# What's up with TSA?



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Just made it through security and wonder why they don't screen everyone who gets on airplanes. There was no line at all at the so-called pre section, just six government employees standing around. My wife went through pre. Didn't have to take off her shoes. Laptop wasn't checked. The TSA employees were very nice and professional. They offered people who were standing in line pre applications so that they, too, could go through the fast lane next time.

Maybe it's just me, but I want everyone who gets on a plane checked to the greatest extent possible. I don't care how young or old they are. In my wife's case, she got her boarding pass well before we got to the airport. She knew what level of screening there would be 24 hours in advance.

I'm no security expert, but this seems stupid. Similarly, why aren't courthouse employees required to go through metal detectors? Are they somehow immune from going mad and shooting people? I, too, am often waved through when I forget about my cell pphone because I am often in the courthouse and they know me.

Just seems like we remember Pearl Harbor better than 911 sometimes.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Sounds like a nice combo of naziism & commie russia. I'm more than happy that the vast majority of my trips have nothing to do with the U.S.. .. As Forest's mama said...Stupid is as stupid does.

I suppose you're a big fan of police "stop & search programs"?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

The thing I've noticed with TSA, and it's incredibly frustrating, is that every airport seems to follow a different protocol. 

Some you have to completely empty your pockets of everything, some just metal (cash is ok). Some want your watch off, some don't. Little things that just catch a person off guard. 

A lot of what goes on from a security standpoint seems silly. Shaking down little kids with casts on their arms is a bit much. Just profile for God's sake!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

The thing with profiling is, you're taking a chance. I don't want to take chances. I want those kids to go through body scanners and metal detectors, same as everyone else. I want old people to go through metal detectors and body scanners, same as everyone else. I want everyone to take their shoes off, period. I do not ever want to have the sickening feeling we all had in 2001 because basic, common sense security protocols weren't followed. The terrorists then weren't masterminds. It wasn't a sophisticated plot. It was evil people taking advantage of us being stupid. Next thing you know, they'll start allowing box cutters on planes again if you have a note from school.

It seems incongruous to me that we have a government that insists that it has to have the capability to spy on anyone it chooses without court warrants, then issues 24-hour advance notice as to whether you will be thoroughly screened when boarding an airplane.

As for different standards at different airports, amen. The St. Louis airport is the absolute worst. Takes forever to get through, every time (but I much prefer a long line to no screening). In pre-9/11 days, I was once grilled over a small backpack filled with compact discs. The screener did not know what a CD was--I had a CD player with me and explained, but she called over a supervisor to confirm that CD's are used to play music, not create mayhem. This was in 2000. That same year on a different trip, I was required to open my luggage because a screener spotted something suspicious in the x-ray. It was a toothbrush. Better safe than sorry, of course, but a toothbrush?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

This is the rare event in which I'm going to agree with SG. Just profile. Kids? Kids in casts? Kids in wheelchairs? Old ladies in wheelchairs? Pregnant women? Families boarding with young children? Not of certain sky pilot boogiewoogie religions...etc...


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

justonemore said:


> Sounds like a nice combo of naziism & commie russia. I'm more than happy that the vast majority of my trips have nothing to do with the U.S.. .. As Forest's mama said...Stupid is as stupid does.
> 
> I suppose you're a big fan of police "stop & search programs"?


I am absolutely not a fan of stop and frisk. A street is a public place. An airplane is not. No one forces anyone to get on an airplane. You are talking apples and oranges.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

And not all of us want our daughters being felt up snd sexually abused by TSA idiots.... Not all of us want to give up our freedoms for your sense of security.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

justonemore said:


> This is the rare event in which I'm going to agree with SG. Just profile. Kids? Kids in casts? Kids in wheelchairs? Old ladies in wheelchairs? Pregnant women? Families boarding with young children? Not of certain sky pilot boogiewoogie religions...etc...


I guess you're right. Terrorists would never use children to get a bomb on board an airplane. Never. When's the last time you heard of a terrorist harming an innocent child?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> I am absolutely not a fan of stop and frisk. A street is a public place. An airplane is not. No one forces anyone to get on an airplane. You are talking apples and oranges.


Security is security and you seem to be big on the topic to the point of disallowing common sense and personal freedoms for your sense of security.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

justonemore said:


> And not all of us want our daughters being felt up snd sexually abused by TSA idiots.... Not all of us want to give up our freedoms for your sense of security.


They don't do pat-down searches anymore, silly. Haven't in a long time.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> I guess you're right. Terrorists would never use children to get a bomb on board an airplane. Never. When's the last time you heard of a terrorist harming an innocent child?


Did you bother to read the last line I wrote ? Can you add 1 plus 1?

Just to remind you....

Not of certain sky pilot boogiewoogie religions...


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

justonemore said:


> Did you bother to read the last line I wrote ? Can you add 1 plus 1?
> 
> Just to remind you....
> 
> Not of certain sky pilot boogiewoogie religions...


I am totally missing your point. What the heck are you trying to say?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

justonemore said:


> Security is security and you seem to be big on the topic to the point of disallowing common sense and personal freedoms for your sense of security.


I am a big fan of common sense and the Constitution. The two are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

ok. just picture it...... A family of 4. 2 scientists. Atheists. Parents and Kids are local. Children are young and follow parents ideologies as to (lack of) invisible booogiewoogies. Booogwooogies do not control these people or their thoughts. Parents and kids have an extensive travel history with no past issues or problems. 

A family of 3. Teen son that shares ideology of parents known to frequent extremist religious group. Born and raised in country hostile to Us/Europe/etc.

This is profiling.


1 plus 1 plus 1 plus 1.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

My wife frequently gets groped by TSA. It is annoying, to say the least. 
Gurdon


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

I'm just not sure of your problem....Did you not go through metal detectors? Did they not wand and/or patdown those that continually failed? Did they not put your hand luggage through a scannner? Did they not physically search bags that contained suspicious items? Did they not check your id/passport & boarding pass several tines? Does everyone really have to take off their shoes because one guy tried something and failed?

I went through 3 airports today and took off my shoes once in Prague(and only because I was wearing steel shanked Alden's). My kids and wife sure didn't have to take off their shoes. We went through the metal detectors once. Nothing beeped and that was that. They tossed our luggage through the scanners. The baby's wipes were treated as suspect and they looked through the bag until they found what they wanted. 

I don't see any reason whatsoever to make anything any more difficult. One or two incidents doesn't mean that I wish to have myself and my fellow Americans give up our freedoms for a few scardy cats that wants the government to protect them at the cost of everyone else.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

justonemore said:


> ok. just picture it...... A family of 4. 2 scientists. Atheists. Parents and Kids are local. Children are young and follow parents ideologies as to (lack of) invisible booogiewoogies. Booogwooogies do not control these people or their thoughts. Parents and kids have an extensive travel history with no past issues or problems.
> 
> A family of 3. Teen son that shares ideology of parents known to frequent extremist religious group. Born and raised in country hostile to Us/Europe/etc.
> 
> ...


Oh, I get it. How silly of me.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

justonemore said:


> I'm just not sure of your problem....Did you not go through metal detectors? Did they not wand and/or patdown those that continually failed? Did they not put your hand luggage through a scannner? Did they not physically search bags that contained suspicious items? Does everyone really have to take off their shoes because one guy tried something and failed? I went through 3airports today and took off my shoes once in Prague(and only because I was wearing steel shanked Alden's). My kids and wife sure didn't have to take off their shoes. We went through the metal detectors once. Nothing beeped and that was that. They tossed our luggage through the scanners. The baby's wipes were treated as suspect and they looked through the bag until they found what they wanted. I don't see any reason whatsoever to make anything any more difficult. One or two incidents doesn't mean that I wish to have myself and my fellow Americans give up our freedoms for a few scardy cats that wants the government to protect them at the cost of everyone else.


Know anyone who died in the WTC attacks?

Didn't think so.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> They don't do pat-down searches anymore, silly. Haven't in a long time.


haha. Too funny. Just a little article on the tsa agent that patted down the ebola nurse.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> Know anyone who died in the WTC attacks?
> 
> Didn't think so.


Do you???

Didn't think so.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Gurdon said:


> My wife frequently gets groped by TSA. It is annoying, to say the least.
> Gurdon


Did she decline a body scan?

It is my understanding that you have a choice: You can go through a body scan, or you can submit to a patdown.

Hijackings and terrorist attacks are also annoying, to say the least. I have never flown El Al, but I have friends who have, and I'm told that they don't F around--entire suitcases dumped on the ground and searched by hand and dog, with passengers left do do the repacking and no apologies made. And no hijackings in a long, long, long time. I'm all for civil liberties. But, again, you make an informed choice when you get on an airplane and flying, like so many other things, is a privilege, not a right. Don't like the security procedures, stay on the ground.

Since we're on the subject, my wife just pulled out a small bottle of Baileys (her favorite beverage). "How'd you get that on the plane?" I asked. "It was within size limit," she answered. Never knew that before. No more overpriced, crappy whisky for me...


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> Know anyone who died in the WTC attacks?
> 
> Didn't think so.


And in any case...The deaths of 3'000 are not a good enough reason to enslave 300 million with fearmongering and retraction of personal freedoms.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

justonemore said:


> Do you???
> 
> Didn't think so.


No, I did not. But I still grieved. Hard. I wept, and I am not ashamed to say so. Everyone in this country grieved, whether you knew any of the victims or not. The weeks after 9/11 were like nothing I have seen in America in my life. The entire psyche of this nation changed, some for bad, some for good. I remember that people were nicer to each other than they ever had been, before or since. There was a palpable sense of "we're all in this together," with people showing common courtesies to each other. No cutting in lines at grocery stores or banks or gas stations. Saying "I'm sorry" for small things when you wouldn't have previously said anything. It was as close as I'll probably ever see to a united United States, and not just in a militaristic sense.

If you could go back to that time and propose the sort of hit-and-miss screening that's in place now, I think people would be outraged. Yes, there was deserved grumbling back then over some silly stuff, such as a ban on fingernail clippers. But for the most part, people understood and accepted it, because what happened was so awful and so gut wrenching that they would put up with inconveniences aimed at helping ensure that we would never have to go through anything like that again. And now, it seems, we're once again becoming complacent.

I am outraged over the excesses of the NSA, and I consider Snowden to be a patriot. I think that the government has overstepped its bounds when it comes to snooping. But I think that we are making a dangerous mistake in relaxing security at airports.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

justonemore said:


> I'm just not sure of your problem....Did you not go through metal detectors? Did they not wand and/or patdown those that continually failed? Did they not put your hand luggage through a scannner? Did they not physically search bags that contained suspicious items? Did they not check your id/passport & boarding pass several tines? Does everyone really have to take off their shoes because one guy tried something and failed?
> 
> I went through 3 airports today and took off my shoes once in Prague(and only because I was wearing steel shanked Alden's). My kids and wife sure didn't have to take off their shoes. We went through the metal detectors once. Nothing beeped and that was that. They tossed our luggage through the scanners. The baby's wipes were treated as suspect and they looked through the bag until they found what they wanted.
> 
> I don't see any reason whatsoever to make anything any more difficult. One or two incidents doesn't mean that I wish to have myself and my fellow Americans give up our freedoms for a few scardy cats that wants the government to protect them at the cost of everyone else.


Part of the issue might be that you live in a nation that doesn't have any enemies to speak of. It is also my understanding that people in Europe are not allowed to pack heat the way that they are in the United States.

Frankly, it is repulsive to hear you or anyone say that the deaths of 3,000 people don't warrant state-of-the-art security measures to prevent more deaths. It is hard to imagine a more selfish or naive statement. It's not like the terrorists have gone away. Google "beheadings."


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> It is my understanding that you have a choice: You can go through a body scan, or you can submit to a patdown.
> 
> ...


So the choice is that you will either take pornographic photos of my 2 & 7 year old daughters or you will feel them up, look up their rears and perhaps put a finger in their crotch.... Beautiful...Bravo. What a choice. What freedom. Just what I put my life on the line for when joing the U.S: Army...


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> Part of the issue might be that you live in a nation that doesn't have any enemies to speak of. It is also my understanding that people in Europe are not allowed to pack heat the way that they are in the United States.
> 
> Frankly, it is repulsive to hear you or anyone say that the deaths of 3,000 people don't warrant state-of-the-art security measures to prevent more deaths. It is hard to imagine a more selfish or naive statement. It's not like the terrorists have gone away. Google "beheadings."


The terrorists have beaten you as they have terrorized you enough to give up your freedoms. Worse yet, you are willing to sacrifce the freedoms of all your fellow americans for your personal feeling of safety.

As someone that joined the Army during a period of conflict in order to protect the freedoms of my fellow Americans, I have no problem stating that the few should be sacrificed for the freedoms of the many. That you think the warm and fuzzy feeling of the few is more important than the collective is in my opinion beyond repulsive and certainly not in the true spirit of the United States of America. Just because you fell for the fearmongering doesn't mean we all have to get sucked into it hook, line and sinker.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> It is also my understanding that people in Europe are not allowed to pack heat the way that they are in the United States.
> ."


Packing heat? We have a conscript military here in Switzerland. The vast majority of males serve. The vast majority of males keep their military weapons at home. We have public ranges everywhere out in the countryside. Recreational shooting is widespread in Switzerland and encouraged by the government (particularly for the members of the militia). Just as the U.S. has the NRA, Swiss firearms-related rights are supported by the organization protell.



32rollandrock said:


> Part of the issue might be that you live in a nation that doesn't have any enemies to speak of.
> ."


Hmmm. There might be a lesson in there somewhere but it's probably too difficult to understand....


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

You understand incorrectly. TSA has several times pulled my wife aside and patted her down. I have observed this when we travel together. The explanation given is that the pat downs are random. 

As to your description of El Al practice, it sounds dreadful and, to put it as delicately as I can, totalitarian. If your description is accurate I will avoid El Al.

Drunks on planes are a safety/security issue. Airline regulations prohibit the consumption of alcohol other than that provided, and thereby monitored, by them. How is it that you feel it OK to violate one security regulation while defending another?

Your statement, "Don't like the security procedures, stay on the ground." makes the erronious assumption that flying is some sort of special privelege. Commercial aviation is a private commercial activity, airline flights are a commodity. The only priviledge involved is whether you have the money for the fare. Government regulations interfering with this private commercial activity should be rational and defensible.

As the comments made on this thread suggest, the government's so-called security measures appear to be inconsistent and inadequate. The government's refusal to demonstrate the necessity, let alone the effectiveness, of these procedures, means we can't tell whether or not there is a lawful basis for having these regulations. 

Gurdon


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Gurdon said:


> You understand incorrectly. TSA has several times pulled my wife aside and patted her down. I have observed this when we travel together. The explanation given is that the pat downs are random.
> 
> As to your description of El Al practice, it sounds dreadful and, to put it as delicately as I can, totalitarian. If your description is accurate I will avoid El Al.
> 
> ...


Drunks on planes are prohibited? As I write this, I have consumed no fewer than five Wild Turkeys in the space of less than two hours, with the stewards inquiring if I would like another. Drunks aren't banned on airplanes, only drunks who can't control themselves and make menaces of themselves.

Thanks for clearing up the patdown procedures. Your explanation makes sense.

As for "totalitarian," look up the definition. It does not apply to checks of people who voluntarily go to airports and provide money so that they can get onto airplanes. Have you ever heard of Entebbe? The reality of the situation is, lots of Arabs hate Israelis, and hijackings of Israeli aircraft were once commonplace. Hijackings of Israeli aircraft are no longer commonplace, and there is a reason for that, and it is not because they posted "Please Don't Hijack" signs at the airport. As you note, you are free to avoid El Al. That's the beauty of a free world.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Sorry, the quote function appears to be missing on this hit-and-miss airplane WiFi, but as to justonemore's statement on firearms in Switzerland, can anyone in Switzerland get on the Internet and buy a gun with no questions asked? They can here.

And there absolutely is a lesson here about Switzerland lacking enemies. I don't think that it is overly difficult to understand, but it is fraught with issues we'll never agree or come close to resolving. As if that's ever stopped us...


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> Sorry, the quote function appears to be missing on this hit-and-miss airplane WiFi, but as to justonemore's statement on firearms in Switzerland, can anyone in Switzerland get on the Internet and buy a gun with no questions asked? They can here.
> 
> And there absolutely is a lesson here about Switzerland lacking enemies. I don't think that it is overly difficult to understand, but it is fraught with issues we'll never agree or come close to resolving. As if that's ever stopped us...


The top 4 for gun ownership are the U.S., Serbia, Yemen, and Switzerland. As to percentage of households that have firearms, the U.S. does win but only by a rather small amount. In 2010, 31% of American households had at least one firearm. Switzerland was at 29%. Gun owners in the U.S. do tend to own more weapons than gun owners in Switzerland. I'm not sure as to ordering online but I do know that firearms can be shipped so I would guess there's nothing keeping me from ordering one from someone online and having them ship it. We do have gun shows, gun shops, private sales, military weapons (kept at home during and after active service), etc. I would assume there's a bit of a b(l)ack market as well but I'm not in the position to state for certain.


----------



## ChrisRS (Sep 22, 2014)

justonemore said:


> So the choice is that you will either take pornographic photos of my 2 & 7 year old daughters or you will feel them up, look up their rears and perhaps put a finger in their crotch.... Beautiful...Bravo. What a choice. What freedom. Just what I put my life on the line for when joing the U.S: Army...


An argument reduced to its absurd level to make a point. Not effective in my opinion.
I can't advocate for a one size fits all search. Profiling provides for a risk measured approach. Keen behavior observation in security lines can be effective although I question the number of persons who can do this appropriately.

Also, moving to a one size fits all strict security approach just moves the terrorist target from the plane to the airport. All they look for is the societal impact, whether airborne or land-based.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

AIIEEEE! _*TERRORISTS!*_ I'm scared. Quick! Let's peek and pry into every aspect of everybody's lives, dismantle due legal process, let's imbue a false sense of security against a statistically negligible threat.

Yeah, that's it. Problem solved. I feel fine now.

Now, where's my soma?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> Part of the issue might be that you live in a nation that doesn't have any enemies to speak of. It is also my understanding that people in Europe are not allowed to pack heat the way that they are in the United States.
> 
> Frankly, it is repulsive to hear you or anyone say that the deaths of 3,000 people don't warrant state-of-the-art security measures to prevent more deaths. It is hard to imagine a more selfish or naive statement. It's not like the terrorists have gone away. Google "beheadings."


How many beheadings of British or American citizens can be related to terrorism? How many can be linked to wars or civil wars in the Middle East?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

ChrisRS said:


> An argument reduced to its absurd level to make a point. Not effective in my opinion.


Better get used to it!!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Chouan said:


> How many beheadings of British or American citizens can be related to terrorism? How many can be linked to wars or civil wars in the Middle East?


I would say that 100 percent of beheadings are accomplished by terrorists. That's why they cover their faces with cloth when they do it.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Now, where's my soma?


The medication or the women's underwear? Both seem appropriate for this thread.


----------



## freeasabird (Jun 29, 2014)

Now, were the TSA officers wearing OCBD......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

justonemore said:


> The terrorists have beaten you as they have terrorized you enough to give up your freedoms. Worse yet, you are willing to sacrifce the freedoms of all your fellow americans for your personal feeling of safety.
> 
> As someone that joined the Army during a period of conflict in order to protect the freedoms of my fellow Americans, I have no problem stating that the few should be sacrificed for the freedoms of the many. That you think the warm and fuzzy feeling of the few is more important than the collective is in my opinion beyond repulsive and certainly not in the true spirit of the United States of America. Just because you fell for the fearmongering doesn't mean we all have to get sucked into it hook, line and sinker.


I appreciate your military service, but if you served in Vietnam--and I'll try to be delicate about this--you weren't protecting my freedom or anyone else's freedom. You were cannon fodder in a senseless interventionist conflict rooted in lies from the White House that only delayed the inevitable at the cost of nearly 60,000 American lives and countless Vietnamese lives. This is not a slam on you. Veterans from any era should be applauded and respected. But not all wars are created equal.

As for freedom, show me the part of the Constitution that guarantees anyone the right to get on an airplane without being screened. It just ain't there. The Fourth Amendment applies to unreasonable search, and searching people before they board planes (or walk into courthouses) is reasonable in my book.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I'm sorry, but isn't the disregard for the individual in favor of the collective antithetical to our republic and it's founding principles? We're not the Borg after all.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

ChrisRS said:


> An argument reduced to its absurd level to make a point. Not effective in my opinion.
> I can't advocate for a one size fits all search. Profiling provides for a risk measured approach. Keen behavior observation in security lines can be effective although I question the number of persons who can do this appropriately.
> 
> Also, moving to a one size fits all strict security approach just moves the terrorist target from the plane to the airport. All they look for is the societal impact, whether airborne or land-based.


So, you--and others who say we shouldn't be searching everyone who gets on a plane--are saying you object because you consider it invasive? Or because it's a matter of inconvenience that requires you to get to the airport a half-hour earlier than you otherwise would? Or because you think terrorists wouldn't take advantage of gaps by, say, getting a boarding pass 24 hours in advance, as my wife did, then going with the shoe bomb routine if that boarding pass has "Pre" printed on it?

Get to the airport a half-hour early. Put on your big-boy pants and understand that you're not being searched because someone wants to get their jollies. I am assuming that everyone who favors the current approach is also a supporter of Snowden, because the invasions of privacy that he has exposed are a much greater, and more unjustified, invasion of privacy than anything that happens at an airport.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> As for freedom, show me the part of the Constitution that guarantees anyone the right to get on an airplane without being screened. It just ain't there. The Fourth Amendment applies to unreasonable search, and searching people before they board planes (or walk into courthouses) is reasonable in my book.


So according to you... the only freedoms that Americans should enjoy are those in the constitution? Really? As you seem to support dumping peoples luggage and having attack dogs go over it, I'lll have to disagree with your version of "reasonable".

That one or two people cause problems is not a reason to inflict martial style law on the entire populace of 300 million. Heck...A few dead judges and lawyers is most likely a good thing anyways. If enough end up in the grave then perhaps we'll start to see change in favour of the populace. Safety for "authorities" is not a good reason to quell the masses.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> I would say that 100 percent of beheadings are accomplished by terrorists. That's why they cover their faces with cloth when they do it.


Or Jihadis, soldiers of Islam, as they see themselves. Just because people do terrible things doesn't make them terrorists. Conventionally, executioners have always been masked or anonymised in some way.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> So, you--and others who say we shouldn't be searching everyone who gets on a plane--are saying you object because you consider it invasive? Or because it's a matter of inconvenience that requires you to get to the airport a half-hour earlier than you otherwise would? Or because you think terrorists wouldn't take advantage of gaps by, say, getting a boarding pass 24 hours in advance, as my wife did, then going with the shoe bomb routine if that boarding pass has "Pre" printed on it?
> 
> Get to the airport a half-hour early. Put on your big-boy pants and understand that you're not being searched because someone wants to get their jollies. I am assuming that everyone who favors the current approach is also a supporter of Snowden, because the invasions of privacy that he has exposed are a much greater, and more unjustified, invasion of privacy than anything that happens at an airport.


Do you have any clue as to how much information is collected by the U.S. whenever an individual needs/wants to fly? And this is all preflight. Being raped further at the airport is beyond safety and stretches beyond the absurd.

Oh, by the way... My little daughters don't have big boy pants. They are little girls that wouldn't understand why some TSA a*s is feeling them up or putting them in a machine that shows them fully naked. They will feel the way they are being treated which is being assaulted by a complete stranger... Not so much different from any other sexual assault in my opinion.

If you're that scared, stay off of airplanes. If you're the only crybaby in the group, why should everyone have to adjust for you?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> I'm sorry, but isn't the disregard for the individual in favor of the collective antithetical to our republic and it's founding principles? We're not the Borg after all.


It's not disregard for the individual. It's to keep people, aka individuals, safe. If you want to talk about founding principles, fine. Why can't I take a gun on an airplane, or a courthouse? My Second Amendment rights are being trampled! Similarly, so what if I have a felony or two, plus a history of schizophrenia that has resulted in me scaring the bejeebers out of the neighborhood? There's no asterisk in the Second Amendment saying I can't have a gun. It says "people," and, like it or not, criminals and the mentally ill are people too.

Exact same principle when it comes to searches in airports. I'm too young to recall, but I doubt that DB Cooper went through a metal detector. You see, these searches came about because, absent searches, people were hijacking airplanes right and left. Absent effective searches, 20 terrorists were allowed to take box cutters onto planes, and look what happened. And after 40 years of air piracy in one form or another, you and others are still whining about having to take shoes off before getting on planes, even though it's been shown that you can get a shoe bomb onto an airplane. I find that amazing.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Chouan said:


> Or Jihadis, soldiers of Islam, as they see themselves. Just because people do terrible things doesn't make them terrorists. Conventionally, executioners have always been masked or anonymised in some way.


Oh. I suppose that's also why they demanded ransom before the beheadings. I suppose that's why they freed some people--civilians--when ransom was paid and beheaded others--also civilians--when ransom was not paid. That doesn't sound like any kind of war I'm familiar with. Sounds an awful lot like terrorism.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I'm sorry, but isn't the disregard for the individual in favor of the collective antithetical to our republic and it's founding principles? We're not the Borg after all.


There is reasonable disregard and unreasonable disregard.

That's why we have courts, judges and internet chat!!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> As for freedom, show me the part of the Constitution that guarantees anyone the right to get on an airplane without being screened. It just ain't there. The Fourth Amendment applies to unreasonable search, and searching people before they board planes (or walk into courthouses) is reasonable in my book.


I have to agree with this. One can just as well travel by train or by car, but getting on board a plane is an affirmative act and therefore certain conditions apply. The same way I need a license to drive a car, ID to enter certain buildings and open bank accounts and to work.

The state issue a license to me to practice my profession. One can make the argument as to what is practical in terms of TSA searches and what methods would be most effective, but as to the principle of being searched or scanned I think that's fine.

There seems to be a notion out there in the ether that taking off one's shoes or going through a body scanner is somehow akin to giving up our freedoms and the coming of a police state. I'm not exactly sure where this comes from except to say that folks need to stop watching so many TV shows.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

justonemore said:


> So according to you... the only freedoms that Americans should enjoy are those in the constitution? Really? As you seem to support dumping peoples luggage and having attack dogs go over it, I'lll have to disagree with your version of "reasonable".
> 
> That one or two people cause problems is not a reason to inflict martial style law on the entire populace of 300 million. Heck...A few dead judges and lawyers is most likely a good thing anyways. If enough end up in the grave then perhaps we'll start to see change in favour of the populace. Safety for "authorities" is not a good reason to quell the masses.


One or two people can kill a lot of people. Or perhaps you haven't kept up with the news.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> There is reasonable disregard and unreasonable disregard.
> 
> That's why we have courts, judges and internet chat!!


Of the 3, internet chat certainly carries the most weight!....:rolleyes2:


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

justonemore said:


> Do you have any clue as to how much information is collected by the U.S. whenever an individual needs/wants to fly? And this is all preflight. Being raped further at the airport is beyond safety and stretches beyond the absurd.
> 
> Oh, by the way... My little daughters don't have big boy pants. They are little girls that wouldn't understand why some TSA a*s is feeling them up or putting them in a machine that shows them fully naked. They will feel the way they are being treated which is being assaulted by a complete stranger... Not so much different from any other sexual assault in my opinion.
> 
> If you're that scared, stay off of airplanes. If you're the only crybaby in the group, why should everyone have to adjust for you?


Not asking TSA to grope your daughters. I'm asking them to take off their shoes so they can be put through scanners. Is that too much to ask? Tell you what. Have your daughters get in touch with me and I will explain to them why this is necessary. I'm pretty sure a five-year-old could grasp it.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> It's not disregard for the individual. It's to keep people, aka individuals, safe. If you want to talk about founding principles, fine. Why can't I take a gun on an airplane, or a courthouse? My Second Amendment rights are being trampled! Similarly, so what if I have a felony or two, plus a history of schizophrenia that has resulted in me scaring the bejeebers out of the neighborhood? There's no asterisk in the Second Amendment saying I can't have a gun. It says "people," and, like it or not, criminals and the mentally ill are people too.
> 
> Exact same principle when it comes to searches in airports. I'm too young to recall, but I doubt that DB Cooper went through a metal detector. You see, these searches came about because, absent searches, people were hijacking airplanes right and left. Absent effective searches, 20 terrorists were allowed to take box cutters onto planes, and look what happened. And after 40 years of air piracy in one form or another, you and others are still whining about having to take shoes off before getting on planes, even though it's been shown that you can get a shoe bomb onto an airplane. I find that amazing.


Hijacking planes right and left you say? Can you give me 30 quick examples?

Any info as to how it's been "proven" that you can get a shoe bomb on a plane?

20 boxcutters. God that makes me cry and laugh at the same time.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

justonemore said:


> So according to you... the only freedoms that Americans should enjoy are those in the constitution? Really? As you seem to support dumping peoples luggage and having attack dogs go over it, I'lll have to disagree with your version of "reasonable".
> 
> That one or two people cause problems is not a reason to inflict martial style law on the entire populace of 300 million. Heck...A few dead judges and lawyers is most likely a good thing anyways. If enough end up in the grave then perhaps we'll start to see change in favour of the populace. Safety for "authorities" is not a good reason to quell the masses.


No, some of it is addressed in the Declaration of Independence: "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." That, plus what's in the Constitution, pretty much covers the waterfront. Of course, I can't enjoy life or pursue happiness if I'm dead because someone snuck a shoe bomb on an airplane because they weren't thoroughly screened. There's also what FDR said. Freedom of speech and worship were already covered by the Constitution, so let's take a look at freedom from want and, especially, freedom from fear. I say that thorough screenings help ensure my freedom from fear.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

justonemore said:


> Hijacking planes right and left you say? Can you give me 30 quick examples?
> 
> Any info as to how it's been "proven" that you can get a shoe bomb on a plane?
> 
> 20 boxcutters. God that makes me cry and laugh at the same time.


How's the beard going, Rip Van Winkle?

This statement is so silly as to not merit a reply except to point out that there have not been 30 hijackings of aircraft, there have been hundreds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Just an fyi....From the 1960 through the 1980's there were roughly 80 hijackings worldwide (many of them US bound or originating). 

From 9/11/2001, worldwide there have been a total of 14 hijackings.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> How's the beard going, Rip Van Winkle?
> 
> This statement is so silly as to not merit a reply except to point out that there have not been 30 hijackings of aircraft, there have been hundreds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking


I asked you to list them. Not link to wikipedia. i guess you couldn't really do it.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> How's the beard going, Rip Van Winkle?
> 
> This statement is so silly as to not merit a reply except to point out that there have not been 30 hijackings of aircraft, there have been hundreds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking


You beat me to it.

By the way, it looks like a list to me.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Just an fyi....From the 1960 through the 1980's there were roughly 80 hijackings worldwide (many of them US bound or originating).
> 
> From 9/11/2001, worldwide there have been a total of 14 hijackings.


So 2.5 a year (80/30) versus 1.1 a year. I guess it's an improvement. I would still argue that the number is quite small when one considers that there are 100'000 flights a day (36,500,000 a year). 1 out of 18 million is certainly not enough to treat everyone as potential hijackers (nor is 1 criminal out of 18 million people enough to treat everyone as potential criminals).


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> You beat me to it.
> 
> By the way, it looks like a list to me.


Yes it's a list by 32rnr... Just like this...

Omaha 1962
Chicago 1963
New York 1964

If they were soooo popular as he'd like to make out he'd surely remember just a few of them versus having to post a wiki link.

I'm also curious as to how often the crybabies travel by air. "oooh. I got on a plane for the first time in 5 years and there was a muslim guy. and an indian guy. and a..... and they didn't even shove a probe up anyone's rear or use attack dogs to sniff through the overturned luggage. That pair of ballerina shoes that that 6 yerar old girl is wearing look rather suspect to me. They should have her take off all her clothes and bend over so that we can all feel safe".


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Oh, quit being silly. I'm wasting enough work time on this thread as it is without going to the trouble of typing out a list when there's a link that accomplishes the same goal. It would be nice if you could or would say, you know what, I was mistaken. Apparently not in your vocabulary.



justonemore said:


> Yes it's a list by 32rnr... Just like this...
> 
> Omaha 1962
> Chicago 1963
> ...


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> Oh, quit being silly. I'm wasting enough work time on this thread as it is without going to the trouble of typing out a list when there's a link that accomplishes the same goal. It would be nice if you could or would say, you know what, I was mistaken. Apparently not in your vocabulary.


Yes. 1 problem out of 18 million. The same thinking that leads to racism. I suppose you'd say that the holocaust was justified because there were a few problematic "homosexuals, retards, alcoholics, and jews". At least that only lasted a few years and there were plenty of opposition groups. We're going on 13 with the current charade and have people begging for more.

It would be nice if you said the same but I have a sneaky feeling that you and I are thinking alike on one thing...And that's that our opinion isn't "mistaken".

Speaking of silly... 1 extra hijacking a year doesn't quite equate to the hijacking culture you seemed to allude to. Maybe if it were higher. Once a day seems minimal to make claims that there was such a high amount but once a year is basically nothing.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

justonemore said:


> Yes. 1 problem out of 18 million. The same thinking that leads to racism. I suppose you'd say that the holocaust was justified because there were a few problematic "homosexuals, retards, alcoholics, and jews". At least that only lasted a few years and there were plenty of opposition groups. We're going on 13 with the current charade and have people begging for more.
> 
> It would be nice if you said the same but I have a sneaky feeling that you and I are thinking alike on one thing...And that's that our opinion isn't "mistaken".
> 
> Speaking of silly... 1 extra hijacking a year doesn't quite equate to the hijacking culture you seemed to allude to. Maybe if it were higher. Once a day seems minimal to make claims that there was such a high amount but once a year is basically nothing.


I don't see that we're thinking alike on anything here, but I may have missed something.

As for profiling, absolutely wrong answer. The vast, vast majority of Muslims and people of color are not terrorists and love life and peace as much as anyone. Some people seem to suggest or think that it is OK to trample on their rights, ignoring that "all men are created equal " stuff. It is interesting to me that some people who see searches as violations of their rights as free Americans don't have issues with profiling. And let's not forget, mad men come in all stripes these days. The Unabomber was a white male. The vast majority of mass shooters have been white males. By that measure, shouldn't we be concentrating on white males at security checkpoints while giving passes to Muslims and people of color?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

You two deserve one another!!


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

You are avoiding my question. There are rules against consuming alcohol on board airliners that is not furnished by the airline. You appear to think it OK to violate this rule. And, BTW, drunks can lawfully be denied boarding at the discretion of airline staff. 

The gratuitously humiliating thuggish behavior of Israeli airport security personnel, which you describe, is neither necessary nor desirable to enhanced security. Such behavior does, however, inculcate fear and acceptance of authoritarian actions by armed and violent agents of the state. I used the term totalitarian, as that is how you distinguish between extra-judicial punishment inflicted on suspects or perps (authoritarian), from extra-judicial punishment inflicted randomly regardless of innocence or guilt (totalitarian). Read Hannah Arandt's "On Totalitarianism" if you require further definition.

As to the US government's policies and procedures, they are clearly inconsistent and ineffectual. They refues to make a convincing public case that their actions are an effictive means of making travel secure. Until they do so, we are forced to put up with unpleasant and degrading treatment by agents of the state who have the authority to seriously interrupt our lives and confiscate our property, without explanation, and leaving us without recourse.

Gurdon


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> Oh. I suppose that's also why they demanded ransom before the beheadings. I suppose that's why they freed some people--civilians--when ransom was paid and beheaded others--also civilians--when ransom was not paid. That doesn't sound like any kind of war I'm familiar with. Sounds an awful lot like terrorism.


Kidnapping then demanding a ransom sounds more like banditry than terrorism. It sounds, to me, like warfare in the Middle ages, which is where, culturally, ISIL are. 
On a different point though, can you identify any beheadings carried out by terrorists in the US? Or in Europe? Terrorism usually involved bringing terror to one's target state in order to achieve the aim of the terrorist. 9/11 11-M and 7/7 were, clearly, terrorist attacks. Capturing and killing foreigners in one's own country is hardly going to bring fear and terror to Americans and Europeans living in the US and in Europe, unless their governments and their news media *want* the American and European people to live in fear. Read 1984 again.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Kidnapping then demanding a ransom sounds more like banditry than terrorism.


That settles it then, banditry it is!!

Until they chop off their heads and put it on TV.

Make that the three of you.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Make that the three of you.


 Ahhh my poor little buddy. Are you feeling lonely? I'm sure Hitch would like some company. If he hasn't already taken in with Petrik that is. :devil: ...


----------



## Travel57 (Apr 23, 2014)

@OP Do you actually think the TSA does any type of security job? It's all security theatre. Personally, I want to stop wasting money, time, and resources, and go back to pre 9/11 security.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Travel57 said:


> @OP Do you actually think the TSA does any type of security job? It's all security theatre. Personally, I want to stop wasting money, time, and resources, and go back to pre 9/11 security.


Amen. Let the boohooers stay at home, drive, or take a boat if they're too scared. No one is forcing them to fly


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Travel57 said:


> @OP Do you actually think the TSA does any type of security job? It's all security theatre. Personally, I want to stop wasting money, time, and resources, and go back to pre 9/11 security.


Can't agree with you there.

I'm not suggesting that TSA is infallible or anything close--there have certainly been some screw-ups post 9/11 where people who should not have been allowed on planes managed to get onto planes. But it is, in my estimation, better than the previous system under which airlines paid the bills and had every incentive to skimp on salaries and other expenses. Pre 9/11, I saw screeners that I would have sworn came straight from sheltered workshops. They're not Einsteins today, perhaps, but better than before, at least in my own personal experience. What I am suggesting is that every incremental improvement that can be made should be made. No way to prove a negative, but I think that the odds of success if the same 9/11 plot were tried today would be lower than in 2001, when it was successful. And I think that the numbers previously cited in this thread speak for themselves. The number of hijackings has plummeted since security at airports was beefed up after 9/11. So, if theatrics work, I'm all for theatrics. I don't think that airport security works in a vacuum--certainly, there are other components, such as do-not-fly lists, that have likely played a role. But I can't understand why we would relax security protocols to the extent we have when what we have been doing appears to have been, in the main, effective.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> I'm sorry, but isn't the disregard for the individual in favor of the collective antithetical to our republic and it's founding principles? We're not the Borg after all.


Hmm.. well if we are to resort to a silly analogy from a sci-fi show then I counter thusly: "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

Stick* that *in your pipe and smoke it.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Travel57 said:


> @OP Do you actually think the TSA does any type of security job? It's all security theatre. Personally, I want to stop wasting money, time, and resources, and go back to pre 9/11 security.





justonemore said:


> Amen. Let the boohooers stay at home, drive, or take a boat if they're too scared. No one is forcing them to fly


Better yet- all the scaredy cats should go live on an island together, spying on one another all day long and performing cavity searches to their heart's content until they feel as safe as safe can be.

This would allow the rest of us to live our lives as free men, just like God intended.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Hmm.. well if we are to resort to a silly analogy from a sci-fi show then I counter thusly: "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".
> 
> Stick* that *in your pipe and smoke it.


Why you green blooded......:biggrin:


----------



## ChrisRS (Sep 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> As for profiling, absolutely wrong answer. The vast, vast majority of Muslims and people of color are not terrorists and love life and peace as much as anyone. Some people seem to suggest or think that it is OK to trample on their rights, ignoring that "all men are created equal " stuff. It is interesting to me that some people who see searches as violations of their rights as free Americans don't have issues with profiling. And let's not forget, mad men come in all stripes these days. The Unabomber was a white male. The vast majority of mass shooters have been white males. By that measure, shouldn't we be concentrating on white males at security checkpoints while giving passes to Muslims and people of color?


But we aren't talking about mass shooters in this instance. Your point is to the TSA and hijackings. From your "list", what group(s) dominates?
How about this, look for white men before security lines and then muslims during and after?
Dammit, I reduced my own argument to absurdity.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

ChrisRS said:


> Dammit, I reduced my own argument to absurdity.


See, you're learning... It's just the way it has to be done with some of these folks here. It's as if it's the only thing they'll understand.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> Why you green blooded......:biggrin:




As I recall the terrorists in the Star Trek universe were called the Maquis. The United Federation of Planets always struck me as the type of totalitarian Empire which should fill a reasonable man with dread. Jim Kirk and his ghastly colonial adventurism. Bah!

Speaking of fictional terrorists and make-believe Imperialism - let's get this thread back on track: how far are the advocates of the infringement of civil liberty toward the avoidance of incident willing to go? If, as example, it was postulated that we had our thoughts monitored at all times would this be a step too far? It would guarantee absolute safety for everybody from all crime. It's acceptable then, right?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Shaver said:


> If, as example, it was postulated that we had our thoughts monitored at all times would this be a step too far? It would guarantee absolute safety for everybody from all crime. It's acceptable then, right?


No, we here in America have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

That extends to thoughts in my own mind.

It does not however, extend to thoughts shared on the internet.

But just in case, I keep the shiny side of the tin foil facing out!!


----------

