Shocking Blog Post Concerning New Airport Security...

[Blueridge]

Wow, I can't believe this is happening in America...:tongue_smilie: I'll probably never fly anywhere.

 

http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html

[....]

I also refuse to fly. I haven't flown in years.

[knit247]

Ugh - read this and already it bugs me to think what (else?) will be in place next summer when we fly back to the US. I don't want to be scanned, nor my DDs. And I certainly do not want one of the pat-downs.

[jplain]

The poor guy is now being investigated.

 

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/nov/15/tsa-probe-scan-resistor/

 

According to Aguilar, Tyner is under investigation for leaving the security area without permission.

 

What??? He was told to leave and was escorted out of security by law enforcement. How can that be "leaving without permission"? Idiots.

[mommaduck]

Be nice when more and more people quit flying, airlines start to lose money, and workers at both airlines and airports are put out of work. TSA procedures will be the ones to blame. I sure as heck don't plan on flying anytime soon. I could deal with a pat down, as long as it was a female agent...but the scanners, heavens no! (guess I'm not so bothered by the pat down as I was raised military, and privacy is not exactly a huge thing there)

[jplain]

On a lighter note, the story made The Colbert Report last night:

 

Colbert: TSA Full-Body Scanners

 

It should go without saying, but the clip contains adult humor. :D

[....]

A lot of it is...how safe are those scanners? Especially for the people that stand around them all day. My husband had cancer, so we are very paranoid about anything that involves chemicals or radiation or pollutants.

[....]

Be nice when more and more people quit flying, airlines start to lose money, and workers at both airlines and airports are put out of work. TSA procedures will be the ones to blame. I sure as heck don't plan on flying anytime soon. I could deal with a pat down, as long as it was a female agent...but the scanners, heavens no! (guess I'm not so bothered by the pat down as I was raised military, and privacy is not exactly a huge thing there)

 

I think if my kids had to go through an airport security line, it would scare the &^% out of them.

[Saille]

A lot of it is...how safe are those scanners? Especially for the people that stand around them all day. My husband had cancer, so we are very paranoid about anything that involves chemicals or radiation or pollutants.

 

I didn't hear if they're using them in other places besides the security line, but I just overheard on NPR that pilots are protesting the use of them. According to the spokesperson, pilots are already exposed to a greater than normal amount of radiation (he compared them to nuclear plant workers) due to the high altitude at which they work. They don't want the added exposure from the scanners.

[2cents]

I dunno, maybe I'm in the minority here but I feel more comfortable the higher the security measures. The patdowns don't bother me. It would be uncomfortable from a mental standpoint but I'm willing to do that. I'd also feel better know my fellow passengers were deemed safer as well. Once you're up in the air, there is pretty much no turning back. I'll give up a few of my rights (it really is questionable in this case-airlines are private companies) to feel safer in the air.

[mommaduck]

I think if my kids had to go through an airport security line, it would scare the &^% out of them.

And I believe one of our board members mentioned before that a pat down would absolutely terrify her due to a previous assault. So she would have to choose between potential physical health damage and potential mental/emotional health damage. Nice choices :glare: I don't think it would scare my children, but each child is different and I could very much understand how this would be bothersome. Now a pat down, even though *I* would be willing to do it under certain circumstances, I don't think I would want to put my adolescent daughter through it.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I dunno, maybe I'm in the minority here but I feel more comfortable the higher the security measures. The patdowns don't bother me. It would be uncomfortable from a mental standpoint but I'm willing to do that. I'd also feel better know my fellow passengers were deemed safer as well. Once you're up in the air, there is pretty much no turning back. I'll give up a few of my rights (it really is questionable in this case-airlines are private companies) to feel safer in the air.

 

:iagree:

[Trish]

So they scan all the people but not all the cargo. Sounds safe!

[Parrothead]

Wait for the law suits to start rolling in from women who are very early pregnant and "forced" to go through the scanner.

[jplain]

2cents and priscilla, did you read yesterday's thread on this topic?

 

Has anyone flown lately? W/kids?

 

After reading that, can you honestly say that you aren't concerned about the erosion of your rights?

 

Having read extensively on this subject, I don't find the safety/security arguments compelling. Nothing I've read has convinced me that these measures will make us safer than walking through a metal detector and swabbing for explosives, with the regular patdown and metal detecting wands used to resolve alarms. Even the Government Accountability Office isn't sold on the technology:

 

“While officials said [the scanners] performed as well as physical pat downs in operational tests, it remains unclear whether the AIT would have detected the weapon used in the December 2009 incident,” the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress’s audit arm, said Wednesday in written testimony to the House Homeland Security Committee.

(The incident referred to is the 2009 Christmas Day "underwear bomber." This incident has expedited the placement of these scanners in US airports.) Edited November 16, 2010 by jplain

[Sophia]

I dunno, maybe I'm in the minority here but I feel more comfortable the higher the security measures. The patdowns don't bother me. It would be uncomfortable from a mental standpoint but I'm willing to do that. I'd also feel better know my fellow passengers were deemed safer as well. Once you're up in the air, there is pretty much no turning back. I'll give up a few of my rights (it really is questionable in this case-airlines are private companies) to feel safer in the air.

 

The patdowns I have seen on newsclips are akin to being sexually molested.

There is no way I would subject my children to that. Does it really not bother you to put your children through that?

I really do not believe anyone is safer because of what they are doing, which infuriates me more. The TSA is abusing their power and I hope more passengers follow John Tyner's example.

[femke]

As a christian, that would mean for me, that I can't fly! Of course, there are many different people, many different opinions, even concerning the bible. But for me: I can't show my naked body to anyone else than my husband or a doctor ( in emergency that is!)

A pat down, no way! Guess I'll have to go by boat if I want to go on a mission trip :tongue_smilie:

[2cents]

Seriously, it doesn't bother me. I've worked in a field where we were exposed to patdowns as part of the job so maybe that is why I don't get upset. I see it as part of someone doing a job. It is very easy to hide dangerous items on your person and patdowns, while they are admittedly uncomfortable, are designed to give the best opportunity to discover dangers. Sorry, I don't have a problem with it if it makes me and my children safer.

[jplain]

Sorry, I don't have a problem with it if it makes me and my children safer.

But why do you believe it makes you safer?

Did you see in my last post that Congress's own audit arm is skeptical?

Have you read the statements from travel analysts who claim it is ineffective?

 

This doesn't make you safer. This is just "security theater."

 

Now do you have a problem with it? If not, why?

[mommaduck]

As a christian, that would mean for me, that I can't fly! Of course, there are many different people, many different opinions, even concerning the bible. But for me: I can't show my naked body to anyone else than my husband or a doctor ( in emergency that is!)

A pat down, no way! Guess I'll have to go by boat if I want to go on a mission trip :tongue_smilie:

There is nothing in Scripture that forbids same gendered people from being seen by each other. But in this case, you don't have an option on gender.

[Guest Cindie2dds]

I think if my kids had to go through an airport security line, it would scare the &^% out of them.

 

My kids go through security several times a month, and they've never been scared. I've never had a problem (even out of uniform). I could say a lot more, but since it's a public board, that's it. :)

[Guest Cindie2dds]

As another poster commented, the cargo isn't scanned.

 

Not entirely true.

[asta]

This is all bs.

 

You can kill a person with a ballpoint pen.

 

 

asta

[2cents]

But why do you believe it makes you safer?

Did you see in my last post that Congress's own audit arm is skeptical?

Have you read the statements from travel analysts who claim it is ineffective?

 

This doesn't make you safer. This is just "security theater."

 

Now do you have a problem with it? If not, why?

 

Why do I have to have a problem with it if I clearly don't? I don't need to go into detail or justify my position. For my own purposes and from the research I have done, I don't have any problems with the security measures at this point.

[Elaine]

The patdowns I have seen on newsclips are akin to being sexually molested.

There is no way I would subject my children to that. Does it really not bother you to put your children through that?

I really do not believe anyone is safer because of what they are doing, which infuriates me more. The TSA is abusing their power and I hope more passengers follow John Tyner's example.

 

:iagree:

 

Here in NJ there are people fighting against this invasive, liberty eroding practice.

 

A little civil disobedience to prove a point. :thumbup1:

[unsinkable]

But why do you believe it makes you safer?

Did you see in my last post that Congress's own audit arm is skeptical?

Have you read the statements from travel analysts who claim it is ineffective?

 

This doesn't make you safer. This is just "security theater."

 

Now do you have a problem with it? If not, why?

 

I agree!

 

Terrorists are not stupid. We are trying to mop up after they do something. The terrorists will change and adapt their forms of attack and we'll be standing in line for safety. Terrorists have the advantage being flexible...there are so many ways to kill Americans, it is not even funny.

[Elaine]

I agree!

 

Terrorists are not stupid. We are trying to mop up after they do something. The terrorists will change and adapt their forms of attack and we'll be standing in line for safety. Terrorists have the advantage being flexible...there are so many ways to kill Americans, it is not even funny.

 

This is an excellent point. Instead of doing cavity searches on babies :confused: let's begin profiling (oh, yes I did say it) and using some common sense.

[jplain]

Why do I have to have a problem with it if I clearly don't? I don't need to go into detail or justify my position. For my own purposes and from the research I have done, I don't have any problems with the security measures at this point.

:confused:

 

In this thread you said you have no problem with it if it makes you safer.

 

So now are you saying you don't have a problem with it, even if it doesn't make you safer?

 

Setting aside any other possible issues, are you not concerned with the money involved? The current estimate for the scanners alone is hundreds of millions of dollars, at a minimum.

 

That money belongs to all of us. It should bother you if it is not being used to make you safer.

Edited November 16, 2010 by jplain

[Mejane]

Terrorists are not stupid. We are trying to mop up after they do something. The terrorists will change and adapt their forms of attack and we'll be standing in line for safety. Terrorists have the advantage being flexible...there are so many ways to kill Americans, it is not even funny.

 

Absolutely. We seem to be always reactive, never proactive. They just keep changing their tactics to stay one step ahead of us.

 

I also think they sit around giggling while they watch the circus that has become airline travel and our rights being eroded away. :glare:

Edited November 16, 2010 by Mejane

[TXMomof4]

I think the argument is that these procedures don't actually make anyone safer. I suppose there's an illusion of security, but it isn't warranted. There are still plenty of ways for people to cause havoc--deadly or otherwise--on an airplane.

 

As another poster commented, the cargo isn't scanned.

 

How many flights in America have had terrorists on them? We know the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber. Any others? Seriously, I'm trying to remember, but those are the only two that come to mind. Now, how many flights in Europe have been grounded because of the threat of terrorism? Even the cargo bombs did not originate here.

 

I know it's a PITA. The screenings I went though in Europe were nothing compared to what we go through here and they don't seem to be working as well. You can pat me down (same gender is an option),scan me, search my luggage - as long as it is done to everyone. None of this nonsense of searching 2 yo kids to fulfull a "randomness" requirement.

[Laura Corin]

I would find it normal that the assistant would measure the inside leg. To do that, the tape measure and hand would 'just touch' the groin. I would explain to my child (as I would if a pat-down were necessary) that this is just what happens in this situation.

 

I do have a lot of sympathy for someone who has previously experienced a criminal attack and then has to go through a pat down. I also have not read enough to know if these measures are useful. I'm just wondering whether it's too hard to expand 'permissible touching' to include times when a parent allows an adult to touch as a specific part of his or her job.

 

Laura

[TheReader]

How many flights in America have had terrorists on them? We know the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber. Any others? Seriously, I'm trying to remember, but those are the only two that come to mind. Now, how many flights in Europe have been grounded because of the threat of terrorism? Even the cargo bombs did not originate here.

 

I know it's a PITA. The screenings I went though in Europe were nothing compared to what we go through here and they don't seem to be working as well. You can pat me down (same gender is an option),scan me, search my luggage - as long as it is done to everyone. None of this nonsense of searching 2 yo kids to fulfull a "randomness" requirement.

 

I presume you mean "since the atrocities of 9/11 which began all of this"??

 

If not, please don't forget those incidents.

 

And, how many of the ones that originated in Europe were being sent here? Weren't the cargo bombs heading this way (but caught in Europe)?? (please do correct me if I'm wrong on that; I get my news over the internet and not all sources are created equal, so I might have missed something....)

[TXMomof4]

Absolutely. We seem to be always reactive, never proactive. They just keep changing their tactics to stay one step ahead of us.

 

I also think they sit around giggling while they watch the circus that has become airline travel and our rights are eroded away. :glare:

 

Have any planes in American blown up? Have any people died as a result of a terrorist attack since 9/11? Of course there have been incidents, but there hasn't been a deadly incident in 9 years. NINE years!

 

I know there is a boatload of bureaucracy carp that exists - but we have made it this far without the terrorists being successful even once. I'd say something is working.

[2cents]

:confused:

 

In this thread you said you have no problem with it if it makes you safer.

 

So now are you saying you don't have a problem with it, even if it doesn't make you safer?

 

 

No. That is not what I am saying at all. I am simply saying I do not have objections to it. I have yet to see evidence that it is not a helpful security measure.

[Mejane]

Instead of doing cavity searches on babies :confused: let's begin profiling (oh, yes I did say it) and using some common sense.

 

 

Gasp!

 

;)

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[jplain]

Here in NJ there are people fighting against this invasive, liberty eroding practice.

I'm really encouraged by what's going on in NJ. State senators Michael J. Doherty and James Beach are my new heroes.

 

"The pursuit of security should not force Americans to surrender their civil liberties or basic human dignity at a TSA checkpoint,” said Doherty. “Subjecting law-abiding American citizens to naked body scans and full body pat downs is intolerable, humiliating, vulnerable to abuse, and is fast becoming a disincentive to travel. Particularly concerning to us is the fact that physical searches result in children being touched in private areas of the body. Terrorists hate America because of the freedoms upon which this great nation was built. By implementing these screening measures, the TSA has already handed a victory to those who seek to destroy our freedoms."

“While no one questions the need for greater security at our airports, no one should be forced to hand over their dignity in the name of safety, ” said Senator Jim Beach (D-Camden). “Creating a pat-down procedure that is purposely invasive and time-consuming is no way to make passengers feel safer or more secure. In fact, it can do the opposite. With the busiest travel day of the year just 10 days away, the TSA needs to get a reality check and soon. Airport security is meant to make passengers feel better about flying, not humiliate them.”

 

Link: New Jersey Lawmakers Want to Stop TSA Full Body Scans

Edited November 16, 2010 by jplain
My bad, forgot to add link. ;-)

[unsinkable]

Absolutely. We seem to be always reactive, never proactive. They just keep changing their tactics to stay one step ahead of us.

I also think they sit around giggling while they watch the circus that has become airline travel and our rights being eroded away. :glare:

 

Exactly. And what terrorist worth anything WOULDN'T try to stay one step ahead???

 

Good gravy!! Isn't there a very good chance they're almost done with the aircraft attacks?

[Mejane]

Have any planes in American blown up? Have any people died as a result of a terrorist attack since 9/11? Of course there have been incidents, but there hasn't been a deadly incident in 9 years. NINE years!

 

 

 

No, but I'm not sure that is a result of the TSA searching 80yo grannies in wheelchairs.

[mommaduck]

I would find it normal that the assistant would measure the inside leg. To do that, the tape measure and hand would 'just touch' the groin. I would explain to my child (as I would if a pat-down were necessary) that this is just what happens in this situation.

 

I do have a lot of sympathy for someone who has previously experienced a criminal attack and then has to go through a pat down. I also have not read enough to know if these measures are useful. I'm just wondering whether it's too hard to expand 'permissible touching' to include times when a parent allows an adult to touch as a specific part of his or her job.

 

Laura

There is "just touching the groin" (as in, barely) and then there is patting and groping around the groin looking for anything that could be hidden there. I'm a seamstress and even I know the difference. The most touchy I've had someone in this business get with me was when I was younger and learning how to bra shop. Big ole mama got behind me and literally reached over to shove my breast into a bra. A little warning would have been nice, but I still find it different than several minutes of being felt around.

[jplain]

I have yet to see evidence that it is not a helpful security measure.

Seriously? So it is okay to spend $300 million on this because there's no evidence that it isn't effective? Excuse my bluntness, but that's some truly messed up logic.

 

For the government to spend the people's money on new airport security technologies and procedures, they must first prove that they are effective. They have failed to do so, and even Congress's audit organization is skeptical. This should worry you greatly.

[unsinkable]

Have any planes in American blown up? Have any people died as a result of a terrorist attack since 9/11? Of course there have been incidents, but there hasn't been a deadly incident in 9 years. NINE years!

 

I know there is a boatload of bureaucracy carp that exists - but we have made it this far without the terrorists being successful even once. I'd say something is working.

 

John Allen Muhammed?

 

Nidal Hassan?

 

Navid Haq?

 

All "deadly incidents."

Edited November 16, 2010 by unsinkable

[Mejane]

I think the evil plan of the underwear bomber last year was foiled because of other passengers on the plane--not so-called security measures.

 

Yes, because passengers saw him acting nervous and fiddling with himself in a strange way.

 

I have a hunch a trained behavioral profiler could've spotted him a mile away.

[Ester Maria]

We should end with this potentially dangerous / humiliating nonsense and start PROFILING.

[jplain]

I know there is a boatload of bureaucracy carp that exists - but we have made it this far without the terrorists being successful even once. I'd say something is working.

Yes! I'm going to interpret this to mean that the current measures are effective, and need not be changed. ;)

 

I quoted Amsterdam's airport security boss before, but it is relevant here too:

The security boss of Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport is calling for an end to endless investment in new technology to improve airline security.

 

Marijn Ornstein said: "If you look at all the recent terrorist incidents, the bombs were detected because of human intelligence not because of screening ... If even a fraction of what is spent on screening was invested in the intelligence services we would take a real step toward making air travel safer and more pleasant."

 

source

 

bolding mine

[flyingiguana]

My kids go through security several times a month, and they've never been scared. I've never had a problem (even out of uniform). I could say a lot more, but since it's a public board, that's it. :)

 

But these new searches are much more invasive. If you haven't gone through one in the past few weeks, you might not have seen it.

 

I was patted down a couple years ago. It wasn't all that big a deal then -- although fairly ridiculous (what did they think they'd find with that wimpy pat down?). However, I was still fairly incensed, and glad they did not pick out my daughter to pat down. But now it looks like it has become much more invasive. While I might potentially subject myself to it, if I HAD to fly, I'm not going to be asking my kids to go through that. (And I think allowing the scan is a big mistake.)

 

The only choice is to stop flying.

 

If enough people refuse to fly, this will stop eventually.

 

And for the record, off the top of my head, I can come up with a number of easy ways for a terrorist to kill thousands and wreak havoc that these scans and pat downs would never catch. If I can do it, surely a terrorist can come up with these things too. We are not inundated with attacks solely because there just aren't that many evil people in the world. A few, yes. Way, way more than anyone would like, but if terrorists were really lurking around every corner, we'd really be in trouble.

 

These searches are accomplishing nothing. If anyone actually believes they are worthwhile, they are very naive.

[mommaduck]

We should end with this potentially dangerous / humiliating nonsense and start PROFILING.

I'm with you on this, Ester Maria. Honestly, it's what we do anyhow, whether consciously or subconsciously. We look for those people that behave a certain way, "look" a certain way (as in anxiety or such, not ethnicity), etc. This "random pulling" is more for show and legal CYA than to actually accomplish anything.

[FaithManor]

Well, in our area, there are going to be some pretty major lawsuits on this. Yesterday, a Detroit radio station (well, I think it was Detroit, I'd have to ask my dad because I don't remember the call numbers) did a call in program and had a few "frequent flyers" on the show and a few disgusting situations were discussed.

 

One was the lack of female TSA agents at several airports. Two women have filed suit against the TSA for being patted down by male agents. The younger of the two, a women in her early 30's, was groped so hard in her genital area that she had to stand on her tip-toes trying to keep from losing her balance. Other passengers were so outraged, oh yeah this was done in the passenger screening area in front of everyone, that after they went through their scans, they approached her and told her they hoped she sued and they would be willing to testify as witnesses! That's how bad it was.

 

Another caller was furious because his 24 month old daughter, who was terrified to walk through the scanner by herself and the agents refused to let her be walked through by mum or dad, was taken aside and in full view of everyone, had her diaper removed and the agent, without gloves, fingered her vaginal area! Seriously, if that is my kid, someone is going to jail for molestation!!!!!

 

Another guy, traveling with a letter from his doctor about his prostetic knees, still had to have the full pat down because his knees triggered the scanner. The letter was legit, on the doctor's office stationary, signed, and listed the doctor's phone number plus the orthopedic surgeon's as well in case there should be any questions. Nope, not good enough and according to him, the genital grope was hard enough to be uncomfortable.

 

So, all in all, I truly believe that in the name of security, we are being groomed by our government to be legally molested and have all our liberties taken away "for our own good".

 

Dh and I were going to take ds, nearly 14, to Germany. He's been begging to go and we told him we'd consider it if he got two full years of German under his belt and practiced with a tutor. We also told ds 12, that if he mastered enough Danish, we'd take him to Denmark to meet dh's cousins. Both of those trips are now off the table as long as this is the security we have to deal with.

 

Oh, and at some airports, even if you agree to be scanned, you can end up still enduring the pat-down as well because they are randomly patting down a certain percentage of travelers in those higher risk locations.

 

We need to profile, based on behavioral studies (just like the FBI teaches at Quantico and just like the Israeli's) and stop all of this nonsense. Criminals and murderers are just that....not law abiding citizens and hence, will always work to use technology to overcome our security while innocent travelers get abused in the name of safety.

 

Faith

[asta]

Next time I fly, I'm just going to wear a hijab. That way, no one can touch my boobs.

 

From CAIR's website:

 

Special recommendations for Muslim women who wear hijab:

 

If you are selected for secondary screening after you go through the metal detector and it does not go off, and "sss" is not written on your boarding pass, ask the TSA officer if the reason you are being selected is because of your head scarf.

 

In this situation, you may be asked to submit to a pat-down or to go through a full body scanner. If you are selected for the scanner, you may ask to go through a pat-down instead.

 

Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down.

 

You may ask to be taken to a private room for the pat-down procedure.

 

Instead of the pat-down, you can always request to pat down your own scarf, including head and neck area, and have the officers perform a chemical swipe of your hands.

 

If you encounter any issues, ask to speak to a supervisor immediately. They are there to assist you.

 

 

a

[Ester Maria]

Another caller was furious because his 24 month old daughter, who was terrified to walk through the scanner by herself and the agents refused to let her be walked through by mum or dad, was taken aside and in full view of everyone, had her diaper removed and the agent, without gloves, fingered her vaginal area! Seriously, if that is my kid, someone is going to jail for molestation!!!!!

PLEASE tell me this person was not serious, or you misheard it, or something. PLEASE.

[Gratia271]

The patdowns I have seen on newsclips are akin to being sexually molested. There is no way I would subject my children to that. Does it really not bother you to put your children through that?

I really do not believe anyone is safer because of what they are doing, which infuriates me more. The TSA is abusing their power and I hope more passengers follow John Tyner's example.

:iagree:

 

This is all bs.asta

Amen!

 

Absolutely. We seem to be always reactive, never proactive. They just keep changing their tactics to stay one step ahead of us. I also think they sit around giggling while they watch the circus that has become airline travel and our rights being eroded away. :glare:

 

I think they sit around and laugh at America in general.

 

We should end with this potentially dangerous / humiliating nonsense and start PROFILING.

This!