I bet her fiancé was pissed.

I think the Franklin quote is entirely relevant. What is at the core of it is that freedoms are more important than my or your life. That still stands.

I don't buy the argument that times are different. Not only have airplanes been used in only one single incidence (still statistically the safest form of travel!) but they will not likely be used again - and it has nothing to do with airport security.

There's a reason that we have a constitution strictly against such things that state:

Again, that's not the PATRIOT Act. That's the decree, “For the Protection of the People and the State,” yet another thing that lead up to Nazi Germany.

From The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich:

Accounting for the different social culture, this sounds much like America today, sadly. Bush is no Hitler, and there are no concentration camps. But one of the biggest errors we, as humans, make over and over again is thinking than when history repeats itself it will look just like the last time.

There's a reason the founding fathers felt that our freedom of a society was more important than our collective "security." And if we're not careful, we may head down a new, 21st century path towards totalitarianism. Only, this time, it will not be overt - not when politicians realize the power of the media to spin the truth. Not when the American people are ripe for being told that the LOSS of their liberties is, in itself, the liberty of security. We live in an age of gentle coersion - and it only takes one look into Art's thread "Mass Media Mind Control" to see how far-reaching and perverse it is. The term "sheeple" didn't come out of nowhere.

The suspension of liberties, for ANY purpose, is never acceptable, and it is only ever the beginning of the permanent destruction of them.

SM70, don't bother arguing with a guy who refuses to understand. He's proud of his state of ignorance. (shrug)

I find it incredibly disheartening that the vast majority of you seem to think that by checking Sally's underwire and Bobby's buttcrack airport security is fulfilling their federal mandate in relation to your safety.

Air travel as always been the most delicate of all arenas of mass transportation. Massive groundcrews, air traffic controllers, pilots, et cetera are all required to get that giant flying tube airborne safely. All it takes is one of these guys to have a bad day or their equipment to fritz out and your day gets a whole lot worse.

All that is beside the point, but it reinforces the fact that flying is a complicated business. Airport security is a relatively small part of overall passenger safety. Random screening an even smaller part of that. However, it's the most high profile and more people are affected by "random passenger screening" then any other equally important aspect of airport security so the "enhancements" are more likely to be noticed and all other deficiencies are likely to not be noticed at all.

Get rid of all screening? No way. Screening should be the first step, but certainly not the only step. Run folks through metal detectors, x-ray their baggage? Absolutely. No argument there. But pulling Granny out of line for a "random passenger" check? Give me a fucking break. This is only an effective technique if a) it's not random (read: profiling) or b) you apply it to everyone. They're certainly not going to do either one as it causes public outrage one way and enormous time delays the other. So they placate you by performing checks at random. They serve no purpose, are busy work for your highly trained airport security technician and confuse the vast majority into thinking these updated airport security standards are working.

Millions of people fly everyday. You can't possibly hope to watch everyone do everything at the same time. All you can do is put in a system of checks that will eventually filter out the troublemakers before they get on the plane. Random passenger screening is a joke and "Chad" feeling me up from behind isn't doing anybody any favors. Although, I admit, if I close my eyes.....

Let's start securing the plane. Cockpits should be impregnable. The pilots should be locked up before the passengers get on and not be allowed to leave until the plane is on the ground. Put a bathroom, cot, little door for food to be passed through up there, whatever it takes. The cockpit should be as hard to get it as a virgin's sphincter.

Put Air Marshalls on the plane. Every plane. If they can afford to pay superfluous "airline attendants" to bring me drinks and peanuts then they can afford to pay one of them to carry a gun. One less "Suzi" with an i, isn't going to ruin my flying experience. Being blown up or held hostage with a swiss army knife might.

The point is, and I think SM70 and denim could agree, is that there is no need to give up personal freedom of any kind if airport security (and here I mean federal goverment) could pull their collective heads from their asses and start using some common sense.

There are dozens of measures already in place that don't affect my personal freedom (or whatever you want to call it) in any way, shape or form. I don't mind running through the metal detectors, I don't mind my baggage being x-rayed and I don't mind the cargo holds where my luggage is being scanned...oops...;) It's not an inconvenience in the least and doesn't affect me personally in any way.

What does affect me personally is the ruse of random passenger screening and the forced charade of how effective it's been. What I do mind is somebody having the authority to violate my personal space just because I happen to be standing in line. What I do mind is someone singling me out because I might be a terrorist when all other evidence points the contrary.

guthmund, you put that far better than I've been able to. Real security be achieved without the violation of my person, and that's all I expect. It's appalling that, for example, the cockpits aren't already impenetrable. I don't care how much it costs the airlines - we're either going to get REAL security or we're not.

Bravo! That's a third person that "gets" it, with more detail that I'd have come up with. :)

denim and SM, I don't disagree with your statements, I have always felt that it needs to be that way, but the reality of the situation guthmund expresses it best.

We aren't able to turn our society on a dime. We all seem to think that there's a magic date that changes the world. We are all slaves of instant gratification. It takes time, resources, and money to put the right things into place in thr right manner.

I will not deny my right to travel freely across the country or internationally because I have some guy feel my balls and ask me to take off my shoes. To me, that would be cutting off my nose to spite my face, as there is no reasonable way for me to get to Los Angeles to see my family within my allotted vacation schedule.

I could have easily said the first time they asked me to take off my boots to fuck off, but what would that have gained me? The same end result as this lady, not able to fly.

Er, has that nastiness ever actually happened to a guy?

It sounds like you have an overriding reason to fly, agreed. I used the same reason a few weeks ago. While it's fun to take the train from one coast to another, I couldn't afford the time.

Cynthetiq, I agree. Guthmund, I also agree. I truly wish the situation were different as far as travel by plane. But, we live in a different day and age and until someone comes up with a better way to screen people, the intrusion into our civil liberties will have to suffice. Do I think there will be a downward spiral with the rest of our liberties? Hell no. I think that this is a temporary way to counter terrorism. I am willing to have Chad feel my nutsack if I can fly safer. I would prefer if Jennifer gave me the nut screen, but that is another thread......

ROFL...I couldn't agree more with the Jennifer feeling the sack issue....Why not just make a walk through Xray tunnel so people on the other side of the wall can see what you have on you and in you :thumbsup: of course that is like movie crap there but who knows if they actually try it. It just may work :D

They have that technology, but apparently people don't want the security people to see their rough body shape. That is, the machine shows them kinda naked, but less detailed than they might fear. I think that would be a reasonable solution, but God-forbid, I guess. I was thinking about this earlier, and realized that I might have been too harsh on the people who designed this bs. I suspect they had much better initial ideas, but that the limitation on what would be accepted brought us to where we are, which is bad.