

Well the other option would be just accept the odd blown up airline and not make such a big deal over such a small number of deaths.

Right, it's a tiny fraction of something like deaths by car accidents. If at the same time you de emphasize the news coverage of such terroristic events the enemy loses. Their entire game is to create media events.