Reply With Quote
Touché
Sure, it's not legally improper when the law itself is improper.
These TSA s have a twisted sense of humor. Love to be a fly on the wall in their break room and see what stories they have and who tries to outdo who of ing with people.
Touché
so you think that one of the TSA s actually wanted to search a 95 year old lady's bladder control undergarments just to have a hilarious story in the break room?
Exactly. They're damned if they do, damned if they don't. The public will be in an uproar over any security as tight as this. I'd rather it be about searching grandma than about searching the wreckage of a downed airliner.
"damned if they don't"
who's going to damn them if they don't radiate/sexually fondle kids and old people?
Who's gonna damn them if the quit treating EVERY ING Human-American as guilty until radiated/sexually fondled as innocent?
Police state policies and actions are never rolled back, only ratcheted up and oward.
While OBL laughs, and laughs, and laughs, and laughs, and laughs, and laughs,.....
And Imperial UCA keeps busting into, blowing up, and occupying Muslim/oil countries.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-28-2011 at 11:43 AM.
There was a guy that parked a car in Times Square in broad daylight ready to blow and only his inep ude is what prevented a catastrophe. Are you really getting the security that you think you're getting for what you're giving up?
Yes, I remember it well.
The Times Square bomber fit a particular profile.
The left can't seem to figure out what that profile is.
Someone who hates Obamacare? Mr. Bloomberg elaborates:
So it's Obama causing people to become mass murderers?
NOT inflammatory lies from Fox Repug Propaganda network and the VRWC right-wing hate media and stink tanks?
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-deroy-murdock
Time to Profile Terrorists
America must focus its finite capabilities on those who crave the destruction of planes.
As Americans fly this Thanksgiving holiday, critics of new security measures are arriving at airports in kilts. Subsequent pat downs will be enhanced, indeed.
Pre-flight screening has moved from safety to comedy. Before it devolves into tragedy, officials should start profiling terrorists.
After al-Qaeda’s attempted bombing of FedEx and UPS cargo jets, any package from, say, Somalia to a San Francisco synagogue likely will get close scrutiny. This is profiling.
Now, obviously, packages are not people. Boxes have neither civil rights nor emotions. People do, and we always must be aware of and sensitive to that.
However, America must focus its finite capabilities on those who crave the destruction of planes and the people who ride them.
What would that profile be? Today’s threat comes almost exclusively from militant-Islamic males between about 18 and 35 who hail from the Middle East and predominantly Muslim African and south-Asian nations. This profile was not drawn by anti-Muslim bigots, nervous Jews, or paranoid Southern Baptists. The terrorists themselves created this profile. Aviation has obsessed them for years.
“Bring down their airplanes,” demanded Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, who inspired the 1993 World Trade Center attack. “Slaughter them on land, sea, and air.”
“Any time you hit Kennedy, it is the most hurtful thing to the United States,” said Russell Defreitas, a Muslim who targeted fuel tanks at New York’s JFK International Airport. “To hit John F. Kennedy, wow,” he said on surveillances tapes. “They love John F. Kennedy like he’s the man. . . . If you hit that, this whole country will be in mourning. You can kill the man twice.”
Those who plot rather than prevent jet explosions usually meet this profile. The September 11 hijackers fit it perfectly. So did Ramzi bin al-Shibh, who was arrested while conspiring to crash airliners into London’s Heathrow Airport. The airborne Christmas Day crotch bomber was a young Nigerian male, and the so-called Shoe Bomber was a young, male Muslim convert.
Had security personnel at Newark, Dulles, or Boston Logan airports profiled terrorists, they might have stopped the 9/11 hijackers. If so, al-Qaeda’s 2,980 victims would be alive today, bellies full from their Thanksgiving feasts.
So, should anyone named Mustafa be waterboarded beside the first-class lounge? No. However, if he is between about 18 and 35 and from the Middle East or a predominantly Muslim country, it might be wise to ask him a few extra questions, carefully peruse his papers, and perhaps inspect him and his possessions.
Terrorist profiling recalls police deployment of limited resources. If the NYPD sought a Mafia hit man who was about to whack somebody, it most likely would not hunt him in Harlem. If the LAPD wanted an especially brutal Crip, Malibu might not be the first place to track him.
While officials need to respect the rights of innocents who fit this profile, passengers also have an overarching right to land at their destinations intact.
At best, avoiding terrorist profiling wastes scarce resources by subjecting everyone to the same time-consuming, often humiliating searches that have ignited public rage. The Transportation Safety Administration is intent on checking the prosthetic bosoms of American women who have endured breast cancer and mastectomies — as recently befell Cathy Bossy, a 32-year veteran airline employee.
Or consider the case of a Michigander named Tom Sawyer. (Really.) The 61-year-old bladder-cancer survivor collects his urine in an external plastic bag called a urostomy. Before a November 7 flight, an airport screener ignored Sawyer’s pleas for caution and ham-handedly frisked him. Predictably, the TSA agent popped the urostomy. So, Tom Sawyer flew to Orlando bathed in his own urine.
At worst, TSA officers might encounter a bomb-wielding passenger who matches the terrorist profile, but then breeze him through security so he doesn’t feel uncomfortable. The result could be the sky-high calamity that Americans have feared since September 11.
At a Monday night Intelligence Squared debate on this topic at New York University, one of my interlocutors was Debra Burlingame, sister of Charles Burlingame, the pilot of American Airlines Flight 77, which al-Qaeda smashed into the Pentagon. She cited her conversation with an American Airlines customer-service agent who worked on September 11. He checked in Nawaf and Salem al-Hazmi, two of those who hijacked that Boeing 757. While American’s seasoned employee found these two su ious, Burlingame says he told her he did not flag them for further scrutiny “because I didn’t want my colleague to think that I was a racist and a bigot.”
Such political correctness eventually will kill innocent civilians. It’s past time to employ terrorist profiling to shield Americans from those who want to murder us.
God, you're a dumbass.
What's your point? You don't think profiling goes on right now?
What do you think all those guys trained for behavior detection do?
Did McVeigh or the Unabomber fit that profile? Would their attacks not be considerer terror these days?
A kindergartner with a toy gun at school is considered a terrorist.
Everybody's guilty until the police as jury decides you're innocent.
FBI doesn't need warrant, or any reason, now to snoop any citizen, and it's done without any oversight.
Remember when "warrantless wiretapping" was a outrage, a violation? Now it's an everyday occurrence.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-28-2011 at 02:32 PM.
And neither one is a 95 year old woman or a toddler .
that's not the point.
the point has to do with race/ethnicity.
I think you know that.
lol.
I can guarantee this, if were ever to be shown that an elderly person or child was responsible for bringing a device onboard an airliner which caused it go down, you'd be the first in line to complain about how the TSA wasn't thorough enough in their methodologies. Either way, they can do no right in your eyes.
btw, who got sexually fondled?
No one's obligating you to get on a plane. If the price of admission is too steep, go catch another show.
What exactly am I giving up? You're talking to someone who's lived outside the US for extended periods of time so our experiences will obviously lead us to different responses here.
It's a multivariate problem which depends on our individual perceptions. It goes without saying that there's no correct answer for the question posed.
To answer for myself: Yes.
I travel by air quite a bit. I can't say as I am 100% in love with what I see but I do think the TSA is doing an ok job. It will never be perfect, so at the end of the day you're left with playing the game or walking away.
I'm not familiar with the background story on the Times-Square bomber. I'm assuming that law enforcement seriously screwed the pooch on that one?
If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Exposed do ents reveal Napolitano, TSA lied about safety of cancer-causing naked body scanners
Worse, NIST had actually warned DHS and TSA that the machines were not necessarily safe, and that airport screening agents should avoid standing next to them because of the harmful radiation they emit. It is unclear whether or not this warning was ever taken seriously by TSA officials.
Napolitano also falsely claimed that research conducted by the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory confirms the safety of naked body scanners, even though the research actually suggests the opposite. Dr. Michael Love from the school publicly stated that the machines are going to give people skin cancer, and the specific findings of the report indicate that "radiation zones" around the machines emit enough radiation to exceed the "General Public Dose Limit."
http://www.naturalnews.com/z032839_b...nners_TSA.html
Yes Boutons, the same danger exists if I put you next to any X-ray modality for extended periods regardless of where it's located.
The TSA needs to establish safe zones for their employees. That should actually be the first order of business when commissioning the machine.
Apparently they're not even providing densitometers that the employees requested to measure the radiation. I'm somewhat concerned about this. I rarely travel as much these days, but these employees do have to be there all day. It would be nice to get some assurances that this wasn't something rushed in and "to be checked later".
is the "modality" the same as "repeated/continuous exposure" ?
I'm very concerned, and I fully agree. Every employee should have the designation of "radiation worker" which necessitates the issue of a personal dosimeter. If that's not the case, this is an example of gross negligence on the governments part. I think I'll investigate that point further. I'm heading to Vancouver later this month for the annual AAPM meeting. I'll have the opportunity to bounce some ideas/questions off of the physicists who work with TSA.
Yes.
As stated in my example, if I placed you next to an X-ray producing device for an extended period of time you would share the same risks. In that case you would be subjected to repeated exposures.
The underlying physical interactions involved in backscatter imaging don't necessitate a marked departure from the techniques used in the hospital diagnostic setting.
Last edited by Agloco; 06-28-2011 at 05:05 PM.
Interesting stuff on this previous post you might have missed.
Good stuff. I'll take a closer look at it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
