How can we punish the TSA Gate Rapers?

[Meed]

What is the obsession with plane security? A terrorist could blow up a bus, a train, a restaurant, an office building... you name it. But it's important to go to extreme lengths to make sure they don't hurt anyone in a plane, specifically.

 

[Belz...]

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

Well, that's the heart of the issue, isn't it ? How much liberty do you sacrifice in the name of security ?

Reminds me of my employer. Every time an employee does something he really doesn't like, he adds a clause to all of our next contracts. So because it happened once, all of our lives must become more complicated and restrictive, amongst other things, so that he feels safer about it.

I'm not sure I agree with that sentiment.

 

[ponderingturtle]

What is the obsession with plane security? A terrorist could blow up a bus, a train, a restaurant, an office building... you name it. But it's important to go to extreme lengths to make sure they don't hurt anyone in a plane, specifically.

Panic and it being big news. Really losing a plane or two a year would make little difference, and flying would still be safer than driving. But people are not rational with risk assessment.

 

[bokonon]

What is the obsession with plane security? A terrorist could blow up a bus, a train, a restaurant, an office building... you name it. But it's important to go to extreme lengths to make sure they don't hurt anyone in a plane, specifically.

I suspect the obsession originates in the likelihood that an explosion on a plane will disable it, causing it to crash and killing all on board.

An explosion on a bus is likely to kill only those who are killed by the explosion itself, plus a few more who may be killed if the bus overturns or hits something. Taking over a bus may convert it into a lethal weapon, but it isn't going to bring down a building.

The same calculations apply to a train -- slightly higher loss of life if it derails, but otherwise casualties are mostly limited to those killed by the explosion itself. Taking over a train would seem to be pointless, since it just goes where the tracks go.

Boats seem pretty poor targets for explosives, at least in this country. People aren't concentrated in them as they are on planes, trains, and buses. Unless the explosion blows a hole in the hull below the waterline, it's unlikely to sink the vessel. Not much buck for the bang. Pirates take over boats all the time, but I've not heard of one being used as a weapon. Terrorists have targeted military vessels, but they didn't infiltrate as passengers to do so.

Timothy McVeigh's attack demonstrates that office buildings can be a high-casualty target, and government buildings have been made more secure since then by creating perimeters around them designed to prevent truck bombs of the sort McVeigh employed from getting the kind of tactical position needed. A person is not going to walk around with several tons of concealed ammonium nitrate and fuel oil.

Planes are a "high-value" target because of their flexibility (they can go anywhere, carrying tons of explosive fuel), their resistance to a life-preserving counter attack (options are pretty well limited to shooting it out of the sky) and the vulnerability noted earlier. It's hard to name another target with that combination.

 

[DavidJames]

What is the obsession with plane security? A terrorist could blow up a bus, a train, a restaurant, an office building... you name it. But it's important to go to extreme lengths to make sure they don't hurt anyone in a plane, specifically.

I suspect it's a corporate type CYA.

We all know there will be another attack. If it succeeds it's much easier to say, damn, we never thought of that, then, sure that's what they did before, we just didn't think they'd do it again.

I say corporate because that's how it works in large I.T. companies I'm familiar with. Much much more effort is spent trying to ensure problems are repeated. Much less trying to prevent different types of problems.

 

[Kaylee]

David, you seem to be misinformed. First of all, no one is claiming flying is a right.

Richard, that statement makes me very uncomfortable. Americans have always had "freedom of movement" in our country -- see my post #180 upthread. For most Americans, that freedom is meaningless for any travel we want to do over several hundred miles if we don't have access to commercial air flights. Most of us don't have the money to charter or own a private plane. Most of us don't have enough free time off from our jobs to have the option to use alternate means of travel for lengthy trips.

Second, if you buy a ticket, get to the airport, then refuse to be searched for whatever reason, you can be fined up to $11,000.

And you can apparently be subject to that fine even if the TSA web site says that a particular airport doesn't have a backscatter machine and you don't find out otherwise until you are already past the checkpoint. That is what happened to John "Don't Touch My Junk" Tyner.

 

[Belz...]

The only people really suffering from the War on Terror are those who have sacrificed their sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers. Personally, compared to what they have gone through, if the only sacrifice I am required to endure is to allow a scanner operator to see my junk then so be it.

The question is: where does it stop ? How far are willing to go for this impression (false or not) of security ?

 

[Kaylee]

The only people really suffering from the War on Terror are those who have sacrificed their sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers. Personally, compared to what they have gone through, if the only sacrifice I am required to endure is to allow a scanner operator to see my junk then so be it.

Or perhaps an additional risk of getting cancer. Not all scientists agree with the TSA about the risks.

Here's a very short two page letter written by scientists and faculty associated with the University of California (San Francisco):

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...jph-letter.pdf

It briefly lists who they believe are at higher risk for cancer and why. They are also concerned about sperm mutagenesis which presumably would increase the risk of birth defects. Lastly they raise a few red flags about the hardware itself.

--

Even Brenner of Columbia University who has been quoted as agreeing with the TSA that the backscatter machines are "mostly safe" for most travelers has this to say:

Recent research, Brenner says, indicates that about 5 percent of the population — one person in 20 — is especially sensitive to radiation. These people have gene mutations that make them less able to repair X-ray damage to their DNA. <snip>

"I don't know if I'm one of those 5 percent. I don't know if you're one of those 5 percent," Brenner says, "And we don't really have a quick and easy test to find those individuals."

Children are also more vulnerable to radiation damage, because they have more dividing cells at any time. A radiation-induced mutation in their cells can lead to cancer decades later.

and

David Brenner, head of Columbia University's Center for Radiological Research, recently aired his worries before the Congressional Biomedical Caucus.

"There really is no other technology around where we're planning to X-ray such an enormous number of individuals," Brenner told the caucus and congressional staffers. "It's really unprecedented in the radiation world."

Brenner's name carries some clout, because he served on a small group of experts convened in 2002 by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements to write guidelines for the security scanners. He now says he wouldn't have signed the report if he had known the X-ray scanners were going to be used on virtually every air traveler.

Emphasis added is mine.

I find this whole thing especially infuriating because as many posters have already pointed out, this does not make us any safer! Anyone who intends harm only has to carry in weapons or explosive materials by taping it on the inside of a butt check or inserting it into a body cavity. The backscatter machines cannot pick up anything transported that way.

If instead, the TSA had started a bomb-sniffer dog program -- explosive materials could be picked up that way. And it would have been much less expensive also as Wildcat has already posted about. Wow, we might have had money available to build a high-speed rail system or something else. You know, something that would actually be useful to the country and not just line the pockets of a few lobbyists and corporations.

And, added bonus, bomb sniffer dogs would not have attacked our 4th amendment rights or put anyone's health at risk.

ETA: I am grateful for the sacrifice that many brave men and women have made for us in Iraq, Afghanistan and other wars. Their sacrifice really deserves much better than the farce being orchestrated by the "security theatre". Their recent actions are doing much more to damage our freedoms and rights than anything any terrorist has done.

 

[Drewbot]

1st of all, white males, like McVeigh, use 2000 lb. fertilizer bombs. They can't smuggle that on an aircraft.

2nd of all, the underwear bomber was flagged wasn't he? Shouldn't the prior security measures have nabbed him if they were implemented?

I think the idea of keeping tabs on suspicious people would help. Those with expired visas, those who traveled to Pakistan or other terrorist friendly countries recently, those who buy one way tickets with cash, those who are associated with financing questionable groups which support terror.

 

[bokonon]

I find this whole thing especially infuriating because as many posters have already pointed out, this does not make us any safer! Anyone who intends harm only has to carry in weapons or explosive materials by taping it on the inside of a butt check or inserting it into a body cavity. The backscatter machines cannot pick up anything transported that way.

Well, it does make us somewhat safer. One cannot easily carry as much explosive in a body cavity as one can conceal under a baggy sweatshirt. Even if someone's entire alimentary canal is packed with explosive, unless it's removed before detonation the body it's packed in will mute the destructive power of the explosion.

If instead, the TSA had started a bomb-sniffer dog program -- explosive materials could be picked up that way.

I suspect that sniffing dogs would have the same difficulty detecting explosives in a body cavity that backscatter machines have. Do you know of any facts to the contrary?

Plus, bomb-sniffing dogs won't detect knives, Sarin gas, or other weapons.

Wow, we might have had money available to build a high-speed rail system or something else. You know, something that would actually be useful to the country and not just line the pockets of a few lobbyists and corporations.

I definitely agree with this. The money spent on backscatter machines (which seems to have "conflict of interest" and thus potential corruption written all over it) could be better spent developing high-speed rail. This would also generate more jobs than the machines.

And, added bonus, bomb sniffer dogs would not have attacked our 4th amendment rights or put anyone's health at risk.

The attack on 4th amendment rights is precisely the same whether it is dogs or machines doing the sniffing.

 

[MattusMaximus]

What is the obsession with plane security? A terrorist could blow up a bus, a train, a restaurant, an office building... you name it. But it's important to go to extreme lengths to make sure they don't hurt anyone in a plane, specifically.

This is what Timothy McVeigh did. So when do we start profiling white guys who are driving trucks?

 

[WildCat]

Boats seem pretty poor targets for explosives, at least in this country. People aren't concentrated in them as they are on planes, trains, and buses. Unless the explosion blows a hole in the hull below the waterline, it's unlikely to sink the vessel. Not much buck for the bang. Pirates take over boats all the time, but I've not heard of one being used as a weapon. Terrorists have targeted military vessels, but they didn't infiltrate as passengers to do so.

But boats have been hijacked by terrorists before, the Achille Lauro for example.

 

[I Ratant]

And the numerous Somali pirates captures (hijackings) of passing boats.

 

[varwoche]

Agreed. Neither do the morons working tsa have any such clearance.

Agreed?? I have no clue what your point is.

What I have briefly illustrated is...

... Evasiveness combined with an opaque writing style.

So, is there a proponent of profiling who is willing/able to outline the proposal?

 

[mhaze]

Well, it does make us somewhat safer. One cannot easily carry as much explosive in a body cavity as one can conceal under a baggy sweatshirt. Even if someone's entire alimentary canal is packed with explosive, unless it's removed before detonation the body it's packed in will mute the destructive power of the explosion.

No.

The issue is transfer of energy from gas to solid and effect that has on net destructive potential.

Expanding gas might damage or rupture pressure vessel but any shrapnel certainly would. Shrapnel can be accelerated by a disintegrated body as well as a gas expansion. Say a bag of marbles for example non metallic shrapnel.

 

[mhaze]

Agreed?? I have no clue what your point is.

... Evasiveness combined with an opaque writing style.

So, is there a proponent of profiling who is willing/able to outline the proposal?

Reread the thread.

 

[WildCat]

So, is there a proponent of profiling who is willing/able to outline the proposal?

You know, racial profiling is just one of many ways to profile, and this has been addressed in this thread.

A Pakistani passport stamp, for example, for someone not from Pakistan should be a red flag. Paying cash for a first-class ticket despite having no discernable income is another. Carrying little luggage for a long trip is another. There's lots of ways to profile without resorting to racially profiling.

Just what I mentioned above would have been enough to have flagged the show bomber and the underwear bomber.

 

[bokonon]

No.

The issue is transfer of energy from gas to solid and effect that has on net destructive potential.

Expanding gas might damage or rupture pressure vessel but any shrapnel certainly would. Shrapnel can be accelerated by a disintegrated body as well as a gas expansion. Say a bag of marbles for example non metallic shrapnel.

"Damaging or rupturing" is not the issue so much as "bringing it down". Larger amounts of explosive have a better chance of doing that than the smaller amounts which could be concealed in a body cavity.

Unless the integrity of the fuselage is compromised in a big way, or the rupture happens to affect hydraulics, it would be possible to land a plane safely after an explosion. Witness the Aloha Airlines incident in which a large chunk of the hull was lost due to metal fatigue, but the plane still landed with only one fatality.

 

[bokonon]

Paying cash for a first-class ticket despite having no discernable income is another.

Yeah, we'd all much rather provide financial statements and W2s when buying a ticket or boarding a plane than stand in front of a scanner.

Why not just admit you're a prude with body image issues, instead of pretending you care about "privacy"? The kind of disclosures you're proposing are much more of a threat to "privacy" than being asked to empty your pockets, turn your head, and cough.

 

[AlBell]

Sorry, I teach physics, not history/social studies. That explains why I can do the math better than you

Glad you get something right, then. Math appears to be the extent of it.

Ever been to Idaho?

Federal buildings being blown up by white separatists isn't on my list of worries, or the topic of this thread.