Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They wait so long to implement them because the security policies of our country are largely reactive, rather than proactive. That's not a valid argument for doing away with security policies altogether. Nor is it a valid argument against the TSA to point out the inadequacies of our border controls. Nor is the argument about what other countries are doing to prevent terrorists from boarding planes. The only valid argument against security policies revolves around whether they are effective or not and whether their efficacy merits the personal intrusion. And since we are talking about deterring terrorists, we don't have any statistical means of measuring how many terrorists have been deterred. We only can point to the remarkable safety record domestic travel in the US has had. It is a matter of time before a determined soul manages to get around our security measures and brings down another plane. We all know that. But in the meantime, we are all free to choose a method of travel that involves an intrusion into our privacy, or a method of travel that does not. We're still free. We're still able to travel. The airlines are private companies. No one has a "right" to board the planes of these private companies. The fact that they serve a public function doesn't mean that any "rights" are granted to the public. The public purchases accomodations on aircraft, and when they do so, they agree to abide by certain restrictions. Some of those restrictions are imposed by the government and not the airlines, but really, that doesn't make any difference in terms of "rights".
Ok, I agree we are reactive. This is only part of it though. People would have howled loudly if they had *started* with this. They have tightened the rope slowly and seduced the sheep with propaganda that they are keeping us safe when in fact they are not. They have diverted attention from the real reason which is control.
As to the highlighted section. I do not have a car. I have family in another state. I won't fly--do not even plan to give any money to a hotel associated with airports (cancelling plans for a convention I've gone to many years). I LOVE trains. But should this atrocity appear at train stations I will boycott them. So, does this leave me with the possibility of being stranded along the road when the greyhound breaks down? Oh yean, they'll be there too.
So do I put an ad on Craigslist and see if I can find someone to share a ride with who may or may not be putting up the ad to find someone to get trapped in their car, or turn out to be a psycho?
The suspected terrorist who tried to blow up Northwest Flight 253 Christmas day did present a passport to authorities in Amsterdam before boarding the Detroit-bound plane, Holland's counter-terrorism agency said Wednesday.
Abdulmutallab arrived in Amsterdam on Friday from Lagos, Nigeria. After a layover of less than three hours, he passed through a security check at the gate in Amsterdam, including a hand baggage scan and a metal detector, officials said. Abdulmutallab was carrying a valid Nigerian passport and had a valid U.S. visa, the Dutch said. His name did not appear on any Dutch list of terror suspects.
I do not have a car. I have family in another state. I won't fly--do not even plan to give any money to a hotel associated with airports (cancelling plans for a convention I've gone to many years). I LOVE trains. But should this atrocity appear at train stations I will boycott them. So, does this leave me with the possibility of being stranded along the road when the greyhound breaks down? Oh yean, they'll be there too.
So do I put an ad on Craigslist and see if I can find someone to share a ride with who may or may not be putting up the ad to find someone to get trapped in their car, or turn out to be a psycho?
How do you say I am "free" to travel?
You are free to travel just as the rest of us are, you choose not to in the name of boycotts.
If they had prevented terrorist attacks because of security measures how would you know? You wouldn't.
No it isn't, don't be silly.
My right to not be blown up is important to me.
I don't interpret it as a violation of the constitution.
And that would be sad that paranoia, misinformation, and irrational behavior prevented someone from enjoying the company of their friends and family out of state. I hope you calm down and reconsider.
Nobody is saying to remove security. But this is not security but theater and everyone knows it. And the last attempt was via fedex. Still nothing done to check shipped packages. If someone really wants to blow up a plane they will most certainly FIND a way. As long as the employees walk in and out with a card swipe (or their friends) you are NOT secure no matter how draconian it gets.
And it is a proteced right to not be subject to unreasonable search. This is unreasonable. Untested machines and rentacops with attitudes and on power trips are unreasonable, especially if they are not even effective.
What we need is real security as as long as the sheep keep herding through the gauntlet we will NEVER get it. What we will get is people who love power being fed more and more until they own us.
And I have a PRIVATE medical condition which I DO NOT want to have to display in front of a bunch of people. No way am I going to subject myself to that or the potential harm done by it being mishandled, as it has been by these goons. Why are MY RIGHTS lesser than yours because I have a medical situation that puts me at risk of being manhandled. If I did use a scanner I would have to be searched and would say no. Straight out. So where is my choice and how do I reconsider.
People have to stand up for rights, or we don't have any.
The suspected terrorist who tried to blow up Northwest Flight 253 Christmas day did present a passport to authorities in Amsterdam before boarding the Detroit-bound plane, Holland's counter-terrorism agency said Wednesday.
Abdulmutallab arrived in Amsterdam on Friday from Lagos, Nigeria. After a layover of less than three hours, he passed through a security check at the gate in Amsterdam, including a hand baggage scan and a metal detector, officials said. Abdulmutallab was carrying a valid Nigerian passport and had a valid U.S. visa, the Dutch said. His name did not appear on any Dutch list of terror suspects.
The reason his name did not appear is because our government chose not to share the report by his father that he was planning to bomb a plane with the Dutch. So we could have prevented it with a report to the other places he might have flown from. The Dutch did all they could but if we did not share they could not know.
What was the tsa supposed to do? Let her pass without a comprehensive search? If I'm not mistaking she couldn't have been wanded because the pacemaker would set it off so she had to have a pat down. She can't pick and choose what part of the body they can search. "throwing" her and "dragging" her might have been a little excessive though.
So if the TSA dropped all pat downs, x-rays and profiling and allowed everyone to travel unrestricted and then a plane carrying your family blows up, then who is to blame? Would you be crying for TSA blood?
No..just stop the physical groping. Go back to what we've been doing since 9-11. No terrorists blew up US planes boarded in the US EVER so what they've been doing since 9-11 is working.
What was the tsa supposed to do? Let her pass without a comprehensive search? If I'm not mistaking she couldn't have been wanded because the pacemaker would set it off so she had to have a pat down. She can't pick and choose what part of the body they can search. "throwing" her and "dragging" her might have been a little excessive though.
And what would they have done if the groping was not in place ?
What if she flew last Christmas..how did they handle people with implants then ?
What was the tsa supposed to do? Let her pass without a comprehensive search? If I'm not mistaking she couldn't have been wanded because the pacemaker would set it off so she had to have a pat down. She can't pick and choose what part of the body they can search. "throwing" her and "dragging" her might have been a little excessive though.
She explained she was a rape victum. She did not want to be traumatised. If someone has a pacemaker implanted do you REALLY want to be traumatising them? What if she reacted by needing the paramedics? What about a little respect?
How about REAL security which does not need to be a personal violation? How about a procedure for people who for WHATEVER reason do not want to be touched? I would *show* them my "problem" in private if that was an option but would not allow groping.
How about the rest of the non-security issues like the mail and the employees and their buddies? You think she is such a terrible risk compared to them?
How about allowing people to just LEAVE??????
The *violent* way they arrested her is quite a bit PAST excessive. After all she did not resist, only said "NO". So we let the police exercise brutality and pretend not to see it now? What a sick society we have become.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
