A great read on the subject.

 

EDIT: This gem was embedded in the article.

 

Americans can be murdered by terrorists, but shared values cannot be destroyed by guns and bombs and planes. Yet our adversaries in the “War on Terror” can most certainly win. They can win by frightening us into infidelity to our values, into betraying our best selves. Some would argue that they are already winning by that measure.

 

I can see what they mean. When we allow ourselves to be irrationally frightened into letting upjumped smirking thugs grope us, gape at our nads, and tell us we have to take it, we’re losing. We’re being unfaithful to what makes us great.

 

I’m talking, of course, about the Transportation Security Agency.

 

Yep.

 

I think this is one of those subjects that demands we step back, take a deep breath, and consider with a clear mind just how phenomenally idiotic the government’s policy of increasingly invasive degradation really is. Law-abiding travelers, who pose approximately zero risk of terrorism, and offer no ground for reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, must run this gauntlet of abasement because airplanes were once made the instrument of mass death. The odds of being a victim of terrorism on a flight are approximately 1 in 10,408,947—rather less than the 1 in 500,000 odds of getting killed by lightning.

 

Yep.

Yep.

 

 

 

Yep.

 

To be fair, I think your cause and effect are backwards. It is hard to be the victim of a terror attack because the TSA doesn't make it easy. It is an undeniable fact that the less precautions that are taken, the easier it is to commit an act of terror in the skies. You can argue where the line is for constitutional searches, but trying to say the odds are low, so we shouldn't is just backwards

This description of a pat down made me angry.

 

Ugh. Seriously, f*** the TSA. What a joke.

To be fair, I think your cause and effect are backwards. It is hard to be the victim of a terror attack because the TSA doesn't make it easy. It is an undeniable fact that the less precautions that are taken, the easier it is to commit an act of terror in the skies. You can argue where the line is for constitutional searches, but trying to say the odds are low, so we shouldn't is just backwards

 

Read that post he cited. We stop terrorist attacks because of intelligence, not because of screening. The TSA simply reacts to what the intelligence community tells it to react to. Terrorists bring on weapons and take over plans - metal detectors and locks on the cabin doors. Hiding weapons in shoes - take your shoes off. Potential bomb making materials in liquids - limit the size of them. Hiding a bomb in your underwear - full on cavity searches.

 

Edit: and yeah, I think everyone agrees that the TSA does prevent attacks simply because they make it more difficult. No one is saying send out a memo that airports will have no security anymore. But these extra measures don't decrease your odds of an already unlikely event.

Edited November 19, 201015 yr by Jenksismybitch

Read that post he cited. We stop terrorist attacks because of intelligence, not because of screening. The TSA simply reacts to what the intelligence community tells it to react to. Terrorists bring on weapons and take over plans - metal detectors and locks on the cabin doors. Hiding weapons in shoes - take your shoes off. Potential bomb making materials in liquids - limit the size of them. Hiding a bomb in your underwear - full on cavity searches.

Next they'll swallow balloons/condoms with bomb making substances.

Read that post he cited. We stop terrorist attacks because of intelligence, not because of screening. The TSA simply reacts to what the intelligence community tells it to react to. Terrorists bring on weapons and take over plans - metal detectors and locks on the cabin doors. Hiding weapons in shoes - take your shoes off. Potential bomb making materials in liquids - limit the size of them. Hiding a bomb in your underwear - full on cavity searches.

 

Edit: and yeah, I think everyone agrees that the TSA does prevent attacks simply because they make it more difficult. No one is saying send out a memo that airports will have no security anymore. But these extra measures don't decrease your odds of an already unlikely event.

 

What proof do have exactly?

What kind of radiation levels are emitted from the full-body scanners? The only issue I have with them is that repeated exposure might be dangerous. I know when I get an x-ray at the dentist, the hygienist throws a lead vest on me and runs out of the room.

What kind of radiation levels are emitted from the full-body scanners? The only issue I have with them is that repeated exposure might be dangerous. I know when I get an x-ray at the dentist, the hygienist throws a lead vest on me and runs out of the room.

It is significantly less radiation than you receive from an X-Ray.

It is significantly less radiation than you receive from an X-Ray.

 

It is significantly less radiation than you receive from being in an airplane at cruising altitude.

What proof do have exactly?

 

Common sense? This new process isn't going to guarantee safety, so while it might decrease the odds slightly there's still an obvious way to get around it. The next logical step is to swallow something and opt for the pat down.

Common sense? This new process isn't going to guarantee safety, so while it might decrease the odds slightly there's still an obvious way to get around it. The next logical step is to swallow something and opt for the pat down.

 

You just contradicted yourself. You just agreed that it does increase safety. There is nothing that guarantees anything. That is an impossible standard.

TSA pat-down leaves traveler covered in urine. 'I was absolutely humiliated,' said bladder cancer survivor.

via

The TSA exempted pilots today.

via

 

 

I believe any liquids in a colostomy bag should be checked amd verified as urine. What if they are explosives? We've got to be safe. If terrorists know all they have to do is tape a bag to their gut to get dangerous liquids through the screener, they will.

TSA - Going too Far?

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

Terrorists and drug smugglers have used children, even infants. Everyone must be searched, or else we will not be safe.

Terrorists and drug smugglers have used children, even infants. Everyone must be searched, or else we will not be safe.

You just contradicted yourself. You just agreed that it does increase safety. There is nothing that guarantees anything. That is an impossible standard.

 

I didn't mean that literally. Look at my previous posts. I'm saying it's not going to decrease your odds significantly.

I didn't mean that literally. Look at my previous posts. I'm saying it's not going to decrease your odds significantly.

 

Using odds is a silly way of judging how we should secure ourselves. What were the odds on September 10, 2001 of someone high-jacking four planes and using them as weapons? Considering it had never happened before, that put the odds at about zero. What are the odds of someone exploding a nuclear device in the US at sometime in the future? Should we not prepare for that because the odds are low?

The TSA exempted pilots today.

This is dangerous. You make it stricter for one group (passengers), and way, way easier for another (pilots). What you just did, is asked the terrorists to target pilots for blackmail or impersonation. And a pilot can do a lot more damage than a passenger. This is just outright stupid.

 

 

This is dangerous. You make it stricter for one group (passengers), and way, way easier for another (pilots). What you just did, is asked the terrorists to target pilots for blackmail or impersonation. And a pilot can do a lot more damage than a passenger. This is just outright stupid.

Um...if a pilot is a terrorist, I don't really think it matters whether they try to smuggle a weapon on board.

Um...if a pilot is a terrorist, I don't really think it matters whether they try to smuggle a weapon on board.

Not the point. Obviously they could do something like that without a weapon... if they were the only one in the cockpit. But with a weapon, they can been the co-pilot out of the game. But security access isn't just to the plane, its to the whole airport.

 

Just seems like they are attempting to close one hole, and opening up another.

 

Not the point. Obviously they could do something like that without a weapon... if they were the only one in the cockpit. But with a weapon, they can been the co-pilot out of the game. But security access isn't just to the plane, its to the whole airport.

 

Just seems like they are attempting to close one hole, and opening up another.

 

 

Are you aware that pilots are legally allowed to carry guns in the cockpit after completing an on-line training program?

oops, Obama may have ended the Federal Flight Deck Officers Program, which leads me to wonder, are pilots more of a potential problem, or an ally, in our fight for absolute safety on airplanes?

f***, or maybe Obama didn't. I can't find much info on the program, other than TSA seems to oppose it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Flight_Deck_Officer