http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/15/california.airport.security/index.html
TSA: Despite objections, all passengers must be screened
By the CNN Wire StaffNovember 15, 2010 5:55 p.m. EST
Los Angeles, California (CNN) -- In response to a video of a California man's dispute with airport security officials, the Transportation Security Administration said Monday it tries to be sensitive to individuals, but everyone getting on a flight must be screened.
Terrorists Win Big...with the help of liberals
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by carpro, Nov 16, 2010.
Page 1 of 2
-
-
Profiling would be much less expensive and far less intrusive, but , NOoooooo, we can't do that one.
Thank you libbies. Look what it got you. Full body scanners.
Looks like it's time to say shutup and scan.:tongue3: -
People who do not like full body scan; nor want to have invasive pat searches
Are welcome to WALK. -
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
Security in the nation's airports should be privatized. Federal employess are invariably jerks.
-
-
-
I just read an article where they are now sticking thier hands down people's pants. It's getting too crazy. I'm glad I don't fly. Otherwise, I too, may be yelling, "Don't touch my stuff (literally)."
-
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
OK. 99% of the federal employees I have personally dealt with, especially inspectors & auditors, and East-Coast permit vendors, and T.S.A. agents outside of the Northwest, are incompetent, attitude ridden, power hungry, lazy boobs. Jerks. Invariably. Every federal inspector I have met out here is completely out to stick it to us small businesses, and giving breaks to the major hotels. Don't tell me it doesn't happen. Right now we witness the most corrupt and detatched administration we have ever seen. It cannot help but trickle down to the line employees.
We do not need a nationalized transportation system. Airports would be safer & more efficient turned over to people who knew what they were doing, and were actually motivated to make a profit.
When I was in the military, I did not consider myself an employee. Did you feel like one when you served ? Do you feel like I called you a jerk ? -
Without publicly stating my position on the scanners and pat downs...
What is the proposed alternative to locating explosives and other dangerous items on terrorist individuals attempting to board a flight with the intent of doing harm? -
-
One tenquie they use is racial profiling. Oh my goodness -but....
Wikipedia goes into more detail on security -
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
I would trust the private entrepenuer over the feds any day. Give it to the scientists & investors to figure it out, not the criminal feds. -
-
How about the sniffer device that's being used at several airports? (I've experienced this one) It apparently has a decent reputation, and doesn't incur any of the privacy issues that the full body scanner or pat-down do. -
For those that say "if you don't want to get irradiated or patted down, then walk" -- what about those that live in, say, Hawaii? You want them to swim? Or would you like to suggest a realistic alternative?
-
-
>What is the proposed alternative to locating explosives and other dangerous items on terrorist individuals attempting to board a flight with the intent of doing harm?
Nudist flights. -
I guess the question is: Just how much is anyone willing to give up for the illusion of safety?
Reason I ask this, in this particular way: Didn't everyone catch the story a week or two ago about the printers that had explosives in them? If not, please do a quick internet search and get educated. Then, and for those that already do remember, here's the main point: Those printers weren't carried onto the plane by passengers, and therefore would not have been caught by a full body scanner or intrusive pat-down.
The terrorists have moved on to other ingenious ways to introduce explosives onto airplanes -- so the full body scanners & intrusive pat-downs have already been defeated. -
-
"All cars, taxis, buses and trucks go through a preliminary security checkpoint before entering the airport compound. Armed guards spot-check the vehicles by looking into cars, taxis and boarding buses, exchanging a few words with the driver and passengers. Armed security personnel stationed at the terminal entrances keep a close watch on those who enter the buildings. If someone arouses their suspicion or looks nervous, they may strike up a conversation to further assess the person's intent. Plainclothes armed personnel patrol the area outside the building, and hidden surveillance cameras operate at all times.[36]Inside the building, both uniformed and plainclothes security officers are on constant patrol. Departing passengers are personally questioned by security agents even before arriving at the check-in desk. This interview can last as little as five minutes, or as long as an hour if a passenger is selected for additional screening. Luggage and body searches may be conducted. After the search, bags are placed through an X-ray machine before passengers proceed to the check-in counters"
Would this be accepted as an alternative?
Would people be willing to have their car stopped when they are just going to the airport to pick up an incoming traveler? I doubt it.
Would travelers be willing to put up with an interview for five minutes to an hour at check in? I doubt it.
Would people be willing to accept the presence of armed guards - most likely with automatic weapons - at every enterance and through out the airport - both inside and out? I doubt it.
Notice that body searches are also a procedure that is used.
Are there any other alternatives to the above and the objectionable scanners and pat downs?
Page 1 of 2