TSA going crazy again

[bscrive]

Did anyone see this story on the news about a 95 year old cancer stricken woman having her depends removed because they were "wet and firm".  Why is it they only seem pick on clearly caucasians.

http://news.travel.aol.com/2011/06/26/tsa-pats-down-elderly-woman-removes-adult-diaper-video/?icid=maing-grid7|netscape|dl1|sec1_lnk2|73323

[The Anvil]

Did anyone see this story on the news about a 95 year old cancer stricken woman having her depends removed because they were "wet and firm".  Why is it they only seem pick on clearly caucasians.

http://news.travel.aol.com/2011/06/26/tsa-pats-down-elderly-woman-removes-adult-diaper-video/?icid=maing-grid7|netscape|dl1|sec1_lnk2|73323

The problem with the TSA is that they either don't have someone available who can or they don't have someone available who is willing to make a judgment call on this kind of thing, so drones find themselves in these situations and find themselves forced to adhere to the letter of the policy lest they wind up looking for a new job.

As far as not having a spare pair of depends, I mean it sucks but that's poor planning on the part of the traveler.

[Fudd]

I have to side with TSA here.

If our enemies thought we gave free passes through security to elderly and children, guess what?  We'd have mawmaw and baby bombs.  We learned far to well in Vietnam about them.

From what I read, the elderly woman didn't have a problem with the search.  I'll bet she was used to medical exams and had long ago resolved personal modesty issues.  I'm sure the TSA agent acted as professionally as she could.
 
When dealing with societies that want to kill us, we sometimes have to fomulate policy around their standards of "what's acceptable."  Possessing a likeness of Mohamad is grounds for death, but bombing a plane load of innocent civilians is "honorable."

However, If we have to give up our rights to privacy to fly in our own country, then forget about this issue of stereo typing.  Every person of middle eastern and other non-American birth needs to be screened, also.   

[Willow]

...  Every person of middle eastern and other non-American birth needs to be screened, also. 

So let me see if I understand this.  By your rules my Choctaw ethnicity would get me a free pass, but Britman's English (non-American) lineage would get him searched?    

[RoadKill]

...  Every person of middle eastern and other non-American birth needs to be screened, also. 

So let me see if I understand this.  By your rules my Choctaw ethnicity would get me a free pass, but Britman's English (non-American) lineage would get him searched?    

What you may be hiding in that mustache would get you searched for sure Carl 

[designer]

If you choose to fly someplace, its strictly voluntary.  You subcome to the wants of the many not the needs of the few.  Your elected officials in washington decided what was good for the many.  We have a choice to either do as they say or drive.  I'm good with that, I have a choice.  As for the elderly person in the video... wasn't it kind that she allowed her diginity to be sold or gave it away free of charge to whoever taped the video. No agenda there.

[Valker]

I'm going out on a limb here and carrying a saw. I think the whole TSA thing is idiocy. There will never be another airliner hijacked over this country to be used as a dumbmissle because the other passengers would beat the perp to death and/or the cockpit can't be breached. As far as choosing to bomb an airliner out of the sky...why? A bomber could kill and maim a LOT more people waiting in line at an airport security checkpoint than they could by bringing down a plane.
If someone thinks these screenings make them safer in ANY way, they are simply using "wishful thinking". It nearly takes a cavity search to get on an airplane, yet our drinking water supplies are nearly unguarded. They screen people at huge, crowd-filled stadiums, but a small group of private planes loaded with cheap (relatively) filled plastic gas cans could kill thousands.
ANY sense or feeling of safety an invasive search gives someone, it is a false sense...but then again, I don't expect many people in today's society to understand there is a HUGE difference between being responsible for yourself and in allowing the big brother to make some to 'feel' safer.
Statistically, we'd be safer if we gave up riding motorcycles and drove new, safety equipped cars. If you're not willing to quit riding because you're willing to accept the increased risk, why can't there be airlines that can decide to get away from some of the Draconian 'safety' measures.

[The Anvil]

As far as choosing to bomb an airliner out of the sky...why? A bomber could kill and maim a LOT more people waiting in line at an airport security checkpoint than they could by bringing down a plane.

Yes, and they could do so pretty easily. And yet, they have not done that and HAVE tried numerous times to bring down aircraft while in flight. There's the flaw in your logic. Really, what has saved us a lot more trouble is not security measures but terrorists continuing insistence on targeting commercial air travel.

I agree that you won't see another hijacking of the 9/11 type. At least not with a commercial airliner. But they're making some REALLY BIG private jets with easy cockpit access and little to no boarding security available for charter to anyone with money. A G650 with a full bag of fuel would do an awful lot of damage to something like the Hancock tower.

[Valker]

As far as choosing to bomb an airliner out of the sky...why? A bomber could kill and maim a LOT more people waiting in line at an airport security checkpoint than they could by bringing down a plane.

Yes, and they could do so pretty easily. And yet, they have not done that and HAVE tried numerous times to bring down aircraft while in flight. There's the flaw in your logic.

You may have meant "they have not done that HERE". You say they have tried numerous times on commercial airlines.....I challenge you to total the worldwide incidents of terror attacks and attempted attacks then make a list and total them. I'd bet money that the most often used method of transportation is a backpack. I'd be willing to bet that commercial airliners are WAY down on that list. I'd even be willing to bet that deaths or crashes from maintenance or pilot errors outnumber terrorist caused deaths by 25 times or more.
I'm out....believe as you wish, I am NOT trying to convince anyone to think as I do.

[Fudd]

My real objection was to an incident where two Arab speaking men in their 20's  seamingly breezed through the checkpoint, while my 75 year old mother was having her shoes inspected.

Common sense would tell me, If a suspect is fleeing a bank robbery in a green Toyota and you decide to set up a road block, check all of the green Toyotas as a priority.

Mom didn't mind the check, but damn sure check all of them, too.

I can't just write off the possibility of another airline disaster, it still appears in captured terriorists communications.

[The Anvil]

You may have meant "they have not done that HERE".

I guess I thought that was implied. I'm well aware of the various methods used by terrorists to cause mayhem, but what concerns me is what's happening in my own back yard. I'll let the authorities in ther countries worry about how they roll overseas.

You say they have tried numerous times on commercial airlines.....I challenge you to total the worldwide incidents of terror attacks and attempted attacks then make a list and total them.

Why?

I'd bet money that the most often used method of transportation is a backpack.

Do you hear me arguing that?

I'd be willing to bet that commercial airliners are WAY down on that list.

Here in the USA? No. Air travel is still the primary focus of terror activity. The only target? No. But the primary one. The "prestige" target if you will. I can't tell you how I know this, I just do.

I'd even be willing to bet that deaths or crashes from maintenance or pilot errors outnumber terrorist caused deaths by 25 times or more.

Well since we're talking about travel as it relates to the US and the TSA's security screening and authority then we're only going to include air travel with US departure points as they're the only relevant ones to this argument. Well the 9/11 attacks caused the loss of 2,996 lives. Do you recall air disasters caused by mechanical failure or human factors since then totaling anything NEAR that number? Didn't happen.

Crashes due to maintenance mistakes almost never happen. It's usually mechanical failure or pilot error.   

But I'm not even sure it's relevant to the argument. Does the fact that aircraft are capable of crashing on their own mean that we should not take security measures? Do you know WHY air travel is as safe as it is in this country? Because we take maintenance so seriously. Maintenance is a security measure against the unexpected. Well, should we stop doing that?  ???


I'm out....believe as you wish, I am NOT trying to convince anyone to think as I do.

Wait, don't orphan your arguments. I'm willing to hear you out with an open mind.

[bscrive]

I don't know if it is just me but, when I hear of these instances the person seems to be caucasian.  Is it because the TSA is afraid of discrimination lawsuits so they pick on whites or is it because the media picks up on these ones.  Do they do this intentionally to give the sense that it is safe to fly.  I am not kidding, do they intentionally do this.  I know that people are selected for searches while they are in the security line ups.  I read that on AOL a few months back.

[CISE]

bottom line 1:

Rule is no profiling, therefore only those would not be profiled are profiled


bottom line 2:

The public demands more and better and tighter security - they got it - with no profiling (sort of)

[thumper]

...  Every person of middle eastern and other non-American birth needs to be screened, also. 

So let me see if I understand this.  By your rules my Choctaw ethnicity would get me a free pass, but Britman's English (non-American) lineage would get him searched?    

Ooooooooo.....

Just got a mental picture of Britman being strip searched.

 Damn, no delete button!  Thanks Willow

[Willow]

Ooooooooo.....

Just got a mental picture of Britman being strip searched.

 Damn, no delete button!  Thanks Willow

Oh, I'm so sorry, Paul, but now you've done it to me so I guess we're even.    

[Valker]

You may have meant "they have not done that HERE".

I guess I thought that was implied. I'm well aware of the various methods used by terrorists to cause mayhem, but what concerns me is what's happening in my own back yard. I'll let the authorities in ther countries worry about how they roll overseas.

You say they have tried numerous times on commercial airlines.....I challenge you to total the worldwide incidents of terror attacks and attempted attacks then make a list and total them.

Why?

I'd bet money that the most often used method of transportation is a backpack.

Do you hear me arguing that?

I'd be willing to bet that commercial airliners are WAY down on that list.

Here in the USA? No. Air travel is still the primary focus of terror activity. The only target? No. But the primary one. The "prestige" target if you will. I can't tell you how I know this, I just do.

I'd even be willing to bet that deaths or crashes from maintenance or pilot errors outnumber terrorist caused deaths by 25 times or more.

Well since we're talking about travel as it relates to the US and the TSA's security screening and authority then we're only going to include air travel with US departure points as they're the only relevant ones to this argument. Well the 9/11 attacks caused the loss of 2,996 lives. Do you recall air disasters caused by mechanical failure or human factors since then totaling anything NEAR that number? Didn't happen.

Crashes due to maintenance mistakes almost never happen. It's usually mechanical failure or pilot error.   

But I'm not even sure it's relevant to the argument. Does the fact that aircraft are capable of crashing on their own mean that we should not take security measures? Do you know WHY air travel is as safe as it is in this country? Because we take maintenance so seriously. Maintenance is a security measure against the unexpected. Well, should we stop doing that?  ???


I'm out....believe as you wish, I am NOT trying to convince anyone to think as I do.

Wait, don't orphan your arguments. I'm willing to hear you out with an open mind.

Ok. The 9/11 attacks were NOT carried out with any kind of weapon that was forbidden to bring on flights at that time. No 'big' weapons. The terrorists (from the few reports available) maimed and/or killed flight attendants to coerce the pilots to open the cockpits. They did, were killed, and the flights taken over to be used as missiles. The GOVERNMENT policy at that time TOLD the pilots to cooperate with the hijackers. The Bic shavers and nail files the terrorists used had little to do with the outcome. NO bombs were used for any of the hijackings. As far as I'm concerned, the established policy of 'cooperation' had everything to do with it. The passengers were told to cooperate on each plane. Only when the passengers on Flight 93 discovered that the hijackers were crashing the planes into buildings and killing people did they stop cooperating and try to retake control of a plane the pilots had to turn over.
Today's 'enhanced screenings' would have changed NOTHING that happened in 2001 with the policies enforced at that time.

[The Anvil]

Ok. The 9/11 attacks were NOT carried out with any kind of weapon that was forbidden to bring on flights at that time. No 'big' weapons. The terrorists (from the few reports available) maimed and/or killed flight attendants to coerce the pilots to open the cockpits. They did, were killed, and the flights taken over to be used as missiles. The GOVERNMENT policy at that time TOLD the pilots to cooperate with the hijackers. The Bic shavers and nail files the terrorists used had little to do with the outcome. NO bombs were used for any of the hijackings. As far as I'm concerned, the established policy of 'cooperation' had everything to do with it. The passengers were told to cooperate on each plane. Only when the passengers on Flight 93 discovered that the hijackers were crashing the planes into buildings and killing people did they stop cooperating and try to retake control of a plane the pilots had to turn over.
Today's 'enhanced screenings' would have changed NOTHING that happened in 2001 with the policies enforced at that time.

All fair points. But that's why you look for bombs now, not box cutters. Cockpits of commercial airliners are sealed. Bombs (what they actually suspected in this case) were a tool of terrorists long before box cutters were.

The question now is; what are they targeting and how will they try and bring it down? Air travel is still the big score and since box cutter aren't cutting it (pun intended) anymore then you look for bombs and other things.

And just for the record a few years ago I got personally involved when TSA tried to take a fellow traveler's rescue inhaler. There are lines they cannot cross. But too many people take it for granted that they have final say, and they do. But you have avenues before it comes to that.

[Fudd]

bottom line 1:

Rule is no profiling, therefore only those would not be profiled are profiled


bottom line 2:

The public demands more and better and tighter security - they got it - with no profiling (sort of)

Aren't we "at war" with enemies determined to destroy our freedom.  So sorry if someone gets their feelings hurt over "profiling."

[fudgie]

bottom line 1:

Rule is no profiling, therefore only those would not be profiled are profiled


bottom line 2:

The public demands more and better and tighter security - they got it - with no profiling (sort of)

Aren't we "at war" with enemies determined to destroy our freedom.  So sorry if someone gets their feelings hurt over "profiling."

[bscrive]

I am all for racial profiling.  It is muslims that are blowing things up these days.  Sure, they are the radicals and not the average muslim.  That being said, I feel that the majority of the screening should be on middle eastern peoples.  If us Canadians, Brits or Mexicans ever start blowing things up make them the priority when screening.  Forget the political correctness crap.

[The Anvil]

I am all for racial profiling.  It is muslims that are blowing things up these days.  Sure, they are the radicals and not the average muslim.  That being said, I feel that the majority of the screening should be on middle eastern peoples.  If us Canadians, Brits or Mexicans ever start blowing things up make them the priority when screening.  Forget the political correctness crap.

Tim McVeigh.
Terry Nichols.
Michael Harris.
Dylan Klebold.
Jared Lee Laughner.
Ted Kackynski.
Eric Robert Rudolph.

What do they all have in common?

[RoadKill]

I am all for racial profiling.  It is muslims that are blowing things up these days.  Sure, they are the radicals and not the average muslim.  That being said, I feel that the majority of the screening should be on middle eastern peoples.  If us Canadians, Brits or Mexicans ever start blowing things up make them the priority when screening.  Forget the political correctness crap.

Tim McVeigh.
Terry Nichols.
Michael Harris.
Dylan Klebold.
Jared Lee Laughner.
Ted Kackynski.
Eric Robert Rudolph.

What do they all have in common?

they never Hijacked an airplane ?  they dont have frequent flyer miles?   They all wear depends for safety ?     

[Bobbo]

I am all for racial profiling.  It is muslims that are blowing things up these days.  Sure, they are the radicals and not the average muslim.  That being said, I feel that the majority of the screening should be on middle eastern peoples.  If us Canadians, Brits or Mexicans ever start blowing things up make them the priority when screening.  Forget the political correctness crap.

Maybe you would be happier in a country that doesn't have equal civil rights.  People who flush rights down the toilet are essentially saying that the principals this nation was founded upon are a failure.

And "Muslims" aren't a race.

[Fudd]

I am all for racial profiling.  It is muslims that are blowing things up these days.  Sure, they are the radicals and not the average muslim.  That being said, I feel that the majority of the screening should be on middle eastern peoples.  If us Canadians, Brits or Mexicans ever start blowing things up make them the priority when screening.  Forget the political correctness crap.

Tim McVeigh.
Terry Nichols.
Michael Harris.
Dylan Klebold.
Jared Lee Laughner.
Ted Kackynski.
Eric Robert Rudolph.

What do they all have in common?

Add up the total body count.  It's a fraction of 9/11.  But as a result of these gentlemen's deads, we now have baracades at gov't buildings making us park away from critical structures.  We have better trained teaching professionals that can better identify "trenchcoat behavior" and deal with it.  We have improved mail bomb detection.

But Anvil I do get your point.

Lets hope there are far less of the "above mentioned types" per million of decent Americans, than I would suspect Arab terrorests per million moderate middle easterners on our soil.

[The Anvil]

But see that's just it. It's not a moratorium on racial profiling for the sake of political correctness. You screen everyone because they WILL adapt to whatever you're doing and try to work with the holes. And as I just pointed out, it ain't just Muslims blowing things up or going on Ft. Hood style shooting sprees.

I KNOW guys who have come back from overseas and seen women, children and the elderly used as bomb carriers. Don't make the mistake of thinking that can't happen here.

[The Anvil]

And "Muslims" aren't a race.

Well I think ethnic Muslims are and those are the ones that will stand out when sitting next to emergency exits.

[bscrive]

And "Muslims" aren't a race.

When they say the term 'racial profiling', the term includes middle eastern peoples and the majority of them are muslims. 

Also, if you look up the term caucasian you will see that one of the definitions is 'of, constituting, or characteristic of a race of humankind native to Europe, North Africa, and southwest Asia and classified according to physical features —used especially in referring to persons of European descent having usually light skin pigmentation'
People should stop splitting hairs.

[The Anvil]

Also, if you look up the term caucasian you will see that one of the definitions is 'of, constituting, or characteristic of a race of humankind native to Europe, North Africa, and southwest Asia and classified according to physical features —used especially in referring to persons of European descent having usually light skin pigmentation'
People should stop splitting hairs.

Let's just all agree to use the term "whitey" or "white devil" from now on. Agreed? Let us celebrate this agreement with the adding of Frosted Flakes to milk...

[Bobbo]

And "Muslims" aren't a race.

When they say the term 'racial profiling', the term includes middle eastern peoples and the majority of them are muslims.  

Also, if you look up the term caucasian you will see that one of the definitions is 'of, constituting, or characteristic of a race of humankind native to Europe, North Africa, and southwest Asia and classified according to physical features —used especially in referring to persons of European descent having usually light skin pigmentation'
People should stop splitting hairs.

You have inadvertently proved my point.  Race is a classification based on physical characteristics, generally stemming from the historically limited gene pool of a certain region.   A Muslim is one who follows Islam.  According to your thinking, Christians would be a race.  

[Bobbo]

Also, if you look up the term caucasian you will see that one of the definitions is 'of, constituting, or characteristic of a race of humankind native to Europe, North Africa, and southwest Asia and classified according to physical features —used especially in referring to persons of European descent having usually light skin pigmentation'
People should stop splitting hairs.

Let's just all agree to use the term "whitey" or "white devil" from now on. Agreed? Let us celebrate this agreement with the adding of Frosted Flakes to milk...

I prefer "Blue Eyed Devil"!   

[fudgie]

I'm partial to honkie.

[The Anvil]

Just last week I was in the mall with my wife and my girls. Maggie was getting tired and in need of a nap so she was being really cranky and (I'll admit it) annoying. You know, the tired 2 1/2 year old routine. Some flatbiller, early 20's tattooed wannabe badass walking scrotum standing with his friends says "somebody needs to shut that kid up". I just turned to him and said "Hey Vanilla Ice, mind your own business."

I dunno if his friends even know who Vanilla Ice is but they broke up over it. He gave me a glare like he was thinking about talking back but if he was he thought better of it. 

[G-Man]

The TSA is just demonstrating their brilliance.  They have refutable evidence that Radical Islam will be using caucasians as bomb mules so that's who they are screening. 

They keep dragging up the same 5 or 7 non Islamic "terrorists / bombers" to make their point about profiling.  I'm amazed that anyone can really buy into that line of thinking.  Now, I can only guess that the number of terrorist hijackings, around the world, throughout aviation history, were committed by radical islamists to the tune of 99%.  Profiling is not only warranted, it should be criminal to NOT profile for radical islamists in airports.

[The Anvil]

The TSA is just demonstrating their brilliance.  They have refutable evidence that Radical Islam will be using caucasians as bomb mules so that's who they are screening. 

They keep dragging up the same 5 or 7 non Islamic "terrorists / bombers" to make their point about profiling.  I'm amazed that anyone can really buy into that line of thinking.  Now, I can only guess that the number of terrorist hijackings, around the world, throughout aviation history, were committed by radical islamists to the tune of 99%.  Profiling is not only warranted, it should be criminal to NOT profile for radical islamists in airports.

5 or 7? You haven't been paying attention. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States

What exactly would you base your determination on anyway? Skin color? Eye shape? 

[Grumpy]

Texas is putting the binders on TSA

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/28/us-airport-security-texas-idUSTRE75R03N20110628

[The Anvil]

Texas is putting the binders on TSA

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/28/us-airport-security-texas-idUSTRE75R03N20110628

Apparently Texas like wasting their time. They have no jurisdiction unless it's a municipal airport.

[G-Man]

The TSA is just demonstrating their brilliance.  They have refutable evidence that Radical Islam will be using caucasians as bomb mules so that's who they are screening. 

They keep dragging up the same 5 or 7 non Islamic "terrorists / bombers" to make their point about profiling.  I'm amazed that anyone can really buy into that line of thinking.  Now, I can only guess that the number of terrorist hijackings, around the world, throughout aviation history, were committed by radical islamists to the tune of 99%.  Profiling is not only warranted, it should be criminal to NOT profile for radical islamists in airports.

5 or 7? You haven't been paying attention. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States

What exactly would you base your determination on anyway? Skin color? Eye shape? 

OK, so the thread is about airport securty, SPECIFICALLY, and you insist of lumping ALL types of terroristic attacks together.  Why?   Why can't we just stay on one SPECIFIC topic.  If I was wrong in my stated percentage of airline terrorism occurances, please demonstrate this.  If I am not wrong, and such a HUGE percentage of a SPECIFIC type of terrorism is performed by only one group, then how can you NOT profile for that one group?

And yes, skin and eye color is a good start. 

And maybe, just maybe, if enough law abiding Muslim citizens were inconvenienced and hassled, instead of just everyone, maybe they would speak out enough against the radical groups that have hijacked their religion and homelands. 

[bscrive]

Just to be clear I will take Fudgie's suggestion.  I will refer to us as honkies. 

Bobbo, should I use a capital or is it not considered a proper noun?

[The Anvil]

OK, so the thread is about airport securty, SPECIFICALLY, and you insist of lumping ALL types of terroristic attacks together.  Why?   

Because maybe domestic terrorists just haven't thought to attack airports yet? Or maybe because it just proves that white people can be whackadoo too and can be recruited for violent causes? I mean it seems kinda obvious to me...

By the way, I have a couple of Iranian friends. You would have a hard time picking them out as middle eastern in a lineup. They don't all look like Mohammad Atta you know.

[Bobbo]

Just to be clear I will take Fudgie's suggestion.  I will refer to us as honkies. 

Bobbo, should I use a capital or is it not considered a proper noun?

I think you're good with lower case...