Man won't submit to security, TSA won't let him fly. Who's right?

[Guest]

... and if that means it sees my daughter's boobs too, I'm fine with that. I want her alive.

Elphaba

Ah, there it is...

Exactly what I was saying.

It is sad to see people give up personal dignity in exchange for security.

Terrorists: 1

Americans: 0

Or, I'm not sure if Elphaba is American...

[Elphaba]

Ah, there it is...

Exactly what I was saying.

It is sad to see people give up personal dignity in exchange for security.

Terrorists: 1

Americans: 0

Or, I'm not sure if Elphaba is American...

Of course I'm an American. That's obvious to anyone who's read my posts over the last few years.

In this American's opinion, a terrorist (or a whacko) who succeeds in killing my daughter is a terrorist who wins. I want my country to use any technology possible to prevent that from happening. I just want the technology to actually work.

Elphaba

[Guest]

Of course I'm an American. That's obvious to anyone who's read my posts over the last few years.

In this American's opinion, a terrorist (or a whacko) who succeeds in killing my daughter is a terrorist who wins. I want my country to use any technology possible to prevent that from happening. I just want the technology to actually work.

Elphaba

A terrorist doesn't have to kill your daughter to win. This is not a war about how many people gets killed. This is a war against the American way of life - the beacon of freedom that gives hope to people like me - a Filipino.

Sometimes, you have to actually look at the forest instead of just worry about your own personal tree.

So, let's see... where do you draw the line? TSA says, your 13-year-old daughter will have to strip naked infront of TSA agents to check into her body crevices for plastic explosive devices. Sure, why not... as long as it keeps your daughter from getting killed!

Edited November 18, 2010 by anatess

[Elphaba]

A terrorist doesn't have to kill your daughter to win.

I never said otherwise; however, it's ridiculous to think that killing my daughter, or your sons, or anyone else, doesn't embolden them, and any reasonable way we can foil their attempts to do so is good for both the tree and the forest.

This is not a war about how many people gets killed. This is a war against the American way of life

That is a nice soundbite, but what this “war” is about is far more complicated than “They hate our freedom.”

Sometimes, you have to actually look at the forest instead of just worry about your own personal tree.

Do you seriously think the only reason I support using effective technology to prevent terrorist attacks is ONLY to keep an airplane my daughter happens to be on from being blown up?

I used the example of my daughter because someone previously in this thread said he was opposed to the scanners because he didn’t want his daughter’s body gawked at by TSA agents. I do not share his objection. Given the objective, I am fine with them looking at my daughter’s body via the scanners. It has nothing to do with keeping only my daughter safe. It has to do with keeping everyone safe.

So, let's see... where do you draw the line? TSA says, your 13-year-old daughter will have to strip naked infront of TSA agents to check into her body crevices for plastic explosive devices. Sure, why not... as long as it keeps your daughter from getting killed!

If my 13-year-old daughter gives them a valid reason to suspect she has an explosive device in her body, then, absolutely, I support them checking her body crevices. It is completely feasible these lunatics would use a young girl in such a way.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

A terrorist doesn't have to kill your daughter to win.

I agree, and that was a poor choice of wording on my part.

However, when their plot to kill my daughter, your son, or anyone else, is foiled by reasonable use of technology, it negates the "terrorist" aspect of "terrorism," and thus, they do lose.

This is not a war about how many people gets killed. This is a war against the American way of life

That is a nice soundbite, but what this “war” is about is far more complicated than “They hate our freedom.”

Sometimes, you have to actually look at the forest instead of just worry about your own personal tree.

I used the example of my daughter because someone previously in this thread said he was opposed to the scanners because he didn’t want his daughter’s body gawked at by TSA agents. I do not share his objection. Given the objective, I am fine with them looking at my daughter’s body via the scanners. It has nothing to do with keeping only my daughter safe. It has to do with keeping everyone safe.

So, let's see... where do you draw the line? TSA says, your 13-year-old daughter will have to strip naked infront of TSA agents to check into her body crevices for plastic explosive devices. Sure, why not... as long as it keeps your daughter from getting killed!

If my 13-year-old daughter gives them a valid reason to suspect she has an explosive device in her body, emphasis on “valid,“ then, absolutely, I support them checking her body crevices.

Elphaba

Edited November 18, 2010 by Elphaba
I edited this for clarity. This version is correct.

[prisonchaplain]

Anatess and Elpha are both right, of course. We would go to great lengths to prevent an actual terrorist threat. (Elpha score 1). On the other hand, are we sacrificing too much personal dignity and liberty for perceived threats? (Anatess score 1)?

If we know the bombs are coming, we'd all submit to underground living, tight rations, incredible invasive security, and agonizing "Lifeboat" scenarios. If we knew the terrorists were plan to crash plans coming into Seattle, my city would be on virtual lockdown, and pitty those with flights coming through my fair town.

BUT, as Anatess points out, we know none of this. We are taking broad-brush measures that seem to be increasingly speculative, and downright humiliating for citizen and guest alike. Perhaps it's time to rethink this thing???

[Guest]

If my 13-year-old daughter gives them a valid reason to suspect she has an explosive device in her body, emphasis on “valid,“ then, absolutely, I support them checking her body crevices.

Elphaba

And there's the key: IF anybody gives them a VALID reason...

But no, you go through the scanner - not because there's any valid reason that you may be suspect other than the magic random number generator.

So, think that one through and tell us why it is ok for TSA to touch that man's groin.

[Just_A_Guy]

It was inevitable:

Dear Airline, I'm Leaving You.

[Blackmarch]

All I have to say is this:

If YOU, the American people, are willing to give up your personal dignity to "homeland security", then your country is well on its way to be the next Cuba.

I would like to think that this country is still great enough that patriots can choose to fly an airplane without having to subject themselves to strangers touching their groins and breasts.

It is sad to see that your intelligence agencies, the united states military, and police force feel that this is the way to prevent an act of terror to be instigated on the friendly skies.

Pathetic.

A jet airliner makes a good bomb...

And it's only one of the security measures.. not the only one.

If you don't want the pat down and grope then accept use of the scanner (which is supposed to be the point in the first place).

Personally i'd prefer the patdown/grope over having to strip naked and get a microcam shoved into various orifices.

If you can't accept either, then don't fly using commercial airliners and airports.

[NeuroTypical]

I remember after the towers fell, there was quite a bit of criticism about how we didn't have the right security measures in place, and how the administration had failed us, fell asleep on the job, etc. There was a very direct answer to all that criticism that stuck with me over the years.

"When the towers fell, America had exactly the level of security that it wanted and was willing to fund and put up with."

I read this thread, and I see some folks trying to increase our level of security, and I see America loudly screaming about sexual assault and unfairness and a waste of resources and whatnot.

America will suffer further airplane-based terrorist attacks, partially because America is not willing to submit itself to the procedures necessary to make themselves secure from such terrorist attacks.

It's a valid issue - rights and personal freedom vs. public safety and finding terrorists. America is making it clear that preserving personal freedoms are worth an occasional attack. Y'alls answer is more or less ok with me. We don't fly, and we live and work in sparsely populated areas miles away from much more attractive targets.

LM

Edited November 18, 2010 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Guest]

America is making it clear that preserving personal freedoms are worth an occasional attack.

LM

THAT was the answer I was hoping for!

There are a lot of ways to prevent a terrorist attack without having to hand over your personal dignity.

[Blackmarch]

ALso if we don't want all these security measures the other thing we can do to make it safer for populated areas is to drasticly change air routes so that they are far enough away from major population centers and security interests that there is time to warn, intercept, and if necessary, bring down the aircraft before it would be a threat to such- part of this would require that airports be moved significantly away from cities.

This sort of an endeavor would cost much more than just the increased secrurity measures.

Or live with the same risk level that we had at the time of the 9/11 attacks

therre really isn't a Good option other than avoid air travel.

Edited November 18, 2010 by Blackmarch

[Dravin]

What I find interesting is so many more people die of car accidents then terrorist attacks in this country. but if we tried to apply the same stringent standards to obtaining and maintaining a driver's license as we do to airport security something tells me it wouldn't last long or even happen.

[NeuroTypical]

There are a lot of ways to prevent a terrorist attack without having to hand over your personal dignity.

Correct. There are also a lot of ways to smuggle things on to airplanes in ways that can't be detected without making a segment of America feel like they've handed over their personal dignity. At the risk of being too explicit, there's a reason we're all familiar with the term 'body cavity search'.

LM

[Blackmarch]

What I find interesting is so many more people die of car accidents then terrorist attacks in this country. but if we tried to apply the same stringent standards to obtaining and maintaining a driver's license as we do to airport security something tells me it wouldn't last long or even happen.

No doubt that obtaining and keeping a drivers license should be much more stringent (I'm very much for such a move)... but that's a whole other thread and can of worms.

I really wish there would be more pressure for using alternative methods of transportation, and also for businesses to keep workers near where they work, or keep the work near where the workers live.

[prisonchaplain]

The underlying current of this thread is the question of just how serious the terrorist threat is. If it's really bad, those arguing for compliance are right. If it's more that we are indeed terrorized (i.e. the terrorists have achieved their objective already), then the many Americans who now believe that the security measures are too invasive and haphazzard are right.

My sense is that the threat is there, but probably not as severe as some suspect. Additionally, the security responses seem to be more reactive than to be a well-thought-through, strategic and coordinated plan of protection.

Thus, I am willing to air on the side of liberty and individual dignity. Now, if our intellgence services can provide us with authentic assurances that the measures taken are necessary, effective, and measured, I could easily be persuaded to err on the side of caution.

[Just_A_Guy]

Yet another TSA horror story.

[Dravin]

No doubt that obtaining and keeping a drivers license should be much more stringent (I'm very much for such a move)... but that's a whole other thread and can of worms.

.

They aren't exactly the same but it's a risk versus reward balancing act and it is from what I can see set to a much different scale than what airport security is and it clearly isn't set by just the number of lives at risk. Note I'm not saying they have to have the same scale, just that I find the disparity interesting. Clearly more is at play then X people could die.

Edited November 18, 2010 by Dravin

[Blackmarch]

They aren't exactly the same but it's a risk versus reward balancing act and it is from what I can see set to a much different scale than what airport security is and it clearly isn't set by just the number of lives at risk. Note I'm not saying they have to have the same scale, just that I find the disparity interesting. Clearly more is at play then X people could die.

I agree.

[bytor2112]

Yet another TSA horror story.

I mean seriously....had this been your wife or daughter or girlfriend? A smack in the kisser without the use of lips would have been appropriate me thinks.

And oh....what about this one ?

Edited November 19, 2010 by bytor2112

[PeaceRoseRest]

if that means it sees my daughter's boobs too, I'm fine with that.

Elphaba

And if your daughter's scan ends up on the Internet like a lot of other scans have...? The Lord desires us to retain both our modesty and our dignity.

Personally, I could go for the use of dogs. They've proven to be extremely effective elsewhere and would allow all of us to retain our modesty and dignity.

Edited November 19, 2010 by PeaceRoseRest

[Guest]

If I were in-charge of airport security, instead of spending a gillion dollars on TSA agents patting down passengers, I'd hire detectives to ride incognito on every single flight. Two if possible. Both armed, both trained on armed and unarmed combat, both trained on bomb disarming. On every single flight.

And then let passengers board the airplane with regular metal detector checks and luggage scans.

Yeah, that's what I would do.

[Dravin]

And if your daughter's scan ends up on the Internet like a lot of other scans have...? The Lord desires us to retain both our modesty and our dignity.

.

I think the divide on this part of the issue is going to rest on necessity, appropriateness and various other factors with the examination (pat and/or scan). Some lean more towards thinking of it like a doctor's visit (my pre-mission medical exam was not exactly chock full of modest and dignity and I have one particular part in mind as I say that) which the Lord isn't going to have an issue with. Other's see it more like the gas station attendant at some gas station in Oregon demanding to feel you up before he'll gas up your car. Which I feel fairly safe in saying, baring some truely incredible circumstances the Lord would want you to walk to your destination.

For the record Elphaba is an atheist, so appeals to the desires of the Lord are not going to be the most effective rhetorically speaking.

[prisonchaplain]

If I were in-charge of airport security, instead of spending a gillion dollars on TSA agents patting down passengers, I'd hire detectives to ride incognito on every single flight. Two if possible. Both armed, both trained on armed and unarmed combat, both trained on bomb disarming. On every single flight.

And then let passengers board the airplane with regular metal detector checks and luggage scans.

Yeah, that's what I would do.

Ironically,this was the first reaction to 9-11. We recharged the Air Marshall program. However, after an initial influx, I believe the numbers of them dropped again...and the decision to tackle airPORT scecurity took precedence over airLINE patroling. Be interesting to see what our intelligence services have to say about this idea.

[bytor2112]

And the stories continue......and more here.