Originally Posted By Dabob2 <My personal opinion doesn't align with either side on this issue - I'm saying that this isn't a big deal, that it's rooted in common sense, and that the image scanners are an improvement over some prior methods, in that it's faster and easier than the wanding and the pat-downs. > I'm with you too, gad. I'd oppose it if I considered it intrusive, but I don't. Data mining and the crap that Bush pushed through? Yep. Another machine to walk through at the airport, perhaps right after the metal detector when you're single file anyway, that might even prevent you from having to take off your shoes because they can scan them in there rather than in the baggage scanner? Nope.
Originally Posted By debtee <And yet you say you're fine with the frisking and the groping. You really want someone like *that* touching your kids!? > Geez Mr X do you read before you type? No I am not fine with it. I didn't say I was fine with touching and grouping. The fact is as of last year, he is there at SFO and he is touching people, kids and their belongings! That's why I prefer the scanners, there is no touching!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I was listening to Dr. Dean Edell's show today and he made a pretty good point about this: It doesn't really work. He said that the way most people smuggle things is, um, internally. The scans don't reveal things hidden that way. He said that the way they handle it in Israel is very different, using highly trained staff using sophisticated understanding of behavior, facial analysis, and interrogation of passengers who seem suspect. As far as patting down, if patting down people's bathing suit zones if off limits, it rather defeats the purpose.
Originally Posted By Mr X <And yet you say you're fine with the frisking and the groping. You really want someone like *that* touching your kids!? > ***Geez Mr X do you read before you type?*** Yes, I do, Deb. I also remember what other people typed. Do *you* remember what you typed? You typed, and I quote: "I'm for any security measures that they deem necessary". ***No I am not fine with it. I didn't say I was fine with touching and grouping*** You also said: "I'd rather be as safe as we can be and know that everyone else on that plane does not have a weapon hidden, then worry about someone seeing me on a scanner or patting me down". And furthermore you said: "While returning from London last Christmas, I was selected for a full security check by a female officer, at London Heathrow. It was a full pat down, she did touch all around my private parts. I didn't find it a big deal" You'll forgive me for getting the impression that you're okay with the touching and the feeling based on these comments, won't you? I am WELL aware that it's no biggie IF the person you are dealing with is well trained and professional. However, I have concerns about the ones who are not (how extensive IS the TSA training program anyway? Is it like a police academy or is it more like monorail school on the Simpsons?).
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///You really want someone like *that* touching your kids!?/// I want all "touched" or scanned..... from the 93 year old white grandma to the 7 year old to the olive skinned beard wearing to flight attendants. If you're police, high ranking military or the Secretary of Agriculture you're not exempt either.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I want all "touched" or scanned*** So in other words you want all of us inconvenienced and harassed due to your own irrational fears. Got it. You hoping for the same levels of security on trains and buses? You do realize they are far more vulnerable AND more dangerous to begin with, right? I can only assume you don't drive. That's the most dangerous way to go of all!
Originally Posted By gadzuux So what are you advocating as an alternative, X? The wild wild blue yonder? Everybody takes their chances? It's not enough to say "it doesn't work" or "I'm opposed" - you need to support something better. I don't know what that is - other than maybe dogs, which I suggested earlier.
Originally Posted By debtee Ahhhh Mr X, are you are trying to make me bite! Taking my comments, over two different posts and mashing them up together so they are not in context, makes them not make any sense but then never does your Israel comments, so I think we are even!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It's not enough to say "it doesn't work"<< Sure it is. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. How do these scans do anything about terrorists smuggling chemical weapons/explosives 'internally'? They don't. I'm not saying that nothing works. Just that these scans don't really do anything a metal detector doesn't already do. Specially trained dogs? That's a good idea if they'll find things these scans won't.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***It's not enough to say "it doesn't work" or "I'm opposed" - you need to support something better. I don't know what that is - other than maybe dogs, which I suggested earlier*** Back to the way it was before 9/11...keep the chemical detectors, dogs are fine too. Have an interview process in place where everyone is questioned (just in front of the metal detectors would be cool, or just after perhaps), even a little bit, and suspected folk can be subjected to further questioning. Same way they do it at immigration ports.
Originally Posted By Mr X In addition, the lines to get through security should be VERY quick. Walk up, answer a few questions, go throw the detectors. Suspects, and there should be a REASON for suspicion which is noted and verifiable, should be handled elsewhere and not in the general "I'm just a citizen getting on a plane" area. Again, that's how international gateways handle things. This should be no different. Finally, if someone is found to be suspect and then released to board, they should have legal recourse to complain (perhaps a mandatory partial refund similar to when a plane is delayed through fault of the airlines). That way, the security personnel can be held accountable for any jackbooted misbehavior since it's the airlines that will have to foot the bill and they can work out a system for weeding out the ones who don't know how to do their jobs.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<So what are you advocating as an alternative, X? The wild wild blue yonder? Everybody takes their chances?>> Well, I told you my preferred option. You buy your ticket and you get on the plane, just as God intended. So my chances of dieing in an air crash go from one in a million to one in 980 thousand. I really don't care.
Originally Posted By Mr X I don't take it quite that far. I'm in favor of metal detectors and other security measures that are quick and dignified and mindful of the fact that everyone who buys a plane ticket is *not* necessarily a suspect. Why even go that far? Well, because even beyond your hardcore al quada types you've got other types of criminals, and I really don't think it a great idea for it to be just a stroll down a jetway easy to bring a gun onto a plane (or some other such weapon). Can you bring a gun onto a train or bus? Sure. But having a weapon like that on a plane means you can crash the plane if you want, or it could even happen by accident. I'm not okay with that. It's all rather moot anyway, since I imagine security will only INCREASE and certainly never decrease unless the public outcry is unmistakable, which as we can see from this thread is far from so.
Originally Posted By Mr X One thing not yet mentioned here is the fact that the terrorists really did shoot THEMSELVES in the foot with 9/11...they simply went too far and now the GREATEST line of defense/security measure isn't the TSA Theater show at all, but rather passengers themselves who will not stand for it anymore. Did the TSA foil the shoe guy? Nope. He got on the plane. He was subdued by passengers. Underwear guy? Same deal. None of those "enhanced security measures" did a damned thing to keep him and his undies from boarding. But when he tried to light himself, the passengers reacted accordingly. With security like that, it's no wonder that no SERIOUS terrorist plot has emerged...they are too afraid of us now. At least on airplanes. Surely they are considering other targets for their next massacre (and then we'll have TSA in bus stations, which also won't make a bloody bit of difference).
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///You hoping for the same levels of security on trains and buses?/// I'm not sure where I stand on those. ///That's(driving) the most dangerous way to go of all!/// You bet! But keep in mind that those dangers can be greatly modified by who is driving, in what kind of car, where and in what kind of weather conditions. Remember that aggressive male teens, drunks, the sleepy driver, the road ragers, those driving dangerous cars(like with bald tires, broken lights ect..), those with poor reaction times like some elderly, those who are distracted by unruly children or animals in the car and those who drive dangerous routes/roads account for close to all road fatalities. When I drive I fall into none of those classes..... therefore the overall stats. do not apply to me specifically.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///Back to the way it was before 9/11/// Bad move! Did you read my story about how I brought a diving knife and a potential compressed air bomb wrapped in a aluminum cylinder(equipped with enough force of a hand grenade). I released the air from the tank before I went to the airport but security never checked it. Is that the kind of pre 9/11 security you're talking about?
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Just that these scans don't really do anything a metal detector doesn't already do. << Doctor Dean's reporting notwithstanding, they really do more than just a metal detector - they reveal bulk and bundles being stashed underneath clothing. And when people want to hide something, it's gonna find its way to some crevice or another - that's why raising your arms and spreading your legs (somewhat) is required. If there's material pinched between your cheeks or tucked between your legs, or anywhere else under your clothing, it will be revealed. If something is tucked up inside a cavity, that won't show up on a scanner. But oh well, a 90% solution is better than none at all.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Remember that aggressive male teens, drunks, the sleepy driver, the road ragers, those driving dangerous cars(like with bald tires, broken lights ect..), those with poor reaction times like some elderly, those who are distracted by unruly children or animals in the car and those who drive dangerous routes/roads account for close to all road fatalities*** Okay, sure. ***When I drive I fall into none of those classes*** You drive next to them. ***therefore the overall stats. do not apply to me specifically*** Yes, they do apply to you. You drive next to them. In any case, even if you are the top-ace bestest driver in the whole wide world, your chances of dying on the roads is still INFINITELY greater than in the air. Barboy, I think you are one of the cooler posters around here and, even when you piss other people off I can generally appreciate your, let's say quirky, take on things. And because you are blunt and to the point while at the same time always offering up solid facts to support your arguments, I respect your views even if they seem out there or extreme. But on *this* issue, you are letting your irrational fears get the better of you. Just like DAR on torture and ECDC on frankenfood (see, I'm false equivocating! ...j/k, advocating torture is MUCH worse and decidedly Un-American! ), you are suffering from tunnel vision due to an irrational concern. ///You hoping for the same levels of security on trains and buses?/// "I'm not sure where I stand on those" See? There's your irrational fear popping up again. IF you are so worried about terror, WHY would you NOT be damned sure that the TSA should be, right this minute, patting down bomb babies and radiating Grandma at the local Amtrak stations and the Bonanza, Greyhound, and Dragon Bus terminals? Why ONLY on airplanes, still statistically the safest way to fly and, as I explained above, the LEAST likely targets for any concerted terrorist plots these days?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Did you read my story about how I brought a diving knife and a potential compressed air bomb wrapped in a aluminum cylinder(equipped with enough force of a hand grenade). I released the air from the tank before I went to the airport but security never checked it. Is that the kind of pre 9/11 security you're talking about?*** Of course not. By saying "pre 9/11 levels", I'm certainly saying or even implying that security should ignore all that they've learned. I'm simply saying that stripping all passengers of their dignity and treating them like criminals is not the way to go.
