I applaud the TSA.

[trumad]

Yeah---I know--- get the popcorn out and the flack jacket on.... ahhh that's OK---been here to long to run from controversy.

This is how I see the TSA.

I see them as a bunch of underpaid workers with a thankless job. I see them as a less than perfect organization that has made plenty of mistakes---patting down 6 year old kids, etc....

But I also see them as doing the best they can to keep my plane from blowing up in mid-flight or preventing some douchebag who thinks he can carry a concealed weapon on board.

WHAT---NO MORE PEANUTS, WELL FUCK YOU, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF MY GLOCK 9MM!!!

I lot of members her on DU---probably a majority-----cannot stand the TSA.

I'm a Diamond member with Delta---meaning I fly over 125,000 a year-----and I have to tell you.... I can't remember seeing a significant incident with the TSA in all my flying days.

Does it happen---you bet---are the X-Ray machines a huge concern, you bet. Are there some TSA agents who act like assholes---you bet....

Are the majority of everyday Agents who work the Security lines bad people??? ---- NO--not even close--- they simply are Middle class people just like you and me who are trying to live the Broken American dream.

Now---off to the airport....see ya.

[leftstreet]

1. K&R

[driver8]

2. I always feel bad for them -- it is a shitty job. n/t

[TNLib]

89. I only flown once since 9/11 and it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be

The TSA agents seemed nice enough and like you said they just trying to live the illusive American dream.

[truebrit71]

3. Yeah, watch them publicly molest a 6-year old and then get back to us..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=881997&mesg_id=882190

This is beyond the fringe...

[trumad]

11. I've watched it

and like I said--- there is some problems that need to be fixed.

[ecstatic]

17. the tricky part is

if a certain segment is excluded from being checked, that segment will be used to carry out the next attack. That's why profiling doesn't work.

[truebrit71]

29. I'm sorry but that is pure bollocks...

..remind me, how many terrorists have the TSA caught?

I'll tell you. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

That excuse is the reason we are behaving like sheep now...it has to stop..

[ecstatic]

48. There are steps that aren't being taken

like checking luggage, etc... and some rules are just plain silly (limit on liquids), but that doesn't mean all security checks should stop.

[blueamy66]

129. Oh, trust me, they check luggage -

and then steal shit.

My bro in law lost a $250 Blackhawk's jersey a month ago.....some asshole baggage handler stole it out of his golf bag.

Hell, I grew up in the airline industry. It just ain't the same!

Can we go back to the 70s? When my bro and I could run up and down the terminals.....eat the shrimp cocktail left in first class...sit with the VIPS and get autographs.....get free tix from celebrities/coaches/VIPs whom my Dad upgraded to first class? No upgrading anymore, with the frequent flier miles.......

Life and airline travel was so much easier 35+ years ago. I still remember waking my Dad up on 9-11 to tell him that his airliners were crashing into the twin towers.....

[Yupster]

108. That's my problem with them

I'm sure they're all very nice people, but they are doing a useless job for billions of dollars a year.

We don't have that kind of money to waste anymore.

We just don't.

[LanternWaste]

56. There are problems at some nuclear power plants in Japan that need to be fixed also...

There are problems at some nuclear power plants in Japan that need to be fixed also...

[hlthe2b]

4. Sadly, I can not agree.

My likewise excessive travel has left me with a far less favorable impression and dramatically less confidence that safety in the air has much to do with TSA on a routine basis. I'd say the unprofessional or overtly "needs to be immediately fired" percentage I have encountered is approaching 10%. That's pretty damned high. I see very little consistency in the various airports I routinely frequent-- that suggests both policy and training issues. While there are good agents, trying to do the best they can, that approaching 10% can readily wipe out that impression with their unprofessional behavior, outright abuse and arrogance. 'Sorry, but when agents take it upon themselves to so overtly grope a six year old child--with no other mitigating circumstances... I'll eave it there, but compared to similar security staff of many other countries, I don't think our TSA fares well.

[notesdev]

5. I applaud concentration camp guards

(not really, just going along with the spirit of the thread)

[didact]

105. LMAO...good folks doin' a shitty job they are!*

eom

[BridgeTheGap]

6. I don't blame TSA workers for our government's failure to address the root causes of

terrorism. I don't blame tsa workers for the possible ill effects of the body scanners they use.

They are people doing a job.

That said, the fact that TSA exists does not bode well for the future of our country. We are such a compliant people when we are affraid.

[leftstreet]

9. +1

Nicely stated

[KeepItReal]

19. Word. We know TSA people at the airport don't make policy.

"former Department of Homeland Security Chief, Michael Chertoff, who has been advocating this technology on any news program that will have him is personally profiting from their implementation. As a Security Consultant and Chairman of the Chertoff Group, one of his main clients is Rapiscan, a manufacturer of these devices.

Last year, the Department of Homeland Security awarded contracts of US$160 million each to two manufacturers of these back-scattering devices, one which which was Rapiscan."

http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/security/tsa-revolt-body-scanning-for-profit.html


Every time I opt out of that backscatter X-ray (I opt out *every* time) and the TSA crew give me that ludicrous pat down, I am sure they are *not* enjoying having to do it.

TSA has a job to do, but how they do it matters also.

[hlthe2b]

20. They can be held responsible for the manner in which they

approach the job and "excesses" that individual agents may engage in. If you look at most of the egregious complaints the past six months or so, it is individual "excesses" or an individual decision to go beyond the "routine" policy and to substitute their own judgement on approach (or attitude) that has led to problems. While one can blame the "system" for poor training, hiring and management practices, at some point the individual agent has to bear some responsibility for their own actions.

[BridgeTheGap]

132. Just like the military in war zones, i.e. "kill teams". I'm not convinced the TSA body scanners are

safe though. Flying next week...I'll probably opt for the "pat down" ... If I tell them I'm gay, does that mean that TSA woman has to perform the pat down?

[Union Scribe]

79. Great post. nt

[JackRiddler]

7. What's the name of the fallacy where you equate an agency with its low-wage workers, as though they

make the policy? "Support the Troops," perhaps?

[trumad]

12. Hey---just an observation from a guy who passes the screeners daily...

[LooseWilly]

128. IOW—A chime in from one of the fearful, praising BS measures meant to make you feel good...

Don't get me wrong I don't hold it against the average wage-goon when they behave like sympathetic human beings... but just because you are afraid doesn't offset the awful shit that some of them pull out of incompetence, poor training, or just general assholiodom. And the fact that all of the above happens enough that people haven't forgotten about it (kind of like pedophile Catholic priests)... means that it's an institutional problem that reassurance of your fears doesn't make "OK".

The irony is that shortcuts on maintenance on the planes to improve company profit margins, not to mention underpaying of all pilots hired anywhere near recently (also to improve company profit margins), is probably a much bigger threat to passenger safety... so I hope you enjoy the anti-hijacker theater every trip... and have some Xanex to help you cope with the actual institutional threats to your well-being.

:hi:

[ParkieDem]

8. I have no problems with the TSA personnel.

Most of whom I have seen are very professional and friendly. They realize they are in "the line of fire," so to speak, and most take it very well.

I was at the airport the other day and one guy refused the X-ray scan. He kept rambling on about "radiation" dangers and how his photo would be kept in a database, etc. The agent was calmly explaining that the radiation emitted by the machine is minimal (e.g., about 40,000 trips through a scanner = about 1 mammogram), and that only the test machines at TSA headquarters keep images; others are immediately deleted. He was very professional about the whole thing.

Now, TSA policies, on the other hand, are completely ludicrous. The liquid bans, taking our shoes off, all sorts of those things are not doing a thing to keep us safer. They are only designed to create the appearance of safety.

[trumad]

15. That is policy from knuckleheads up above....

I think they are stupid as well.

Maybe I'm not being observant enough but I never see the problems that most see....

[WilliamPitt]

10. Troublemaker

:P

[hlthe2b]

13. He's getting TSA kickbacks, isn't he...

;)

[trumad]

14. Sorry I didn't make it to your Truthout thingy the other night...

Meetings ran late plus I was hung over from the night before.

Loved your wife though---how you got her is now considered the ninth wonder of the world.

[WilliamPitt]

26. The 10th wonder

;)

[seabeyond]

16. i have an issue with the WHOLE policy and think people that feel safer are cowards....

really has little to do with individual tsa workers.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seabeyond]

22. yes. i do. i see that all they are doing does not protect, infringes on constitutional rights

and those that support this policy allow fear to override good sense and character to honor our rights as citizens per our constitution.

all the other countries who have a much worse history than u.s. do not have these policies in place.

and you are more than welcome to think whatever you want about people that dont capitalize

[sabrina 1]

107. Couldn't agree more with you n/t

[Union Scribe]

76. If you need a quasi-police state to feel safe

then you're...well, you're not brave. Or logical.

[Ikonoklast]

33. OK, two identical planes on the same airline, flying to the same destination

are boarding. The passengers on one line are being screened, the passengers in the other line aren't.

Both planes have the same group of nondescript passengers, no one really 'looks' like a terrorist or random nutball with a bomb or a gun.

Which plane would you feel safer boarding?

[seabeyond]

36. plane one side, a simple metal detector? or one with porno scan and grope...?

i will take the simple metal detector.

[Ikonoklast]

38. No, no scan, no grope, no nothing. You can walk right on with a boarding pass.

Nothing else needed.


The other line is the regular drill.


Which one would you feel safer boarding?

[seabeyond]

39. i would go on the nothing plane. but your argument does not hold. doesnt have to be all or nothing

this is the argument people who support the invasion of constitutional rights argue. i am arguing that these invasions go against our constitutional rights. not that ALL security is wrong. to say it is ALL or nothing is not an accurate counter.

but

if it was all or nothing, i would go on the plane of nothing. i dont do the ALL. i dont give my money to enter a prison system where i no longer have any rights. i do not support it in any way.

so would have to be the nothing for me, since i refuse the ALL.

[Ikonoklast]

43. But would you feel 'safer', is the question.

The parameters in question are strictly my own.

[seabeyond]

44. no. i truly would not feel safer. honest

cross the heart.

i know where there is a will, there is a way. doesnt matter with those scanners. already know that underwear bomber would not be caught. we know that he got thru because he was "let" thru. that the odds of being on a hijack plane is so fuckin small. i take more risk, by far, hands down, getting in my car. and i do that regularly.

as a matter of fact, i would probably feel less safe because these bogus safety measures allow people to FEEL safe ergo maybe less perceptive.

[Ikonoklast]

46. Do you think the measures used do actually discourage any hijacking attempts?

I know it's impossible to prove a negative, but is there any value at all to what the TSA is doing in regards to stopping a potential act of terrorism?

[seabeyond]

51. it is not often at all that someone hijacks a plane out of all the planes that are.

i think to have someone willing to go down with the plane, it wont matter what is implemented, if they desire, then they are going to figure out a way around it. they had a woman going thru airport after airport getting her gun thru.

if a person wants to figure it out, they will. regardless of naked scanners.

some will get caught. some wont. some that will get caught will be luck. nothing to do with the machines.

are they putting on gloves and sticking them up orifices? once someone does that, and just a matter of time, are we going to then be subjected to that invasion to feel safer? a for real question. what is the line of too far?

[Hippo_Tron]

98. I would "feel" safer, but I wouldn't be any safer than if I drove the speed limit vs going 5-10 over

Which is something I do rather frequently without a second thought. We do so many things in our everyday lives that are far more dangerous than getting on a plane where the people haven't been checked for explosives and weapons.

[sabrina 1]

52. I would feel safer on the plane that was not subjected to

the latest violations of our Constitutional rights. That's because I value those rights more than the very tiny risk of a terror attack. We take worse risks every day getting into an automobile. Would you like government agents to check your car each day before you leave the house? Some people probably would feel safer with that.

The odds of a terror attack on a plane are so small that I never even think about it. I do think about the odds of dying for lack of healthcare though. I'm not much good at math, but since 9/11 over half a million Americans have died from lack of access to healthcare. THAT is a real threat to our national security. Yet, I see none of the same urgency to save those lives that I see regarding selling 'security equipment' through fear.

Maybe if we spent all the 'Homeland (I hate that word) Security money on healthcare, more Americans would be safe.

I do not feel safe at all in a country that uses fear to destroy rights. If I die on a plane by terror, so be it. We all die sometime, but living in a state of terror and without rights, is worse than dying, and right now in other parts of the world, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Syria, Yemen, The Ivory Coast, Bahrain, and now Azerbaijan and Morocco, people are proving that. They prefer to risk death than go on living without rights.

We've taken the freedoms handed to us after others died to earn them, too much for granted. I am not willing to give up any of them just to feel a teeny bit safer. But the fearful among us are giving them away and that's what authoritarian governments count on.

[seabeyond]

53. you make a point. so small dont even think about it. tsa has accomplished allowing everyone to

think about hte risks and death by terrorists as a very real possibility by this whole thing to. the damage they do to people instilling a fear that really is miniscule in reality.

[SDuderstadt]

80. Checkpoint security is one of several...

exceptions to the 4th amendment prohibition on warrantless searches.

[sabrina 1]

87. Groping of women and children and naked scanners

are not exceptions to the 4th Amendment. No stranger, under any pretext, is going to grope any child, or me for that matter, that I am responsible for.

This is about Chertoff's machines, which were successfully blocked for six years by civil rights groups, until they got the underwear bomber story to help sell them. Chertoff, Cheney, Ghouliani, the fear profiteers, were all over tv as soon as that story came out, once again hawking their very profitable and aptly-named 'Rapiscans'.

Sad how easily people give up their rights. Who needs actual terrorists? In the 'home of the brave' all the government and war profiteers have to do is say BOO!!

Shameful display of fear to be willing to allow strangers to grope women and children and then try to defend it.

[SDuderstadt]

88. Federal courts disagree with you n/t

[sabrina 1]

90. I am aware that lots of lawsuits have been filed by passengers

and by pilots, by EPIC and by the Civil Liberties Union, but as far as I know, none have been resolved yet.

As for the Federal Courts, I am not aware that they have made any rulings on these abuses.

They already had to stop forcing pilots to go through their scanners each time they went to work due to the outrage of the pilots' union.

And airc, because of the outrage over children, last time a three-year-old, there was to be no groping of anyone under 12, which of course is not acceptable either and apparently, not in force anyhow.

Two states' legislatures are hoping to ban them in their states. The European Union has forbidden their use.

As I said, they were successfully blocked for six years and I hope they will be again soon. Chertoff and his gang of criminal profiteers should have to return any money they made from these obscene and abusive machines and all of them should be dumped in Boston Harbor.

It's all about money, made possible by those who are easily scared.

[SDuderstadt]

91. Courts have ruled on security checkpoints numerous times...

maybe you should educate yourself on the law before you start pontificating on the 4th amendment.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2005/06/07/0430243.pdf

[sabrina 1]

94. Maybe you should wait for the courts to rule on the specific

charges against these new policies, these 'enhanced patdowns' and 'rapiscans' before declaring that people's 4th amendment rights are not being abused.

Your link is from 2005. In 2005 these machines were not in use, and the enhanced pat downs only went into effect this past year.

[SDuderstadt]

96. Do you admit that security checkpoints do not...

violate the 4th amendment? That was my starting point.

[sabrina 1]

100. That depends.

There seems to be some debate about that. While the SC under Rehnquist, ruled them to be Constitutional, although admitting they are not in fact, State courts have ruled in favor of plaintiffs claiming 4th Amendment violations, despite the SC ruling. So, as I said, it depends.

[SDuderstadt]

101. Name one....

specifically, name one that has not been overturned by a higher court.

[sabrina 1]

103. Michigan V Sitz

That was the case in which Michigan ruled that sobriety checkpoints violated the 4th Amendment. It then ended up before the SC. The SC ruled that under certain circumstances, what they considered the minimal effects on 4th Amend. rights were outweighed by the state's concerns about drunken driving.

However, they returned the case to Michigan for review and Michigan again ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, telling the SC that 'if they would not protect the 4th Amendment rights of individuals, Michigan would'.

11 states forbid the use of sobriety checkpoints as of now. And even the SC admitted they were making an exception to the Constitution and imposed conditions under which these checkpoints would be legal. So there are definite restrictions on them.

The Michigan case also reviewed the effectiveness of the checkpoints in terms of their effect on drunken driving and found that they had no effect. Those findings were ignored by the SC but have been found to be the case in other states also.

These scanners and enhanced pat-downs have not been challenged all the way to the SC yet, and as I said, two states are already working on banning them, based on 4th Amendment issues. In fact, their use does not even seem to comply with the restrictions imposed on sobriety checkpoints by the SC. So I think when they are challenged, they will be found to be in violation of the constitution.

[SDuderstadt]

111. Another swing and a miss...

We weren't talking about "sobriety checkpoints". We were talking about "security checkpoints" and, more specifically, TSA airport security checkpoints. Why you think Michigan v Sitz is somehow relevant to the issue at hand is a mystery, known apparently only to you.

Any relevant cases that you claim are in process will, most likely, be decided primarily upon three issues: 1) did the TSA overstep the authority granted it by Congress in establishing security procedures 2) whether individual passengers, in fact, have an expectation of privacy that trumps the general public's right to safety in airline travel and 3)whether the procedures currently in use by the TSA are "reasonable" within the clear meaning of the 4th amendment.

If you have cases that have relevance here, I'd love to see them. Michigan v Sitz isn't one of them.

[sabrina 1]

115. You are the one claiming there are no violations of the 4th

Amendment by these methods. You are the one claiming your contention is supported by the Federal Courts. Therefore the burden of proof is on you. Show me a case that ruled against a plaintiff claiming that enhanced patdowns and naked scanners violated their constitutional rights.

Michigan v Sitz is applicable. I didn't expect you to like it but even in a case where the danger is even more imminent, even the SC had to acknowledge the threat to the 4th Amendment and 11 states have banned them. If a sobriety checkpoint is not for security, what is it for? Saving lives is the issue, is it not?

[SDuderstadt]

117. Show me one that did...n/t

[sabrina 1]

120. You show me one.

You are making the claim. I am saying that these issues have not yet been ruled on. The TSA has backed away, despite threats of doing so, from prosecuting anyone who has refused to submit to these tactics.

And the cases that are pending have not been ruled on yet.

But if you have something I missed, then post it.

[SDuderstadt]

121. Sabrina...

I am stating my opinion. I cannot cite a case because there isn't one. Neither has any court struck down the procedure. However, YOU made the initial claim, remember?

When you have something that proves your claim, I'm all ears. Michigan v Sitz is not it by any stretch of the imagination.

[sabrina 1]

124. And I am stating my opinion. An opinion shared by

many experts on Constitutional law. These tactics are new. The TSA eg, claimed it could charge someone $11,000 for refusing the scans and the patdown. When asked on whose authority, what law allows them to do this, they had no answer and did not follow through. Many were hoping they would as the 'don't touch my junk' guy was willing to take it to court. By not following through they avoided a court case.

They are doing it until they are stopped. We'll see how courts rule but it's clear the TSA already backing away from some of their draconian measures, the pilots eg, does not believe itself it has the right to do what it is doing.

[SDuderstadt]

125. Great....

keep us posted. In the meantime, let me suggest the law is not your forte.

[Ikonoklast]

86. Are you comfortable with the Federal Government putting limits on firearm ownership?

[sabrina 1]

99. What does that have to do with this topic?

[TransitJohn]

102. For once, I agree wholeheartedly with you!

:hi: :toast:


Edit: fix smilie

[seabeyond]

104. isnt it always a hoot

when that happens. lol

[MattSh]

21. Of course the TSA is needed...

The TSA is needed because the war profiteers need terrorists.

The US creates more terrorists. More money goes to war profiteers. And those that profit from war are now profiting from "stopping terrorism." The collect for both creating terrorists and stopping terrorists. S W E E T (for them).

Here's an idea to stop terrorism... STOP PISSING PEOPLE OFF!!

[IcyPeas]

23. have the TSA actually ever stopped anything? found anything?

what's their score?

[notesdev]

24. Yes they have caught a number of criminals

among the ranks of their employees.

no actual terrorists though

[FLPanhandle]

40. Well, I've been in line when they found a gun in a guys bag

He claimed he didn't know it was there, but the police were there fast and all security shutdown for about 15 minutes.

So, yes, I've seen them catch one firearm from entering the system.

[WinkyDink]

134. Don't need TSA for that. That's just normal pre-9/11 scrutiny. Terrorism didn't begin then, ya know.

[Union Scribe]

77. I think they apprehended some iPods and other dangerous items

and liberated them from people's luggage on more than a few occasions.

[WatsonT]

25. There's a good reason it's a "thankless" job

oh well, you're entitled to your opinion I won't attack you for it.

[Nye Bevan]

27. Many TSA employees are wannabe cops who just *love* putting that uniform on every day

and get sheer pleasure from exercising their power to inconvenience people. I have rarely seen anybody enjoying their job more than the guy who confiscated a small container of sunscreen from me. And how they love shouting out their rules. "Ipads out of cases! Shoes off! No snowglobes!" And there are always going to be a fair amount of creepy people attracted to a job which involves patting down pre-teen children.

There may be a few good apples, but not enough for me to "applaud the TSA".

[blueamy66]

130. And then they hit the "Airplane Bar" after they clock out

cause they think they're cool....screw 'em....

[bvar22]

28. Depends.

Some will think its a good thing to spend Hundreds of Billions of dollars to "protect" a few people from something that probably won't happen to them anyway.

What are the odds that you will be on a plane that experiences a Terrorist attack?.....100,000 to 1?...Million to One?

How many Terrorist Attacks have been foiled by the TSA?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

30. If you disagree with this other OP...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x881650

...why not post there instead of creating a purely "take that" thread?

[Tracer]

31. Your decent expierience may have something to do with your flight status.

As a Diamond member you get the perks, including the VIP line, among others.

My daughter flies regularly for her job and is a Platinum (oh poor thing, not a "diamond") and doesn't have to deal with all the other riff-raff. :sarcasm:

[trumad]

84. Nope---same security as everyone.

[sinkingfeeling]

32. No, they're not bad people. However, as long as cargo is loaded on planes without any type of

check, why should American citizens put up with plastic bags, no shoes, and pat downs?

[rexcat]

34. The TSA are nothing more than incompetent asshats...

I am a lifetime Gold member on Delta Air Lines (2.5 million miles). I used to fly around 200,000 miles a year. I have been physically hurt on three separate occasions in the past 1.25 years by TSA agents. I have been harassed on numerous occasions for opting out of the Chertoff porno x-ray scanners. They have also damaged several laptop computers and a printer of mine since 2002. Complaining about all of this gets you nowhere.

The TSA can't pass their own audits and contraband gets through all the time. I, other frequent flyers I have come in contact with and the flight crews have come to the conclusion that the only thing between the terrorists and our safety while flying are the passengers and the crews. On top of that the back door to the airports are wide open no thanks to the TSA. Can anyone say cargo not being adequately screened. Remember last year concerning the ground crews with Delta in Orlando? The ones who got got smuggling guns and drugs between Puerto Rico and Orlando. These people went through the background screening process and came out clean! It would not be hard for anyone with nefarious intentions to get on with an airline or airport vendor.

The frequent flyers who don't have "problems" with the TSA are the ones who don't give a damn about their constitutional rights. When has it become appropriate to strip search everyone or molest them with the pat downs without cause. When I go through security most people I see go through the scanners end up getting a secondary pat down anyway. So much for the technology. Just remember, the x-rays you receive at the airports are above background radiation. Why would anyone with any intelligence want additional x-rays. I have had my fair share of radiation over the years and I don't need any additional radiation exposure.

The one thing I am doing is flying less and will take early retirement at the end of the year. If at all possible I will never get on another airplane again. I know that this is probably unrealistic but I will try my best. I have had it with the TSA and stupid travelers who seem to leave their brains at home when they travel.

[SDuderstadt]

37. There are exceptions to 4th amendment rights...

security checkpoints are one of them.

[rexcat]

131. When they endanger the health of people as they are doing now...

then I have a problem with it. If you want to be exposed to inonizing radiation and useless patdowns be my guest.

The "security checkpoints" at the airports are pure theater. It has everything to do about looking like security but I would rather like to be secure rather than feel secure.

[Ratty]

35. I just don't get the phony outrage

OK, maybe you don't like the TSA's patdown policy, maybe you think it's indicative of a climate of fear fostered by corporate media, whatever. But geez, a 6 year old girl or a 91 year old grandma in a wheelchair can be given weapons to carry too. People are making comments like they think TSA stupidly believes a 6 year old will hold a planeload of passengers hostage. Why suddenly after years of the patdown policy does the 6 year old girl elicit such howls of rage? If you're going to have pat downs then you're going to have to pat down 6 year old girls and 91 year old grandmas in wheelchairs.

[Nye Bevan]

45. Seriously? A 6 year old girl, returning with her family from vacation, might be carrying weapons?

Imagine that you run the TSA. Of course you have limited resources and can't frisk everyone. So who do you pick for the enhanced pat-down? A 6 year old girl, traveling with her family, returning home to Kentucky after a vacation in Louisiana, that's who! And DUers are defending this, because "she may have been carrying weapons"! Amazing.

[SDuderstadt]

47. So...

where's the cut-off? Children have never been used before?

[Nye Bevan]

58. A child traveling with their family has never been used to smuggle explosives onto a plane.

Why would the TSA pat down a 6 year old girl, returning from a vacation with her family, instead of a 25 year old man, traveling by himself, who bought a one way ticket with cash, amd possibly has a history of travel to the Middle East?

[SDuderstadt]

59. How do you know they...

both weren't?

[seabeyond]

61. how do they know, something is not up someones ass? do they glove and explore?

it is just as valid.

[Nye Bevan]

63. They already do this when they suspect that someone has drugs up their ass.

They lock them in a room and give them laxatives.

[seabeyond]

73. not the point. how much do they suspect that 6 yr old? none. nada. not even kinda. BUT

the possibility is there, ergo grope search.

the possibility of something up the but is there. so select here and there and feed the people laxatives. cause, after all, the possibility is there.

[Nye Bevan]

62. Come on, do I really need to spell this out?

The TSA obviously cannot pat down everyone. They need to pick the most likely candidates for endangering the flight. So who is more likely, the 6 year old girl returning to Kentucky with her family? Or the 25 year old guy?

[SDuderstadt]

64. You're making an either-or argument...

It's not like they have to choose one or the other.

[Nye Bevan]

65. As I have said, the TSA has limited resources and cannot pat down everyone.

They need to make smart decisions about who to pat down. Every time they use their resources to pat down a 6 year old girl, an 85 year old nun, or a 95 year old great-grandmother, that is one fewer more probable potential terrorist who gets waved through the line.

[SDuderstadt]

66. You're assuming none of those...

could actually be a willing or unwilling accomplice.

Do you honestly believe that if the TSA made it their policy to exempt those folks, someone wouldn't figure it out?

[Nye Bevan]

68. I firmly believe that if the TSA made it their policy to exempt from enhanced pat-downs all minors

who are traveling with their parents on family vacations within the United States, there would be no increased security risk.

[SDuderstadt]

69. Well...

good for you. I don't.

[Nye Bevan]

71. You should consider working for the TSA.

You would fit in very well.

[SDuderstadt]

72. Dude...

this is getting stupid.

[Nye Bevan]

74. I heartily agree.

[SDuderstadt]

75. I've watched the video...

I don't think she was being abused.

[Nye Bevan]

82. You're in a small minority,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x876829

[SDuderstadt]

83. So what?

We don't make those kind of decisions based upon polls.

[Hippo_Tron]

97. It's called deterrence

If the TSA had a blanket policy of not checking children for explosives, a terrorist will pretty quickly realize that they could attach explosives to a child and get away with it. If they inspect everybody at random, then a terrorist will know that there's a chance they won't be able to get away with attaching explosives to a child or to anybody for that matter.

As I said below, I think our airline security and reaction to terrorism is way out of proportion. But that said, the criticism of TSA is so ridiculous that it makes it impossible for them to win. People criticize them for being too reactive by complaining about inspecting peoples' shoes AFTER the shoe bomber rather than before and then they criticize them for being too preemptive because nobody has ever tried to attach explosives to a child before.

[sabrina 1]

110. I was in the supermarket today. It was filled with

families and kids. Any one of them could have been hiding weapons in their children's baby carriages. I insist on protection from that possible threat! :eyes:

Why do you suppose terrorists are only going to use planes if they really want to attack this country? Where is the cut-off as far as 'protecting' us from terrorists? Subways? Supermarkets? Bus stations? Train stations? Shopping Malls?

Do you want a police state in order to avert a one in a billion chance that a terrorist is going to attack us somewhere? I know if I were a terrorist, I would not be confining myself to planes.

So, how do you propose we remain completely safe? Every child is now a potential threat? What a horrible society this is becoming. NOT because of war and fear profiteers, but because of there are all too many enablers in this society.

[SDuderstadt]

112. I'm not interested in your...

"slippery slope" arguments.

[sabrina 1]

113. Well, you are arguing that children are suspect. I consider THAT

to be quite a slippery slope. Do you think these machines and pat downs are going to be confined to airports? Do you support them elsewhere? Or do you think terrorists will only attack planes?

[SDuderstadt]

114. Like I said...

I'm not interested in your slippery slope argument.

[sabrina 1]

116. Do you support these pat downs and machines

anywhere other than in airports?

[SDuderstadt]

118. Last time I am saying this....

I am not interested in your slippery slope argument.

[sabrina 1]

123. The question is a legitimate question

to ask someone who supports these machines and patdowns at airports. It should not be difficult to answer unless of course, someone doesn't want to acknowledge the threat to constitutional rights of giving the government an inch after which everyone knows, especially with so much money involved, they will take more than a mile.

[SDuderstadt]

126. Yes, Sabrina....

the government is evil and wants to subjugate us all and snuff our lives out.

Happy now?

[sabrina 1]

127. No, but, as the Founding Fathers warned,

governments need to be kept in check by the people or they WILL become evil AND they will subjugate all of us. And if you don't believe that, then look around the world. And if you think it could not happen here, so did many of them. The FFs had no doubts it could happen, which is why they left us a Constitution.

[Ratty]

54. Who do I pick?

Maybe I should just stick to the swarthy fellows. You know, the Middle Eastern types.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ratty]

70. What if they have kids?

OK, so far, to qualify they have to have paid all in cash, it must be a one way ticket, he has to be by himself, Middle Eastern - those guys you'd pat down but you wouldn't bother to pat down anybody else. Seriously though, kids are off limits? I don't think I'd want to fly on your airline.

[Nye Bevan]

81. I think you misread my post.

I never said anything about "not bothering to pat down anyone else". I was saying that given limited TSA resources, I would choose to pat down the Middle Eastern guy as opposed to the 6 year old girl traveling home to Kentucky with her family. If you would do the opposite for the sake of political correctness, then my airline would be safer than your airline.

[WinkyDink]

135. 1. You're speaking looney-tunes terror-talk; 2. You must be a male who has NO IDEA WHATSOEVER OF

WHAT IT IS LIKE TO BE A TERRIFIED LITTLE GIRL, OR EVEN A WHAT LIFE IS LIKE FOR A WOMAN, WITH YOUR DISMISSIVE "GRANDMAS" REMARK.

[MedicalAdmin]

41. The people are not our enemy. The enemy is the system.

[woo me with science]

78. "The system" is people. Our President has publicly joked about and defended this outrage. nt

[FLPanhandle]

42. I'm around 2 million miles on Delta lifetime

I've never had a bad experience with TSA. Yes, sometimes I roll my eyes when I'm selected for the nude-o-scope when the people in front of my are from other countries traveling on a passport. However, I know they can be seen doing any profiling.

I'm sure there are assholes out there, but as a fellow Diamond Medallion I haven't run into any.

[trumad]

85. Thank you...

The point of my Op is that I just don't see it...

[DaveJ]

49. Not to dispute the OP, but I understand the TSA outrage

I once had a job assisting the HR who hired TSA screeners, and based on the personalities of the returning applicants, it seems the purpose of the TSA is to provide jobs to individuals who would otherwise be unemployable in a normal work environment, and as a result just bully and burglarize in their spare time.

That said, since I don't fly much, and it seems the upper class are usually the ones doing most the flying, and flying is terrible waste of fossil fuels, I do not really care.

[guardian]

50. Yeah. It only took 2 years for the geniuses at the TSA

to approve eyelash curlers and nail clippers for carry on. These people are stupider than the average teabagger.

[Odin2005]

55. If they had a conscience they would walk off the job en masse

Fuck them.

[sabrina 1]

92. Yes they would. I know I would

It's sad that not one has, as far as I know. When these machines were first introduced years ago, there was appropriate outrage, that was people's initial gut reaction to them. But they keep wearing down people's tolerance levels, for torture, for stealing away rights, for machines like these. And we always have those who will defend anything, even democrats.

In a sane society they would have never have gotten them anywhere near the airports. And I guess we were a bit saner when they first were introduced, as their use was blocked for six years, until the 'underwear bomber' after which Giuliani, Chertoff and Cheney went around 'selling' them again, scaring people like the ghouls they are, and finally, with the help of Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, they finally got their way. A Republican admin. wasn't able to do it, but Democrats got it done.

[LiberalAndProud]

57. Odd. I was just thinking that we'd do fine if we rolled back the budget for TSA to

preBush levels. The Republicons are all for smaller government until they have an opportunity to expand it. Ask Bush.

[ItNerd4life]

67. How do you know they are underpaid?

That right there says something. How do you know they aren't overpaid jackasses? They can exist in the government
just like they exist in businesses.

[Hippo_Tron]

93. I don't blame the TSA, I blame our irrational human nature

The odds of being killed by a terrorist in the United States are smaller than the odds of being killed by a meteor falling out of the sky. If human beings reacted to terrorism rationally, there would be no terrorism because it wouldn't be effective.

[themadstork]

137. I don't understand why no one points this out.

By acting as if every passenger is a potential scary mooslim terrorist we're essentially proving terrorism to be effective. Countries with more experience against terror campaigns continue on as if nothing ever happened, because to do otherwise is to let them win.

That said I have no problem with patdowns and I think an airline is within its rights to ask that their passengers undergo one. It's just some person's hands; if there's no sexual violation then I could care less. I'd rather avoid the additional dose of xray though.

[upi402]

95. Most don't blame the workers. This is flamebait

n/t

[GoneOffShore]

106. The big problem with the TSA are the number of wannabees

who work for them.

People who wannabee LEO's.

People who wannabee CBP's (and that's a whole other can of worms with an agency that is just about as out of control as it can be).

People who wannabee The Terminator.

And all of them are clerks - They are not "officers" because they are not sworn. They are working for an agency that constantly, consistently and daily oversteps its mission. They willingly violate the 4th Amendment and the 1st Amendment at the behest of that agency. And they happily do so.

If it came to taking a job with the TSA or cleaning out the booths at the local peep show, I'd go for the peep show job.

There are other jobs, there are other ways, but working for the TSA? No.

And although they may be "just trying to get by" they, along with the agency they are are working for (enabling), bring the dream of fascism and control just a little bit closer.

As posted on FlyerTalk - I'm not a zek being transported to gulag. I'm an American citizen just trying to travel around.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

109. Yes, if you are willing to fingerbang the travelling public you are a bad person

And for the quality of their staff they are astonishingly overpaid.

At their creation I was relatively optimistic about the TSA - I mean what could be worse that the juvenile dirtbags they replaced?

Well we have roughly the same caliper of personnel as before 9/11 only empowered to be authoritarian shitheads accountable to nobody interested in their oversight.

I am however fortunate enough to do much of my domestic US travel in private planes where I am not subjected to this abusive bullshit.

[GoneOffShore]

119. TSA would love to use calipers if they could figure them out

[Lucian]

122. They don't have to work that job.

There's other jobs out there. I'd rather flip burgers at McDonald's than pat down innocent six year olds. Any rational person would.

I don't know how you can't see that.

[WinkyDink]

133. Fascists can always find underlings. And defenders.

[RB TexLa]

136. They are a waste of our taxes