TSA - Going too Far?

[BigSqwert]

This is a good read. Apologize if it has already been posted.

[Jenksismyhero]

Demanding security isn't the same as recognizing as common sense that more security makes things safer. Do you really think if there was zero security on planes that people wouldn't smuggle bombs on all of the time?

 

And out of curiousity, how much is a dead relative worth to you, in terms of dollars?

 

First, I never said no security. I said security up to a point.

 

Second, in the name of security is everything ok?

 

Here's a completely reasonable hypothetical: we go through this new measure without much incident. 6 months, a year, 2 years from now, some crazy quack puts something in his ass or stomach, opts out of the body scan and submits to the pat down, and not-surprisingly gets by security. Hopefully with luck, he's caught before he can do anything like the underwear bomber. TSA implements new measures requiring "suspected passengers" (their term, with their definition) undergo strip searches including cavity searches. That gonna be ok with you? It'll increase security after all.

 

And sorry, i'm not swayed by the dead relative argument. A dead relative of mine could be killed tomorrow by a drunk driver. Yet society still doesn't go to the Nth degree to stop it.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[LittleHurt05]

Leave the middle east.

 

Yeah, but we all know how likely it is that would ever happen.

[Jenksismyhero]

I keep seeing you use this phrase. I am just curious, what should be done differently so that we are winning vs. the terrorists?

 

Stop giving in to the paranoia. That doesn't mean we become lazy or stupid. We can still be diligent about protecting ourselves. I just happen to feel that in this case we've gone too far.

[Jenksismyhero]

This is a good read. Apologize if it has already been posted.

 

It's the same kind of trade-off TSA implicitly provided when it ordered us to take off our sneakers (to stop shoe bombs) and to chuck our water bottles (to prevent liquid explosives). Security guru Bruce Schneier, a plaintiff in the scanner suit, calls this "magical thinking . . . Descend on what the terrorists happened to do last time, and we'll all be safe. As if they won't think of something else." Which, of course, they invariably do. Attackers are already starting to smuggle weapons in body cavities, going where even the most adroit body scanners do not tread. No wonder that the Israelis, known for the world's most stringent airport security, have so far passed on the scanners.

 

Exactly.

[EvilMonkey]

And sorry, i'm not swayed by the dead relative argument. A dead relative of mine could be killed tomorrow by a drunk driver. Yet society still doesn't go to the Nth degree to stop it.

Just give MADD time. They have evolved into a prohibitionist movement, they will get there soon.

[Balta1701]

[Texsox]

And we'd catch more criminals if we allowed the police to search without warrants, take away attorneys, and stop that whole bail program. Just keep people locked up a couple years before their trial. Military rule would make us more safe, so anything could be justified.

 

As has been said before, we have to give up our rights or the terrorists win.

[Jenksismyhero]

And we'd catch more criminals if we allowed the police to search without warrants, take away attorneys, and stop that whole bail program. Just keep people locked up a couple years before their trial. Military rule would make us more safe, so anything could be justified.

 

As has been said before, we have to give up our rights or the terrorists win.

 

I'm confused. Which side are you landing on here?

[Balta1701]

And we'd catch more criminals if we allowed the police to search without warrants, take away attorneys, and stop that whole bail program. Just keep people locked up a couple years before their trial. Military rule would make us more safe, so anything could be justified.

 

As has been said before, we have to give up our rights or the terrorists win.

How do we know when the terrorists win? And is it possible for the terrorists to win a battle and lose the war because of it?

[knightni]

I saw an interesting acronym.

 

TSA = Thousands of Sexual Assaults

[southsider2k5]

First, I never said no security. I said security up to a point.

 

Second, in the name of security is everything ok?

 

Here's a completely reasonable hypothetical: we go through this new measure without much incident. 6 months, a year, 2 years from now, some crazy quack puts something in his ass or stomach, opts out of the body scan and submits to the pat down, and not-surprisingly gets by security. Hopefully with luck, he's caught before he can do anything like the underwear bomber. TSA implements new measures requiring "suspected passengers" (their term, with their definition) undergo strip searches including cavity searches. That gonna be ok with you? It'll increase security after all.

 

And sorry, i'm not swayed by the dead relative argument. A dead relative of mine could be killed tomorrow by a drunk driver. Yet society still doesn't go to the Nth degree to stop it.

 

You mentioned money, not me. How much money should we be spending?

 

You also are the one who mentioned too much security.

[Balta1701]

You mentioned money, not me. How much money should we be spending?

Well, that depends. If we're spending it on the scanning machines, we just need to buy enough for former Secretary Chertoff to retire comfortably (since he's a key investor in that company and was a key guy in putting these things in place). If we're spending it on blowing people up...obviously we've established there's zero cost limit.

[EvilMonkey]

Well, that depends. If we're spending it on the scanning machines, we just need to buy enough for former Secretary Chertoff to retire comfortably (since he's a key investor in that company and was a key guy in putting these things in place). If we're spending it on blowing people up...obviously we've established there's zero cost limit.

George Soros owns a ton of stock in the company as well. Don't forget him.

[Balta1701]

George Soros owns a ton of stock in the company as well. Don't forget him.

Winning joke on this subject? John Stewart pointing out that the company name is "Rapiscan", and if you pronounce that with a long-A...

[EvilMonkey]

Winning joke on this subject? John Stewart pointing out that the company name is "Rapiscan", and if you pronounce that with a long-A...

Kinda sounds like what the Dems are helping the TSA do to the public, by letting them unionize. Their jobs were created with a provision that they can't unionize. Now the Dems letting them? You think service sucks now............

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-e...rss=federal-eye

[Balta1701]

Kinda sounds like what the Dems are helping the TSA do to the public, by letting them unionize. Their jobs were created with a provision that they can't unionize. Now the Dems letting them? You think service sucks now............

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-e...rss=federal-eye

Really, you correlate "Unionization" with "Crappy service"?

[StrangeSox]

Really, you correlate "Unionization" with "Crappy service"?

No,

 

Unionization=Evil

[EvilMonkey]

Really, you correlate "Unionization" with "Crappy service"?

Yes.

[Rex Kickass]

No,

 

Unionization=Evil

 

I think there's a difference between equating crappy service with evilness. That isn't what AD was saying here, and you and I both know it.

[Balta1701]

Yes.

I want to see you hire a few non-union plumbers or electricians and get back to me.

[BigSqwert]

A great read on the subject.

 

EDIT: This gem was embedded in the article.

Edited November 19, 2010 by BigSqwert

[BigSqwert]

This description of a pat down made me angry.

[Controlled Chaos]

A great read on the subject.

 

EDIT: This gem was embedded in the article.

Indeed.

[HuskyCaucasian]

If you're gonna be touching my junk, I demand a happy ending.