TSA Outrage Etc...

[biteme]

No groping go straight to jail, do not pass go, pay bond, hit the road
No one says NO to TSA, you’re rights have been taken away
So much for the revised no groping children they keep telling everyone about


TSA says one thing in front of congress and does the opposite in the field. Why is TSA allowed to lie to law makers and the public with no repercussions, just business as usual, Is TSA above the law, are they protected by the executive branch of Government
does the White House have TSA’s back?



http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/...h-went-too-far

"She's been using the phrase 'search raped' because it was that thorough. She says it was nearly to her crotch," says Steitler. "I feel the chair should have option of either scanner or searches, but automatically we're being thrown to being patted down."
Steitler says they've complained to the TSA about their experience at Rochester International Airport, but all they've received back is a standard form letter.
"Just the standard reply to everything: 'In order to fly you have to be searched,'" says Steitler.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20...rt-altercation

Police arrest mother for not allowing TSA to grope child
A 41-year-old Clarksville woman was arrested after Nashville airport authorities say she was belligerent and verbally abusive to security officers, refusing for her daughter to be patted down at a security checkpoint.
Andrea Fornella Abbott yelled and swore at Transportation Security Administration agents Saturday afternoon at Nashville International Airport, saying she did not want her daughter to be “touched inappropriately or have her “crotch grabbed,” a police report states.
After the woman refused to calm down, airport police said, she was charged with disorderly conduct and taken to jail. She has been released on bond.

TSA policy revised

The arrest comes on the heels of public outrage over a video showing a pat-down of a 6-year-old girl at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport. The April video prompted a new policy that took effect last month in which airport security screeners must try to avoid invasive pat-down searches of children.

[carolinablue]

I am so shocked by this! Who would ever dream that the government would implement actions which would invade not only citizens' private lives but also their private persons? I have an idea how to stop this particular action, but you'd need a lot of people, and they'd have to be willing to go to jail for a few hours, and it would cost. At every damn airport we can reach have a group people buy tickets to someplace cheap. When they're being grope...I mean patted down, every single one of them would start moaning orgasmically, and yelling "Oh YES baby, Oh GOOOOOOOD, right there, YES, YES!" Over and over. Imagine the ruckus! Sure you'll get arrested, but imagine the publicity! News coverage! The TSA's policy of physical searches would become a political hot potato and there's an excellent chance the bastards will have to discontinue it. Even if it doesn't you'll have caused a lot of trouble, annoyed the hell out of the government and made some people laugh! The down side is that Homeland Security could drag you off to Gitmo or someplace else where political embarrassments are hidden, and you wouldn't see the light of day for decades. I'd do it just to see what would happen, but I'm old, have nothing to lose and am running out of people to horrify.

[Dakota Valkyrie]

I have never been groped by the TSA. WTF??? Am I chopped liver? Even the pat-downs have been polite and clinical.

I don't complain about the physician's assistant mashing up my tits, I don't think I'd get offended by someone else doing their job. If I ever do, I think I'm intelligent enough to find another mode of transportation.

[biteme]

I am so shocked by this! Who would ever dream that the government would implement actions which would invade not only citizens' private lives but also their private persons? I have an idea how to stop this particular action, but you'd need a lot of people, and they'd have to be willing to go to jail for a few hours, and it would cost. At every damn airport we can reach have a group people buy tickets to someplace cheap. When they're being grope...I mean patted down, every single one of them would start moaning orgasmically, and yelling "Oh YES baby, Oh GOOOOOOOD, right there, YES, YES!" Over and over. Imagine the ruckus! Sure you'll get arrested, but imagine the publicity! News coverage! The TSA's policy of physical searches would become a political hot potato and there's an excellent chance the bastards will have to discontinue it. Even if it doesn't you'll have caused a lot of trouble, annoyed the hell out of the government and made some people laugh! The down side is that Homeland Security could drag you off to Gitmo or someplace else where political embarrassments are hidden, and you wouldn't see the light of day for decades. I'd do it just to see what would happen, but I'm old, have nothing to lose and am running out of people to horrify.

I think I've mentioned I did that, started moaning during the groping, the agents became very angry and it all got really ugly

[biteme]

I have never been groped by the TSA. WTF??? Am I chopped liver? Even the pat-downs have been polite and clinical.

I don't complain about the physician's assistant mashing up my tits, I don't think I'd get offended by someone else doing their job. If I ever do, I think I'm intelligent enough to find another mode of transportation.

If it was everyone equal you might have a point if we could pat down suspected Muslim terrorist, I'd say right on. But in reality it seems non of the freebies are for safety reasons
It's the beginning of a police state, you know the kind we used to go to war against



http://www.redstate.com/laborunionre...ng-his-rights/
It’s okay for the TSA to grope nuns, but Muslim women are exempt (nothing beyond the head and neck). We cannot profile potential terrorists, but it’s okay to molest three-year olds (except we won’t call it molest because it’s the government doing it). Muslim men won’t go through body imaging machines, but it’s okay to grope non-Muslims’ genitals.

http://barbadosfreepress.wordpress.c...-catholic-nun/

Muslim TSA security guard searches Catholic nun’s groin for bombs and weapons

[Dakota Valkyrie]

http://www.redstate.com/laborunionre...ng-his-rights/
It’s okay for the TSA to grope nuns, but Muslim women are exempt (nothing beyond the head and neck). We cannot profile potential terrorists, but it’s okay to molest three-year olds (except we won’t call it molest because it’s the government doing it). Muslim men won’t go through body imaging machines, but it’s okay to grope non-Muslims’ genitals.

Please link me up to where the TSA guidelines say that Muslim women are exempt - not to some blog that reports it as fact but in further reading (of links they provided) reveals it is a recommendation to the TSA by Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Did the TSA accept the recommendation?

I can write all kinds of recommendations. Doesn't mean the TSA is going to listen. Obviously does mean people will believe it if I put it in a blog.

If you don't go through the machine (or get flagged by the operator or just get the unlucky random number) you get a pat down. Refuse a pat down and you get to take the train, bus, car, boat, or walk. Flying is not a RIGHT. If I don't like the rules, I am free to buy my own plane or find other transportation.

I have a friend that had part of his leg blown off in Vietnam by a kid who's parents used him as a bomb. I don't feel comfortable putting ANYTHING past people that will wear bombs in their tighty whiteys.

Although, I think the pat downs will probably find more than the silly machines ever will. Not that either is the best answer.

[gentlenurse82]

What bothers me is that the groping of children will confuse in the children's minds what they are taught about "bad touch" or "stranger danger." I am going to have a tricky time explaining to my children, the next time we fly, why it's ok for these grownup/strangers to touch them in their private places - who are NOT doctors, simply airport security people. What's next? Having them groped by 'security' to get into sports stadiums and theme parks? The kids probably wouldn't think it that odd after being groped at the airport.
Also, I am curious to know the type of people eagerly applying for the "I get to grope children all day" jobs at the airport. I'm not saying that I think that most of those people in the TSA are pedophiles, but do I think that pedophiles would actively seek that position within the TSA? Well, duh!

[Dakota Valkyrie]

What bothers me is that the groping of children will confuse in the children's minds what they are taught about "bad touch" or "stranger danger." I am going to have a tricky time explaining to my children, the next time we fly, why it's ok for these grownup/strangers to touch them in their private places - who are NOT doctors, simply airport security people.

You figured out how to explain the doctors, can't you figure out how to explain someone else who is doing their job? Surely your children, if they can understand doctors, can also learn the distinction of airport security versus other situations. In both cases, a parent is usually right there.

Also, I am curious to know the type of people eagerly applying for the "I get to grope children all day" jobs at the airport. I'm not saying that I think that most of those people in the TSA are pedophiles, but do I think that pedophiles would actively seek that position within the TSA? Well, duh!

No more so than rapists seek to be gynos or pedos be pediatricians. Yes it happens but isn't that why the nurse stays in the office with you at your exam, you stay with your child during his exam, and hopefully you stay with them during a pat down. Well, duh!

My 6yo grandson flew (alone) to see me for a month. He didn't get a pat down on either leg of his trip. I don't think anyone even bothered to explain to him the possibility. (I didn't - his mom may have on the other end). If it had happened, it would have been taken in stride. Why cause drama and trauma??

[Obsolete]

I would rather be "groped" at airport security than be blown up on a plane. If you don't like it....don't fly. There are other forms of transportation.

As for the Mulsim exemption...there is no such thing. During a committee hearing TSA Chief John Pistole specifically stated that NO ONE, not even Muslim women are exempt from being searched.

Biteme, it seems you have a hard on for TSA and for some reason you believe they are the spawn of all that is evil...with all of your postings about them I would be surprised if you weren't on a no fly list already.

SEN. JOHN ENSIGN (R-NEVADA): Are you going to, you know, allow certain groups to be exempted from that because of, you know, religious beliefs?

PISTOLE: Senator, we try to be sensitive to each individual and in groups that have particular sensitivities as to whether it's head-wear or certain garb or sensitivities about being viewed or touched and everything. So we try to be sensitive to those issues. At the same time, the bottom line is we have to ensure that each person getting on each flight has been properly screened. And so we have options such as, if somebody does not want to go through the advanced imaging technology, it is optional. They would just do the walk- through metal detector and then--and have a pat-down that would identify any possible items.

They can request private screenings. So if they don't want to be screened in public, they can go to a private area, have a witness with them.

And so we try to address those concerns in every way possible, recognizing, again, in the final analysis, everybody on that flight wants to be assured with the highest level of confidence that everybody else on that flight has been properly screened, and including me and you and everybody.

ENSIGN: I realize this is a difficult question for you, but--so are you going to make no exceptions, then?

PISTOLE: Everybody...

ENSIGN: I know you're trying to responsibly accommodate.

PISTOLE: Yes.

ENSIGN: But within those reasonable accommodations, OK, let's just say that--that, listen, you know, my religious whatever does not allow me to be touched by somebody else, does not allow me to go through that screening. So what happens in those cases?

PISTOLE: So a very small percentage of people would have and will continue to receive pat-downs. So if somebody comes through...

ENSIGN: So they have to at least go through the pat-down, if not the screening?

PISTOLE: No, they--unless there is an alarm in the walk- through metal detector or they opt out of the advance imaging technology, they would in all likelihood never receive a pat-down. So it's--the pat-down is only a very, very small...

ENSIGN: No, no, I--let me--maybe not (inaudible) my question. If somebody is--a random screening. I just got randomly screened at the airport. For whatever reason, my number seems to come up quite often.

But if that, you know, happens and either the imaging, OK, was one of the options or, you know, the pat down--let's just say I don't--I don't want either of them because of religious--because of religious reasons. What happens to me?

PISTOLE: So while I respect and we respect that person's beliefs, that person's not going to get on an airplane.

ENSIGN: OK. And there will be no exceptions because of religion.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20...ag=mncol;title

[biteme]

You figured out how to explain the doctors, can't you figure out how to explain someone else who is doing their job? Surely your children, if they can understand doctors, can also learn the distinction of airport security versus other situations. In both cases, a parent is usually right there.

No more so than rapists seek to be gynos or pedos be pediatricians. Yes it happens but isn't that why the nurse stays in the office with you at your exam, you stay with your child during his exam, and hopefully you stay with them during a pat down. Well, duh!

My 6yo grandson flew (alone) to see me for a month. He didn't get a pat down on either leg of his trip. I don't think anyone even bothered to explain to him the possibility. (I didn't - his mom may have on the other end). If it had happened, it would have been taken in stride. Why cause drama and trauma??

You're not serious are you equating becoming a doctor, to a no education needed, everyone is welcomed TSA groper job

[Dakota Valkyrie]

You're not serious are you equating becoming a doctor, to a no education needed, everyone is welcomed TSA groper job

Compare not equate. Certain people with certain predilections are always going to be drawn to certain jobs. Although working at Chuck E Cheese, the pediatricians office, or the local Y are far more likely to come into contact with kids and those at the TSA. People that are wanting to grope them will seek out positions to get them.

Lack of a college education does not mean you get your jollies feeling up kids... in fact, Dr. Earl Bradley had HUGE access to kids because of his position and people were blinded by his "title". We've featured more pedophile doctors on this site than we have TSA agents... just sayin'

[Saffron]

I used to handle security matters for an airline and I still am "in on" the loop. The law does not allow exemptions for Muslim women or men, they are still examined but, like everyone else, they can go into a private area and only be touched by someone of the same sex. EVERYONE has that same right if they ask. The only thing Muslims (or anyone with a religious head covering) have been allowed is to not take off their head coverings SO LONG AS the metal detector doesn't go off and a tactile exam doesn't indicate something is being hidden inside the covering. A jewish person would have the same right to not take off his yarmulke so long as it didn't set off metal detectors or have a hard lump hiding something. It is a religious exemption but it isn't that they can't examine it but that they don't have to take it off if they can demonstrate nothing is being hidden inside.

As for suspected terrorists not being searched. 100% NOT TRUE at all. First of all, suspected terrorists are on No Fly Lists or Watch Lists, they either can't fly at all or if merely on a watch list, have to go through more security screening as a selectee. Also, anyone who fits a certain profile is searched. One way tickets purchased that day with cash, you will be physically screened. If you hold a passport from certain countries, you will be physically screened. There are others, too.

Believe it or not, you can not tell a Muslim by looking at them. There are plenty of blonde haired, blue eyed people who have converted to Islam. They can be just as militant (and sometimes more so) than people born Muslim. They grow old and elderly and have nothing else left to live for... just like people from Iran or Iraq or anywhere. There are people who think that martyring themselves or their children will buy them a bigger, better place in Heaven or whatever their religion chooses to call it. You can not tell WHO is going to carry a bomb by looks, it can be a baby, a blue eyed blond, an arabic-looking person, an elderly man in a wheelchair... anyone could be a terrorist and you can't tell by looking because radical ideas and beliefs aren't exclusive to any one ethnic appearance or age. You cant choose a book by it's cover as the adage goes.

[biteme]

Please link me up to where the TSA guidelines say that Muslim women are exempt - not to some blog that reports it as fact but in further reading (of links they provided) reveals it is a recommendation to the TSA by Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Did the TSA accept the recommendation?

I can write all kinds of recommendations. Doesn't mean the TSA is going to listen. Obviously does mean people will believe it if I put it in a blog.

If you don't go through the machine (or get flagged by the operator or just get the unlucky random number) you get a pat down. Refuse a pat down and you get to take the train, bus, car, boat, or walk. Flying is not a RIGHT. If I don't like the rules, I am free to buy my own plane or find other transportation.

I have a friend that had part of his leg blown off in Vietnam by a kid who's parents used him as a bomb. I don't feel comfortable putting ANYTHING past people that will wear bombs in their tighty whiteys.

Although, I think the pat downs will probably find more than the silly machines ever will. Not that either is the best answer.

I can't give you any TSA guidelines because they don't have any, all I can go by is independent observers
TSA avoids the whole woman muslim issue by not randomly selecting woman wearing a hijab
TSA does first, than gives itself the right when someone complains, there are no guidelines that can't be abused if a groper deems necessary
http://www.dreamindemon.com/forums/s...d-To-Lawmakers

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/20...port-pat-downs
Napolitano May Exempt Muslims From Airport Pat-Downs

[biteme]

Compare not equate. Certain people with certain predilections are always going to be drawn to certain jobs. Although working at Chuck E Cheese, the pediatricians office, or the local Y are far more likely to come into contact with kids and those at the TSA. People that are wanting to grope them will seek out positions to get them.

Lack of a college education does not mean you get your jollies feeling up kids... in fact, Dr. Earl Bradley had HUGE access to kids because of his position and people were blinded by his "title". We've featured more pedophile doctors on this site than we have TSA agents... just sayin'

Except the numbers game favors pedophile TSA gropers, huge hiring binge by TSA and no education needed, which means with TSA both educated and uneducated pedophiles can become gropers

[Dakota Valkyrie]

Except the numbers game favors pedophile TSA gropers, huge hiring binge by TSA and no education needed, which means with TSA both educated and uneducated pedophiles can become gropers

OMG Next thing you know they will be raping us in the lines! Those guys have to escalate to get their jollies. I guess I will take the train next trip.

[biteme]

I used to handle security matters for an airline and I still am "in on" the loop. The law does not allow exemptions for Muslim women or men, they are still examined but, like everyone else, they can go into a private area and only be touched by someone of the same sex. EVERYONE has that same right if they ask. The only thing Muslims (or anyone with a religious head covering) have been allowed is to not take off their head coverings SO LONG AS the metal detector doesn't go off and a tactile exam doesn't indicate something is being hidden inside the covering. A jewish person would have the same right to not take off his yarmulke so long as it didn't set off metal detectors or have a hard lump hiding something. It is a religious exemption but it isn't that they can't examine it but that they don't have to take it off if they can demonstrate nothing is being hidden inside.

As for suspected terrorists not being searched. 100% NOT TRUE at all. First of all, suspected terrorists are on No Fly Lists or Watch Lists, they either can't fly at all or if merely on a watch list, have to go through more security screening as a selectee. Also, anyone who fits a certain profile is searched. One way tickets purchased that day with cash, you will be physically screened. If you hold a passport from certain countries, you will be physically screened. There are others, too.

Believe it or not, you can not tell a Muslim by looking at them. There are plenty of blonde haired, blue eyed people who have converted to Islam. They can be just as militant (and sometimes more so) than people born Muslim. They grow old and elderly and have nothing else left to live for... just like people from Iran or Iraq or anywhere. There are people who think that martyring themselves or their children will buy them a bigger, better place in Heaven or whatever their religion chooses to call it. You can not tell WHO is going to carry a bomb by looks, it can be a baby, a blue eyed blond, an arabic-looking person, an elderly man in a wheelchair... anyone could be a terrorist and you can't tell by looking because radical ideas and beliefs aren't exclusive to any one ethnic appearance or age. You cant choose a book by it's cover as the adage goes.

Yes I know if they are on a no flight list they will be stopped, and true you can't tell a book by its cover, but at the same time
it seems
Not all Muslims are terrorist
but all terrorist are Muslim
Yeah I know we've had our own home grown so called terrorist, just going with the world wide majority
So why do we have to play the PC game and BS everyone when we could be serious about security, sure do random checks,
rub my groin, but dam don't pass over obvious muslims, to run your hand down the crack of my ass, just to be politically correct, that's not security, it's BS when being politically correct supersedes security

[Saffron]

The point is you can't TELL if someone is Muslim by the way they look, much less Radical Muslim. I know some Muslims who you wouldn't know were Muslim if they didn't TELL you. They are German by heritage, blonde and blue-eyed, you can't tell. Grandma might have been a Black Panther back in the day (there were white Black Panthers called White Panthers as well), she might also be a Radical Muslim, she might be hiding a bomb just like anyone else. There is no way to tell RELIGION or BELIEFS by looking at someone. Look again at the airport footage of the 9/11 hijackers, they do not have on "Muslim" clothing, they are not wearing long beards or turbans. A terrorist is going to try to look as normal and "American" as possible. They are well aware that the more Arabic they appear the more scrutiny they will get. They don't want scrutiny.

[biteme]

The point is you can't TELL if someone is Muslim by the way they look, much less Radical Muslim. I know some Muslims who you wouldn't know were Muslim if they didn't TELL you. They are German by heritage, blonde and blue-eyed, you can't tell. Grandma might have been a Black Panther back in the day (there were white Black Panthers called White Panthers as well), she might also be a Radical Muslim, she might be hiding a bomb just like anyone else. There is no way to tell RELIGION or BELIEFS by looking at someone. Look again at the airport footage of the 9/11 hijackers, they do not have on "Muslim" clothing, they are not wearing long beards or turbans. A terrorist is going to try to look as normal and "American" as possible. They are well aware that the more Arabic they appear the more scrutiny they will get. They don't want scrutiny.

I'd agree with you if it wasn't for the Politically correct crap, as of right now your best chance of getting explosives on board is to be a women with a hijab or a man with a turban

[TheMorningStar]

This is a Quixotic battle. The American people have proven they are more than happy to give up their 4th amendment rights. End of story. We are a bunch of frightened sheep. A nation of selfish pussies who all think they are going to live forever and have no thought to the long term ramifications of the decisions currently being made.

If the majority of the population was unhappy about this, it would only take a few days of almost nobody flying to bring the entire airline industry to its knees. I, for one, have voted with my feet and avoid flying at all costs.

Despite the complete destruction of the 4th amendment, there have been 25,000 security breaches since 2001 (source: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/25000-...ry?id=14056038 ).
So the next time you get felt up before flying, remember it is only giving you a warm fuzzy feeling, not making you any more secure. Bye bye 4th amendment for zero gain (unless you have political power). Every time you fly you are approving what they are doing which is not making you any safer, but enjoy the feeling that it does.

[Obsolete]

TSA spokesman Nicholas Kimball said the breaches represented a tiny fraction of 1 percent of the 5.5 billion flyers using U.S. airports since 2001.

"Breach" is also defined broadly and can mean accidental violations that pose no real public danger, he said.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/...8741310544000/

I don't know about you but to me 1% isn't that bad.

and from the link TMS posted above:

One TSA spokesperson said the breach count was also misleading because a breach is defined as anything from a misplaced checked bag to someone who was caught in the act of breaching security, according to the AP

[TheMorningStar]

1% sucks major donkey dick

EDIT:
First of all this is what they are admitting to. If you think that is the actual number, I have a bridge to sell you.
Secondly, this is a prime example of statistics being used to give you that warm and fuzzy feeling again.

TSA spokesman Nicholas Kimball said the breaches represented a tiny fraction of 1 percent of the 5.5 billion flyers using U.S. airports since 2001.

How many of those flyers tried to get contraband aboard or tried to get into a secure area hmmmm?
How do we know this doesn't represent 100% of attempts being successful?

[Dakota Valkyrie]

This is a Quixotic battle. The American people have proven they are more than happy to give up their 4th amendment rights. End of story. We are a bunch of frightened sheep. A nation of selfish pussies who all think they are going to live forever and have no thought to the long term ramifications of the decisions currently being made.

If the majority of the population was unhappy about this, it would only take a few days of almost nobody flying to bring the entire airline industry to its knees. I, for one, have voted with my feet and avoid flying at all costs.

Despite the complete destruction of the 4th amendment, there have been 25,000 security breaches since 2001 (source: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/25000-...ry?id=14056038 ).
So the next time you get felt up before flying, remember it is only giving you a warm fuzzy feeling, not making you any more secure. Bye bye 4th amendment for zero gain (unless you have political power). Every time you fly you are approving what they are doing which is not making you any safer, but enjoy the feeling that it does.

I tend to agree with you ALTHOUGH I am also not blind to the fact that terrorists want to use our airways to incite terror upon us. For some reason, they think (and have proven) that planes make really good guided weapons of terror. Maybe instead we should just yawn at what happened on 9/11 or other terror activities that may come?

If we're not allowed to search people (much less scan them) what do you propose? While far from a perfect method, it seems a helluva lot better than doing nothing and letting anyone with anything onto the plane.

I don't view it so much as a violation as any of my rights because there are a myriad of alternate methods of travel. People may not WANT to avail themselves of them but that is their choice. Convenience is not a right either.

The 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I guess your definition of "unreasonable" and mine are different. If I feel that MY right to be "secure in my person" is violated by a pat down, I will not fly. Personally, my person feels more secure knowing that the chances of going KABLOOEY are less than they would be if every Tom, Dick, and Harry could waltz freely onto my chosen mode of conveyance.

Los Angeles makes me feel not secure in my person. I don't view it as a right to go there. I just don't go there.

[Saffron]

If you get caught not informing about a security breach however minor it is a minimum $10,000 fine (more the more egregious), if you report, there may not be any fine at all if you can demonstrate that you have taken care of the root issue that caused the breach. Believe me, most incidents are reported.

[Dakota Valkyrie]

How many of those flyers tried to get contraband aboard

I guess tried to breach security in Vegas. Was only a 3 day trip so only had carry on. Contraband on my possession. They confiscated my SNOWGLOBE (because the liquid is sealed in... like that makes it anydifferent than a liquid explosive in a shampoo bottle? )

[TheMorningStar]

I tend to agree with you ALTHOUGH I am also not blind to the fact that terrorists want to use our airways to incite terror upon us. For some reason, they think (and have proven) that planes make really good guided weapons of terror. Maybe instead we should just yawn at what happened on 9/11 or other terror activities that may come?

If we're not allowed to search people (much less scan them) what do you propose? While far from a perfect method, it seems a helluva lot better than doing nothing and letting anyone with anything onto the plane.

I don't view it so much as a violation as any of my rights because there are a myriad of alternate methods of travel. People may not WANT to avail themselves of them but that is their choice. Convenience is not a right either.

The 4th Amendment:

I guess your definition of "unreasonable" and mine are different. If I feel that MY right to be "secure in my person" is violated by a pat down, I will not fly. Personally, my person feels more secure knowing that the chances of going KABLOOEY are less than they would be if every Tom, Dick, and Harry could waltz freely onto my chosen mode of conveyance.

Los Angeles makes me feel not secure in my person. I don't view it as a right to go there. I just don't go there.

Using planes as missiles is the only thing that has changed. You lived through the 70's so you know what I mean.

I have nothing against putting an air marshal with a loaded M-16 in every cockpit as well as a self destruct to be armed and detonated by the pilot as a last resort.

Flying is dangerous in and of itself (much like LA). Even with 100% security you can still crash and burn. In the 70's we were all aware of the added danger of hijacking and bombs and yet we didn't have this reaction. Why do this now when the only thing that has changed is using planes as missiles? I gave a reasonable (and cheaper) solution above that doesn't destroy our 4th amendment rights.

With regards to what I call reasonable search, you are correct that we disagree. I don't find it reasonable to search an old lady's diaper or a six year old while skipping Hadji's turban. If we are going to do this, lets do it right and have everybody strip searched, cavity searched and x-rayed with no exceptions. Period. I'm serious, go all out or its only a dog and pony show.

Nobody is holding a gun to your head to get on a plane. You get on there knowing the dangers but now they are obscuring the still definite danger while stripping your 4th amendment rights and Americans stepped right in line.

[Dakota Valkyrie]

Nobody is holding a gun to your head to get on a plane. You get on there knowing the dangers but now they are obscuring the still definite danger while stripping your 4th amendment rights and Americans stepped right in line.

No body is being forced to have anything searched. Nobody is holding a gun to your head to get on a plane. They are perfectly free to leave the airport and seek other modes of travel. I don't see what's so hard about that.

[TheMorningStar]

No body is being forced to have anything searched. Nobody is holding a gun to your head to get on a plane. They are perfectly free to leave the airport and seek other modes of travel. I don't see what's so hard about that.

Nobody is being forced to fly. If you think it is too dangerous because they stopped the unreasonable searching then feel free to leave the airport and seek other modes of travel. I don't see what's so hard about that.

[Dakota Valkyrie]

Nobody is being forced to fly. If you think it is too dangerous because they stopped the unreasonable searching then feel free to leave the airport and seek other modes of travel. I don't see what's so hard about that.

Either way, there will be a bitchfest from one side or the other. I just happen to be on the side I like at the moment. Not always so lucky.

[TheMorningStar]

Even you should be pissed that they are obscuring the danger. I know the erosion of the 4th amendment but none of us know what that cost has gained us. We do not know how much safer this has made us. The only way to be sure would be to search everybody as I stated above. The airline business model in America would fall apart if we did that so they do it half assed to make you FEEL safe. I, for one, would rather know where I stand danger wise than having a false sense of security purchased at one hell of a price.

[Dakota Valkyrie]

Even you should be pissed that they are obscuring the danger. I know the erosion of the 4th amendment but none of us know what that cost has gained us. We do not know how much safer this has made us. The only way to be sure would be to search everybody as I stated above. The airline business model in America would fall apart if we did that so they do it half assed to make you FEEL safe. I, for one, would rather know where I stand danger wise than having a false sense of security purchased at one hell of a price.

I do agree with you. Most of what happens is for show. A half way decent terrorist will be able to have their way with our airplanes. Even if we DO search everyone. But because I do not view flying as a right but a choice, I choose to submit myself.

It's the half-assed sense of security that is keeping us flying. The industry would also fall apart without it.

I'm still amazed we get to wear in-flight panties. After all, we have to take off our shoes because of that damned Richard Reed. The underwear bomber should have sent TSA into all kinds of overdrive with that.