CA man tells TSA: Dont touch my junk!

[Twinkle Toes]

Originally Posted by KC6ZLV

We could start another very long thread about unreasonable Supreme Court rulings.

We are told this is to protect us from from foreign terrorists. of course we can't say they are Islamic or Middle Eastern because that would be profiling. So, everyone is subject to search, which is unreasonable based on the fact that the problem lies within Islamic terrorism. You aren't going to prevent an Islamic terrorist from blowing up a plane by searching and interrogating Mrs Soccer Mom and her three children at the airport. Doing so is simply wasting everyone's time and costing the taxpayers a lot of money.

And you can count me as in favour of profiling foreigners from select countries in the name of national security. If the people from other corners don't like it they don't like it there are other places they can go to.

I'm no fan of Muslims either, but you do know there are a lot of white, blonde, blue-eyed Muslims too, right? You just don't knows which one has the explosives up their rectums - the dark ones or the light ones.

[ay jayy]

The underwear bomber was african, the shoe bomber was half-white/half jamaican. you cant profile terrorists.

[ZhugeLiang]

Originally Posted by Archan

35,000 images stored in a system that was not supposed to store any at all.

Leaked U.S. Marshal body scan images revealed - Technology & science - Security - msnbc.com

Gee, imagine our shock. Why, we just didn't see this coming!

[DowntownVentura]

Originally Posted by ZhugeLiang

Gee, imagine our shock. Why, we just didn't see this coming!

I agree

With a government with such low credibility among Americans, I wish they would quit lying. Nobody trusts them anymore.

[Brenda-by-the-sea]

Originally Posted by Lovehound

So next thing, TSA has a directive that all people who want to fly must undergo a colonoscopy.

Well at least it might lead to a reduction of colon cancer.

More likely, routine full-body scanning will result in an increased incidence of it.

[KC6ZLV]

Originally Posted by Twinkle Toes

I'm no fan of Muslims either, but you do know there are a lot of white, blonde, blue-eyed Muslims too, right? You just don't knows which one has the explosives up their rectums - the dark ones or the light ones.

Where did I state anything about what they look like? And that statement doesn't justify anything. I could as easily justify prohibiting people from owning cars because you are much more likely to get killed in a car accident than a terrorist attack.

Originally Posted by ay jayy

The underwear bomber was african, the shoe bomber was half-white/half jamaican. you cant profile terrorists.

What I'm trying to get people in favour of the nonsense security measures to understand is although the security risk is there it is extremely low in comparison to other potential dangers. You are much more likely to get killed in a car accident, attacked by a dog, or become a victim of a violent crime. Gosh, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the risk of someone being murdered in this country is hundreds of times greater than a terrorist attack.

[UB50]

Originally Posted by jeffredo

If he has two brain cells to rub together I'm sure he knew about the current security measures. I smell a 15 minutes of fame rat. I have no issue with full body scans and if I did I wouldn't get worked up over a thorough pat down. Much rather have that than be blown up into dog kibble by some bomb carrying nut.

I smell fame rat too. Frankly, there is no "right to fly." I'm tired of idiots like this sucking up TV airtime.

[Twinkle Toes]

Originally Posted by KC6ZLV

Where did I state anything about what they look like? And that statement doesn't justify anything. I could as easily justify prohibiting people from owning cars because you are much more likely to get killed in a car accident than a terrorist attack.



What I'm trying to get people in favour of the nonsense security measures to understand is although the security risk is there it is extremely low in comparison to other potential dangers. You are much more likely to get killed in a car accident, attacked by a dog, or become a victim of a violent crime. Gosh, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the risk of someone being murdered in this country is hundreds of times greater than a terrorist attack.

I responded to your statements in a logical manner. Your counter-post makes absolutely no sense.

[capoeira]

Originally Posted by Brenda-by-the-sea

More likely, routine full-body scanning will result in an increased incidence of it.

That's what UCSF professor John Sedat is saying.

"Air travelers over 65 years old are especially susceptible to the "mutagenic effects of the X-rays," they say, as are HIV and cancer patients, children and adolescents, pregnant women, and men (because the X-rays can penetrate skin and put the testicles "at risk for sperm mutagenesis"). Eyes could also be at risk because X-rays can penetrate the cornea. "

Biochemist says 'naked' X-ray scanner may be unsafe | Privacy Inc. - CNET News

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...jph-letter.pdf

[Ultrarunner]

For what it's worth...

Several local District Attorneys have put the Bay Area TSA on notice they will vigorously prosecute inspectors that cross the line...

On a side note... I work with a number of Ophthalmologist and they are concerned how radiation exposure affects the cornea...