TSA: "Thorough" Pat Downs for those who fail screening or opt-out of full body scans

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

Benjamin Franklin

 

Are you proposing a free for all for planes with no checks at all? Or shall we take away the freedom of one group by profiling? I am pretty sure if one of us fell into the profiled group and were singled out as a result, then we would feel a loss of freedom. Also, those who died on 9/11 lost their freedom as well:(. One is also free not to fly.

[lionfamily1999]

I am pretty sure they do background checks for these workers. Also, IMHO I do not think more pervs applied with scanners. With this reasoning one could say that there more pervs who are in health care such as doctors and nurses which is simply not true IMHO. I am pretty sure it is just part of the job for TSA workers and is not a thrill for them.

Background checks let you know that someone has not been caught/prosecuted for something.

 

It takes a little more time and dedication to become a doctor than it does a TSA worker. All the same, there are some real bullies in health care, especially playing the parts of nurses. I'm not saying they outnumber the number of people that are doing work they find fulfilling for all the right reasons, because I believe that good people (or at least well meaning people) still outnumber the bad or perverted. There are also perverts in health. If not, then we'd never hear about bad dentists that like to feel women up ;)

 

I've gone through "training" for a number of jobs I've held where children were involved. Every single time I was told/warned that perverts seek out jobs where they can satisfy their needs. Having the control of seeing a person naked sounds like a place where certain needs could be satisfied. So, pervs are going to apply.

[Aubrey]

The folks have had their jobs for years! Do you (plural you) actually think they had the forethought to anticipate full body scans that they could salivate over? And really, I'm pretty sure that no one would be salivating over my mid-40 body if they saw it in its full glory. :glare: I think insulting an entire group of people who are simply trying to do their jobs is counter-productive if folks are looking to get some changes.

 

First, I didn't really mean to insult an entire group of people. (Sorry!) I just meant that the ones I've encountered have been short-tempered & unsympathetic to a degree that is really unimaginable. And I tried to phrase that observation in a way that would leave exceptions for the people boardies know who *are* an exception. I imagine there are nice people in every field. Mean ones, too. The mean ones can tend to congregate in certain fields. Or at least it can seem that way!

 

And I didn't actually mean that these people are "salivating" over the nude images or the pat downs. (Again, I imagine *some* are, but I'm not saying that's the norm.) I'm saying that they haven't seemed to me to be the type to *care* if the scan bothers you. Maybe it's the personality type the job attracts or maybe it's the personality the job *requires,* but it's very different from a dr's office that you choose & plan ahead of time w/ HIPPA & all that.

 

Honestly, I think if this level of security really bothered the TSA workers, well...how would they do their jobs? If everybody refused to violate people like this, there would *have* to be an alternate form of security. If they *don't* want to do it but do anyway, well...I don't know a polite enough way to say how I feel about that. It's not something I can see a way to respect. :o

[In The Great White North]

my understanding of the scanners is that the image is viewed in a different room - so the people seeing the scan do not actually see the person - and that it's not identifiable...it's like a computerized x-ray image thing...nobody could identify YOU from your scan image... and that the images are not storable/etc...?

 

In Paris, the viewer was right behind the scanner. He could see you entering, the image and you leaving. There were female security personnel but they certainly weren't changing positions depending on the sex of the traveler being scanned.

 

I understand what you are saying but in our area, it was advertised that not only would the scans be looked at as you pass through, but reviewed later to see what was missed. Even potentially, they could be used to identify someone who was let through with a weapon but was missed on the first screening as in, we will come to your house to question you. So, they have to link this to identifying information if this is true and I would imagine that means a pretty accurate physical description.

 

And you can bet that if a weapon did show up, you would be arrested. And prosecuted. And that means the video (with everyone else who went through that day) would certainly be saved. And the image would have to be clear enough to identify you in court. Which means it would have to be shown in court. Which means it would become a public record. Which means it would be stored indefinitely. And any Tom, Dick or Harry could request a copy under the Freedom of Information Act.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

 

 

And you can bet that if a weapon did show up, you would be arrested. And prosecuted. And that means the video (with everyone else who went through that day) would certainly be saved. And the image would have to be clear enough to identify you in court. Which means it would have to be shown in court. Which means it would become a public record. Which means it would be stored indefinitely. And any Tom, Dick or Harry could request a copy under the Freedom of Information Act.

IMHO this does not seem plausible because I would think that the pat down search results would be all that is necessary for evidence I would think. If the scanner "sees" a potential weapon, then I would think the TSA officers would have to verify this with a pat down. I would think the findings of the pat down would be the evidence. Even if the scanner images were used as evidence, I cannot imagine that other innocent images would be released under freedom of information or to a court jury.

 

According the the TSA the images are immediately deleted:

http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/faqs.shtm

Edited October 31, 2010 by priscilla

[TheReader]

No one is forced to use air travel. If it's that big of a deal to you' date=' you can always drive. If your child or spouse died in an attack, it might change your perspective.[/b']

 

Unless, say, you live internationally and wish to visit your friends and family in the US. Oh, sure, we aren't FORCED to fly, we could choose not to visit, but really - that's not a realistic statement at all. There are plenty of folks who really, truly do HAVE to fly. Brazil to Texas just doesn't work any other way.

 

:iagree:

 

And while *I* don't have to fly, plenty of people do, for work, etc. And it's really not realistic to say "get another job." And what about going overseas--are we really going to expect people to just return to sailing wherever they want to go??

 

I think the whole thing is *insane.* How can you essentially tell people that being molested is the lesser of two evils. (At least you didn't DIE.) I realize it's not always *that* bad, but from what I understand, it *can* be.

 

False dilemma, logical fallacy, mean, rude, ridiculous. (Ask me how I really feel!) :D

 

And wrt the people doing the searches, I doubt they mind at all. Have you ever met one who was friendly, compassionate, & sympathetic? I haven't traveled much, so maybe there are some nice ones out there, but they don't seem to be the norm.

 

re: the bolded -- exactly.

 

Re: your last bit, in our travel experience they're much nicer early in the morning, before a days' full of rude, angry, inconvenienced passengers have passed through. We travel internationally once/year, with a layover, and the folks we encounter in the morning are always nicer than the ones we encounter in the evenings. A pleasant attitude on our end goes a long way.

 

Trains. I like trains. I took one from California back east and enjoyed the whole trip. I'll never fly again.

 

Who scans or pats down all those minimum wage workers at the terminals who work at all the shops and food stands? If I were a terrorist I would get one of them to help me get a bomb into the terminal to hand off to a passenger. I bet they don't get scanned every day before going to work.

 

I'd like to emigrate, help me pick a country before we end up with a wall around this one like the wall in Germany used to be.

 

So -- you're thinking Mexico, Canada, or perhaps somewhere in the northern bits of Central America? Somewhere accessible by train, since you won't be flying?

 

Sorry, the contradiction just struck me as funny......

 

 

 

As for the original topic, I'll just treat it like any other x-ray. The body image really doesn't bug me that much, and if we have to, we have to. I'd certainly prefer if a LOT of these inconveniences could go away, because I don't find them effective (as many of you have said, the US seems to be very often 1 step behind those who would do us harm), but while these measures are in place I will (and my family will) submit to them with a pleasant attitude and full cooperation on the outside, even if on the inside I'm wishing I didn't have to do it.

[lionfamily1999]

There are still boats, right?

[TheReader]

There are still boats, right?

 

Seriously? You're actually offering boat travel as a viable, realistic alternative to air travel?

 

So -- how would that work, practically speaking? Because right now I can plan a 3 week trip to the US from Brazil and spend only 2 days of that in travel (one day each way).

 

Boat travel would be, what? a week? each way? Leaving me only one week of visit time in my 3 week vacation??

 

Sorry, but to suggest that we all just really, truly give up air travel is ludicrous, and the suggestion of train/car/boat is not practical for the business traveler, either. Many times business trips are very last minute, far flung distances and options other than air are just not available or practical.

 

If that works for you, fine. But don't toss that onto the rest of us, who truly have no choice but to fly.

 

(and at that, it's 1 a.m. here so I'm going to bed.....)

[lionfamily1999]

Seriously? You're actually offering boat travel as a viable, realistic alternative to air travel?

 

So -- how would that work, practically speaking? Because right now I can plan a 3 week trip to the US from Brazil and spend only 2 days of that in travel (one day each way).

 

Boat travel would be, what? a week? each way? Leaving me only one week of visit time in my 3 week vacation??

 

Sorry, but to suggest that we all just really, truly give up air travel is ludicrous, and the suggestion of train/car/boat is not practical for the business traveler, either. Many times business trips are very last minute, far flung distances and options other than air are just not available or practical.

 

If that works for you, fine. But don't toss that onto the rest of us, who truly have no choice but to fly.

 

(and at that, it's 1 a.m. here so I'm going to bed.....)

Uh, if someone's trying to leave the country for good, I suppose a boat would work ;) If someone refused to fly, I suppose they could still go from continent to continent in a boat.

 

Point being, the post you quoted earlier did not contradict itself, as it is possible to travel without flying. You may not think so, but that does not mean you're right.

[Liz CA]

I bet they already have!

I am very interested in IDF's methods.

Can't remember when El Al was hijacked or explosives were found on a passenger.

[Tea Time]

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

Benjamin Franklin

 

Are you proposing a free for all for planes with no checks at all? Or shall we take away the freedom of one group by profiling? I am pretty sure if one of us fell into the profiled group and were singled out as a result, then we would feel a loss of freedom. Also, those who died on 9/11 lost their freedom as well:(. One is also free not to fly.

 

I don't think the point is to have a "free for all." But the point is that people have begun to confuse actual freedom with something perverted that is akin to freedom from risk. That perversion will, in the end, cost us the real kind of freedom and will never fully stop all the risks. It is a bad trade off. It is showing itself in a lot of ways, too, besides just the terrorism situation.

 

I just drove from San Antonio to Dallas for 5 straight hours. Sometimes the traffic was bumper to bumper, stop and go. I would be squeezed between semis blazing along at 75 miles per hour on pot-hole infested roads with concrete dividers where a shoulder should be. You cannot tell me that what we do in cars is not so far beyond any risk that we will EVER face at an airport that it is laughable. We could stop ALL security measures and probably still face less risk by flying than we do driving. We jet ski (God forbid on border lakes). We snow ski. We sky dive. We go to amusement parks and take risks. We drink milk and eat eggs. A poor kid was killed at Notre Dame filming football from a cherry picker that fell over in the wind. We are not safe. We don't even really want to be.

 

Too bad there are not a lot more folks like the ones on the 9/11 airplane that dropped in a field (In my mind, some of those people did not lose their freedom, they embraced their freedom, just as soldiers do.). If all three had ended that way, I suspect the terrorists might have simply been so deflated they would not have BOTHERED to try it again. Who would dare put much effort into terrorism if our country was simply filled with people who were that courageous?

 

I am pretty sure that is the mindset old Benjamin was thinking of anyway.

[cindergretta]

:iagree: with Tea Time.

[asta]

I bet they already have!

I am very interested in IDF's methods.

Can't remember when El Al was hijacked or explosives were found on a passenger.

 

Check the link I posted earlier in the thread - it outlines their methods.

 

El Als last hijacking was in 1968, prior to these measures being implemented. There were some other attacks in 69 and 70, but no successful hijackings.

 

Conde Nast named them the world's safest airline. (got that off of Wiki)

 

 

a

[TheReader]

Uh, if someone's trying to leave the country for good, I suppose a boat would work ;) If someone refused to fly, I suppose they could still go from continent to continent in a boat.

 

Point being, the post you quoted earlier did not contradict itself, as it is possible to travel without flying. You may not think so, but that does not mean you're right.

 

Ah - gotcha. Sorry 'bout that; as you didn't quote me, I couldn't figure out which bit you were responding to. I thought you were responding to a different part of my post, the part where I replied to the statement "no one is forced to fly" and shared how yes, in our situation, there really is no other viable option.

 

But you're right; if someone truly wants to never fly, I suppose they could manage that (though finding a boat going where they want, in this day and age, is bound to be difficult. Mostly it's cargo ships.....).

 

No hard feelings?

[nono]

First, I didn't really mean to insult an entire group of people. (Sorry!) I just meant that the ones I've encountered have been short-tempered & unsympathetic to a degree that is really unimaginable. And I tried to phrase that observation in a way that would leave exceptions for the people boardies know who *are* an exception. I imagine there are nice people in every field. Mean ones, too. The mean ones can tend to congregate in certain fields. Or at least it can seem that way!

 

And I didn't actually mean that these people are "salivating" over the nude images or the pat downs. (Again, I imagine *some* are, but I'm not saying that's the norm.) I'm saying that they haven't seemed to me to be the type to *care* if the scan bothers you. Maybe it's the personality type the job attracts or maybe it's the personality the job *requires,* but it's very different from a dr's office that you choose & plan ahead of time w/ HIPPA & all that.

 

Honestly, I think if this level of security really bothered the TSA workers, well...how would they do their jobs? If everybody refused to violate people like this, there would *have* to be an alternate form of security. If they *don't* want to do it but do anyway, well...I don't know a polite enough way to say how I feel about that. It's not something I can see a way to respect. :o

 

Aubrey -- sorry -- your post was just a jumping off point, because you also mentioned you didn't travel much. Since I had, I started my reply with that and expanded to my main point.

 

My main point got buried. I'll write it blunter here.

 

If people are serious about not wanting these choices, the message better tighten up. Because going on about pervs is counterproductive. Going on about feeling violated is counterproductive.

 

Focus on the real issue which is of protection, such as the individual's rights, of true air safety...

 

For anyone who's had a bad TSA experience with the new rules, the ACLU is collecting data.

Edited October 31, 2010 by nono
eta aclu link

[lionfamily1999]

Ah - gotcha. Sorry 'bout that; as you didn't quote me, I couldn't figure out which bit you were responding to. I thought you were responding to a different part of my post, the part where I replied to the statement "no one is forced to fly" and shared how yes, in our situation, there really is no other viable option.

 

But you're right; if someone truly wants to never fly, I suppose they could manage that (though finding a boat going where they want, in this day and age, is bound to be difficult. Mostly it's cargo ships.....).

 

No hard feelings?

Actually (I know this, because we dream of traveling, but have not and most likely will not ever fly) there are a ton of cruise ship options. They're rather expensive though.

 

No hard feelings. I was surprised by your response, and appreciate the apology.

[asta]

I don't think the people flying from American airports would ever choose Israel's way, if a majority of them are balking at scanners. I read one article about how, in Israel, they automatically pull ANYONE with Arab accent away for further questioning.

 

Do you have a link for that?

 

Also, I think the Israeli government itself is consumed with prejudice so I'd not trust the airport security with anything. It's just as easy to google rudeness and improprieties and worse things with them, too. And once there is ever an actual incident with this airline, will we be ready to say there way is a failure, too?

 

That is such an incredibly biased statement I can't even believe it hasn't been flagged. Saying the same thing on this board about the government of a Muslim nation would get a thread locked so fast it would make our heads spin.

 

I guess bias only goes one direction.

 

 

asta

[lionfamily1999]

That is such an incredibly biased statement I can't even believe it hasn't been flagged. Saying the same thing on this board about the government of a Muslim nation would get a thread locked so fast it would make our heads spin.

 

I guess bias only goes one direction.

 

 

asta

Of course it does asta, otherwise people would have to be nice to everyone and not just the "right" people.

[Tea Time]

Check the link I posted earlier in the thread - it outlines their methods.

 

El Als last hijacking was in 1968, prior to these measures being implemented. There were some other attacks in 69 and 70, but no successful hijackings.

 

Conde Nast named them the world's safest airline. (got that off of Wiki)

 

 

a

 

Exactly. Can we assume that all the folks who are worried about pervs and feeling violated work up as much anger towards medical personnel involved in giving mammograms?

I don't think the people flying from American airports would ever choose Israel's way, if a majority of them are balking at scanners. I read one article about how, in Israel, they automatically pull ANYONE with Arab accent away for further questioning. Also, I think the Israeli government itself is consumed with prejudice so I'd not trust the airport security with anything. It's just as easy to google rudeness and improprieties and worse things with them, too. And once there is ever an actual incident with this airline, will we be ready to say there way is a failure, too?

 

Hard to suggest their way is a failure after that track record even if there was an incident again. If what you are saying is relevant at all, then we go right straight back to my post which says we better just toughen up, stand by our values, which, according to you do NOT include profiling, even though it clearly is the single most effective tool of them all. And then we had better be willing to live with the results, which very well might be more incidents. Definitely the goal of not profiling, IMO, is a lofty and worthwhile goal. I am willing to defend it, but then again, I am also willing to live with the consequences. But I am not willing to sacrifice real freedom to protect that one value. Do you follow? Do you see the subtle point? Live the value, but don't shy away from the full implications if that is the true goal.

 

If, however, the goal is protection (at any cost, as some have suggested), then it makes no sense to me to throw out the most effective tool and instead submit EVERYONE to endless humiliation, stress, and time delays, plus burden our airline industry to protect us far more than its fair share compared to, say, what is going on at our border. All that has got to be very satisfying to the terrorists (thus giving them more incentive). In that case it seems like protecting us is not the real goal, but protecting an ideology is the driving force. Or maybe something even more sinister is in play, like handcuffing us with our own values so that we cannot fight the terrorists effectively at all.

 

It seems to me that this is where we are at right now. We do not quite consistently defend our values nor do we consistently protect ourselves with the way we are doing things. I think THAT is what bothers people. They are very willing to do what needs to be done, but this never-neverland is discomforting. Let us bravely defend ALL our values OR let us effectively protect ourselves. Pick your poison.

[lionfamily1999]

The folks have had their jobs for years! Do you (plural you) actually think they had the forethought to anticipate full body scans that they could salivate over?

 

I would not be surprised in the least to find out that a lot more pervs applied for jobs once those scanners were put in.

 

Because going on about pervs is counterproductive. Going on about feeling violated is counterproductive.

 

You said that they were not salivating. I pointed out that perverts find jobs that can fulfill their 'needs.' It's not going on about it pervs. It's pointing out that, yes, the odds are there are people salivating over that. It is violating a person's privacy.

 

============================================

 

 

I also have to wonder. France made a new law that bans face covering, except in certain cases (none of which are religious). From what I've read they aren't even trying to say that this is not legislation designed to stop Muslim women from dressing appropriately (it is exactly that). These scanners, how many religious people are now going to be kept from flying? Hardly any men, I'm guessing, but how many traditionally religious women will this keep grounded?

 

IOW, perhaps this is an attempt to profile couched (as the French law) in "protection." Of course, that doesn't matter. They can take a boat.

Edited October 31, 2010 by lionfamily1999
rescuing a kitten

[Mejane]

All that has got to be very satisfying to the terrorists (thus giving them more incentive). In that case it seems like protecting us is not the real goal, but protecting an ideology is the driving force.

 

:iagree:I often think the terrorists must giggle their ***es off at what we do under the guise of "security measures."

[eternalknot]

Profiling won't work in this case. The next terror attack involving transportation won't be from the typical expected profile. It won't have to.

 

I'm a flight attendant. We aren't exempt from scanners or the alternative pat-downs either, FWIW, despite checks and clearance already done for hiring and mandatory re-training.

[Lovin Learnin]

Just because we can do something with new technology, doesn't me we should.

 

Yes, we should profile like Israel does. It's not about nationality or racism for goodness sake. It is about how a person acts and their reaction to images and the like. Scanning everyone won't make us safer. It is a PR thing because people who do not really understand profiling yell "racism" every chance they get. Terrorists come in every color so don't make the mistake of thinking it has anything to do with that.

 

News flash. Life is dangerous and comes with no guarantee.

 

“The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.â€

 

Ben knew his stuff.

 

I hope that someone takes this all the way to the Supreme Court.

 

 

:iagree: There are far too many comments about Muslims in this thread. I personally believe scanning is less about airline/national security and more about getting Americans used to and comfortable with giving up basic liberties.

[asta]

Profiling won't work in this case. The next terror attack involving transportation won't be from the typical expected profile. It won't have to.

 

 

Exactly: it was from two Yemeni women who mailed appx 30 toner cartridges filled with Semtex and mobile phone components set up to be detonated (a la an IED) mid flight over Western cities.

 

Bummer we're still looking for almost 20 of them.

 

Too bad UPS doesn't profile.

 

 

a

[nono]

You said that they were not salivating. I pointed out that perverts find jobs that can fulfill their 'needs.' It's not going on about it pervs. It's pointing out that, yes, the odds are there are people salivating over that. It is violating a person's privacy.

 

 

Here's why I feel going on about pervs is counterproductive.

 

If no one salivates over your image, is your privacy still violated?

 

Read what you typed above. You are linking violation only to those who are salivated over. That's extraneous to the argument. It's wrong and a violation even if there's not one pervert in the entire world.

 

Aleternately, is it still a violation to someone if pervs work the machines and don't salivate over the individual? I would say it is. Otherwise, you're linking violation of privacy to desirability and/or perversion, which is distracting from the main argument of privacy violation.

 

For the record, I never said there are no pervs in the job. But, the job turnover ratio is reasonable in the TSA, and for pervs in great numbers to be in the right position for years, waiting for this technology to be developed....well, I don't buy that. I agree though, that jobs with particular types of access do tend to attract certain folks over time.

 

There are pervs who keep their kids home and homeschool them. I don't think that makes the majority of homeschoolers pervs. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm typing to a whole bunch of them right now...(See how insulting and counterproductive this type of argument can get?).

[Annie Laurie]

Honestly, I think if this level of security really bothered the TSA workers, well...how would they do their jobs? If everybody refused to violate people like this, there would *have* to be an alternate form of security. If they *don't* want to do it but do anyway, well...I don't know a polite enough way to say how I feel about that. It's not something I can see a way to respect. :o

 

That's quite a statement. I don't personally live in a world where everyone can quit their job because they don't like aspects of it. Sometimes it's the only job that's available to that person and they need the job and so even when new policies are enacted that they don't like, they need their job. Or they have spent years working up the ranks in seniority for that job and would have to take a worse position (in pay or hours) in order to switch.

 

They aren't agreeing to violate people. I find that incredibly rude.

Edited October 31, 2010 by Annie Laurie

[KingM]

Here are some examples of the detail the new scanners show:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yfvRjCc8HU&feature=related

 

 

[Tea Time]

That's quite a statement. I don't personally live in a world where everyone can quit their job because they don't like aspects of it. Sometimes it's the only job that's available to that person and they need the job and so even when new policies are enacted that they don't like, they need their job. Or they have spent years working up the ranks in seniority for that job and would have to take a worse position (in pay or hours) in order to switch.

 

They aren't agreeing to violate people. I find that incredibly rude.

 

In a sense this is really the heart of the question. When is it necessary to say "No, I will not do this?" At what point does someone, anyone, have that responsibility? These workers are not the only ones that need to ask themselves that; we all do. Think of all the terrible things in history that people did because they did not feel they could say "no." This question is exactly what Ben Franklin was talking about. People start to put their own perceived needs for security (security from terrorism as well as job security) above their very liberty. They will end up with neither, or their children will end up with neither.

 

They don't have to quit, but if they complain, write letters, file reports, and everyone else does too; if everyone just says, "No thanks, I'd rather endure some risk than loose all forms of human dignity" then, yes, they would have to do other things, and maybe that would be a good thing.

 

Some things CAN be endured. Sure, why not? It is a minor inconvenience, isn't it? It is no big deal to sit at the back of the bus, right? We still all get there, don't we? Well, now we are, in essence, saying we will ALL sit together at the back of the bus because the terrorists TOLD US TO.

 

That is how they take our civil liberties away, one shoe at a time, because we are not brave enough to say, "No"!

[Rosie_0801]

I'm betting that Muslim terrorists won't be dressing like Muslims if they're out to down a plane.

 

I love this site. What do Muslims dress like?

 

 

Rosie

[msjones]

Regarding the "worrying about 'pervs'" discussion... everyone has different levels of comfort/modesty/fear.

 

I don't think it's helpful to suggest that someone is overreacting. If it's distressing to someone to submit to a digital strip search, it's distressing to her. Certainly there are others who won't be bothered.

 

If you watch both of the youTube links (posted earlier in this thread by King M) I think it's easy to see how a man may find the images arousing. (Be sure to watch the second link which includes a demonstration of how very simple it is to photoshop one of the TSA-type images into a regular photograph in which the woman is clearly identifiable.)

 

Call me what you like. I won't be participating in digital strip searches. I'll be in the pat down line.

[Tea Time]

I love this site. What do Muslims dress like?

 

 

Rosie

 

I do suspect that "profiling" is a far more sophisticated endeavor than just the clothing, and it also applies to terrorist activities outside of Muslim extremists.

 

It is great to see moderate Muslims engaging the public, but I would prefer they did their thing in response to Muslim extremists instead of in response to a conservative rally (Who is the enemy again?). Where have they been? I guess, waiting, for an invitation from Jon Stewart? Who knew? I guess they thought it was important to come out and mock Juan Williams. Pretty important social justice work, right there. His honesty is definitely a threat, right? Better to shut him up and force people to think and feel what is required of them, isn't it? Definitely don't bother to set up a rally directed at the radical Muslims; what fun would that be? No good laughs there. It is all so tedious, and well, scary. Those people might retaliate and KILL you, after all.

 

So, it is JMHO this link is not helpful. For the most part this thread has not been about the Muslim faith or libs/cons in any significant way, just stopping terrorists, who are mostly Muslim extremists at this point in history. Frustrating though that might be. The actual "garb" is not really the issue, is it?

[Rosie_0801]

So, it is JMHO this link is not helpful. For the most part this thread has not been about the Muslim faith or libs/cons in any significant way, just stopping terrorists, who are mostly Muslim extremists at this point in history. Frustrating though that might be. The actual "garb" is not really the issue, is it?

 

 

The link was supposed to be a friendly way of demonstrating that "dressing like a Muslim" is a more meaningless idea that it is sometimes considered to be. I posted it for the photos only.

 

The actual garb does seem to be an issue. It may not be a real risk, but it is quite obviously a perceived risk. People worry that old Muslim ladies wearing baggy clothing might have something dangerous strapped on underneath. Is anyone going to worry that a young Muslim girl wearing jeans and a tank top has a weapon tucked down her cleavage? Would we breathe a sigh of relief that some Italian grandma wearing a house dress isn't allowed on the plane for refusing a scan. Italian grandmas aren't in the habit of hijacking planes, but neither are any other types of grandma and they all have just as much room up their dresses to stash things. Would we be breathing sighs of relief if that Muslim grandma had been wearing a blouse and long skirt from the same shop our mothers buy from? Probably not. Why? Because garb is an issue in the average person's mind. I'm sure an official person who does profiling pays little attention to clothing for the reason the link shows: people wear all sorts of things!

 

Rosie

[asta]

:iagree: There are far too many comments about Muslims in this thread. I personally believe scanning is less about airline/national security and more about getting Americans used to and comfortable with giving up basic liberties.

 

REALLY?

 

Cin made one comment on page 3: "Although with racial profiling, I'm betting that Muslim terrorists won't be dressing like Muslims if they're out to down a plane."

 

The next comment was made by ME, on THIS page (right above you):

 

Originally Posted by Dot

I don't think the people flying from American airports would ever choose Israel's way, if a majority of them are balking at scanners. I read one article about how, in Israel, they automatically pull ANYONE with Arab accent away for further questioning.

 

Me: Do you have a link for that?

 

Dot: Also, I think the Israeli government itself is consumed with prejudice so I'd not trust the airport security with anything. It's just as easy to google rudeness and improprieties and worse things with them, too. And once there is ever an actual incident with this airline, will we be ready to say there way is a failure, too?

 

Me: That is such an incredibly biased statement I can't even believe it hasn't been flagged. Saying the same thing on this board about the government of a Muslim nation would get a thread locked so fast it would make our heads spin.

 

I guess bias only goes one direction. /end my comments

 

 

No one else said a d@mn thing until you brought it up. Why are you stirring the pot? Or do you see the word Muslim when the rest of us write the word "terrorist"? If so, that is YOUR issue, not ours.

 

 

a

[Kate in Arabia]

It is great to see moderate Muslims engaging the public, but I would prefer they did their thing in response to Muslim extremists instead of in response to a conservative rally (Who is the enemy again?). Where have they been? I guess, waiting, for an invitation from Jon Stewart?

If people choose to deliberately ignore the many, many efforts "moderate Muslims" have made to denounce terrorism and distance themselves from anyone who might condone it, then it reaches a point where one believes there is nothing that will satisfy.

 

So, it is JMHO this link is not helpful. For the most part this thread has not been about the Muslim faith or libs/cons in any significant way, just stopping terrorists, who are mostly Muslim extremists at this point in history. Frustrating though that might be. The actual "garb" is not really the issue, is it?

So what is really the issue?

[LunaLee]

Admittedly I didn't read all of the posts in this thread, I was kind of avoiding it, but it's late and there ya go...

 

Am I crazy, or was someone actually suggesting TSA agents quit their jobs in order to stand up for your civil liberties? Really? My mom is a TSA agent... you gonna pay her bills? Her mortgage, her healthcare? Really?

 

Let's be honest; people complain about all of the new regulations and searches and such at the airport. My mom has had people spit in her face and call her nasty, nasty names. But get this straight, those of you that complain about it all would be the first to be up in arms if another attack happened. Then it'd be "WHY WASN'T ANYTHING DONE?" and "THIS COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED!" This is a sign of our times whether you like it or not and being beligerant about it doesn't change it.

 

And just so you know, it's not like TSA is a place full of pervs and weirdos. They actually do have to undergo VERY thourough background investigations in addition to psych evals when they are hired.

[Kate in Arabia]

Yes, we should profile like Israel does. It's not about nationality or racism for goodness sake. It is about how a person acts and their reaction to images and the like. Scanning everyone won't make us safer. It is a PR thing because people who do not really understand profiling yell "racism" every chance they get. Terrorists come in every color so don't make the mistake of thinking it has anything to do with that.

 

I have never flown on El Al, but I have entered Israel through the land border with Egypt at Taba. I was at a univ in Cairo, and a small group of us decided to take a weekend road trip to Jerusalem. This was before I was Muslim, and none of us were Arab. We were asked questions at the border, and I assume because of how we answered the questions or how we looked or our ages (most likely a combination of those) we were pulled aside and searched for several hours before being let through. Groups of elderly tourists whisked right by us, lol, but we were in for the long haul.

 

Now I am "randomly selected" for extra screening every time I fly. I don't know how I feel about the body scans, I haven't come across one of those yet. Mostly I get the pat downs and a very throrough search of my carry-on baggage. 90% of the time the security folks have been polite and professional.

[Rosie_0801]

If people choose to deliberately ignore the many, many efforts "moderate Muslims" have made to denounce terrorism and distance themselves from anyone who might condone it, then it reaches a point where one believes there is nothing that will satisfy.

 

 

:cheers2:

 

(Ginger beer- non alcoholic)

 

 

 

Rosie

[EthiopianFood]

it reaches a point where one believes there is nothing that will satisfy.

 

The fact that a website like that even has to exist doesn't suggest there is much hope, in my mind. :glare: Let their sin be their problem, not yours.

[EthiopianFood]

:cheers2:

 

(Ginger beer- non alcoholic)

 

You're so on-the-ball, Rosie. :lol:

[asta]

Profile of a dangerous terrorist - eg: the people who actually organize terrorist activities, not the people who physically go out and perform an act of terror (this is from a Terrorism expert who shall remain nameless for the purposes of this board):

 

An intelligent male, between the ages of 15-25 who usually comes from a middle to upper class background with commensurate education; something that has estranged them from familial relations, which have been supplanted by an unhealthy religious fatalism.

 

 

Is that Politically Correct enough for everyone? Because that is the operative definition.

 

 

a

[Rosie_0801]

So what does unnamed terrorist expert think can be done about it?

 

Rosie

[Tea Time]

If people choose to deliberately ignore the many, many efforts "moderate Muslims" have made to denounce terrorism and distance themselves from anyone who might condone it, then it reaches a point where one believes there is nothing that will satisfy.

They do lack a voice. Why is that? Why don't we hear from them in response to the terrorists instead of in FAVOR of the liberals? Will you not concede that this a good questions? I think the media is largely responsible for that. Christians and Moderate Muslims have something in common, really. And that is that some people (many in the media) think they are "insane" because they are people of faith. You may not want to see that, but it is true. There is something troubling about a rally calling to "restore sanity" made as a reaction to one calling to "restore honor." It is RUDE by its very name, because it calls those who do not agree "crazy." That is not "honorable," which makes the name of the other rally ACCURATE. Those Muslims were aiding in their own mocking, IMO, by aligning themselves with that group and that rally. My comments had nothing to do with Muslims or the Muslim faith.

 

Plus I think Rosie just helped by switching the conversation onto this territory (it is NOT about prejudices against moderate Muslims!), so that we can no longer address the enemy and are now infighting to no end, except maybe a get the thread closed end. So it goes all over the world. Very effective. Very sad.

 

So what is really the issue?

 

I'm already said what I think the issue is. I think I have said it well, too. We have to fight terrorism, and I know of no other weapon for that than pure, unadulterated courage from very sane people. All of them that we can find. Thankfully they are out there, and they have been doing a pretty good job for a long time without much attention.

 

As to saying the TSA workers should quit their jobs. Read my post again. I said they should not quit. They should complain. Loudly. And I said we all should. That would be the courage part.

[Niffercoo]

I'll stick with the pat-down. At least that's another woman. Do men sit and look at the images of the females? I'm sure there are some really hideous men who would do that job for free. Why would I agree to be one of the bodies he ogles?

 

I hope one of you will tell me that the scans are viewed by same-gender TSA folks. Please?

 

 

When I flew out of Atlanta in September with my mom, we were in a section of the airport that had 2 traditional metal detectors and a full-body scan machine. The male agent "randomly" picked people to use the full-body scan machine, and if you refused you had to submit to a pat down. He ONLY picked women in the entire time we were in the line. When you get in the body scan machine you have to hold your hands up to your head in a position that looks like something off a TV cop show, and there were only men there to look at the images.

 

When he selected me for the full-body scan machine, I indicated that I did not want to do it. He grinned wickedly at me and said, "I guess it's a pat-down for you then." Fortunately, right about that time, there was a problem with the full-body scan machine and I was redirected to the traditional metal detector.

 

The experience was horrible and very intimidating. I'm glad I don't fly very often.

[Tea Time]

The link was supposed to be a friendly way of demonstrating that "dressing like a Muslim" is a more meaningless idea that it is sometimes considered to be. I posted it for the photos only.

 

The actual garb does seem to be an issue. It may not be a real risk, but it is quite obviously a perceived risk. People worry that old Muslim ladies wearing baggy clothing might have something dangerous strapped on underneath. Is anyone going to worry that a young Muslim girl wearing jeans and a tank top has a weapon tucked down her cleavage? Would we breathe a sigh of relief that some Italian grandma wearing a house dress isn't allowed on the plane for refusing a scan. Italian grandmas aren't in the habit of hijacking planes, but neither are any other types of grandma and they all have just as much room up their dresses to stash things. Would we be breathing sighs of relief if that Muslim grandma had been wearing a blouse and long skirt from the same shop our mothers buy from? Probably not. Why? Because garb is an issue in the average person's mind. I'm sure an official person who does profiling pays little attention to clothing for the reason the link shows: people wear all sorts of things!

 

Rosie

 

Well, the site says a lot more than the photos imply, doesn't it? And you did not say anything but that you "loved" the site. And I think the site is actually important because it speaks to part of the reason we cannot effectively fight terrorism because we are too effectively fighting each other.

 

I happen to think the clothing is irrelevant. True a few people get anxious about it in general, and that is somewhat ignorant, but they are not our enemy, just fearful. Clothing and weapons do not kill people. People kill people. An old bit of wisdom. Trite because it is true.

 

Also, I think it is kind of underhanded to insult anyone on this thread by saying they think of themselves as a "terrorist expert." No one has suggested that. Some people have suggested that the terror experts should be able to do their job and not be handcuffed by ideology.

 

Again, if values, such as avoiding bigotry, are more important than our very lives, then let us stand up for them with courage not the loss of civil liberties. There are other values worth standing up for as well. That, I think, is the issue. Can you not agree with me on that rather simple premise?

 

I won't be able to check in for a while. Hope the thread lasts.

[unsinkable]

:iagree:

 

And while *I* don't have to fly, plenty of people do, for work, etc. And it's really not realistic to say "get another job." And what about going overseas--are we really going to expect people to just return to sailing wherever they want to go??

I think the whole thing is *insane.* How can you essentially tell people that being molested is the lesser of two evils. (At least you didn't DIE.) I realize it's not always *that* bad, but from what I understand, it *can* be.

 

False dilemma, logical fallacy, mean, rude, ridiculous. (Ask me how I really feel!) :D

 

And wrt the people doing the searches, I doubt they mind at all. Have you ever met one who was friendly, compassionate, & sympathetic? I haven't traveled much, so maybe there are some nice ones out there, but they don't seem to be the norm.

 

I'm pretty sure you were joking ;) but terrorism will happen at any time and in any place.

 

Tighten security in one area, and terrorists will just pick another area.

 

That's the problem...IMO...it isn't about airline safety, it is about the safety of our country. Am I allowed to say that? :confused:

[Kate in Arabia]

 

They do lack a voice. Why is that? Why don't we hear from them in response to the terrorists instead of in FAVOR of the liberals?

I wish I knew why media and others choose not to highlight or listen to the many, many voices that speak out against terrorists. They have a voice. What they lack is interest from the general public, despite the constant cries of "why aren't the moderate Muslims speaking out?" They are speaking out, but the extremists get the limelight every time.

[Mejane]

No one else said a d@mn thing until you brought it up. Why are you stirring the pot? Or do you see the word Muslim when the rest of us write the word "terrorist"? If so, that is YOUR issue, not ours.

 

 

a

 

:iagree:

[Punchie]

I wish I knew why media and others choose not to highlight or listen to the many, many voices that speak out against terrorists. They have a voice. What they lack is interest from the general public, despite the constant cries of "why aren't the moderate Muslims speaking out?" They are speaking out, but the extremists get the limelight every time.

 

Moderate voices do not sell papers or airtime. Moderate voices do not breed an "us against them" simplistic mentality. It's easier to control others (and to strip away civil liberties), when you have a distinct enemy - real or imagined.

[FaithManor]

Amen Punchie! The media, like many U.S. businesses, is worried only about money. Mayhem and sensationalism sells in our culture. Reason and sanity do not so therefore, moderates will not get press time until the American public decides they've had enough of "crazy" bias in the press and demand a better standard.

 

Faith

[msjones]

When I flew out of Atlanta in September with my mom, we were in a section of the airport that had 2 traditional metal detectors and a full-body scan machine. The male agent "randomly" picked people to use the full-body scan machine, and if you refused you had to submit to a pat down. He ONLY picked women in the entire time we were in the line. When you get in the body scan machine you have to hold your hands up to your head in a position that looks like something off a TV cop show, and there were only men there to look at the images.

 

When he selected me for the full-body scan machine, I indicated that I did not want to do it. He grinned wickedly at me and said, "I guess it's a pat-down for you then." Fortunately, right about that time, there was a problem with the full-body scan machine and I was redirected to the traditional metal detector.

 

The experience was horrible and very intimidating. I'm glad I don't fly very often.

 

I'm sorry you had to go through that. Yuck. Yuck! There certainly should be only women dealing with other women in these situations -- that seems obvious and manageable. I'm certain that a TSA scheduler would be able to schedule both men and women for each shift -- not rocket science.