denim

Excuse me, but is that what it sounds like, a cavity search? So they really are doing that to some people?

I see, so planes were being blown up every day before they started this bs, then? FEW is the number of the
"asshats", or society would have fallen apart a long time ago.

You're damn straight I won't fly El Al! I've known about that crap for decades. I used to know a woman who was strip searched by them as a 9yo! I'll NEVER fly there.

denim

No, they're doing something to appear to be trying to limit problems. But the effectiveness of what they're doing is minimal. If what they were doing was (1) actually effective, and (2) done to everyone, not just randomly selected people, THEN I'd have less of a problem with it.

I see the fall of the US Constitution as the end of this grand experiment, and am looking for a new place to live. If you accept it, I just find that sad.

denim

Yes. And yes. If we have no principles, why are we telling everyone we know what's right?

denim

You've got it right. I've nothing to argue with or add there, off the top of my head.

denim

They started with that, and it wasn't good enough for some people, being rather uneven and confused, so they required the Feds to do it.

ShaniFaye

So what I want to know is if this is wrong......are we just supposed to let anybody on a plane with absolutely NO screening?

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

denim

No, that's not what I'm looking for. Both candidates suck ass totally, no question. However, keeping Bush sends the signal that we like what he's done. I won't send that signal for anything. I can only get rid of one candidate at a time though, so Kerry will have to wait for the boot until 2008.

denim

That's how I recall it too. I'm not saying that private security would necessarily be better, but it wouldn't violate the 4th. And if different companies did it differently, I could base my selection of airport or airline by which kinds of security they used.

I can't do anything about what goes on in other countries. I can't vote there. I can vote here, at least.

Yeah, that sounds right. I'd've given Getz a medal and dropped the matter. (shakes head, grimacing)

denim

It's a Republic with warm body democracy. I'm missing what you're telling me. Guess I should break out a dictionary. (breaks out a dictionary) Okay, I guess I'm still missing your point.

denim

In an ideal world, yeah. In this world, I already suggested one screening method: strip EVERYONE down to skin, privately, allow them paper coverings for use on the plane, then give them their clothes back after they arrive, with their luggage. No carry-ons with very rare exceptions only with an appropriate license. I don't have a solution for the cavity search problem. Seems to me there'd be a way to deal with it if we wanted to make the effort to figure it out.

That could be added to the method from "The Fifth Element", where once loaded, everyone is put to sleep for the duration.

Or you could go the other way, requiring some kind of license to fly as a passenger, issued perhaps by the FAA, which would include training on using some kind of standard firearm loaded with a tranq for use only on the plane. Everyone would have one, and anyone who acted up could be shot, then arrested on landing.

There are effective solutions, but the half-assed bs they've implemented has no particular benefits and takes away civil liberties to boot. I want it fixed or dismantled and I want the people who came up with it fired, preferably out of a canon.

I'd rather offend everyone than to have people singled out for such offense, especially if offending everyone includes a real solution. And on this board, I think we can agree that this society is very sick wrt skin. Require that attitude to go away, for safety.

water_boy1999

Yes, I agree to disagree at this point. I love the smell of a good debate in the morning!

denim and SM70, I do agree with all you have said to a point. I believe our country has been very reactive to the threat of terrorism. I don't mind losing a few of my personal freedoms in order to preserve my life a little longer. I know you both value what was written in our constitution over 300 years ago and hold what was written close to you personally. I think the constitution should be changed to reflect our current society and the threats we face. Plenty of differences of opinion here.

__________________
Doh!!!!


-Homer Simpson

denim

Well, over 200 years ago actually, but yeah.

The point is that nothing has really changed. People are still people, they still use the same methods, though with new technology, to accomplish the same ends. It's a problem.

denim

For more on this topic, see Heinlein's The Puppet Masters. No, NOT the movie, the book. There's a shitload of nudity in the book, for reasons you'll just have to read the book to find out. Security.

water_boy1999

Typo, I did mean 200 yrs.

__________________
Doh!!!!


-Homer Simpson

Halx

Oh my god, denim is on a tear!

(please.. use up online one post for what you wanna say)

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

denim

There were too many posts to reply to, Hal. Some of them on different pages. Let's just say the software has some issues and one big reply would have been a good thing. I did combine a few of them. And I've gone on a tear on this topic before. It's one of my biggest current issues.

Water_boy1999: I feel better. It's just that there probably are people out there who really would believe 300 years.

Blackthorn

So you want to be a literalist...okay.

a) double-sphincter treatment = Please step aside sir/madam because you have been chosen for additional screening. I'm not suggesting that anyone has even had a BCS at the hands of the TSA although to listen to some of the complaining that's going on here that's the conclusion that one could come away with.

b) asshats = people who are:

- not prepared for getting through the screening process by either carrying metal on their person that sets off the metal detector, or carrying something in their bags akin to scissors, or thinking that when the say we highly recommend that you take your shoes off and run them through the x-ray machine -- they really don't mean THEIR shoes.
- once they fail the primary screening these people become indignant at having to go through yet additional screening and want to make a huge scene out of it because obviously they are just being hassled because the TSA people have nothing better to do.

c) El Al has been known in some cases to hold a potential passenger over for an "interview" for hours at a time, even at the expense of having them miss their first scheduled flight.


The screening process is here to stay and I for one wouldn't mind it getting a little more intrusive. If you give a screener even the simplest reason for having the slightest doubts about your intentions then shame on you. You know the rules have changed. That's no secret. Learn them. Embrace them. Understand that when you fly you will be asked to pass through a metal detector. Your carry on bags will be scrutinized. Simple planning and a little thought before you head for the terminal will get you through without hassle. If you are selected for additional screening you might as well cooperate and then thank the TSA reps for doing their job to help make you safe. It's really not that hard.

The sentiment in this thread that's feeling like your civil liberties are being violated by this screening process is LUDICROUS. Get over it...it's here to stay so deal with it or like I said just take the damn bus and stay out of the security line that I will be patiently waiting in for my opportunity to be violated.

EDIT:
Whooops ... there I go being somewhat sarcastic again.... I'm not literaly expecting to be violated.

__________________
What are you willing to give up in order to get what you want?

denim

Kjroh, thanks for those answers.

Now read the rest of the thread.

MikeyChalupa

I hate when people spout this quote off in the context of the present. al-Qaida wasn't flying airplanes into buildings when Franklin said it. The world is a different place and requires different methods to guarantee security. If you have nothing to hide, what's the problem? If I have to show up 2 hours early for a flight and let them X-ray my shoes so they can be certain I don't have a bomb, then I'm happily going to let them because I know I don't. And dammit, they're going to do the same to you because I want to make sure you don't have one either.

-Mikey

spindles

I know that I would surely rather be searched than have the plane/train I am travelling in explode mid journey - but then I live in a land without the civil liberty outcry that seems to come from the US.

I would definitely rather be inconvenienced than dead

__________________
who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?

Vincentt

I bet her fiancé was pissed.

SecretMethod70

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.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

denim

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

guthmund

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.

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

SecretMethod70

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.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

denim

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

Cynthetiq

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.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

denim

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.

water_boy1999

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......

__________________
Doh!!!!


-Homer Simpson

bonehed1

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 of course that is like movie crap there but who knows if they actually try it. It just may work

__________________
Stuff is Good

denim

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.