Encounter at the Airport Security

[LCHIEN]

Personally, I have some difficulty with "everyone" seemingly having a problem with the scanning. Scientifically (or so they state), the dosage of radiation from the scan is less than four minutes of flight time. But of course, we live in an age where nobody believes anything the government tells us.
...
CWS

radiation exposure is only a small incidental issue, one for pilots maybe who would get it everyday...

but the choice of being groped or seen naked, what kind of choice is that?

I'm still offering my idea, and that is they give everyone a knockout shot - one of those pneumatic injectors that sprays thru the skin so no needles - when they enter the plane, then the bodies are stacked like cordwood in racks with faraday cages (no RF emission to set of explosives in the hold). The airlines should like this - no more unruly passengers, no drinks or meals to serve, etc. Then when they reach the destination an antidote is administered and everyone wakes up refreshed and happy.

[jackellis]

I'm still offering my idea, and that is they give everyone a knockout shot - one of those pneumatic injectors that sprays thru the skin so no needles - when they enter the plane, then the bodies are stacked like cordwood in racks with faraday cages (no RF emission to set of explosives in the hold). The airlines should like this - no more unruly passengers, no drinks or meals to serve, etc. Then when they reach the destination an antidote is administered and everyone wakes up refreshed and happy.

I hope Michael O'Leary (CEO of Ryanair) doesn't see this. He would be sorely tempted to adopt your suggestion.

[Kristofor]

I think there are better ways. Following is an anecdote that purportedly describes one method used by the Israelis...

Everyone in the know seems to agree that the Israelis set the bar for effective security, but there is a huge difference in scale. There is a fraction of the need for domestic flights in such a small country compared to the US. An unscientific check (me checking flight schedules) seem to show fewer international flights daily from Israel than from one of several large American airports.


Focusing on the US again, the 4th amendment doesn't say that the government needs probable cause to search a person or place unless they think they might be a bad guy, terrorist, or rebel. ****, the folks who wrote those protections had just completed an armed insurrection against their government and still thought it was a protection worth providing.

I know the courts have said that airports are different due to a compelling safety interest. And I can agree at least to the point where you're talking about metal detectors and hydrocarbon/bomb sniffers (akin to police dogs walking through a parking lot and barking at a car with drugs in it), or even X-ray scans [edit: of baggage] (if they were only used for safety screening, not contraband checks). But my line has been crossed when you're conducting invasive individual screening (electronically or hands-on). I am not a terrorist and the TSA does not have reasonable cause to suspect that I am one.

With the TSA even when they're wrong, they're right, so obviously I go along with the process. But, I'm not going to make it any easier for them to infringe on my personal liberty even when the liberty in question doesn't actually bother me very much (neither scanning nor pat-downs are a big deal, it's the principle).

[sparkeyjames]

The Israelies don't bother with x ray scanners they have people trained in observation and in asking questions and looking for physical ques that a person who has criminal intent will unconsciously do. They're very good at it. When was the last time you heard about a problem on a plane flying out of Israel.
Indeed airport security in most European countries is just as good if not better that what we have here and they don't have xray scanners or do pat downs unless they feel it's absolutely necessary. I think this x-ray scanner thing is just some government buddy buddy contract to make someone's company money. The whole thing is just pure fear factor.

Right now a suicide bomber could walk into just about any US airport and take out at least 100 people. With everyone queued up in lines this concentrates the crowd. Simple effective and deadly. I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet.

There have been NO attempts that originated from a US airport aimed at bringing down an airliner since the 2001 shoe bomber. The last 2 attempts came from outside the US on inbound aircraft. This is just big brother at his finest trying to erode our rights. Whats next searching you and your car before you can cross a state line. Instituting the same search or scans when taking a train or bus? WHERE DOES IT STOP?

The slippery slope we're on it and heading downhill fast.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
...Benjamin Franklin

[All Thumbs]

So for those of you dead-set against going through one of these scanners on any sort of constitutional basis, how do you feel about going through a metal detector?

[cwsmith]

Well actually, IIRC, didn't they use to stop and search all vehicles entering California, back in the 30's and early 40's? (I think that was trying to keep agricultural pests out of the area though.)

"Infringement on rights" seems to grow as time passes between assaults. I guess there is some good points to that, as apparently either the government is doing a good job, or the terrorist's are not. That of course simply means that all the terrorists have to do is keep trying and every now and then attempt some new method. (I know, someone already stated this earlier.)

I haven't traveled by air in some time. The last few flights I made were before 9/11 and frankly, I wasn't at all comfortable with the crowds, the air traffic, or the condition of the aircraft that I was on... and this comes from a guy who loves flying, at least in smaller planes.

It would be nice if one could come up with a national ID system, that would allow us to quickly pass through security, but I'm not sure what that would be and if so, what would prevent someone from simply being kidnapped, armed, and then made to board out of fear for their family who was being held hostage by the terrorists. Yes, it's true that just about all of us are, and should be, above suspician.... but, for those intent on causing harm, there are many ways to achieve your objective.

I'm not sure how TSA employees are selected, or what their training or backgrounds might be. I would think that they are no where near the caliber of those in the Israili security force though. Neither the country, the airlines, or the flying customer could probably afford to pay that price, financially or with our liberties. Israel has always been on a war footing and every citizen is well acquainted with that, and has probably had some form of military service in their past.

Security, like freedom, has it's price. We in America are quite lucky in that here, only a select few have ever had to pay it.

CWS

[BobSch]

I read an article in The Atlantic. The columnist referred to the TSA actions as "Security Theater."

Me? I'm driving from now on.

[JimD]

I've been through the body scanner and I will fly again Wednesday. At Charlotte there were lines for both and I wasn't thinking and just went to the shorter line. That was a mistake. You cannot have even a scrap of paper in your pocket. Nothing. So when I went throught a couple times and they still saw things, I got a pat down too. I will just put everything in my bag this time just in case I have to go through the body scanner again Wednesday.

I am not very worried about a pervert looking at me. I hate feeling like I have to strip just to get on a plane. I also hate not being able to carry even a little knife or scissors. I normally have both. I hate having to leave my possessions on the metal detector system for an extended period for these silly body scanners and pat down. Maybe if I can just go through once it will be not too much worse than the old system but that was bad enough.

[deleted by moderator]

Who actually stopped the underwear and the shoe bomber? TSA - not a chance. Air marshall, no way. Crew, not really. The passengers stopped them. The same people that went through all the indignities of modern air travel.

[deleted by moderator].

Jim

[Skaning]

I had one with the TSA a year or so ago. Louisa and I were flying to Houston and we were carrying the dog with us. Essentially bought a dog ticket to carry her under the seat. Dog is a 10 lb Shi Tsu and she travels in her own bag about the size of a large pocket book and looks like it.

Get her through TSA Security, I had a laptop with as well. No problems. Get ready to board and a couple of TSA types, man and woman walk up and demand to inspect my laptop. I said its been through the line. Quote" We can do random carryon baggage searches any time we want and we want to look at yours. OK but they are loading my flight. She goes through it finds nothing ten looks at Louisa and wants the dog carrier.

I told her, ther is a dog in there. She gets all huffy, grabs the bag and proceeds to zip it open. She had it about half way unzipped when out pops this furry gremlin, happy as can be thats shes out of jail.

The shriek that came out of that womans mouth had airport security coming around the corner. The ticket agent , the other TSA type and Louisa were in hysterics laughing. She was PO'd when I said "told you, what did you expect? While I was stuffing the dog back in the carrier. She claimed she heard Doll not Dog. I just looked at her and said, no you heard it, you didn't believe it and you were just going to prove a point that you were in charge, now, I've got a plane to board.

[jussi]

What are they going to do with trained fighters, seals, soldiers, etc, who's hands are lethal weapons ? I shutter at what they try to confiscate.

[leehljp]

I have no problems with body scans, shoe removal and even body searches - when it comes to the privilege of being able to see my family and grandkids. Such is life. People used to be able to drink as they wanted and suffered the consequences for it. Then along came cars and then the drinking killed other people and whole families. With society, changes happen, some good, some bad and some bad bad bad. Never the less that is life.

Sure, I don't like the idea of a body search, but for the privilege of going where I want in reasonable safety, I will give up some of my personal freedoms. LOML is much more highly incensed over personal intrusions than I am but she also agrees that these things are only a small price to pay for being able to travel where we want, and or see family.

To me, "Safety" in a case where terrorists want to destroy is above the personal freedoms lost. Now if body searches and pat downs were a part of a "big brother" control only as a police state, that would be different.

Maybe we (our family) are used to this as we have lived in a country in which all foreigners are profiled either secretly or overtly at times. So what is the big deal? That is life. I am not going to let small things bother me. I will fight for certain privileges and principles to the "T" and my friends say that I am like a bulldog when I get a notion in my head! . But for the privilege of traveling in safety, I will give up some rights for a "minute" or two in my life.

When I see the reactions against these "invasive" searches, my mind goes to our men in uniform that give up their lives to keep us free while we gripe about being searched to protect a whole plane load of folks. I don't understand this kind of thinking.

[JR]

But for the privilege of traveling in safety, I will give up some rights for a "minute" or two in my life.

When I see the reactions against these "invasive" searches, my mind goes to our men in uniform that give up their lives to keep us free while we gripe about being searched to protect a whole plane load of folks. I don't understand this kind of thinking.

Sorry, Hank, I'm not with you on this.

We seem to have already given up a few of our enumate rights in oorder to assure the implied right to travel. Nos. one, two, four, and five would seem to be already abridged.

As to your comment comparing our plight to a soldier's, it is my belief that the purpose of the military is to protect our freedoms from foreign aggressors, not to set a standard for how to act in duress. We should complain about losing our freedom, IMHO.

The Bill of Rights:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[leehljp]

Sorry, Hank, I'm not with you on this.

We seem to have already given up a few of our enumate rights in oorder to assure the implied right to travel. Nos. one, two, four, and five would seem to be already abridged.

As to your comment comparing our plight to a soldier's, it is my belief that the purpose of the military is to protect our freedoms from foreign aggressors, not to set a standard for how to act in duress. We should complain about losing our freedom, IMHO.

JR,

First of all, let me say that even in disagreement I do not answer in disrespect to you at all. I hold your input in high value, even if I disagree!

In the comment on the military, I do agree with you on the purpose of the military but for me - and this is my own values - I feel that my personal support of the military is "empty" if I am not able to give up some freedoms for the sake of safety of others. (And this is where I have difficulty understanding why others wouldn't for the sake of others.) This is not just a military issue because all are called upon to sacrifice in some way in times of harm. That is where my comparison was aimed. What we are in now as a society is something similar to what happened at the time the Declaration of Independence was written - All citizens were in jeopardy of life and most all able bodied men were called on in some way to give up freedoms and or life.

I have been into countries where the military greets you at the airport doors with weapons drawn and pointed at you (me and others) and their eyes observing our eyes - as a matter of course. I don't want that to happen in the US and scanners and searches are a way of trying to prevent that. Body searches are nothing and trivial compared to seeing a gun barrel pointed at you as you enter the airport! You want to know about intimidation, that will do it!

Now to the comment about some military giving up their life - and comparing it to giving up a body search for the sake of safety - I consider myself accepting a body search to also be trivial as compared to some of our men in uniform who give up their life or a limb or body part. I speak that from the fact that the terrorists have effectively brought the war to the US. I don't understand how this is not accepted. If it is accepted, then personal sacrifices have to be made until the correct and better measures can be instituted and personal freedoms re-established. Shucks, during WWII, there was gas rationing and other kinds of rationing and people gave up freedoms and rights and yes, there were abuses but overall, it was for the purpose of re-establishing freedom.

I value freedom as much as anyone, but the world has changed and I have to accept that. We can't have freedom like we used to. Period. It is gone. 9/11 did that. As to the Bill of Rights - I wish, I wish we could operate in those pure concepts again, but for now we can't. 9/11 changed that too - for now. Terrorists are doing what they can to keep the 9/11 war in the US. Until that original pre-9/11 freedom is back in control and terrorists are eliminated, I have no problem giving up some freedoms for a time so that the government doesn't have to fight me and the terrorist at the same time. BTW, this is not a support for or against a political entity, but for protection to those that fly.

What most all of my fellow Americans hate to give up, I had to give up back in the late '80s and early '90s, in airports in E and SE Asia (not Japan) so I guess I have had time to digest the changes in the world and the war that is targets commercial airlines. If I want to use them, I have to abide by their rules. I have gotten so used to this that I think of it as just red tape. My personal freedom and B.O.R. is inward for me, so they don't take away who I am. Prison walls wouldn't make me a prisoner, neither would red tape or depravation of a few "rights" in flight situations make me less free.

NOW I do agree 100% with you on the B.O.R. if this were to happen as a matter of course for Big Brother type of control. But in times of war and even in major crisis such as Katrina or Tsunami, those problems affect and travel outside of "military" zones . . and adjustments have to be made in some way. We are just discussing how much and how long.

PS, to others: PLEASE don't take this into Politics! Keep it on personal freedoms issue for your self as you see it, feel about it and how it affects you.

I do realize that I stepped on the edge of what some may consider political, but that was not my intention. If the moderators see this as too close Please feel free to delete parts or all of it. You will not hurt my feelings.

[LCHIEN]

I have deleted or edited posts which strayed into politics or quoted the political statements.

This discussion is OK as long as we don't have any pointing of fingers at politicians, political parties, or claiming government agencies have political purposes. You know the drill.

Loring
Moderator

[herb fellows]

radiation exposure is only a small incidental issue, one for pilots maybe who would get it everyday...

but the choice of being groped or seen naked, what kind of choice is that?

I'm still offering my idea, and that is they give everyone a knockout shot - one of those pneumatic injectors that sprays thru the skin so no needles - when they enter the plane, then the bodies are stacked like cordwood in racks with faraday cages (no RF emission to set of explosives in the hold). The airlines should like this - no more unruly passengers, no drinks or meals to serve, etc. Then when they reach the destination an antidote is administered and everyone wakes up refreshed and happy.

No drinks or meals to serve is very little change from now. I was on Virgin America.
1) There is no drink service. you request a drink from your screen in the seatback (which actually worked quite well).
2) 'Meals', and that is a real loose description, are only bought, again through the onscreen menu. Five and a half hour flight, no food service.
We bought a $ 7.50 'meal' which consisted of tuna spread (yuck!), hummus (ok), about 1 oz of crackers and a few grapes.
Two of the 3 packages were impossible to open, had to get the flight attendant to take them to the kitchen and open them! Actual value: maybe $1.25, tops.
3) Who will be in charge of sliding the bodies down the ramp in an emergency?

Is there a problem with a 'permanent pre-screen' of sorts, where you are verified and given a card and only need to submit the card and your fingerprint to a machine before you fly to verify who you are?'
Everything is an intrusion, but we have to make compromises somewhere.