Don't like the new airport scanners?

[ElNono]

For the First Time, the TSA Meets Resistance (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-first-time-the-tsa-meets-resistance/65390/)

Oct 29 2010, 12:20 PM ET
Jeffrey Goldberg

This past Wednesday, I showed up at Baltimore-Washington International for a flight to Providence, R.I. I had a choice of two TSA screening checkpoints. I picked mine based on the number of people waiting in line, not because I am impatient, but because the coiled, closely packed lines at TSA screening sites are the most dangerous places in airports, completely unprotected from a terrorist attack -- a terrorist attack that would serve the same purpose (shutting down air travel) as an attack on board an aircraft.

Agents were funneling every passenger at this particular checkpoint through a newly installed back-scatter body imaging device, which allows the agency's security officers to, in essence, see under your clothing. The machine captures an image of your naked self, including your genitals, and sends the image to an agent in a separate room. I don't object to stringent security (as you will soon see), but I do object to meaningless security theater (Bruce Schneier's phrase), and I believe that we would be better off if the TSA focused its attentions on learning the identity and background of each passenger, rather than on checking whether passengers are carrying contraband (as I suggested in this article, it is possible for a moderately clever person to move contraband through TSA screenings with a fair amount of ease, even with this new technology).

In part because of the back-scatter imager's invasiveness (a TSA employee in Miami was arrested recently after he physically assaulted a colleague who had mocked his modestly sized penis, which was fully apparent in a captured back-scatter image), the TSA is allowing passengers to opt-out of the back-scatter and choose instead a pat-down. I've complained about TSA pat-downs in the past, because they, too, were more security theater than anything else. They are, as I would learn, becoming more serious, as well.

At BWI, I told the officer who directed me to the back-scatter that I preferred a pat-down. I did this in order to see how effective the manual search would be. When I made this request, a number of TSA officers, to my surprise, began laughing. I asked why. One of them -- the one who would eventually conduct my pat-down -- said that the rules were changing shortly, and that I would soon understand why the back-scatter was preferable to the manual search. I asked him if the new guidelines included a cavity search. "No way. You think Congress would allow that?"

I answered, "If you're a terrorist, you're going to hide your weapons in your anus or your vagina." He blushed when I said "vagina."

"Yes, but starting tomorrow, we're going to start searching your crotchal area" -- this is the word he used, "crotchal" -- and you're not going to like it."

"What am I not going to like?" I asked.

"We have to search up your thighs and between your legs until we meet resistance," he explained.

"Resistance?" I asked.

"Your testicles," he explained.

'That's funny," I said, "because 'The Resistance' is the actual name I've given to my testicles."

He answered, "Like 'The Situation,' that guy from 'Jersey Shore?'"

Yes, exactly, I said. (I used to call my testicles "The Insurgency," but those assholes in Iraq ruined the term.)

I pointed out to the security officer that 50 percent of the American population has no balls (90 percent in Washington, D.C., where I live), so what is going to happen when the pat-down officer meets no resistance in the crotchal area of women? "If there's no resistance, then there's nothing there."

"But what about people who hide weapons in their cavities? I asked. I actually said "vagina" again, just to see him blush. "We're just not going there," he reiterated.

I asked him if he was looking forward to conducting the full-on pat-downs. "Nobody's going to do it," he said, "once they find out that we're going to do."

In other words, people, when faced with a choice, will inevitably choose the Dick-Measuring Device over molestation? "That's what we're hoping for. We're trying to get everyone into the machine." He called over a colleague. "Tell him what you call the back-scatter," he said. "The Dick-Measuring Device," I said. "That's the truth," the other officer responded.

The pat-down at BWI was fairly vigorous, by the usual tame standards of the TSA, but it was nothing like the one I received the next day at T.F. Green in Providence. Apparently, I was the very first passenger to ask to opt-out of back-scatter imaging. Several TSA officers heard me choose the pat-down, and they reacted in a way meant to make the ordinary passenger feel very badly about his decision. One officer said to a colleague who was obviously going to be assigned to me, "Get new gloves, man, you're going to need them where you're going."

The agent snapped on his blue gloves, and patiently explained exactly where he was going to touch me. I felt like a sophomore at Oberlin.

"I'm going to run my hands up your thighs, and then feel your buttocks, then I'm going to reach under you until I meet --"

"Resistance?" I interrupted.

"Yes, resistance. Do you want to go into a private room?" he asked.

"Are you asking me into a private room?" I said. He looked confused. I said, "No, here is fine."

He felt me up good, but not great. It was not in any way the best pat-down I've ever received. The most thorough search I've ever experienced was in the Bekaa Valley, by Hezbollah security officers. That took quite awhile, and the Resistance really manhandled my Resistance. There was no cavity search, of course -- no magazine story, even one about Hezbollah terrorism -- is worth that. But it was the fairly full Monty.

I draw three lessons from this week's experience: The pat-down, while more effective than previous pat-downs, will not stop dedicated and clever terrorists from smuggling on board small weapons or explosives. When I served as a military policeman in an Israeli army prison, many of the prisoners "bangled" contraband up their asses. I know this not because I checked, but because eventually they told me this when I asked.

The second lesson is that the effectiveness of pat-downs does not matter very much, because the obvious goal of the TSA is to make the pat-down embarrassing enough for the average passenger that the vast majority of people will choose high-tech humiliation over the low-tech ball check.

The third lesson remains constant: By the time terrorist plotters make it to the airport, it is, generally speaking, too late to stop them. Plots must be broken up long before the plotters reach the target. If they are smart enough to make it to the airport without arrest, it is almost axiomatically true that they will be smart enough to figure out a way to bring weapons aboard a plane.

UPDATE: Many people are asking me if I actually named my testicles "The Resistance." Of course not. I was just messing with the guy from TSA. My testicles are actually named "Tzipi" and "Bibi."

[boutons_deux]

OBL is laughing his ass off at how he screwed up America while spending almost nothing himself, causing America to waste billions of $ and hours on bullshit like damaging passengers with radiation.

[Parker2112]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Benjamin Franklin

[Wild Cobra]

Anyone with half a brain knows they are just making the libtards feel better about security.

[balli]

Anyone with half a brain knows they are just making the libtards feel better about security.

You are so retarded and delusional it isn't even funny. Which is it, the 'libtards' are a bunch of ACLU/Al-Qaida freaks bent on destroying the United states with individual rights to privacy and such? Or are they cow-eyed and fearful sheep willing to give up everything in the name of societal safety?

In any case, the answer is far more complicated than your simple, binary intelligence will allow for. But if you're going to throw around ass ridiculous statements like the one above, I suggest you start looking for a clue by taking a long hard look in the mirror and at your own disgusting ideological cohorts. You double-think fucking prat.

[ElNono]

Anyone with half a brain knows they are just making the libtards feel better about security.

Are you implying that only 'libtards' fly in airplanes or that you don't even have half a brain?

[Parker2112]

So fascist govt agents herd poor, poor sheeples through fascist technology by threatening them with a copped crotch...

poor, poor sheeples are headed to hell in a handbasket.

And WC, what is the difference between fascist and communist?

[Winehole23]

(Going to hell in a handbasket, we usually say in English.)

[Winehole23]

(WC is an erstwhile <sheeple> user. I think boutons is too.)

[Parker2112]

Dont worry. Folks like the ACLU are fighting so that you wont have to show your sheeple wee-pole much longer.

[Parker2112]

(Going to hell in a handbasket, we usually say in English.)

I like headed in advance of hell. Bite me.

[Winehole23]

<In advance of.> In English we usually say, <in front of> or <before.>

[Winehole23]

(Is English not your first language, Parker, or do you just enjoy mangling it?)

[Winehole23]

sheeple wee-pole

[Winehole23]

(a better rhyme than it was a joke imo.)

[MiamiHeat]

Seriously.

Who here wants their wives and daughters going through this scanning machine?

It's fucking HUMAN to think sexually. If men are the ones behind the machines....heck, the images aren't even deleted. They are saved....

As long as the pat downs on female passengers are ONLY DONE BY FEMALE EMPLOYEES, then I'm ok with that.

[boutons_deux]

How many attacks have been caught with the new airport screening measures after 9/11 and without these scanners? Almost none, or they are keeping it a secret.

The number is none or at extreme max less than handful. Then the 10s of $Bs being spent on these fricking scanners and the $Bs on their eternal maintenance and replacement, is just another way for corps to fleece taxpayers and enrich Congresscritters.

There is huge controversy among science about how much radiation is acceptable. Pregnant women and children, who are known to be extreme NatSec threats, must not be radiated.

The method is America's madness is all about fleecing taxpayers. Just say "it's NatSec", and $Bs flow to the corps.

[Cry Havoc]

Anyone with half a brain knows they are just making the libtards feel better about security.

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/usa-patriot1.jpg

Yep. Liberals have a huge monopoly on security theater.

WC, I know you're an intelligent person, so I can't figure out why your brain just ceases to function at times. It's really, really baffling. Do you really want to put these ridiculous protocols at the feet of liberals when most of them were enacted in the Bush administration?

[DarkReign]

All I got out of this is "Fuck flying."

[Cry Havoc]

All I got out of this is "Fuck flying."

Pretty much. I feel sorry for business people who have no way to avoid it and must endure their tender bits being ogled at 3-4 times per week.

Say, out of curiosity, does anyone know if political figures have to endure this kind of screening? Or do they just walk through security to their own private planes?

[TeyshaBlue]

Pretty much. I feel sorry for business people who have no way to avoid it and must endure their tender bits being ogled at 3-4 times per week.

Say, out of curiosity, does anyone know if political figures have to endure this kind of screening? Or do they just walk through security to their own private planes?

I'd be willing to wager that they are on a TSA "Don't touch" list.

[Cry Havoc]

I'd be willing to wager that they are on a TSA "Don't touch" list.

Government "by the people, for the people" indeed.

[Parker2112]

All I got out of this is "Fuck flying."

So let them have your right to travel. What will you give them next?

[Parker2112]

Airport body scanners 'could give you cancer', warns expert


By Daily Mail Reporter (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=y&authornamef=Daily+Mail+Reporter)
Last updated at 11:25 AM on 30th June 2010

Full body scanners at airports could increase your risk of skin cancer, experts warn.
The X-ray machines have been brought in at Manchester, Gatwick and Heathrow.
But scientists say radiation from the scanners has been underestimated and could be particularly risky for children.

They say that the low level beam does deliver a small dose of radiation to the body but because the beam concentrates on the skin - one of the most radiation-sensitive organs of the human body - that dose may be up to 20 times higher than first estimated

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1290527/Airport-body-scanners-deliver-radiation-dose-20-times-higher-thought.html#ixzz143IYVQH1

[Parker2112]

My question: Why dont the resident Conservatives rail on this shit? Where's all the "Don't tread on me" horseshit? Are they that predictable? Do they take their entire lead from conservative media, who not only convince them of which principles apply, but also how to apply them?

Dont all the Tea-Party/Fox News principles apply to this shit? Or is it just because the MIC has ties into the subject matter that Fox tells you to lay off?



Saturday, October 23, 2010

The Naked Body Scanners and the Military Industrial Complex (http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2010/10/naked-body-scanners-and-military.html)



This is just a curiosity, but don't for a minute think the Naked Body Scanners that are being placed at airports around the country, and are technically known as backscatters, are coming from what in any way could be considered the private sector. It's tough to pin down, but around every corner of the backscatter are military men and intelligence operatives.

The backscatter X-ray was first applied as a commercial security scanning device by Dr. Steven W Smith (http://www.dspguide.com/resume.htm). Smith is currently President of Spectrum San Diego, a wholly owned subsidiary of the military connected SAIC. The president of SAIC is Walter P. Havenstein.

Havenstein received a bachelor’s degree in aerospace engineering from the U.S. Naval Academy and a master’s degree in electrical engineering from the Naval Postgraduate School. He served on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps from 1971 to 1983, specializing in tactical communications and systems acquisition management, and completed his career in the Marine Corps Reserve in 1999 retiring as a colonel.

SAIC has an Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Group. Its president is K. Stuart Shea. In 2003, Shea was named to the 12-member National Commission for the Review of the Research and Development Programs of the U.S. Intelligence Community, established by Congress to review the full range of current research and development programs in the intelligence community

Smith sold his backscatter device to Rapiscan Systems, a division of OSI Systems, Inc. On OSI's board sits Dr. William F. Ballhaus, Jr. He served as director of NASA's Ames Research Center.

Another producer of the backscatter is American Science & Engineering. It is a publicly traded company and has on its board, General John A. Gordon (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=111923&p=irol-govBio&ID=184748), who, naturally, has a very strong military/intelligence background

Gordon is a General, United States Air Force (Retired) He was elected as a Director of the AS&E in November 2008, and has served on AS& E’s Science and Technology Advisory Committee since January 2006. General Gordon served in the White House as the President’s Homeland Security Advisor from June 2003 to June 2004 and as the Deputy National Security Advisor for Counter Terrorism and the National Director for Counter Terrorism from June 2002 to June 2003. General Gordon was the first administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration and Undersecretary of Energy, responsible for the entirety of the nation’s nuclear weapons program, serving from June 2000 to June 2002. Additionally, he served as Deputy Director of Central Intelligence at the Central Intelligence Agency from 1997 to 2000 and as Associate Director of Central Intelligence for Military Support from 1996 to 1997. As an Air Force four-star general, General Gordon’s thirty-two year Air Force career included assignments in research and development, strategic planning, missile and space operations, inter-governmental operations, and international negotiations. He was commissioned in 1968 following graduation from the University of Missouri with a bachelors of science degree in physics. He earned a masters degree in physics from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, and a masters of arts in business administration from New Mexico Highlands University.

Again, there are no smoking guns here of any kind, there is no direct connection, but around every corner of the backsactters is a military/intelligence man, somewhere. Big Brother is bad enough, but Big Brother with a military/intelligence man lurking around every corner is worse. Creepy

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2010/10/naked-body-scanners-and-military.html

[DarkReign]

So let them have your right to travel. What will you give them next?

You obviously have nothing to lose. When you grow up and have things and people that are worth more than your convictions, youll understand.

[Parker2112]

You obviously have nothing to lose. When you grow up and have things and people that are worth more than your convictions, youll understand.

You dont give up your rights just by flying. You give up your rights by accepting what your handing and swallowing it like you have no choice. You have a voice and that is your real power as an American. And if you dont use it, you are absolutely part of the problem.

I gaurantee the first time I go through one, I will have hands on my genitals. I might just pull out my nuts for good measure. Me and the TSA officer are gong to get intimate. Might as well make us both uncomfortable.

I spent a decade in the prison pat searching, strip searching and shaking down the property of convicted felons. Now, because of the "terror threat" that has us chasing oil and minerals abroad, I am going to be treated the same?

Its a fucking shame. And no American should stand for it without making their voice heard. If you allow them to take a yard, they are going to take 50.

[Winehole23]

I gaurantee the first time I go through one, I will have hands on my genitals. I might just pull out my nuts for good measure. Me and the TSA officer are gong to get intimate. Might as well make us both uncomfortable. Sigworthy.

[ElNono]

You obviously have nothing to lose. When you grow up and have things and people that are worth more than your convictions, youll understand.

What kind of security do you think these scanners and pat downs are giving you, the people you love or the things you want to protect?

[Winehole23]

@ElNono:

I think DR already put himself down for "avoids flying."

[ElNono]

@ElNono:

I think DR already put himself down for "avoids flying."

Ahhh... I missed that. Thanks

[Winehole23]

(DR didn't say so directly, but he implied as much.)

[Parker2112]

Sigworthy.

:toast

[Parker2112]

consider it done.

[The Reckoning]

i strut through those airport scanners with pride. i have nothing to be ashamed about.

[Winehole23]

consider it done.ick

[Parker2112]

i strut through those airport scanners with pride. i have nothing to be ashamed about.


Airport body scanners 'could give you cancer', warns expert


By Daily Mail Reporter (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=y&authornamef=Daily+Mail+Reporter)
Last updated at 11:25 AM on 30th June 2010

Full body scanners at airports could increase your risk of skin cancer, experts warn.
The X-ray machines have been brought in at Manchester, Gatwick and Heathrow.
But scientists say radiation from the scanners has been underestimated and could be particularly risky for children.

They say that the low level beam does deliver a small dose of radiation to the body but because the beam concentrates on the skin - one of the most radiation-sensitive organs of the human body - that dose may be up to 20 times higher than first estimated

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...#ixzz143IYVQH1 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1290527/Airport-body-scanners-deliver-radiation-dose-20-times-higher-thought.html#ixzz143IYVQH1)

[Wild Cobra]

Are you implying that only 'libtards' fly in airplanes or that you don't even have half a brain?
No, I'm saying that only people who want the government to do things for them (liberal) and aren't smart enough to see it doesn't really stop someone with enough motivation, are for them.

[The Reckoning]

ive also had many an expert examine my package and give two-thumbs up

[Parker2112]

No, I'm saying that only people who want the government to do things for them (liberal) and aren't smart enough to see it doesn't really stop someone with enough motivation, are for them.

I dont think this reliance on govt for security is limited to liberals by any means, BUT....

You hit on something very important here, WC: Would-be terrorists will continue to reach for new ways to reach us with an attack, and we the people will continue to lose our liberties, piece by piece.

Once you grasp that, you really no longer have a choice but to raise your voice against the tyranny of big brother's protective grip.

[Wild Cobra]

ive also had many an expert examine my package and give two-thumbs up
I have never had a complaint about my package either.

[Wild Cobra]

I dont think this reliance on govt for security is limited to liberals by any means, BUT....
You're right. Most people don't take the time to really grasp the facts. However, it is normally liberals who have the cry for government intervention.


You hit on something very important here, WC: Would-be terrorists will continue to reach for new ways to reach us with an attack, and we the people will continue to lose our liberties, piece by piece.
I never agreed with the way airport security was change. This is an area I agree with you on. I think allowing the pilots to carry firearms and having locked sturdy doors to the cockpit is all we need.

Give me a break. Box cutters. How many passengers can they take out until someone subdues them? Better than using the plane as a bomb. they went way overboard with airport security.


Once you grasp that, you really no longer have a choice but to raise your voice against the tyranny of big brother's protective grip.

I have always been against unnecessary authoritarianism. You embrace it at times.

[ElNono]

No, I'm saying that only people who want the government to do things for them (liberal) and aren't smart enough to see it doesn't really stop someone with enough motivation, are for them.

Seeing the TSA was purely a GOP concoction, you assessment couldn't be more wrong. Liberals certainly embraced the bastard child, but pretending to anoint the creature to one side of the ideological aisle is indeed retarded.

I also find it quite hilarious that the crusader for national security during the dubya's years now turns around and claims to require no protection. The false sense of security predates this administration. But only now you react about it? GMAFB.

[DarkReign]

What kind of security do you think these scanners and pat downs are giving you, the people you love or the things you want to protect?

You missed the point or I didnt make it clear.

I have no intention of causing a scene at the airport because of their security measures. Do I agree with the CT scans? No. The more aggressive pat-downs? Nope.

But Parker suggested something to the effect that "What will you relinquish next?" Fuck that.

Make a scene, get arrested. Refuse to go through the scanner/pat-down, you just wasted $$$ on the tickets because you arent getting through.

Make a stand? For what? Again, too much to lose. A whole lot of sacrifice for a mediocre "problem". I'll just avoid flying, like I always do. Dont travel much, dont have to, dont want to. Nothing changes for me, personally.

[Parker2112]

A stand just means making your voice heard. what do you have to lose?

As for avoiding flying, its not about getting scanned, its about getting shoved into a corner by big govt, which you seem very comfortable with.

[ElNono]

You missed the point or I didnt make it clear.

I have no intention of causing a scene at the airport because of their security measures. Do I agree with the CT scans? No. The more aggressive pat-downs? Nope.

But Parker suggested something to the effect that "What will you relinquish next?" Fuck that.

Make a scene, get arrested. Refuse to go through the scanner/pat-down, you just wasted $$$ on the tickets because you arent getting through.

Make a stand? For what? Again, too much to lose. A whole lot of sacrifice for a mediocre "problem". I'll just avoid flying, like I always do. Dont travel much, dont have to, dont want to. Nothing changes for me, personally.

Yeah, I missed the 'fuck flying' post... nvm

[Wild Cobra]

Seeing the TSA was purely a GOP concoction, you assessment couldn't be more wrong. Liberals certainly embraced the bastard child, but pretending to anoint the creature to one side of the ideological aisle is indeed retarded.
In this case, authoritarians are involved.

I also find it quite hilarious that the crusader for national security during the dubya's years now turns around and claims to require no protection. The false sense of security predates this administration. But only now you react about it? GMAFB.
There is a big difference between actual protection and perceived protection. Some people see the difference, some don't.

[ElNono]

In this case, authoritarians are involved.

This is hilarious. So when GW was at the helm, it was ok to provide a false sense of security, but now that he's not, it's not ok. :lmao


There is a big difference between actual protection and perceived protection. Some people see the difference, some don't.

As far as the topic is concerned, they're not doing anything less than they were doing in the past. Maybe it was perceived protection from the get go and you missed that boat?

[Wild Cobra]

This is hilarious. So when GW was at the helm, it was ok to provide a false sense of security, but now that he's not, it's not ok. :lmao
I challenge you to find any post in the past of mine where I agree with the amount of increased airport security.

As far as the topic is concerned, they're not doing anything less than they were doing in the past. Maybe it was perceived protection from the get go and you missed that boat?

Bullshit. they are doing allot not done before. Some if OK, but they are clearly overstepping.

[Cry Havoc]

This is hilarious. So when GW was at the helm, it was ok to provide a false sense of security, but now that he's not, it's not ok. :lmao

Pretty much. Republican GOOD, Democrat BAD is the most extensive line of thinking for a lot of people. And the converse is true as well, it's just not as rampant and doesn't generally involve as many depictions of Hitler. :lol

[ElNono]

Bullshit. they are doing allot not done before. Some if OK, but they are clearly overstepping.

Logical fallacy. If there's currently a false sense of security, then that's the result of the system as a whole, not of just any new perks added to it.

As the OP astutely points out, it's actually counter-productive, since cramming so much people at these areas make it an ideal target.

[Wild Cobra]

Logical fallacy. If there's currently a false sense of security, then that's the result of the system as a whole, not of just any new perks added to it.

As the OP astutely points out, it's actually counter-productive, since cramming so much people at these areas make it an ideal target.
You will never have 100% security. Box cutters were as good as they could get past. The difference we needed to be concerned with was gaining flight control. The rest was necessary.

[Winehole23]

2/13/2012 update: This story has led to new legislation being introduced in the U.S. Senate. Click here for that part of the story. (http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/02/13/cbs-11-investigation-leads-to-new-tsa-legislation)

(http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/02/13/cbs-11-investigation-leads-to-new-tsa-legislation)
DALLAS (CBSDFW.COM) - Women passengers complain that TSA agents are targeting them for extra screening.


The Transportation Security Administration has a policy to randomly select people for extra screening, but some female passengers are complaining. They believe there is nothing “random” about the way they were picked.


A Dallas woman says TSA agents repeatedly asked her to step back into a body scanning machine at DFW International Airport. “I feel like I was totally exposed,” said Ellen Terrell, who is a wife and mother. “They wanted a nice good look.”


When Ellen Terrell and her husband, Charlie, flew out of DFW Airport several months ago, Terrell says she was surprised by a question a female TSA agent asked her. “She says to me, ‘Do you play tennis?’ And I said, ‘Why?’ She said, ‘You just have such a cute figure.’”


Terrell says she walked into the body scanner which creates an image that a TSA agent in another room reviews. Terrell says she tried to leave, but the female agent stopped her. “She says, ‘Wait, we didn’t get it,’” recalls Terrell, who claims the TSA agent sent her back a second time and even a third. But that wasn’t good enough.


After the third time, Terrell says even the agent seemed frustrated with her co-workers in the other room. “She’s talking into her microphone and she says, ‘Guys, it is not blurry, I’m letting her go. Come on out.’”
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/02/03/female-passengers-say-theyre-targeted-by-tsa/

[CosmicCowboy]

I got to go through the full TSA terrorist pat down a couple of weeks ago when I flew to Florida to go fishing. Fuckers. I was wearing my orthotic brace on my foot and the metal buckle dinged the metal detector. I pulled up my pants leg and showed them and offered to let them wand me and see that it was the buckle (there was a wand laying right there) OR I offered to take it off and go through again...but noooooo...got the full TSA nut and testicle massage...fuckers even swabbed my hands for explosive residue...

[Winehole23]

that's effing bullshit

[CosmicCowboy]

that's effing bullshit

Oh...the dude told me "I'll only use the BACK of my hand in your crotch area and inside your waistline"...like that makes a big fucking difference...they also stick their hands down inside your pants all the way around....

[cheguevara]

“It totally voids the concept of the 4th Amendment,” Paul said. “It doesn’t make us safe. It undermines our liberties.”
The congressman noted he voted against the Department of Homeland Security, which he called a “bureaucratic monster.” Paul said government shouldn’t be responsible for providing security for the airlines.

“It shouldn’t be government,” Paul said. “The people who protect very dangerous chemical plants, they’re private sources. … The assumption that the government has to do this is the wrong assumption.”

[boutons_deux]

“The people who protect very dangerous chemical plants"

There were years ago singled out to be extremely vulnerable terrrorist targets that the for-profit owners did fuck all about. Security is expensive, less security means more money for mgmt and stockholders.

RP lives in a ideological fantasy world.

His adoring a fake and a hack like Ayn Rand is all any serious person needs to know to write this fucker off as a deluded loser.

[boutons_deux]

“The people who protect very dangerous chemical plants"

There were years ago singled out to be extremely vulnerable terrrorist targets that the for-profit owners did fuck all about. Security is expensive, less security means more money for mgmt and stockholders.

RP lives in a ideological fantasy world.

His adoring a fake and a hack like Ayn Rand is all any serious person needs to know to write this fucker off as a deluded loser.