$10K fine for not going through TSA screening?

rwguinn said:
The only reasonable explanations for this exception for pilots and not Flight Attendants is political pressure, or that wimmin are more fun to look at nekkid and/or fondle.
Click to expand...
What's "unreasonable" about the explanation that if a pilot wants to bring down a plane, the only thing he needs to smuggle on board is himself?
 
bokonon said:
What's "unreasonable" about the explanation that if a pilot wants to bring down a plane, the only thing he needs to smuggle on board is himself?
Click to expand...
Huh? What does that have to do with the exception for pilots and not FA's?
And how will a full body scan or groping prevent it?
 
rwguinn said:
Huh? What does that have to do with the exception for pilots and not FA's?
And how will a full body scan or groping prevent it?
Click to expand...
Flight attendants aren't at the controls, so they can't fly a plane into the ground.

If they want to bring down a plane, they probably have to do pretty much what a passenger who wanted to bring down a plane would have to do. One way is to get on a plane with explosive underwear. The hope is that a full body scan or groping will prevent people (passengers or flight attendants) who are wearing explosive underwear from getting on the plane.

Pilots are at the controls, so they can simply fly a plane into the ground. They don't need explosive underwear to bring down a plane, so there is no particular need to make sure they haven't donned any.
 
Travis said:
Bob Blaylock said:
How do we know that you aren't planning on carrying out some massive terrorist attack in the near future, and that you don't have a good supply of guns, ammunition, explosives, and other destructive materials with which to carry out this attack? Shouldn't we be sending police officers into your home on a regular basis, to thoroughly search it, in order to make sure you're not storing up such materials in preparation for such an attack?
Click to expand...

This is such a wildly different situation that it's ludicrous.

Do you really think the only people that should go through any security to get on a plane are those that have been fingered by the FBI as a potential terrorist?
Click to expand...


No, it is not different at all.

In either situation, we are discussing someone about whom there is no evidence that the person in question is a criminal, or has any intent to commit a crime; and whether the possibility that that person might commit a crime that may result in considerable harm to others justifies forcing that person to submit to an intense, burdensome, and invasive violation of his person, effects, and privacy in order to prove that he's not a criminal.

In the United States, the answer is plain and simple. See the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution.
 
bokonon said:
Flight attendants aren't at the controls, so they can't fly a plane into the ground.

If they want to bring down a plane, they probably have to do pretty much what a passenger who wanted to bring down a plane would have to do. One way is to get on a plane with explosive underwear. The hope is that a full body scan or groping will prevent people (passengers or flight attendants) who are wearing explosive underwear from getting on the plane.

Pilots are at the controls, so they can simply fly a plane into the ground. They don't need explosive underwear to bring down a plane, so there is no particular need to make sure they haven't donned any.
Click to expand...
Flight Attendants have access to the cockpit...
 
rwguinn said:
Flight Attendants have access to the cockpit...
Click to expand...
Only with the pilots' permission, and the pilot is still in control of the plane.

The pilot who is already in control of the plane just has to point the nose down and stay in his seat to crash it.

The flight attendant would have to overpower the pilot or pilots, take control of the airplane, and fly it into the ground.

However, if a flight attendant enters the cockpit wearing exploding underwear, he can instantly disable both the plane and the pilots thereby causing the plane to crash.

It is easier to become a flight attendant than it is to become a pilot.

Therefore, one can argue that passengers are somewhat safer if it is more difficult for flight attendants to board a plane with exploding underwear.

A pilot, on the other hand, wields the same measure of danger with or without exploding underwear. The rogue pilot does not need to gain access to the cockpit and take control; he is already there, and in control. All he needs to do is wait for his co-pilot to take a bathroom break, lock the cockpit door, and head for the hills, the valleys, or the iconic building. Ensuring that he can't detonate his drawers adds nothing to passenger safety.
 
Meanwhile, al Qaeda gloats:
"To bring down America we do not need to strike big," the editors write. With the "security phobia that is sweeping America, it is more feasible to stage smaller attacks that involve less players and less time to launch" thereby circumventing U.S. security, they conclude.
Click to expand...
Congratulations for handing al Qaeda such a sweeping victory Mr. Pistole and Ms. Napolitano!
 
Clearly, the fact that Al Qaeda is targeting cargo instead of civilians means that civilians are safer. Why do you regard that as a sweeping victory for Al Qaeda?
 
It sounds like al-Qaeda's plan is to run a bunch of "attacks" and then let the US government terrorise it's citizens in the name of "safety".
 
bokonon said:
Clearly, the fact that Al Qaeda is targeting cargo instead of civilians means that civilians are safer. Why do you regard that as a sweeping victory for Al Qaeda?
Click to expand...
Because the TSA has made us look like a nation of paranoid cowards living in constant fear.

bokonon, maybe you'll be the first in this thread to explain how the new strip-search scanners and genital groping will make us safer?
 
WildCat said:
Because the TSA has made us look like a nation of paranoid cowards living in constant fear.

bokonon, maybe you'll be the first in this thread to explain how the new strip-search scanners and genital groping will make us safer?
Click to expand...
They keep certain kinds of weapons off of planes. They make certain kinds of people hesitate to attempt to board planes carrying weapons.

I think we are a nation of paranoid cowards living in fear. I thought the reaction to 9/11 was excessive, and oppose the erosion of civil liberties in the name of security.

I just think it's funny that millions of people who merely shrugged "Well, as long as it makes me safer" and "Well, it's an inconvenience, but if you have nothing to hide..." when they were pawing through luggage suddenly consider it an outrage that they're pawing groins. Puritans; gotta love 'em.
 
Last edited:
bokonon said:
Yes.

If you were in a traffic accident and were taken unconscious to the emergency room, it's entirely possible that someone you don't know would see you naked, and maybe stick a knife in you. Every time I move to a new city and go for a physical, somebody I don't know sees me naked and sticks a finger up my butt. The discomfort you feel is all in your head.


Well, Puritan, while the policy is in place, you can completely avoid the "invasion of privacy" by choosing some other form of transportation. If you know the policy and choose to fly, you're choosing to have your privacy invaded, just as you are when you schedule a physical.
Click to expand...
This is the stupidest argument I've ever heard. How about if they require strip searches? Are you going to be so complacent then? You have your line. Everyone has their line. We're disagreeing on where the line is drawn, but we all have one.

The question isn't about safety. The question is are these searches even effective at preventing terrorism if they aren't in place at all airports, and they aren't conducted on every person?

Here's how I get past this search: Three people in a row loaded to the gills with non-metallic explosives or metallic but disguised explosives. The odds of TSA searching one of them is very small. The odds of TSA searching all three of them is next to nil. Presto, I've guaranteed that at least two of them get on planes.

What, searching everyone takes too long? Well, [insert the lame justification for scan searches here, only direct it towards waiting times]. Surely it's worth waiting in line a few more hours to guarantee your safety, right? How about strip searches for all passengers? Totally worth your safety, right? I mean, which would you rather - a few molestations and sexual assaults, plus a few traded nude pics, or die a horrible fiery flaming death?

What's that? Even using TSA is voluntary, and any airport can choose to use its own security? Well... gosh, I'm stumped, then.

These scans are meaningless, worthless, and unnecessary. It's coming very close to the Stanford prison experiment. It's definitely unreasonable (ripe for violation of 4th Amendment lawsuits).

Imagine if seat belts were worn by only one out of every 50 people.
 
More ways to defeat this system: Go through security, full-bodied, etc. Once you're through, go to a steak place, drop your knife on the floor, ask for another, eat with the new knife, surreptitiously pocket the 'dirty' knife. That's a motherhumping steak knife, folks - AFTER cavity searches or whatever.

Another: purchase broken iPad or laptop and carry on with roll of electrical tape. Bring through security. Bring into bathroom. Shatter screen, pick largest shard, wrap with electrical tape, put in coat pocket. Put entire rest of laptop into case, secure with tape so it's not noisy. Weapon bigger than box cutter, and if you stab someone it can break off inside them, which you can point out on the plane when you do your deed.

Another: bring lots of 3oz bottles full of explosive gel, working with friends. go into bathroom, consolidate.

If I can think of this, so can anyone.
 
Weapons? Weapons other than bombs are irrelevant now anyway! Terrorists only took over a plane with box cutters because no one knew their intentions. Most probably figured they'd land in Cuba or Mexico if they cooperated.

Now post-9/11 we could hand out machetes on the boarding ramp and terrorists couldn't take over a plane, not if people know that cooperation means death. Anyone pulling a box cutter or nail clippers now is going to get torn apart by a mob, if they're that stupid I say let them try.

As has been suggested here chemical wands and bomb sniffing dogs are basically all you'd need, and a metal detector to keep guns off the plane (while also probably useless for hijacking they could be used to depressurize the cabin).

Since a large enough bomb to down a plane can be fit into the anus, you'll get 1,000x more security out of one trained dog than any amount of backscatter machines or patdowns.. Too bad trained dogs probably aren't much good for large no-bid contracts huh?
 
It's becoming quite clear that no one is being rational. The pat downs only happen if you refuse the scanner and there is no rational reason to refuse the scanner. And why does everyone keep disparaging the poor TSA people? Seriously people.

corbin said:
Personally, I am not really offended by the frisking but I can understand why others are. Its not a simple pat down - they run their hands along the entire length of your leg from ankle to groin...
Click to expand...

Which is different from any other pat down how? I've never had one that didn't have that included.

corbin said:
As I said before, however, this has issues other than being personally offensive for some people. It violates the 4th amendment, is an example of government overstepping its power into a private sphere, and is coercive to the individual.
Click to expand...

How so?

corbin said:
Why wouldn't it? Airlines with inadequate security would go out of business really quick.
Click to expand...

So them going out of business after hundreds if not thousands of people are dead is alright.

corbin said:
And I think the FDA is ineffective and unnecessary, but that's a different argument. Being a statist, I'm sure you have no problem with a third party called government setting up expensive bureaucracies that help their friends, just as long as you are told its for your benefit.
Click to expand...

Oh. Apparently we have nothing more to talk about if you think bizarre things like that. Good bye.


Wildy said:
By the way I found this account of such a pat down while looking for something related to the discussion.

Do you think that is really necessary in the name of "safety"?

And Travis, is the above similar to the searches that you go through when you go to court?
Click to expand...

Yep. Except to get into court you have to also let them search in your ears and up your nose with flashlights.

We've had multiple murders in our local court house. The most famous one was the Ellie Nessler thing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom