Don't trade your junk's liberty for security.

Plan B:  Everybody age 18 and over strips naked, has their clothes and carryone luggage incinerated on the spot, and is issued an orange jumpsuit with the word "SAFE" written on the back in big black letters.  Nobody under the age of 18 is allowed to fly.  Sorry, kids!  Ever heard of Skype?

Except Muslims.  They go right through, and fly free. 

Ultimately, conservatives' opposition is what Kerry in #5 says: It doesn't provide security.  It's pointless.

Conservatives don't like profiling either, but we do realize there are tradeoffs in life.  Israeli-style profiling works.  It isn't nice, it might even be racist, but it works.

And it works for everyone, including those who are profiled.

Hell, I'd do the full body scan happily if I didn't have to take of my shoes (belt in Europe) take off my coat, unpack my laptop, put my liquids in a clear plastic bag, etc., etc. anyway.

On the other hand, I can't help but think we (especially as conservatives) are supposed to be security-conscious

Hey, I am security conscious.  I want the planes to be safe, and feel safe.  These naked body scans aren't going to do that.  They're bullshit cover to make it look like they're doing something to keep us safe that actually won't.  If they're trying to get this through by saying "it will make you safer" it rings as hollow as a democrat saying "we want to cut to taxes"

Moi, "It's not a big deal" TO YOU.

Special recommendations for Muslim women who wear hijab:

* If you are selected for secondary screening after you go through the metal detector and it does not go off, and “sss” is not written on your boarding pass, ask the TSA officer if the reason you are being selected is because of your head scarf.

* In this situation, you may be asked to submit to a pat-down or to go through a full body scanner. If you are selected for the scanner, you may ask to go through a pat-down instead.

* Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down.

* You may ask to be taken to a private room for the pat-down procedure.

* Instead of the pat-down, you can always request to pat down your own scarf, including head and neck area, and have the officers perform a chemical swipe of your hands.

I get the concern about the pat down searches -- it does seem overly invasive for marginal benefit. 

I am not sure I get the concern over the scanners.  I assume it is minimally invasive, and it is relatively effective.  Is the concern that someone can see you in state that roughly makes you appear naked?

Just don't fucking fly if you have a problem with Airport Security procedures.

Until the US decides to approach the problem sensibly, I won't fly. 

That means Profiling and and Interviewing Passengers rather than searching every N^th person in line.

Posted by: James at November 18, 2010 12:54 PM (Vfyfq)

tell that to the Israelies.

Absent a warrant signed by a judge who finds there is probably cause to do so, there is absolutely no reason that any citizen of the United States should ever be required to provide a nude picture of themselves to the federal government. Period. End of discussion.

Yes, some nut might try to blow up your airplane or he might bring a gun to the mall at Christmas time.  It is not a justification for the government to see me naked or fondle my junk! The world is dangerous, get over it.

As with most peak stories in the new cycle, they seem to be pushed by the news carriers, not the public.  When Fox News gets hung up on Michael Jackson-esque type nonsense, I switch over to something more palatable.  My friends and business associates aren't interested in this type of non-news and will decide how they feel about scanners after their next flight experience.  We've all already decided groping is not acceptable based on early TSA behaviors.

 So, it seems to me that the media including the cable outlets are ginning up news that most thinking people have no interest in viewing.  Who they're playing to is a mystery.

Posted by: mare at November 18, 2010 12:52 PM (uQPyW)

Probably because dogs would offend the muslims...

 I don't think the body-imaging x-rays can fail to miss an object secreted on someone's body, and even a barely-trained TSA agent can recognize a hidden object when he feels it.

Check the sidebar, there's a story over there about one of the inventors of these machines admitting that it would not have detected the bomb in the guy's underwear. And as has already written many times before, since these are external scans only, how long before one of them tries to secret a bomb in their anal cavity? Oh wait, that's already happened. Then what, does everyone get a cavity inspection prior to takeoff? Where does it end?

This stuff is not only invasive but also a massive waste of time and resources. It would be far more useful to hire cops to question people at the check-in counter since cops are already experienced in identifying potentially deceptive individuals. Anyone who sets off the warning bells can get pulled aside for further questioning. Cops do this every single time they make a traffic stop or a contact on the street. But if we did that, then the manufacturer of these wonderful machines (as well as former TSA head and still idiot Michael Chertoff) wouldn't get all of that sweet, sweet lucre.

^{This is why profiling, at least in itself, is not a viable security strategy.}

This is retarded.

Nobody thinks plain old profiling - hold the sensibilities, is the answer. 

Posted by: alexthedude at November 18, 2010 12:57 PM (Odqby)

Ace is absolutely right.  The reason that it can't be implemented is the Constitution.

Well, not the actual Constitution, but the "constitution" they teach in law schools.  You know, the one that has the Miranda warnings written in.  That one.

As with all things, the source of the problem is the legal profession.

As long as our Politically Correct security paradigm is "find the bomb" instead of "find the terrorist" (read: profiling) we will perenially be in reactive mode, with ever-ratcheting violation of personal freedoms at no net benefit to security. 

The terrorists are laughing at us.  I fully expect that in the near future one of them will walk through security with a plastic explosive up their ass, with the intention of being caught and triggering a TSA reaction of requiring every flyer to submit to an anal probe before boarding a plane.       

Welcome to BaconAir.

We feel no need to profile.  We are confident that you will arrive at your destination safely and without incident.  

If not, the B.L.T. is free.

Gee, I don't $#%^ing know. Seems the porno-scanners don't actually work and cavity searches are the only way to detect a bomb inserted prison-style where the sun don't shine. Guess we're going to have to live with a plane here and there going explodey-like.

If only there was some sort of way, I don't know, to match terrorists up against some sort of descriptive "high risk" checklist, like some sort of "profile."

Sigh. Guess I'll just spread 'em for Officer "Happy Hands" Chester Chester Child-Molester. For the greater stupidity.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at November 18, 2010 01:03 PM (NITzp)

And you can't unionize dogs.

The TSA told us they were keeping us safe. but they didn;t protect us from 9/11. Even the procedures put into place after 9/11 woudl not have done anything to stop the 9/11 hijackers.

The TSA did not protect us from the shoe bomber. So, to cover their incompetence, they make us all take off our shoes to fly. They did not protect us from people smuggling on liquids, so not they take away our liquids to cover their incompetence. And after all that, the did not detect or stop the underware bomber, so not we must all be strip searched and sexually assaulted to cover their incompetence.

So the TSA has proven that they cannot stop terrorists and that they continue to pur procedures in place that harm and inconvenience the most people while doing NOTHING to stop another attack.

Sorry, Ace, but the one not taking this serious... IS YOU!

I suppose i would be willing if i had planning well ahead of frisking , like two weeks to get that extra 5 lbs off my sometimes not so trim tummy.and had a brand new wonder bra on with matchies panties.

srsly. I think i resent the whole thing, as we see 3 year olds being molested ,or g-d forbid my son which is very self conscious of his privacy. old ladies, tiny old men, bt a seriously possible problem  (muslim )being given rights we do not have to not be touched.

we are told to shut up every step of the way, we ARE serious about terrorism , and love our country dearly ,but we are called terrorists for being pro life- or people that would wish our gvt were more interested in  the constitution.

Those in the same religion that have terrorized peoples all over the world are given latitude while we are ignored or intimidatedf  by DHS.

just how i feel. yeah i know a bit convoluted.

The brown people theory doesn't really work that well either, Richard Reid and that idiot from Chicago both wouldn't have been caught that way. 

Sure, but did you check out Reid's beard?  Profiling will detect the "lone wolves" quite easily, and not by skin color.  Israelis are very good at reading behavior. 

The lone wolves are undisciplined and are fairly easy to spot for someone trained to spot them.

But we have to face the fact that a sufficiently sophisticated plan can get around any security procedure.  Nothing is fool-proof.  We just have to make sure that it's at least moron-proof.

Ace I basically agree with you both on this issue and on the general issue of many conservatives wanting to adopt fantasy land approaches.

Look, I personally think the concern over body scanning is missplaced (though I acknowledge different people have different levels of modesty).  I think the benefit outweighs the hassle (i.e., stopping/reducing the risk of planes ending up in itsy bitsy pieces vs government bureaucrats seeming my itsy bitsy privates).  I also think if you don't want the scanner, its fair to ask you to be patted down -- which is way I would always opt for the scanner.

But I do think we need to engage in total rethink of airport security. 

Okay, say we meekly accept full-body patdowns and/or the opportunity to be exposed to radiation on a regular basis.

So the terrorists move the explosives inside the body. Women wear tampons all the time. Will the TSA request that they remove them in front of a screener? Everybody has an anus. Does everybody get an anal exam? What if the method of choice is a breast implant of plastic explosives? Or maybe swallowing condoms filled with plastic explosives?

If I can think of this stuff, so can the terrorists. So can the brain-dead TSA. Intrusive screening is not about security. Let's quit pretending that it is.

>>>The Christmas day bomber was international, right?, so not TSA.

That's one more problem that this system has is that it is not the standard through out the world.  So I guess all they have to do is enter internationaly right? 

 ^{as we see 3 year olds being molested}

I thought this was gratuitous. 

Correct me if I am wrong, as I don't have kids, but isn't a 3 year old small enough to run through the X-Ray Machine?

91The Israelies don't make all the "brown guys" get in a separate line dumbass. Half of them are brown anyway.

they profile, nitwit, even tho "half of them are brown," nitwit.  And they are far more effective, without groping gramma.

Posted by: ace © at November 18, 2010 01:02 PM (nj1bB)

Seriously dude?  So the fact that they've stopped ZERO terrorists means we should give them more fucking power?

Frankly the scanning itself is a non-issue to me and I really don't see why people have an issue with it. Unless you are very fat or have tiny junk in which case you got bigger problems than being scanned.

The overly intrusive searches are a major problem though but if you are secure enough to just do the scan you can avoid those, right? 

TSA, a piss-poor agency no doubt, is stuck between a rock and a hard place.  Everyone jumps on them if they miss something or jumps on them if they go to far.

They can't win.

The answer of course is to profile, but we all know that's never going to happen unless bible-reading Christians start blowing up planes.

Posted by: ace ©

This is the same line that Terrye tried two days ago. If you aren't in favor of the current arangments, then the strawman of no security provisions at all is presented.

1. Someone already noted that the last three terrorists atacks were stopped by passengers, not these unprofessional, poorly trained, unscreened jerks.

2. According to "official policy" passengers are still supposed to sit meekly in their seats in the midst of a "mid-air emergency". Mark Stryn pointed this out years ago. What happened should be touted as a model for conservatism; people can and often will respond more effectively than government. ANd they are doing it in direct contravention of the policies written by our betters.

3. I've noted that a sole inspector standing on a train platform in Northern Ireland during an IRA bombing campaign did a better, more professional job than any TSA thug I've seen. This can be done, and done well. A mob of idiots dreamed into existence that would otherwise be patrolling shopping malls and McDonalds parking lots should never be expected to do handle luggage, much less human beigns. Hell, here the malls hire off-duty state police; they gave up on security companies years ago. They get a more effective presence for the money they spend.

That's either one or two attempts. Yes, TSA didn't catch either. (In one case I don't think they were even involved.) But that's a very small sample to hang one's statistical case on.

Dude, shoe bomber, 9-11, the recent printer-ink imbroglio, what else, what else? Let me see, let me see...the underwear bomber, I mean, Jesus...it's not exactly like bombing a plane has never ever ever been tried before. Hell, it's been tried over and over again, in a variety of ways.

Facts are what they are - the TSA hasn't caught terrorists, and if the way around our $200 million/year child porn-mill is to take a ride from Jakarta instead of Jersey, then seriously, wtf?

Seriously, what would happen if 10-15% of all people traveling by air, wore hijabs, dark eyeliner and said, "no scan, no patdown."

PBUY, sucker!!!

Posted by: DrewM. at November 18, 2010 01:11 PM (HicGG)

Ah, but you can't invoke your rights after getting in the security line.  Then you get looked at being hit with an $11,000 fine.  That's perfectly fair, isn't it?

IÂ’ve heard a number of accounts of travelers getting BOTH the peekaboo-scanner and the B&D love-gloves treatment.  ItÂ’s not either/or.

So where does this stop? Random cavity searches? Mandatory sodomy for safetyÂ’s sake? Expanding the enhanced pat-downs to the entrance of any government building?

How come the Israelis donÂ’t do any of this jazz and their planes are safer than ours? What qualifies as an unreasonable search if hands down my pants (without cause) doesnÂ’t?


DonÂ’t tread on me. Or grope me.

Ostensibly the reason we won't profile is a concern over the civil liberties of the profilees (annoying, but that's the excuse offered).

I fail to see how this meets the test when profiling fails.

This is the typical bureaucratic overreaction at the micro level when the problems at the macro level are extreme incompetence.  Intelligence failed, so now we're gonna feel you up and hope for the best.

Not. In favor.

Posted by: DrewM

Any rationale for this activity would likely resemble the challenges to drunk driving checkpoints. Except there, professional police forces were conducting tests using equipment or obtaining blood samples that could yield empirical results. Here we have ill-trained polce force rejects performing physical searches of minors, with no accountability; they control the staff, the video and what goes on in the rooms.  And police forces conducting the drunk driving checkpoint could point to statistics of drunk drivers. TSA has stopped nothing. They have confiscated an immense load of toiletries and liquids.  All that they can present is a possible deterrent effect. That can be used to justify anything, including mobile vans looking for heat signatures for pot plants.

"This illustrates, in a mild way, the reason why totalitarian regimes collapse so suddenly. (Click here for a more complex analysis of this and related issues). Such regimes have little legitimacy, but they spend a lot of effort making sure that citizens don't realize the extent to which their fellow-citizens dislike the regime. If the secret police and the censors are doing their job, 99% of the populace can hate the regime and be ready to revolt against it - but no revolt will occur because no one realizes that everyone else feels the same way.

"This works until something breaks the spell, and the discontented realize that their feelings are widely shared, at which point the collapse of the regime may seem very sudden to outside observers - or even to the citizens themselves. Claims after the fact that many people who seemed like loyal apparatchiks really loathed the regime are often self-serving, of course. But they're also often true: Even if one loathes the regime, few people have the force of will to stage one-man revolutions, and when preferences are sufficiently falsified, each dissident may feel that he or she is the only one, or at least part of a minority too small to make any difference.

"reasonable cause"?

I'm not familiar with this term. I know probable cause and reasonable suspicion. 

If the objective is to kill air travel, this will pretty well do it.  Am I being hyperbolic if I claim the terrorists won?

This is wrong.  This is full-on stupid.  Not in my country.   

I'll go along when Obama gets the same treatment before boarding Air Force One.  He's a much greater danger to this country than I am.

Also, keep this in mind.

The same agency that is trying to decide how to address Muslims concerns for privacy and the way Muslims may or may not be searched and patted down; is the same agency that is telling American Citizens "If you don't like it, don'y fly".

Posted by: ChiTown-Jerry at November 18, 2010 01:14 PM (f9c2L)

That assumes one can avoid getting your pee-pee squeezed by going through the scanner.  A lot of people has said they got both.

My mom was coming back from Portugal, bought a bottle of wine at the duty free shop and put it in her carry-on bag. As it went through the x-ray machine she was pulled aside and told by the TSA genius at the security line that she would have to go back and check it even though it was still sealed and she had the store receipt. She could not leave her carry-on at security and had to take it back with her and ended up having to go through security again because the man who sent her back went on break while she was at the counter checking in her bottle of wine. They completely missed the very sharp knife that she had forgotten was in her carry on. Twice.

And these are the geniuses that are running these body scanners and doing the pat downs.

The Government, by way of the Supreme Court, has decided that they can ignore (vice change) part of the Constitution and abrogate our Rights, under the ideas of our Rights our trumped "for the Greater Good", and that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Both argements are baseless as we CAN change the Constitution if we wish.

The Government must PROOVE that the abrogation of Rights will lead to greater publice saftey, or meet some societal need, by their OWN rules... however, as NOT ONE SINGLE Highjacker has been found by these searches, can the Government proove that the agrogation of our Rights actually DOES some good?

Its like the pile on Environmntal laws we have now... Yes, we had pollution, so we passed laws to clean it up.... but things are pretty dang clean now... my vehicles Test out at less that 1% of the allowable emmision standards, yet I still have to pay to test every two years?  And run Gas that will damage by vehicle and cost me more money through poor gas mileage? (ethanol)...

Government needs to strike a balance... and they are going WAY too far.

Posted by: ace © at November 18, 2010 01:12 PM (nj1bB)

Have you had a patdown recently? Since these new procedures were implemented?  It doesn't sound like these are the usual pat downs from before.  There's a woman from ohio saying she was sexually assaulted during hers.  Penn Jillette had them call the police because he said he was assaulted and then had to sit through the idiots telling him that its not necessary.

Come on Ace.  "For your security" is just as big a load of bullshit whitewashing attempt to get worthless stuff through as "For the children"

I get it that people are opposed to the scanners/gropings. 

But what other screening methods would as effectively reduce the risk of terrorists taking over/destroying commercial airlines?  And by the way, I am perfectly fine subjecting non-US citizens to a greater level of scrutiny (though we may get some blowback from other countries, but thats a risk we can take). 

Bullshit

Supporting BS PC non-rational tech. The backscatter AND millimetric systems damage nucleic acids [ DNA and RNA] sparky

And the Muj distaff cohort ?  they get to do their own head/neck only patdowns

BS  Clue up you accomodationist lacky.  here's an alternative - if you look and behave like a Muzz POS, you get to ride a camel for your transportation needs. Or if you and your fellow Imams drop the rug for an out-loud pre-fklight session at Minneapolis-St. Paul, howzabout we ship your asses back to Shitcanistan, along with the fuckling POS former Black Panther cum convertedMuj congresshit that set it up ... dat be Ketih al - Ellison, numnuts

WTF ! .. are you auditioning for a role in 'Bongos' administration ?  Oh ! wait my bad, you're just stimulating the post, slo to speak

Mark of the Idiot : all possibilities are coequal.    You qual

I hate the idea because I've already had a problem at an airport with TSA groping me, without the authorization to do so.  A male TSA agent had me stand in front of him after I failed the metal detector arch.  He then tried to unsnap my bra and feel under the cups.  When I jumped back, smacked his hands and said "Get your hands off me!" he said he could arrest me.

I told him to please do so, but perhaps we should talk with a female supervisor about how he'd put his hands on me.  I then pointed to myself.  "It's not a weapon, you moron, it's a bra!"  (Underwires can set off the detectors.)

The idea of what they'll try when told to make me feel sick.  And would C4 show up on an x-ray?

It just seems that passengers are the ones keeping us safe.  You know, the ones who notice someone's trying to set off his shoes.  Or rummaging around in his crotch for a bomb.  It wasn't the TSA.  And these new rules don't fix that.

Posted by: ace ©

 I get the "freak out" when an ill- trained jerk is groping a three year old AND I know that a nation with a severe, pretracted terrorism threat does NOT do this. We're not just talking about 'us'. We're talking about TSA agents profiling attractive women. Police are sometimes accused of doing just this. his type of abuse isn't new, but it was never given this much opportunity for abuse either.

Amen, MikeTheMoose

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 18, 2010 01:15 PM (0GFWk)

If colonoscopies were a requirement to board a flight, would you still do it to feel safe?  When the government can forcibly sodomize you, I don't think you need to fear terrorism any more...

It is sort of lame and unthinking to use the word "unconstitutional" to mean "anything I don't like.

It is pretty reasonable to argue directly from the Fourth Amendment that invasive pat-downs and potentially harmful radiological scans of a person's body, at mandatory compliance on penalty of a $11k fine is an "unreasonable search."

We're not finding a "right to privacy" now. We're not finding a "right to healthcare." We're speaking on the merits on the matter of 'searches' and 'seizures', which are specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

This is not arbitrary. Pull ur head out of each other's anuses.

Oh, and one other point for those of you who want the airports and the TSA to profile passengers. THEY ALREADY ARE!

They look and observe and make absolutely sure that they are not picking too many middle eastern men and women out of line for extra screening. If they do, they can face fines and sanctions. So, to make up for it, your four-year-old daughter and your 92-year-old grandfather must be publically humiliated and be sexually assaulted.

Another thing:  I wouldn't throw down on this so much if the government were also, oh, I don't know, SECURING THE BORDER.  Calling terrorists terrorists.  Deporting illegal aliens.  Not trying terrorists in civilian courts.  Prosecuting cases of documented voter intimidation.

You know, doing their job.  But they don't, so I have to get felt up?

Fuck that.

But LukeDuke

Isn't the point is that good police work did not step the 9/11 bombers, so you need a last minute fail safe check at the airport itself.

Posted by: DrewM

So drunk driving checkpoints (which were justified because you chose to drive on the motorway, and for which scientific testing is available) isn't constitutional, and a TSA agent sticking his/her/its hands into the clothing of a child is? You chose to drive. You chose to fly. Remember the briefly official motto of the TSA: "You want to fly today?" There is no difference between that and a state trooper flagging you down. Except one had a modicum of training. When I went through one, the trooper never touched me.

ACE, WHAT??

I haven't been listening to talk radio about this issue, I'm sufficiently upset without someone "ginning" it up for me. Please give us more credit than that.

This is a different post, that's for certain. All I know is that any victim of sexual assault is going to get some back flashbacks.

mac :[

ChicagoJedi;

What is your proposal to keep us safe, since its clear all the revenue Ace is generating from this site is clouding his view.

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 18, 2010 01:28 PM (0GFWk)

Oh!  So there IS a bridge too far then?  There is a point at which you won't submit to something in order to feel safe?  That point for me is a rubber-gloved agent squeezing my penis.  But some people like rough trade.

I remind you that some people at random have gotten the scanner AND the full-monty grope.  Still think this is a reasonable search?

Freedom brings with it a certain amount of risk.  I'm not willing to trade this much--Fourth Amendment violations for NO GAIN.  And there is risk in everything.  Do we outlaw drive-throughs because people with supersized sodas cause wrecks?  There are a lot of hunting accidents every year.  Let's get rid of hunting. 

I'm fine with the way things were before 9-11 for most of the public.  Take the muslims aside and talk to them, like the Israelis do. 

We have scanners now because Michael Chertoff wanted to get rich, not because they are effective.  They essentially do the same thing as magnetometers, but people get to look at you naked.  We could have used dogs, which would have been better--better even than the sniffing machines.  People know they can't fool dogs, and the dogs would sweat potential perps like an interview.  Pull the guy aside who is freaking out because the dogs are coming.  I've been through this in Europe once when I was backpacking.  They took about 30 of us.  We put our stuff in a line on the ground right next to our line.  A couple of dogs were walked up and down the line of our stuff, and then they were walked up and down the line we were in.  Took about two minutes.  If I'd had hidden contraband, I would have been shaking and sweating like the guy in Midnight Express.

Anyway.  You know why they didn't crank up a dog program?  Because no one stood to get rich.  We have these worthless, invasive machines because of inside ball politics. 

And does anyone trust the judgement of Janet Napolitano?  Ace, we have these new procedures because of a women many wanted fired last year* for saying one stupid thing after another.  Like the hajib issue.  When asked, she should have said simply "no."  That wouldn't have left any room for people to freak out.  But she's too stupid for that.  And now you're going to trust her judgement on the purchase and use of these backscatter machines and the use of pat downs?  I don't trust her on anything.  To the degree she's interested in public safety, I don't think she has the ability to perform.**  In fact, because she wants the current system, I don't want it.  Well, that's at least one reason.

*Has anyone compiled a list of all the ignorant things she said last year before the White House had her skip the big House Homeland Security hearings on the Christmas bomber?

**I thought I read recently that she favors the TSA unionizing.  Well.  I feel better already.

 If your local mall wanted to implement security screening to enter, presumably that would be constitutional, since you don't have a right to enter a mall. Same thing with an airline.

Difference here is that it's the government that's requiring and performing the search, not the airlines. If the mall wanted to establish security procedures of their own volition, then yes, they could do that. If American Airlines had their own security standards that they had established and enforced, then your analogy would be accurate.

It is the government that is searching people without reasonable suspicion.

Posted by: ace © at November 18, 2010 01:28 PM (nj1bB)

I think you're wrong.  I think it has been internet originated with the "If you touch my junk I'll have you arrested" guy.  Coupled with all the other people's complaints its flowed into the other sources like talk radio and the news.

Having observed some of the various footage of the "pat down" I can only say that it is far more invasive than the methods I used to check suspects for weapons during my career as a police officer.  Total bullsh**.  As for the use of profiling I am all for it but as I see it the problem is getting enough intelligent TSA people for the large number of airports we have in this country vs the limited number of airports in the UK and Israel.

The problem is in the leadership of the TSA.  None of them have any real world experience dealing with suspicious people at the street level. The head is a former FBI agent with limited experience in investigations, something that does not require him to get his hands dirty, several NSA geeks, a former Coast Guard techie etc, etc. etc.

When the heck are we going to get people that are actually qualified to do this stuff.

Posted by: ace ©

So reports coming from a minority of the populations (air travellers, particularly those who travel often) about relatively recent changes ( the machines are still being deployed, and procedures seem to vary from airport to airport) which are flavored by official pronouncements that repeatedly omitted any reference to hands going inside clothing or touching genitalia, and which expressly excluded children under 12 are the the product of talk radio?

All right everyone. This subject is now closed. All is well.

Why does the 4th Amendment allow your personal property (luggage) to be searched without reasonable cause at the airport?

Directly from the 4th Amendment? Rather indirectly, dude.

<sigh> You're a lawyer.

"nreasonable" might be the key word you're missing there, tiger. It is fairly reasonable to ask if someone is carrying contraband, fairly reasonable to expose your inanimate luggage to x-rays, and pretty reasonable to pass through a magnetic detector. Chief.

I'm going to go out on a (very short) limb here & say that I've flown in & out of Israel more than anyone else here over the years. 

This may come as a shock to james & others, but I haven't been patted down or x rayed - ever.

Is this topic overblown? Certainly - and for good reason.  The current administration has seemingly gone out of it's way to show & tell the American public that they (the admin) are not putting a high priority on terrorism & public safety, thus the reaction to this, as others here have correctly named it, "Safety Theatre".

Until one is willing to scrutinize the single passenger travelling on a one way ticket with no luggage/limited carry on, then airport "security" is a joke.  A very, very expensive joke.

Posted by: sauropod

And who the heck would want to sexually assault a senior citizen confined to a wheelchair?And yet, it's happened.

And HERE is the best part...

If we profile at Airports, its a horrible infringment on Civil Rights, and CANNOT be done.

Hoever, we are now told that WE give up our RIGHT against illegal search, when we enter that airport.

They seem to be very selective about WHICH Rights they care about....

ChicagoJedi:

There are restrictions on our liberty everywhere.  Unless you are Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany or Stalin in the USSR, your liberty is in some way restricted.  Since the dawn of this country (and for that matter western civilization), we have wrestled with the liberty vs. liberty restriction issue.  We have to wrestle with it if we want a functioning society.  But there is no such thing as absolute liberty without restriction.

This whole thing is stupid.  What about the old way didn't work?  Nothing.  The underwear bomber didn't board in the US anyway.  Look, if you want solutions, rather than useless full-body scans and invasive pat downs, put in chemical screeners or dogs.  If bomb residue is detected, you go for a thorough pat down or more.

Look, I can deal with the pat down personally.  I don't want it but I'm not going to be superfly tnt over it.  But I've got two teenage daughters.  I will not let some TSA idiot get off looking at full body scans of my two girls and I will not let them be personally violated with these pat downs.  And for me that's the bottom line.

JackStraw (302)

Makes sense.

And HERE is the best part...

If we profile at Airports, its a horrible infringment on Civil Rights, and CANNOT be done.

Hoever, we are now told that WE give up our RIGHT against illegal search, when we enter that airport.

They seem to be very selective about WHICH Rights they care about....

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 18, 2010 01:41 PM (AdK6a)

For that matter, it is a horrible intrusion into our constitutional rights to be asked to show ID at a voting booth.  But body cavity searches are OK at the airport.

OT war story:  I have a defendant now who is crazy evil.  He is or was fixated on a particular woman and harassed her constantly despite restraining orders etc.  So he was arrested for constant telephone harassment, put in a cell, and yet she continued to get harassing calls.  Turns out that he smuggled his phone into the cell so he could continue to harass her.  Your guess is as good as mine as to how he managed to get the phone in despite the strip search.  It all accrues to my benefit, though.  He has since been arrested on a rape at gunpoint (of another girl) and constantly argues for bond reduction so he can get out.  I just mention the phone-where-the-sun-don't-shine story and even the progressive judges I argue in front of don't lower his bond.

>>>Why wouldn't it have found the Panty Bomber's bomb?

Why do you say that? If it's outside the body, it would have found it. Yes?

I it's because he was on an international flight Ace.  Otherwise I guess they would have caught it, unless it looked like his scrotum.

Ahem. Let's go with my "ideology isn't firm."

You sound like a fucking cultist.

No, my ideology isn't "firm," as yours is. I do not turn off my thinking just because I have some "ideology" I get daily from Mark Levin to supplant it.

Posted by: ace © at November 18, 2010 01:45 PM (nj1bB)

Sorry ace but I really think your claim that this has been ginned up by talk radio is complete BS.  I think it is something that started on the Internet. 

Meh.

Bottom line: the scanners do not work as advertised and full strip-searching, body-cavity searching IS required for this sort-of cargo-cult "let's rid ourselves of all the appearances of evil without delving into the evil of men" approach.

You, with this entire panoplia of high-school dropouts and friendly fingers and hundreds of millions of dollars in gear, cannot ever, ever ever ever ever ever get to perfect safety. We've demonstrated why and the enemy has demonstrated that they are willing to take those steps they need to defeat this level of "security".

Even the damn underwear bomber and the shoe bomber demonstrated they would go to lengths to do horrible things - what's the difference between detonating a bomb strapped to your little jockey and one in your anus? None.

PC has lost. Go another way.

I think most of us morons are saying:

"I am not willing to give up ANY liberty in exchange for UTTERLY PHONY security."

I think that just about sums it up, no?

Thank you, that's exactly what I was thinking. Can't write for shit, though.

315, Ace...

Your reliance on technology is touching.  Really.

None of the the so called "scan" systems can image what the material is, only that an external mass may be present.  Which, according to what I've seen, may lead to further examination. 

In simpler terms, they can't pick up internal structures, and are unreliable in picking up external masses.

Posted by: ace © at November 18, 2010 01:36 PM (nj1bB)

 However...I'll grant that there are no 4th Amendment issues, and I'll grant that we give up some rights when we fly (I disagree with both statements, but for the purposes of this discussion I'll stipulate them). Why are we violating the rights of Americans and getting no increased security? If we are going to trash the Constitution, then hell, hire the Israelis to run our airport security and be done with it.

Reminder 

- the 9/11 terrorists had LEGAL items on them - box cutters, etc.  Security worked just fine on 9-11, there was no break-down in the screening system. 

- Flying - even with the threat of terrorism with hidden explosives - is safer than driving.  Look up the probabilities yourself. 

- Life is risky.  The amount you fear, whether from the threat of terrorism or an asteroid hitting the earth is all in your mind, and a measure of how much of a coward you are.

- Even with Xrays and patdowns, someone who is wiling to die can get what they need onto a plane given enough time, money and patience.  No security system is failsafe, and asking you to put all Americans through a ridiculous screen so YOU can feel better is nothing short of pathetic.

Liberty issues aside, I say anyone who supports this is a coward, afraid of life, too afraid to go outside their house unless some agency says it is "safe" to do so.  You are willing to put yourself and neighbors under any conditions imaginable so you can still the silly anxieties in their own mind.

Posted by: ace ©

Skepticism is fine by me. I'm also skeptical of a town clown cop who thinks the is the king of a township, and writes 17 tickets in one night and doesn't bother to show up at the courhouse. Watching the judges face as he dismissed the cases was interesting. Or the lady in the DMV who seems to like yelling at people for a living. Or TSA agents that now can put their hands on kids (video exists for at least one of these incidents). Especially since we know that they do not have to receive the same training that police or correctional officers do when they are required to do the exact same tasks.

 pet the dog. eat the bacon. look at this Hustler. or get groped. your choice.

Awesome.

 --Yes, that sums it up.  The pre-scanner system worked,  The Depends Bomber was on a 'watch list', not profiled, and let on the plane by the Hollanders.  Use the List' profile the Usual Suspects.

Get chocolate labs, like at Toronto, to sniff for explosives as passengers walk by

323 

The basic difference I think Ace has with most of us is that he is thinking:

"I am willing to give up some of my freedom for some security."

His position is premised on "security" in the equation being real and effective.

I think most of us morons are saying:

"I am not willing to give up ANY liberty in exchange for UTTERLY PHONY security."

I think that just about sums it up, no?

Yes, extra no security, no extra violation.

"When they had dogs patrolling the airport you could tell who was getting nervous. "

At Frankfurt Airport a man wearing a black trenchcoat with a German Shepherd pulled me out of line when I entered the doors to catch a connecting flight. In my head I was thinking "Is this real life?".  He made me so nervous, I was stuttering and accidentally handed him my luggage tag instead of my ticket. He yelled at me. We should hire that guy.   

Posted by: pajama momma

Step daughter yes. Daughter, maybe when she starts dating.

(and you thought that yours was the worst!)

#326 - you were most likely singled out for either a quick ticket purchase/change and/or no checked luggage for an international flight.

The last minute change thing put me thru some interesting security procedures flying from Israel to Hamburg post 9/11

But LukeDuke

Isn't the point is that good police work did not step the 9/11 bombers, so you need a last minute fail safe check at the airport itself.

No. The point is that the threads are there to thwart this stuff at the police-work level. If those threads were properly tied together, then problem solved.  Work on tying threads together, not security theater which has little hope of thwarting mass murderers.

At Frankfurt Airport a man wearing a black trenchcoat with a German Shepherd pulled me out of line when I entered the doors to catch a connecting flight. In my head I was thinking "Is this real life?".  He made me so nervous, I was stuttering and accidentally handed him my luggage tag instead of my ticket. He yelled at me. We should hire that guy.   

Posted by: Joanie (Oven Gloves) at November 18, 2010 01:59 PM (HaYO4)

Das war mich.  That was me.  Sorry.  Next time follow orders !!!!!!!

Posted by: ccoffer

Surely this man is King of the Morons.

Posted by: iknow†helef†®© at November 18, 2010 01:58 PM (G/MYk)

Sorry, untrue, somteimes people HAVE to fly.

I flew UNDER ORDERs many many times in my Military carreer... I was given no choice.

And missing the flgiht and thus not getting to my distination on time? Could actually lead to Jail time.

So, yes, thre ARE people who HAVE to fly.

ace, outrage ginned up by talk radio?

as if most women/ men ... wouldn't dislike  non lovers grope them  , they actually touch breasts  and bottoms!or to have children touched? srsly. i'm not sure how most men feel, but i really don't like to be hugged, touched, felt up, by anyone  unless i really really like/love them. .  you make it sound as if being touched by strangers is  natural . these are not a trusted doctor, they are strangers to us until that moment.

and believe me i'm not a prude. but really?

Posted by: real joe

Everyone would be too busy playing pocket pool?

I spent 20 years and change - many of them in hell holes - helping – a millions before me and after me - to make sure that Americans retained their rights as set forth in the Constitution.  Now to read that you think it is ok to ignore the Constitution (check the 4th Amendment) and allow the government to give law abiding Americans the choice of undergoing a humiliating strip search or being sexually assaulted  -  all in the name of "security" - is beyond sad.  It is pathetic.

There is no difference between this position and the position of the far left demanding restrictions on speech by labeling it "hate speech"  - both choose to ignore the Constitution in order to implement unconstitutional policies for "our own good." 

I assure you, I am not freaking out over body scans and assaults disguised as a pat down and described as “love pats.”  I am freaking out over people, such as you, who have decided that the government can set aside our Constitutional rights when they deem it is for "our own good.”  The argument that the government wont implement security procedures that are constitutional - such as Israeli style security - as a basis to allow unconstitutional, not to mention ineffective, security polices makes me wonder if those 20 years and change were wasted.

Finally, this is not a libertarian v. conservative issue – it is merely a constitutional one – either you believe the Constitution is the foundation of our society or you do not.  If you do, then lobby for security measures that pass constitutional muster – not to allow unconstitutional acts because it is too hard politically implement constitutional ones.

In The Dark Knight, the Joker implants a bomb with a cell-phone detonator in the belly of one of his fat minions.

It would be the simplest thing for a jihadist ob/gyn surgeon to implant a bomb inside a woman after he delivers her baby by C-section.  A few weeks of healing and she's just a pregnant woman getting on a plane... and if the detonator isn't metallic, it won't set off metal detectors or be visible on a full-body scanner.

In the aftermath of the first such attack, will the government require every passenger to undergo a CAT scan before boarding a flight?

BeckoningChasm at 305 points out Mark Steyn's extremely germane comment: we can't keep safe by profiling things instead of people, because things are infinitely variable and subject to innovation.

This TSA document talks about procedures where someone can get scanned AND felt-up (add http prefix):

blog.tsa.gov/2010/11/new-tsa-pat-down-procedures.html

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo

I had the same epxerience in Ulster. The guy even held the camera bag, taking care to not expose the film, and then checked the lens to ensure that they were really lenses. And he was polite, and chatty. And maintained eye contact the entire time. And this was during a declared bombing campaign. Other countries with real problems have dealt with this realistically.

Put me down as a big fucking no. I personally will not got through the scanners. Why? Because in my short life I've had over a dozen x-rays and 8 nuclear scans and I'll probably need more. The last thing I need is another dose of radiation every time I fly.

As to the groping, I don't personally care. I'm not a modest gal. I recognize, however, that there are people walking around with colostomy bags, incontinence products, urostomy bags, etc., and they shouldn't have to go through the humiliation of showing those things to a bunch of mouth-breathing jerks just so we can pretend that we're making things safe. We're not. Bomb-shiffing dogs and profiling will make us safe, not wholesale molestation.

It amazes me how easily some people will give up the freedom our betters have died to protect. And once you give up one bit of your liberty, the next acquiescence is that much easier. Hell no.

Posted by: DrewM.

I agree with most of your points. However if an active duty service member was now confronted with these procedures, they've waived nothing. This was tacked on after the oath of enlistment. I know the definition of USMC ( You Signed the Mutha of  Contracts), but nothing was waived. It was taken. And there is nothing simple about it.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 18, 2010 02:10 PM (HicGG)

By joining the military I gave the MILITARY the ability to abrogate my rights... I still retained all rights if dealing with Civilian Police... like...oh ... the TSA?

I can guarentee you that you can smuggle plenty of petn in your carryon bag and clothing that no amount of pat down or scanner will ever find ...  and as far as a detonator is concerned, your cell phone has plenty of room in it ...   

profiling is the only effective tool ...

Just dress-up like that tranny I put in the sidebar.  No one will touch you.  Heck, there'd be no reason to.  You can already see everything.

(You guys want me to put up another pic, don't you?  I know you do.)

Jesus Ace, are you bi-polar or something?

You've been wildly swinging between hard core and panty waste for weeks now.

WTF is wrong with you lately?

I suggest you go ball dip some butterscotch pudding and then pull on your big boy pants, because nothing we've got to do in the next several years is going to be easy.

Dismissing what needs to be done as fantasy is foolish in the extreme, not pragmatic (as you no doubt see it).

Saying that the actual (and only) solution to the problem is childish IS childish, in that it seeks to avoid the hard work of actually solving the problem.

When you stick your head in the sand, you simultaneously stick your ass in the air, and we all know how much certain islamic mountain men like seeing an ass in that position.

If you ain't careful, you'll find yourself fucked without warning.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 18, 2010 02:15 PM (HicGG)

Yes, interesting question...

But you must admit it pretty much blows the "no one is forced to fly" arguement out of the water...

come near me with one of those scanners....make my day!

Put some glow in the dark play dough up your ass and then go through a scanner, Ace....you may THEN see that these scanners are nothing in the war on terror and EVERYTHING in intruding on your privacy and autonomy.

I had the same epxerience in Ulster. The guy even held the camera bag, taking care to not expose the film, and then checked the lens to ensure that they were really lenses. And he was polite, and chatty. And maintained eye contact the entire time. And this was during a declared bombing campaign. Other countries with real problems have dealt with this realistically.

Posted by: iknow†helef†®© at November 18, 2010 02:18 PM (G/MYk)

Once again, this was in answer to the arguement that NO ONE is FORCED to fly.

And military members do NOT give up their Civilian Rights... They still have freedom of speech, except in military matters... they still get to vote... they still have property rights EXCEPT on military bases...  They reatin ALL their RIGTHS except where they directly iintersect witht the Military itself.

How is it that the gummint blithely pats down women and children's genitals and checks their bungholes for explosives and adamantly maintains they won't change that protocol while at the same time claiming that profiling Muslim men between 15 and 35 would be outrageous?

And the Israeli approach is too labor intensive to allow airlines to turn a profit.  Remember, national airlines like El Al are subsidized by their governments.

Heh, good luck with this ace.

I took the same position yesterday and was accuesed of being a pedophile, a liberal of course, wetting my pants being scared of bombs on planes and some other things.

Not wanting to participate in group think is not for the thin skinned.

Posted by: Serious Cat at November 18, 2010 02:05 PM (bAySe)

------

This poster makes a good point. Can anyone answer his question?

You can fake a little cheapie identification for any of these.

I disagee.  Put a little tech in there, and everything will be a-okay.  RFID sprinkles.  Magnetic strips with up-to-date codes and shit and coded eye scans that have to match a retina scan.  Dollar bill and credit card security measures.   In fact, they could make a walk through that pretty much wisks people through as long as they have a proper card and their eye or fingerprint scan matches. 

Posted by: ace © at November 18, 2010 02:21 PM (nj1bB)

Uhhh.... Ace?.... Obamacare?  Where some religions do not have to follow the mandate?

And the Supremes have already said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact... (which I argue against.... but)...

The biggest problem with the body scanners aside from the potential privacy conerns?  They don't work. 

They don't detect explosive chemicals and are defeated simply by stuffing a half pound of explosives up the pooper.  A small detonator cap and wires could easily be hidden in an electronic device along with a battery with little likelyhood of being detected.  Explosives + detonator + battery = bomb.

Sure, the scanners can detect a gun or knife, but traditional metal detectors already do that quite well- perhaps too well when the small amount of metal in one's shoes sets the damned things off.

What exactly is the point of the full body scanners then?

I think a more interesting question would be this.

Can you imagine a future in which all aspects of society will be less like a voyeuristic police state with Orwellian surveillance? 

I would say no. Our lives are becoming less and less private with each passing day. Whether it is google storing our information, warrantless wiretaping, google earth photographing our homes for everyone to see, everything written on the internet being permanently saved, being searched at airports, not being allowed to take pictures of monuments,  etc etc.

I don't mean to sound looney, but I don't think in 20-30 years we'll have private lives. That is to say if we even have them today.

Bomb sniffing goats.  Problem solved.

Ace, dear god no.  No no no.  It's stupid, doesn't work, requires little or no training, and justifies the most extreme hands on BS ever.

What do we need to detect explosives?  Well, that's a stupid question and it's stupid because no one stands to score a billion dollar contract - DOGS.  DOGS have been used for decades to detect explosives and drgus, can detect them up people's asses/etc.  Dogs and fewer, better trained security professionals.  Airlines will flag passengers buying one-way tickets with cash, etc etc.  Plainclothes milling in the passenger areas looking for strange behavior.

Lower cost, more freedom, less invasive.  The tangos got one freebie on 9-11, and that was because of the novelty of their approach - hijacking was nothing new, so when they said they had a bomb, the passengers believed them.  PASSENGERS will never let that happen again (see richard reid, underwear guy). 

Pardon me, but where exactly is anyone calling for "Moslems" to not have Constitutional rights?

Thought not.

The issue is simple.  For the last ten years the flying public has put up with ever increasing theatrics that have not done one single thing to reduce the threat of terrorism & aircraft, and who are now fed up.  This is the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back.  As a frequent flyer, I'm thrilled - this may finally bring down the TSA theatre & instill genuine security...

Posted by: ace © at November 18, 2010 02:23 PM (nj1bB)

Nice; real nice.  Yeah, us guys are saying to 'give up'.

I said profiling and dogs, in addition to the current methods.  That's nowhere near 'giving up'

Misrepresent what people say; that will work

>>>Is America Freaking Out Too Much Over Naked Body Scans?Short answer: No

More words:

This is the most disappointing post I've ever seen on this site. I expect this kind of bullshit over at Hot Air - but not here.

You've kind of hurt my feelings with your utterly vapid take on this situation.<<<

Here, here.  This leads me to believe Allahpundit is guest-posting in drag.

Posted by: ace © at November 18, 2010 02:21 PM (nj1bB)

How about using suspicion rather than random selection?  I see border patrol agents do that all of the time.  That's never been held unconstitutional.

Posted by: Serious Cat at November 18, 2010 02:05 PM (bAySe)

------

This poster makes a good point. Can anyone answer his question?

Posted by: Serious Cat at November 18, 2010 02:24 PM (bAySe)

We're just not there technologicaly.  To recognize an object from all angles,and sizes, the computer would have to "test" each object, angle, and size,... somthing the human brain does automaticly.  Just too many variations to test in a reasonable timeframe.

there is always going to be the up the butt route...

Damn right.

Dogs can't sniff an explosive up someone's butt.

Did I mention I also represent Beano?

Uhhh.... Ace?.... Obamacare?  Where some religions do not have to follow the mandate?

And the Supremes have already said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact... (which I argue against.... but)...

Your understanding of the Constitution and the proper (and/or likely) application of constitutional law doctrine is...flawed. Significantly.

Signed,

A Guy Who Does This Stuff For A Living.

>>This whole thing is stupid. What about the old way didn't work? Nothing. The underwear bomber didn't board in the US anyway. Look, if you want solutions, rather than useless full-body scans and invasive pat downs, put in chemical screeners or dogs. If bomb residue is detected, you go for a thorough pat down or more.

>Well if there's an effective way to divert-out a fraction of people to the body imaging scanner, that's a good solution.

So why aren't we using it?  We are we forcing peopel to choose between dumb and dumber?  Get the dogs or the chemical detection devices.

>But still, you're not accepting the essence of the thing, here. I get the problem with your daughters. But I have "beeped" for "explosive residue" like five times. One bag I had had something in it the system didn't like. (I got rid of it eventually.)

>These false positives will happen -- so if your daughter beeps, what happens then?

Then she can go through a an interview by professionals who have been trained to look for clues that might detect a potential terrorist.  And if that leads to some sort of patdown or scanning, then me or the mrs will be present to ensure the most minimally invasive procedure possible is done.

Be easier on Ace, take his concern in good faith.

He makes a good point. This sucks clearly, but what happens when terrorists start using their crotch(as they already have) to store bombs? Will your sense of privacy be worth a plane going down? It's a legitimate question. It's a tough question.

Also, sure profiling is the easy answer, but how can conservatives and libertarians be so quick to give the government power to single people out? Doesn't the constitution, that everyone here claims to revere, protect all of us? Muslim americans too?

There are no easy or simple answers on this one.

I think we should be resigned to the fact terrorist attacks will happen, and we need to find a happy medium when it comes to preventing them. How much freedom are you willing to give up for security, or in the TSA's case, the illiusion of security.

"Dogs can't sniff an explosive up someone's butt"

Actually, they do.  Drugs as well.

Posted by: ace © at November 18, 2010 02:23 PM (nj1bB)

Of course we can.  We can put all passengers through CAT scanners that give 3-D images of all their internal structures.  Even better than the backscatter body imagers.

And I am sure it's well worth the massive expense of the equipment and the lead-lined scan cubicles, the delay of the cycle time of running each scan, the need for radiology training for the TSA agents -- not to mention the radiation dose of approximately 100 times a chest X-ray.

And if the radiation issue is too much to overcome, we can use MRIs instead, at least for people who don't have any implanted steel or steel orthodontics.

Technology considerations aren't the issue in looking for internal bombs.  What's at issue is how much sand we're willing to pour into the gears of our economy by imposing more costs and delays and disincentives for normal activities.

Gotta hand it to the Boss, here. He's a consistent, hewn-to-the-line Young Republican, Respecting Authority. But let's get that ghey pirate shit off the masthead, huh? And get a haircut.

"Martial Law Lite" is all right by me. Martial Law means we're at war, actual declared war, and under immediate attack -- and that the weapons of my people are on their way to smite our enemy. The last time I had a stopwatch on it, that should take about 45 minutes. Then it's over, our guards apologize and go back to being soda jerks and assistant bank managers, and we call Hoover and Marshall out of retirement to feed any survivors able to crawl out and sign the instrument of surrender.

Unless my agent, the state, is willing to do that to my enemies, then my enemy the state is not entitled to treat me as an internee.

"If you're innocent, you have nothing to fear. You are innocent, aren't you?"

 I agree with that, mostly, that there is always going to be the up the butt route, and we can't do anything about that.

Can I make a San Francisco Airport joke, or is that in bad taste?

Posted by: ace ©

A very good question, and it's a circumstance that no one has seriously questioned. Perhaps it's because there is also the matter of customs, at least for international flights. And quarantine customs restrictions and searches pre-date air travel.

Question. What happens if people swallow bomb making materials in a plastic bag with the intent of "passing it" on the plane?

The ways of getting something on the plane are finite, but numerous.

I think people need to accept the fact that there is no way we'll be 100% secure.

>>>He makes a good point. This sucks clearly, but what happens when terrorists start using their crotch(as they already have) to store bombs? Will your sense of privacy be worth a plane going down? It's a legitimate question. It's a tough question.

Also, sure profiling is the easy answer, but how can conservatives and libertarians be so quick to give the government power to single people out? Doesn't the constitution, that everyone here claims to revere, protect all of us? Muslim americans too?

Ben, I really appreciate you writing this because it's actually as even-toned a summary of the big-picture issues I have with the "just profile Muslims!" argument.  We just fought an entire friggin' election campaign on the underlying principle of "The Government Is Not Your Friend And Do Not Trust It With More Power."  And yet now we're just supposed to say "eh, fuck it, let's give the government the legal power to single out members of a disfavored religious group, because hey -- I don't much care for Muslims anyway." 

I dunno, it doesn't work that way for me.  Especially because I seem to be more cognizant than most of how quickly the wild abuse would happen once the precedent is set and the camel's nose gets in the tent.

"Also, sure profiling is the easy answer, but how can conservatives and libertarians be so quick to give the government power to single people out? Doesn't the constitution, that everyone here claims to revere, protect all of us? Muslim americans too?"

Wow.  Just wow.

How exactly are good security measures "profiling"?  Really.  Please explain how putting someone who has made last minute purchases, sometimes thru 3rd parties for one way tickets, & limited luggage thru extra security = Muslim.

As to those "Israel is tiny" comments - they run hundreds of security checkpoints around the world, and some of the technology they've come up with is already in use (such as the new "shoe sensor")in other countries.  The US is about 10 steps behind, but hey - we're patted down!!

Feh.

Posted by: ace © at November 18, 2010 02:33 PM (nj1bB)

Dogs can be trained to detect cancer on your breath.  They certainly can detect explosive traces emanating from a butt-bomber.

Posted by: rightwingva at November 18, 2010 02:40 PM (pDXql)

Wow... 130 out of the 10,013,224 FLIGHTS

yep... 130, out of the 767,157,111 Passengers (stats from 2009).

Wow... just... wow... 130 for the 6.8 BILLION dollars (2008, higher now).

" Dogs can't sniff an explosive up someone's butt."

Can dolphins? How 'bout those trained bees I keep hearing about?

#498,

I continue to maintain that this is more of a "preference cascade" thing -- or a "last straw" thing, than an actual argument about scanners and patdowns.

Precisely.

Posted by: Charlie Rangel at November 18, 2010 01:33 PM (TMB3S)

Stop having a conversation with the voices in your head. I didn't blame Obama for backscatter technology.  I said that the implementation of this policy in the midst of the thousands of other stabs at my country which Obama has taken since he took office in 2009 is what is causing the very-much justified freak-out.

Context, Chollie, is your friend.

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." Rahmbo

I'm getting a bad feeling about this. I think we are being manipulated by the government to purposefully hurt the airline and travel industries.

Especially with the possible hijab exemptions, we are being mocked and chided into being useful idiots. They are trying to push us into crisis mode. Keep cool.

Ace I think your really off base here. This is clearly a violation of the 4th amendment and should not be tolerated. A cop stopping you for speeding could not get away with giving you such a search. How much longer do we have to put up with this kind of indigity in the name of security. How far are you willing to go and what are you willing to give up to continue breathing. It appears the terrorists have won. They are having us give up our liberties one by one in in the name of safety. And what are you going to do when the next one shoves his PETN up his ass. What do you suggest we do then??? Will you be the first one in line.

Of course, yeah, that's it. (There is also some "it might give you skin cancer" claim, but I think it's premature to take that as a proven.)

I was pretty much of the same mind as Ace ... if it works then go ahead and use those damn body scanners. I'll learn to live with the fact those oh-so-dreamy TSA thugs will be getting to know me real well. That was until I read about the potential radiation danger. I've had two pre-melanomas removed and watched my brother go through treatment for thyroid cancer. Early childhood exposure to radiation is about the only known risk factor for thyroid cancer. As far as I can see this technology has been rushed to market and doesn't appear to have been evaluated properly.

I have a job where I travel by plane several times a week. I'm opting out of the body scanners and if necessary will submit to being pawed, groped and fondled by TSA.

"If we had confidence in the honesty and judgment of the people in charge, there would be far less objection"

Careful there - uttering such sentiments will get you imaged, patted, groped, & a BCS...

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at November 18, 2010 02:58 PM (1hM1d)

WAIT!  Thats it! thats the reason for the body scanners.... they lost one!

/puts on his tinfoil hat

SarahW, the fact is I agree with you on the efficacy of the scans and pat downs.  I just don't agree that it's a 4th amendment issue.  I could be wrong, but we'll have to wait for a court other than the 9th Circus to rule on it.

Of course, the unadvertised point of no return may make it a 4th amenment issue; but I'm not under the impression the opponents' points  hinge on that aspect.

Posted by: SarahW at November 18, 2010 02:51 PM (Z4T49)

Who cares? Whatcha gonna do with a ceramic weapon? threaten the flight attendant to bring you another Jack Daniels?  Cockpit doors are armored. Pilots are armed. no threat.

All this "don't touch my junk" stuff -- isn't that just putting up a big sign that says "Terrorists, put your ball of C4 under your testicles"?

Um, Ace, maybe you like getting felt up by unionized employees of the government, but there's nothing preventing the aforementioned terrorist from fashioning a butt plug from semtex and stuffing into a body cavity

We've already put up the following signs: 

our visa system is broken (9/11)

 our no fly lists are broken (panty bomber)

 our intelligence sharing is broken (panty bomber and shoe bomber)

  you are not doing one thing to make people safer (that last one was posted by anti-terrorism experts).

We are still avoiding putting out the sign that says: your three year old child can and may be searched, and you have no right to oppose this. We have video evidence to the contrary.

What do we do *until* we get this regime?

Well, I've decided it's highly unlikely that I'll choose getting on a plane when I need to travel.  But that only solves my disagreements with how TSA is doing all this and not the larger ones.

Ace...in case it hasn't been said yet:

The issue isn't so much "don't touch my junk" but "don't touch my junk without a darned good reason."  Simply subjecting everyone to a prison-style patdown only breeds resentment and pushback, exactly as we're seeing.  Instead, proper security goes in stages.  Does the guy coming through the first stage of security ring any alarms?  Is he a fat white guy with his ugly wife and three rugrats flying into Iowa from Orlando?  Doubtful he's a terror risk and a strip search (however virtual) is a waste of time. 

On the other hand, the single young man with a one way ticket paid in cash?  Might be worth a second look and he can be routed into the secondary screening line.

The thing is, starting with the intrusive search measures right off the bat renders them least effective.  You have to do these things in stages.  Funny, if you work in stages then the "reasonableness" of the intrusive searches that *are* necessary is generally proven by the process itself.

Jeff B.,

Actually, K9 use makes a great deal of sense - when used as one component of a thorough search process.  No one's proposing packs of trained dogs roaming the B Concourse @ Dulles...

Careful there - uttering such sentiments will get you imaged, patted, groped, & a BCS...

Posted by: Jess at November 18, 2010 02:59 PM (C1gln)

And that'd make you be worse off than if you were taking a flight to Pittsburgh? In fact, if you think about it, the latter would be far worse -- you'd be imaged, patted, groped, and BCS'd......and end up in Pittsburgh.

576...  Gulp.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at November 18, 2010 01:48 PM (8y9MW)

See: contract signed upon entering the U.S. Armed Forces.

What he's saying is that the idea proposed by a lot of conservatives ("let's just profile Muslims el-Al style!") is constitutionally impossible. 

And again, I ask - in what universe does checking the status of the individual flyer = profile muslims?

Oh - and nice Israel slam there...

Okay, the vast majority here, and evidenty in the US, think that TSA's security screening procedures SUCK and/or are unconstitutional and/or sexual asault. And it seems just as many think profiling is not a good option either for a variety of reasons.

So, what would you folks suggest TSA or a private company do to insure the security of air travel?

Posted by: pajama momma at November 18, 2010 01:50 PM (/Czjb)

Thanks for the much-needed laughter.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie

the same way you determine if a TSA agent is a sexual predator; by referencing their backgroung check. Wait one, many of them never received one. Which you have to have to be a janitor in a school system. Ad if med records do go online, I have a better chance of determining if Miss Vavoom actually did undergo a procedure than whether yutz #3 in the ersatz badge isn't a refugee from justice. Ironic, huh?

You want to enhance security? Dogs aren't practical? Profiling makes too much sense? Try restricting flights of anyone on a Visa to off hours. Revamp the visa program itself. Perhaps we make them go through the same crap everybody has to undergo to get cough syrup. Same with cash only tickets. Don't have a credit card? Show up early, buy the ticket at the airport and receive a screening while there.

Terrye,

Please. Really?  the CBS poll indicted that 81% were ok with X rays. Nothing was said about the reality of imaging...

You do know that personal security (or "Israeli" as you call it) is the gold standard & is used across the US & around the world in a variety of settings.  I strongly suspect that few would even notice it...

BTW, which airport? Very few had NoS fully operational in mid October.  Sure it wasn't a metal detector?

So, what would you folks suggest TSA or a private company do to insure the security of air travel?

Posted by: TRO

Revamp the visa process and actually act upon the no fly lists and you have just prevented the 9/11 bobmers, the shoe bomber and the panty raider.

Oh and finally acknowledge that the still existing policy that passengers stay meek and mild in their seats is dead and gone. That is perhaps the ultimate bit of security theater. Paasengers stopped #2 and 3, and prevented one of the 9/11 flights from hurting anyone on the ground. Until the idiots in charge admit this, we have a very reasonable case that our betters are flinging bullshit as fast and as far as possible.

What do we do *until* we get this regime?

Behavior analysis, more air marshalls, a pre-screening program... and accepting the fact that if a resourceful and determined terrorist really wants to get a bomb on a plane, he won't be stopped by crotch-groping and full body scanners.

The "underwear bomber" was the catalyst for these scanners, but it's unlikely that the scanner would've caught him- he only had 3 oz of explosives.

We don't "give up", but violating the privacy of people who any moron could take one look at and determine "not a bomber" is so absurd that only a federal bureaucracy could dream of it.

Posted by: Demosthenes

And it has a disparate impact upon people who are not liberals.

Just wait until the first muslim woman gets her explosives or weapons through because of her burka.

How we will laugh at that! Unless of course we or our friends and family can't laugh ... because we will be dead.

Jeez Ace, this is like your rant about "vetting" or your advocating TARP to avoid a socialist takeover in 2008.

When you are wrong, you don't just go halfway, you go aaaaallllll the way!

Oh and finally acknowledge that the still existing policy that passengers stay meek and mild in their seats is dead and gone.

And that is why the TSA is theater, not reality.

It would seem to me that you have completely misunderstood the argument Ace has made here.  What he's saying is that the idea proposed by a lot of conservatives ("let's just profile Muslims el-Al style!") is constitutionally impossible. 

Bullshit...Israelis ask questions and are trained to see how you react. And profiling is NOT unconstitutional.

The issue isn't so much "don't touch my junk" but "don't touch my junk without a darned good reason."  Simply subjecting everyone to a prison-style patdown only breeds resentment and pushback, exactly as we're seeing.  Instead, proper security goes in stages.  Does the guy coming through the first stage of security ring any alarms?  Is he a fat white guy with his ugly wife and three rugrats flying into Iowa from Orlando?  Doubtful he's a terror risk and a strip search (however virtual) is a waste of time. 

Posted by: JohnTant at November 18, 2010 03:03 PM (eytER)

Summer, 2001: my wife, my three daughters and I have spent a week with her sister in Israel.  We're getting a late start to the airport -- no way will we get there the full 2 hours ahead of time needed to clear security, especially not with a rental car to return.  My wife's brother-in-law tells us to relax, have breakfast, take the next flight, but I'd rather wait at the airport.

We get to the rental car return 45 minutes before flight time.  We get to the ticket counter half an hour before flight time.  The Israeli clerk for British Airways says, "We closed boarding for this flight half an hour ago."  I say, "Yes, I understand.  We will take the next flight."  "That's in six hours," she says.  "I understand," I reply.

She looks at me, my wife, my three little girls.  "Hand me your tickets and passports," she says.

In a drill with military precision, she gets us processed, our luggage through the scanner, and onto the bus from the gate to the plane in ten minutes flat.

I don't know if that would ever be repeated in the post-9/11 environment.  But she profiled us as a family of Americans unlikely to commit mass suicide for any terrorist purpose.  (And for the record, while we may be fat, neither my wife nor I are ugly.)

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 18, 2010 03:19 PM (8c8Y4)

Exactly.  You and me both.  It's not worth it to me.

WTF is so hard to get about this trash?

There is NO extra safety from invasive pat downs and x-ray scanners. No means no, means none at all. Nope, nada, zip, fucking ZERO.

Last year, al Qaeda used a C-4 suppository, which is completely undetectable by these scanners and these searches. God, how dense do you have to be to not get that? Maybe, just maybe the same guy who strapped his woody in semtex might pack his bum with plastique if he could do it all over again. You think, maybe? Maybe?

The game is UP. It's over. These security measures have been demonstrated to fail. They cannot succeed, even in theory. This regime fails. There hasn't been another shoe-bomber right? We had an underwear bomber after; terrorists change their tactics.

What's left is aggressive investigation and prosecution of radicals in the US and in the wider world. If you're a member of a radical mosque, if you're somehow supportive of terrorist groups, you do not fly. And if the case is strong enough, you do not breathe free air as a free man.

There is no inconsistency. You're imagining things, ace. I mean, if the 4th amendment doesn't apply to searches, even though it clearly mentions 'searches', then clearly you can at least invent some bullshit justification to square the circle. I mean, surely if commerce law restricts us from taking illegal fruits and veggies through customs, surely there is some 4th order legal assholery that can turn black into white for us. Join the team.

Posted by: An Observation at November 18, 2010 03:26 PM (ylhEn)

Now, see?  You were fine until you took a shit at the end of your post.

"TSA doesn't look at people. The Israelis do.  And to their mind, if you're a nervous or shifty looking mother humper, you probably are a mother humper and should be examined more closely.

Israell has the process down to a science, but the problem is they use highly trained, well-vetted pesonnel to do this screening at only a few airports.  The United States would have to train and employ and pay big bucks to get that kind of talent at dozens of airports. And they don't have to be politically correct about it either.  Another luxury we don't have here.

"Nothing will ensure the security of air travel!  It's a risk!  Just like driving is a risk.  Just like leaving your home every day is a risk.  Just like life is a risk."

I agree. Except the risk is not as small as you think.  Flying is the safest form of travel, yes, but that's historically been based on the mechanical safety of the planes for the most part. Not terrorists boarding them and blowing them up or flying them into buildings. (They used to just hijack them if you remember the good ole days.)

So considering that racial Islamic terrorists would love nothing better than to do that again and if our security is lax would certainly take advantage of it, we still have to try to ensure some level of security. Are x-ray machines enough? Metal detectors? Bomb dogs? 

Maybe. Probably. Until the first time someone manages to blow one up and then we'll all be complaining they didn't do enough.

Posted by: ace

My guess is the laws associated with customs and quarantine. Nations have manatined the right to secure their borders, and such rights have been recognized in international law. Some of these predate the US. My understanding is that such searches have existed for cargo and baggage since before the Republic. It is interesting to note that physical searches of humans HAS taken place at certain border crossings and airports when the traveller is leaving a country known for drug trafficking. But that is profiling.

Terrye,

Please. Really?  the CBS poll indicted that 81% were ok with X rays. Nothing was said about the reality of imaging...

You do know that personal security (or "Israeli" as you call it) is the gold standard & is used across the US & around the world in a variety of settings.  I strongly suspect that few would even notice it...

BTW, which airport? Very few had NoS fully operational in mid October.  Sure it wasn't a metal detector?

Posted by: Jess at November 18, 2010 03:20 PM (C1gln)

Yeah that's sort of my response to ace saying he's been patted down before and it was no big deal.  Was it in the past two weeks?  That seems to be the time frame of a lot of this shit hitting the fan.  So I'm currently going to be skeptical of anyone saying they've gone through this stuff and it was no big deal if they haven't actually gone through the new procedures that people are actually pissed off about.

Posted by: A Liberal at November 18, 2010 03:31 PM (R2fpr)

sock fail.

I am struggling with the constitutional issue.  The 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.  It does not prohibit all searches and seizures.  

Are some of you saying its unreasonable to do a screening of a U.S. citizen boarding a commercial jet through the brief use of a scanner?  Or are you saying its unreasonable to search all U.S. citizens (other than arab looking citizens)?  Or are you saying metal detectors are constitutionally permissible, but body scanners are not.

I get that scanning (and pat downs) are a brief loss or restriction of liberty.  But it is brief and it does have at lease  some marginal benefit.  I.e. its reasonable.

If you oppose it on policy or effectiveness grounds, fine -- but I don't think you can oppose it on constitutional grounds.  Moreover, I don't think you can pick which U.S. citizen has a constitutional right, and which don't.

And to partially contradict myself- I personally don't have much problem with the scanners other than being expensive and ineffective.  Plenty of people including near-strangers have seen me naked (giggity) already.

I understand why other people do have a problem with them though, and the alternative shouldn't default to "sexual molestation".

Posted by: TRO

Or maybe we'll complain about the ways in which they could have been prevented but weren't (visa system is (still)fucked, no fly lists ignored, warning from father of panty raider ignored). That anyone could argue that 67,000 ill-trained unchecked idiots is better than or easier than rejecting Visas saying "a hotel" for an adress is an exercise in madness.

But that is exactly what is intimated repeatedly here. At least three people have suggested that opposition to this mob of fools is tantamount to everyone flying Al Qaeda Air.

And as for those saying" we'll this is the best we got, or so what if the three year old is felt up, what are all of you going to do when the TSA truns into SEPTA? These idiots will likely unionize in the next year.

Posted by: ace © at November 18, 2010 03:29 PM (nj1bB)

The point is very simple: as soon as we implement any particular set of measures and rules that direct the attention of the screeners to specific things and methods that might be a threat, the jihadis will invent new things and methods that the screeners aren't trained and directed to look at.

The Israelis look at people to see if they are behaving the way bad actors do.  Not just at the color of their skin, the spelling of their name or the way they pronounce words, but at whether they show undue nervousness or fear, or whether they answer questions in a truthful manner -- that is, without anxious hesitation or in a forced, rehearsed way.

How did the Gestapo agent trip up the Englishmen in The Great Escape?  After questioning them in German and hearing their flawless answers, he said, in English, "Your German is quite excellent," and one of them reflexively answered, in English, "Thank you."  Their things and methods -- their forged papers and their refitted uniforms made to look like civilian clothes and their German phrases and accents -- worked perfectly.  Their innate behaviors is what got them sent to the firing squad.

"Our fundamental rights are not, and are not supposed to be, location-dependent."

Aren't they though?  I'm not an attorney or con-law professor, but I'm pretty sure the courts have ruled you have a greater "expectation to privacy" in say, your home, than you do out in public.  Or are you talking about the location on the body itself?

Posted by: ace © at November 18, 2010 03:37 PM (nj1bB)

I went through the full-body imager at Tampa airport on Nov. 4.  You have to take off your belt and empty your pockets.  Since I was still in "they're looking for metal" mode, I forgot to take out my wallet from my back pocket and got directed to wait for a pat-down.

The screener had me take out my wallet and hold it in my hand.  He then said, "I will pat your buttocks with the backs of my hands."  He did so and inspected my waistband -- taking a swab sample for the explosive detector.  Once the sample came back clean, I was free to get my things.

But this is after I consented to the full-body scan, which presumably showed that I was clean other than my back pocket.  If I had not consented to the scan, the screener would have been tasked with manually doing what the imager would have done, all over my body.

657

No -- that obviously is not reasonable.  I have authorized a body scan, not a public distribution of pictures from the scan.  If the a TSA official distributed the pictures that official would have violated my constitutional rights under color of law and would be subject to a civil rights lawsuit.

But the original scan is still consitutionally ok.

I get that scanning (and pat downs) are a brief loss or restriction of liberty.  But it is brief and it does have at lease  some marginal benefit.  I.e. its reasonable.

Is it beneficial though?  A lot of people are pointing out that its actually not making you more secure and is not actual security but just "security theater"

Posted by: baldilocks

Yup. Think of local law enforcement. Here, the State police and new Castle county police forces are considered the best. They have the highest standards, and they also have the highest pay and benefits. The city of Wilmington is also considered good. The little towns? Not so much. One officer told me point blank that the Newark (DE) police force was largely guys who had been rejected by the state and county.

Joke: Why did the town of Elsmere DE disband their K-9 unit?

answer: They couldn't teach the dog to write a ticket.

2nd joke: Why did the town of Newark disband their K-9 unit?

answer: the dog could write tickets, but felt that the quota was unprofessional.

Posted by: ace © at November 18, 2010 03:42 PM (nj1bB)

I have.  Twice, I think.

Posted by: The Great and Secret Show

I thought that they stopped handing out nutsacks?

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 18, 2010 03:38 PM (8c8Y4)

Also this needs to be addressed before someone says "they can't keep the images"  Because that is a lie that DHS and TSA are hoping to perpetrate.  They have this sort of "privacy" overlays on the machines but they actually aren't some immutable law of the machines that can not be altered.  They are features that can be dialed up and down.  So if you think that they'll never start keeping these images because they said so, you're grasping at straws.

Posted by: ace © at November 18, 2010 03:45 PM (nj1bB)

Maybe the Customs Agents offer a clue.  They look for the nervous and shifty -- I got singled out from a group of travelers clearing their international luggage through O'Hare because I am prone to sweating and got a short (less than a minute) friendly interrogation by a Customs Agent: "You sure you didn't bring back a few Cuban cigars from Paris, there, fella?"

"Did you pack your bags yourself" and "Have your bags been in your control the entire time" are asked at ticket counters in America as perfunctory informational questions and no one cares if you're lying.  In other contexts -- Israeli airports and US Customs checkpoints -- those questions are probes into the truthfulness and the hidden intentions of the traveler.

675

Fair point.  But that is a practical argument not a constitutional argument. If we don't think the scanners or pat downs work, by all means lets do something better.  But what is the better alternative you would propose? 

"The Israelis look at people to see if they are behaving the way bad actors do.  Not just at the color of their skin, the spelling of their name or the way they pronounce words, but at whether they show undue nervousness or fear, or whether they answer questions in a truthful manner -- that is, without anxious hesitation or in a forced, rehearsed way."

And it works. But you have to have high quality people with great training and some experience to do that kind of screening.  Costs a ton as you can imagine, especially for all the airports in the US.  I know where you can get a some though - former and retired Secret Service agents.  Or any law enforcement officer who has done a lot of personal security.

Thing is . . . once they determine that there's a pattern to the people behaving like bad actors (i.e. Islamic or a middle eastern ethnic group) it will be determined to be unconstitutional.

Posted by: ã PI at November 18, 2010 03:38 PM (+sBB4)

What bothers me is that they make such a big production out of taking out the tweezers and magnifying glass before they inspect my junk.

Fair point.  But that is a practical argument not a constitutional argument. If we don't think the scanners or pat downs work, by all means lets do something better.  But what is the better alternative you would propose? 

Posted by: nc

This answer has already been given repeatedly. Fixing the Visa system and actually working the no fly lists would have prevented the 9/11 attackers, the shoe bomber and the panty raider. And note that those last two were twitch cases. it seems that their bench is thinning. The laxity that the 9/11 bombers enjoyed have been covered extensively. what isn't detailed is that the visa program is still well and truly fucked.

The most serious potential threat we face would be the case of the Pan Am flight bombing over Lockerbie Scotland. There the bomber tricked his pregnant girlfriend ( non middle eastern person) into carrying the bomb. That surmounted the profiling, but again it appears to be rare.

The 4th Amendment says you have the right to be secure in your property, too. And yet apparently this does not apply to your luggage.

<eye roll> You've been answered a hundred times over on this point. Here's the hints,
 here and here. I know you say that you're a writer, ace, not a reader, but you had better un#@$% yourself, state, before you go all unhinged-like.

675

Fair point.  But that is a practical argument not a constitutional argument. If we don't think the scanners or pat downs work, by all means lets do something better.  But what is the better alternative you would propose? 

Posted by: nc at November 18, 2010 03:52 PM (eRsMQ)

I don't know, I'm not a security professional.  So I don't know what would actually work.  But just because I can't think up a working solution does not mean we should continue with garbage that doesn't actually work.  That's like using blood letting as a cure for illnesses when you know it doesn't work because you haven't found an actual solution. 

Conservatives don't like profiling either, but we do realize there are tradeoffs in life. 

Bullshit!

Almost without exception the people who want us dead usually are muzzies. Common sense would state you start looking at these people STAT!

Posted by: ace ©

Has anyone here read about the IRA bombing campaigns? Or how the British dealt with them, especially in Britain? The IRA some times made attacks using bombs that couldn't detonate, or were deliberately not fused. They were seeking to disrupt as much as to inflict damage and casualties. Once the British became complacent (running trains over tracks even after the IRA reported that they had placed a "device", the IRA would then set off one to prove that they were back to live devices. This crap went on for over 30 years. They figured out how to keep systems running while not doing this. And several times they forced the IRA into inaction due to cells being broken.

I am attempting to get you to admit what you steadfastly refuse to, in the face of all evidence -- that yes, airports are special, and to board a plane, you have to waive certain rights. If you don't want to waive them, you don't fly. No one has a gun to your head.

My solution is to simply stop flying. Once a certain number of airlines fail due to people avoiding the hassle of flight then there will be a second look at this rediculous state of affairs.

I have already written to several airlines and airports in the area stating as such, I refused to be abused for an expensive service I'm paying for! One that is pointless to boot!

That "dog only working an hour" is just BS. Almost everyone included profiling too. 95% of the dog's time will be at rest.

There is probably less than 5000 U.S passengers a day that fit a reasonable profile (middle east national or immigrant, male, single traveler, 15 to 60, etc.).

ok i like the dog idea, but aren't people of other religions adverse to dogs around?

who owns the contracts to the machines? yeah I can't help having suspicions on the simplest things after windmills and cap and raid, , carbon credits.

Posted by: Margaret Thatcher

Yep. We ugly Americans are really prudish about three year old being felt up by a guy with federal authority and no background check. We get that. And so did the three year old.

and you know what? I lived

And children have been molested. and you know what? They lived.

And many women have been felt up and humiliated in public. and you know what? They lived.

And many people have been lied too, and accosted and treated shabbily. and you know what? Their tax dollars payed for that.

United States v. Aukai

In that case, the 9th Circuit (2007) Ruled that once you have checked luggage or placed ac arry on upon the machinery, you cannot refuse the search. The courts view the special governmetnal need to keep people safe on airplanes once they have boarded them. The cpurts have carved out exceptions to your and my fourth amendment right. When there is a COMPELLING government interest, your rights take the back seat. So all teh talk of your 4th amendment rights needs to be done in light of opinions issued by the court and teh standard of review. If you do not like it, quit voting in fucktards that appoint libs to the bench. Plain and simple.

ok i like the dog idea, but aren't people of other religions adverse to dogs around?

So what?  Other religions are adverse to eating beef, or pork.  That's isn't stopping restauraunts in the airports from serving burgers or ham or bacon.

Posted by: Margaret Thatcher at November 18, 2010 03:50 PM (NqHys)

Well, Margaret, it is the essence of our oath.

"There is no "special" clause of this nature in the Constitution.  The government does not have the right to tell me I must waive my rights in order to fly a plane.  That applies to baggage as well as to persons.  What's happening is unconstitutional in both instances.  That's part of why the transfer of security to TSA rather than private companies was a bad idea. "

-- Just a guy

No offense, but I can assure you, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.  There is no right that is being waived at all, unless there is a search by a government actor (e.g., the TSA)  that is an "unreasonable' search and seizure.  The courts have long held that the reasonableness of the search depends on the circumstances under which the search was conducted.

In that case, the 9th Circuit (2007) Ruled that once you have checked luggage or placed ac arry on upon the machinery, you cannot refuse the search. The courts view the special governmetnal need to keep people safe on airplanes once they have boarded them. The cpurts have carved out exceptions to your and my fourth amendment right. When there is a COMPELLING government interest, your rights take the back seat. So all teh talk of your 4th amendment rights needs to be done in light of opinions issued by the court and teh standard of review. If you do not like it, quit voting in fucktards that appoint libs to the bench. Plain and simple.

Notice what you posted stated (checked luggage, placed on a machine). If a person does not want to be searched, they can hold unto their possesions and the government has no right to search it. According to what you posted, one voluntarily places the luggage on the machine.

Notice what you posted stated (checked luggage, placed on a machine). If a person does not want to be searched, they can hold unto their possesions and the government has no right to search it. According to what you posted, one voluntarily places the luggage on the machine.

That seems to be the language of the 9th circuit, yes. However, remember, once you decline proceed, suspicion itself may be elevated to the level needed to overcome  a challenge to the subsequent search. THAT search results from suspicion, the original search is put in place because of the compelling government interest. Now, though you have not brought it up, I will also say that once you decline to put the bags on for the instant flight, the fact that future flights may be impacted may extend the interests in a way that allows that search/detention as well. I am not arguing for or against, just supplying info and  a bit of analysis.

Posted by: Margaret Thatcher

I'm more talking about any of the 300 million Americans (prudes, every one of us) who might be subject to this. I can certainly understand why you'd rather linger, like the inspector's hand, on the adults. But that isn't the complete picture. The picture does certainly include three year olds. But as you said, they'll live. And so will the memories.

There's a difference between being searched by the police who are governed by rules of probable cause (sorry, man, but if you got frisked there must have been a reason) and being groped searched (by someone whose training, professionalism, and accountability are significantly less than that of a police officer) simply because you are trying to exercise your right to travel using a commercial airline.

Nope...a Terry stop allows that pat down for the protection of the office without probalbe cause. If I am stopped in my auto the cop can search all teh compartment in my reach. He can have me step out and he can pat me down. he had a REASON to pull me over...perhaps I sped or I crossed the lane line. But he can pat me down and not have any probable cause to think I have drugs/gun/knife/candy in my pcokets.

I can't get past that the BodyScan pics look like Concentration Camp residents.  The first thing done to people in the Camps was to get rid of their human dignity by taking off their clothing - ostensibly for the "showers"....

You become nothing but cattle.  THINK about it.

Susan Lee

I was expecting to get "the business" at Logan this past Sunday, but nothin happened.  Standard walk through a metal detector, all my personal crap on the conveyor.

Maybe me sayin "I'M READY!" real loud to the TSA goobers 4 or 5 times mighta spooked em.  Dunno.

You've got got to be f'ng joking.

I'm female.  I live in a supposedly free country with a fourth amendment that disallows the idea of unreasonable search and seizure.  It is unreasonable to search millions of people each week that are innocent to try to catch one imaginary yahoo with a machine that cannot detect explosives.

I don't care if someone likes or doesn't like my junk, it's no one's business but mine, my husband or my doctor (and even then, only for a reason).  Doctors don't even inspect your junk unless there is a specific purpose for which to do so.

I don't want someone to look at or  touch my junk when I have not come under suspicion of committing a crime.  The mere act of wanting to travel on public transportation doesn't constituted probable cause or suspicion.

I have children.  I most especially don't want their junk looked at or touched. by strangers without a specific medical purpose and even then, that might end up being debatable depending upon the circumstances.

TSA are not medical personell.  They're not even trained and sworn law enforcement.  They're random minimum wage employees with a smattering of lame training and ergo qualified to do JACK.  Might as well let the security guy at the mall do it.  Or the guy that does my oil change on my car.  Same difference.

The machine's specifications are only being reported by the TSA and have not been independently qualifed by an outside source. They say that it emits X rads, but again, it's self reported.   There are enough questions by physicians to give one pause.  The idea that it better be perfectly calibrated and expertly run in order not to overdose someone and that it could already potentially concentrated the beam on the skin even if done correctly is concerning.

Radiation is cumulative.  Whoops, sorry won't be good enough if someone gets overdosed.  Especially not to someone in my family, that has a serious history of metastatic skin cancer.  Or to young children who do not need ANY radiation on their developing bodies. 

As such, they can all kiss my ass.  If you ace are not worried, then rock on.  If anyone wants to cooperate with this violation of people's basic civil rights to privacy of their person, go ahead.

But this is not a tempest in a teapot, this is a real issue. What's next, body cavity searches if some yahoo shoves explosives up his rectum? Where does it end?  Or does it not?

One should not have to submit to radiation exposure or assault and battery in order to get on a freaking plane.

Our fourth amendment is being completely circumvented, even on the level of border securty standards and the American people should not stand for it.

My opinion but it's a strong one.

Bring on explosive 'sniffer' machines, bomb sniffing dogs and profiling and forget this stupidity.

Per fake Ace:

"Tell me that The Man has no right to inspect your luggage at airports either."

********************************

All Americans should know that our government HAS NO RIGHTS, it has only "powers" provisionally given to it through the consent of the governed.  

Those powers are not plenary, and they CAN be abused.  See Korematsu v. The United States.

If WE THE PEOPLE say NO to such airport searches then WE  can force the government to stop.

If we can't, that's the end of our constitutional republic.

That seems to be the language of the 9th circuit, yes. However, remember, once you decline proceed, suspicion itself may be elevated to the level needed to overcome  a challenge to the subsequent search. THAT search results from suspicion, the original search is put in place because of the compelling government interest.

I've never known of an argument that an assertion of my 4th Amendment rights is reasonable grounds for suspicion (you have to have other factors too). Perhaps the legal minds can clarify it for me.

Now, though you have not brought it up, I will also say that once you decline to put the bags on for the instant flight, the fact that future flights may be impacted may extend the interests in a way that allows that search/detention as well.

Once the bags are in the all clear area, I don't see how future flights may be impacted.

 I am not arguing for or against, just supplying info and  a bit of analysis

I understand. I just found it interesting that what you posted seemed to indicate that a person who maintains control of their effects can refuse inspection. Which is exactly opposite the view Ace has been saying the whole time.

@760:

your argument is a reasonableness issue. The right is NOT absolute and your junk is protected reasonably. It is not protected from everything you don't like. I am no fan of the technology and would like to see it removed because it does not work and therefore is NOT reasonable. But to say you the 4th A will absolutly protect your junk without probablee cause is simply incorrect.

@760:

your argument is a reasonableness issue. The right is NOT absolute and your junk is protected reasonably. It is not protected from everything you don't like. I am no fan of the technology and would like to see it removed because it does not work and therefore is NOT reasonable. But to say you the 4th A will absolutly protect your junk without probable cause is simply incorrect.

Cash for a ticket? you have to buy it at the airport and be screened

credit card? active for at least six months and subject to address verification ( any EFT network can do this today)

Visa? Report to the airport at the station next to the guy paying in cash

flight crew? screened and issued a card with fingerprint

TSA employee without a successful background check? Immediately suspended, pending completion of the check. Notice that no one, including Incompetano has suggested this? They just repeat the word professional and shut up peasants. If you want to quell the peasants this would do it. But it won't happen.

in flight homily? Passengers and crew are part of the flight. violent attempts will be quashed ( this is the hardest one; we know that passengers have subdued bombers and maniacs. The trick is admitting it without feeding a goddam lawyer)

I understand. I just found it interesting that what you posted seemed to indicate that a person who maintains control of their effects can refuse inspection. Which is exactly opposite the view Ace has been saying the whole time.

Ace has not read the case law.....and I bet the TSA pleab has not either. They seem not even to understand their own list of items which are allowabel. Case in point, their own website allowed small juice boxes, however, a co-worker of mine traveling over seas with kids took a block of those very same small juice baxes and they TSA took tehm and through them in the garbage, not even giving him the option of standing aside and DRINKING them if he wisshed. So, one COULD assert a conversion or a theft in taht case as well, given he had not legal basis to take the items.

For not revealing his financial interest in pushing the scanners, Cherftoff should be hanged from the nearest lamppost.

He's just another rent-seeking lobbyist, just another pimp and hustler.

Posted by: ace ©

That's the thing that's bothering me. This is new to almost everyone, since this is being phased in, and only a small percentage of people ly on a regulare basis. I haven't flown in two years. The mounting reports and physical evidence is bothersome. What did you think of the ideas posted on #776