Airport Security

[RoadToad]

All of this is coming from the political pressure in Washington to be "tough on terrorism," and the "War on Terror." Which BTW I think is kind of a strange phrase.. I mean, how can we be at war with an emotion? Anyway, I think there's a lot of pressure on both the government, and the airlines, to do everything humanly possible, invasive or not, to prevent anything from happening on a plane, and if, God forbid, something does happen, anybody who is perceived as having skipped something is going to get crucified. So that pressure is trickling on down to the airport employees, and some of them are going beyond "erring on the side of caution," they're getting downright militant about it. But I'm all for reasonable measures, and I think the scans and pat-downs in general are reasonable measures. And to me there's no civil rights issue at all. If a private company, an airline, wants you to submit to a body scan, pat down, whatever, in order to engage their services, seems to me they should have the right to do that, or you can take the bus, or drive, or walk, or ride a horse. The Constitution only applies because it's a government entity implementing the security. But even so, the rights granted in the Constitution aren't completely unlimited. They can be limited when there is a "compelling reason" to do so, such as national security, or the "general good." For instance, your First Amendment right to free speech doesn't mean you can reveal classified information, or threaten people. So, even though I believe in respecting everybody's religious beliefs, if those religious beliefs mean you can't be searched before you board a plane, then I say, "Fine, we'll respect your beliefs, and we won't search you. You are free to find some alternate form of transportation. Now please leave the airport immediately." It's a national security thing.

The one thing that does worry me is the reports of the radiation the scanners emit. If it's going to be a health risk, they need to find a different scanning method. Which I suppose they're probably working on already. Actually, I'm not that worried about any of this, just glad that I rarely fly any more and don't have to deal with it!

[roadrunner]

All of this is coming from the political pressure in Washington to be "tough on terrorism," and the "War on Terror." Which BTW I think is kind of a strange phrase.. I mean, how can we be at war with an emotion? Anyway, I think there's a lot of pressure on both the government, and the airlines, to do everything humanly possible, invasive or not, to prevent anything from happening on a plane, and if, God forbid, something does happen, anybody who is perceived as having skipped something is going to get crucified. So that pressure is trickling on down to the airport employees, and some of them are going beyond "erring on the side of caution," they're getting downright militant about it. But I'm all for reasonable measures, and I think the scans and pat-downs in general are reasonable measures. And to me there's no civil rights issue at all. If a private company, an airline, wants you to submit to a body scan, pat down, whatever, in order to engage their services, seems to me they should have the right to do that, or you can take the bus, or drive, or walk, or ride a horse. The Constitution only applies because it's a government entity implementing the security. But even so, the rights granted in the Constitution aren't completely unlimited. They can be limited when there is a "compelling reason" to do so, such as national security, or the "general good." For instance, your First Amendment right to free speech doesn't mean you can reveal classified information, or threaten people. So, even though I believe in respecting everybody's religious beliefs, if those religious beliefs mean you can't be searched before you board a plane, then I say, "Fine, we'll respect your beliefs, and we won't search you. You are free to find some alternate form of transportation. Now please leave the airport immediately." It's a national security thing.

The one thing that does worry me is the reports of the radiation the scanners emit. If it's going to be a health risk, they need to find a different scanning method. Which I suppose they're probably working on already. Actually, I'm not that worried about any of this, just glad that I rarely fly any more and don't have to deal with it!

We are not at war with the emotion we are war with the act of terror. Any government, group or organization which promotes, trains, funds, or commits terrorist activity we are at war with them.

I do think we need security but we need to profile whom we search. Not the grandmothers or the pilots who do not need a bomb they can fly the thing into the ground when taking off or landing not the family going to Disney etc. We need a national I D card for the folks who are flying on a frequent basis they would have to go through an FBI check to receive such a card their name would be on a list and would identify them when they purchased a ticket.

The Israelis profile by looking at and interviewing the person. They can detect if he is nervous traveling with a group of people that are nervous don’t give same answers that fit with the group etc. Have one way ticket, where they came from etc. They are very skilled and this alone makes anyone trying to commit an act of terror very nervous. If they have cause for concern then they search that person.

There are better ways to insure our safety than what we are doing.

[RoadToad]

We are not at war with the emotion we are war with the act of terror. Any government, group or organization which promotes, trains, funds, or commits terrorist activity we are at war with them.

Yeah, I get it, but really you can't go to war with "the act of terror" any more than you can an emotion. Terrorism is a method of waging war, and as long as their is war, there will be terrorists. And like you said, it's them we are at war with. So why can't we call it the "War on the Terrorists?" Or get even more specific and say the war on the Taliban, and the war on Al-Quaeda, which in a way are two separate undertakings? Sorry if I'm just talking semantics here; maybe I should just keep this stuff to myself.

[MrSplitshot]

Agree with this. I also wonder how much of this is really for show. Ie., look, we are doing all that we can. Don't they have dogs that can sniff out explosives and other stuff? Metal detectors that can find metal objects. Does a TSA grope really do better than those?

Andrew

That's fair. Maybe it is for show...showing terrorists that we are going to make it as difficult for them as possible to get through security with something they could use to hijack or blow up a plane....showing passengers that their safety is top priority. (The cynical side in me also says that if that's the case, we need to be equally vigilant in addressing pilot training, flight hours, airport markings, equipment maintenance, etc.)

We do know that terrorists are going to keep trying to come up with ways to get past security. Airports and Law Enforcement Agencies all over the world keep catching these people before they can do something stupid, because of the increased focus on security. You know they want to blow up planes. We need to stay ahead of them. Unfortunately, one little tiny subsection of people that want to do harm will cause the entire flying population to be screened thoroughly, and by methods that many won't like.

If the dude that tried to light his Fruit of the Looms on fire and blow up a plane last Christmas had succeeded, the public clamor to the government would have been: "How could you let this happen? How could you not catch this? Isn't there something else you could have done?"

If there is a legitimate radiation issue, then I agree that the situation becomes a bit different. However, remember all of those studies that said prolonged cell phone usage could cause brain tumors? I think you can make a case that any kind of wave-emitting device poses a risk, but to what degree? Everything has risk. I've read that you would have to go through the scanner 1000 times to equal 1 standard chest x-ray from your doctor....and that you are exposed to more radiation from the flight itself than the body scanners. http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/03/advanced...radiation.html Either it's a lie or it's a truth...all you can do is believe the research or not. The same people that aren't willing to risk the 1 in 100,000,000 chance of problems from radiation, are willing to risk flying on a plane where they have no control over their destiny? That's a cop out.

I find some of the articles interesting where the Israelis say that the body scanners are useless. The body scanners are used to detect secondary non-metallic threats that the metal detectors don't pick up. However, the Israelis say that you can get enough explosives to bring down a 747 past the scanner if you know how. That's more concerning to me than worrying about civil liberties or radiation. They argue that a mixture of behavioral profiling and a "Trusted Traveler" system would be more effective. This is where some kind of "Fast Pass" type card is applied for and issued to travelers that go through extensive background checks so that they don't go through as extensive security checks at the airport....leaving more time to do thorough behavioral profiling and explosive sniffing screens on those that don't have the card. Interesting theory. Israel doesn't use the body mapping scanners. When it comes down to some kind of ID Card or Passport, I still wonder how easily that could be counterfeited/stolen/misused in this country...but it's obviously something the Israelis believe in, and lord knows they see their fair share of terrorists.

But if the TSA aborted the scanners and went to a trusted traveller ID card right now, the same people complaining about civil liberties being infringed would be up in arms about having to register with the government to get a card or succumb to a background check to fly..."Just another way the Government is trying to keep tabs on me!" Then, when they didn't, they would complain because they have to go through screens at the airport.

Maybe I'm a sheep, but I just don't believe that the government is trying to brainwash me, micro-chip me, track my every move, take my guns away, and strip me of all my certain inalienable rights. I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

[Catfish Bob]

alright,, I give up.
I'm wrong, you all win.

peace

[Catfish Bob]

I guess my last post didn't work

Basically just saying I give up! You guys win again

But I'm telling ya this is the beginning of the beast system. Their ultimate goal is to have this type of security everywhere to control the masses.
1984 was about 20 years off.

An don't forget Muslim women are exempt from being body scanned and cannot be patted down lower than the neck. This security system is for us not them.

Follow the money trail for the manufacturing of these body scanners. Might open your mind a bit to what I'm saying.

Peace

[MrSplitshot]

An don't forget Muslim women are exempt from being body scanned and cannot be patted down lower than the neck. This security system is for us not them.

I didn't think you could decline the body scan or pat down on religious grounds? (Or any grounds, for that matter.)

Follow the money trail for the manufacturing of these body scanners. Might open your mind a bit to what I'm saying.

Hey, I don't doubt you for a minute on the money trail. We can argue the need or lack of need for the scanners all day long, but we won't argue about the money. I'm sure it's a back door buddy deal like any other, and some are getting filthy rich. Rapiscan and L3 Communications...the two suppliers. One is ran by former Homeland Security Chief, Michael Chertoff. The other is owned by Lehman Brothers, proud record holder for the largest bankruptcy in U.S. History back in 2008.

Along comes the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act....2009....stimulus package.

$200K for a scanner installed x 385 currently deployed in the US....$77 Million....and that's just getting started. Fighting terrorists is quite a lucrative business for some.

There's not a conspiracy theorist on the planet that wouldn't get physically stimulated over that one. LOL

[Mean Morone]

Why would a terrorist let himself get his junk man handled when they can just walk across our bourder and do whatever terrorist activity they want.

[DJD]

Why would a terrorist let himself get his junk man handled when they can just walk across our bourder and do whatever terrorist activity they want.

LOL that's true! Maybe it's a macho thing? No virgins for you if you sneak in like a Mexican.

[kygorski]

This is stupid!! what about screening cargo? The passenger ail lines carry more cargo trhan fedX or UPS, and very little of it is screened.Of course if they did start to examine cargo. there would be more screaming anout a police state.

[MrSplitshot]

This is stupid!! what about screening cargo? The passenger ail lines carry more cargo trhan fedX or UPS, and very little of it is screened.Of course if they did start to examine cargo. there would be more screaming anout a police state.

There was a big hole with cargo, but I think they are getting better on that...

http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20100803_3045.php

[DJD]

This is stupid!! what about screening cargo? The passenger ail lines carry more cargo trhan fedX or UPS, and very little of it is screened.Of course if they did start to examine cargo. there would be more screaming anout a police state.

No me bring it on heck scan the dang plane!

BTW....since this thread started I asked a few of my fellow travellers at work and they agree with more security and showed less interest in Conspiracy issues or civil rights violation. Or if they felt put out by taking their shoes off, potentially scanned, sniffed or whatever....which they don't.

So I'm wondering since I fly 4-5 times a year and they do as well are we just more concerned because we are getting first hand experience every few months and some of the nay sayers are not? Any of you that don't agree with the security measures or increased security fly much? So before any of you get your underoos in a wad it's not scientific I'm just curious.