[quote]pat wrote:
Oh, I don’t care. I hid the heroin in a condom and shoved it up his ass, they’ll never find it there… :)[/quote]
Don’t speak too soon. Mandatory “sensitively conducted” body cavity searches at every security checkpoint are the next logical progression on the chain we’ve been following.
I’m happy to see some logical responses in this thread which is far different than what I saw in the same thread in GAL.
My post in that thread:
The problem is the federal government can only put into place strict guidelines for employees to follow instead of allowing employees to use common sense. Allowing employees to use common sense would cause for there to be too much discretion in whatever practices are followed and I’m sure would cause a quadrillion lawsuits by people who feel (justly or unjustly) they were treated wrong under the policies.
I agree, this whole thing is ridiculous but unless someone can come up with something better I don’t see a solution. Letting kids go through the airport security system unscathed isn’t the best idea, either. Regardless of explosives, it wouldn’t be hard to hide a handgun in their pants, either.
Whether you think it’s necessary or not, it’s definitely not traumatizing.
I think that, like many functions performed by American bureaucracies, it is laughably silly and yet justified on logical grounds: a child could obviously be used to smuggle a weapon on board an airplane. In fact, if you don’t check kids, the likelihood of a child being used will probably increase.
Is it REALLY necessary? Is it probably ever going to be a problem? No. But the way I see it, no harm no foul. They’re not tossing these kids around or taking them into sketchy back rooms. It’s not exactly molestation.
This fucked up world is full of traumatizing shit that happens every day, and much of it happens in the presence of children. The quota is more than met. No need to make more shit seem like trauma when it really isn’t.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
I’m happy to see some logical responses in this thread which is far different than what I saw in the same thread in GAL.
My post in that thread:
The problem is the federal government can only put into place strict guidelines for employees to follow instead of allowing employees to use common sense. Allowing employees to use common sense would cause for there to be too much discretion in whatever practices are followed and I’m sure would cause a quadrillion lawsuits by people who feel (justly or unjustly) they were treated wrong under the policies.
I agree, this whole thing is ridiculous but unless someone can come up with something better I don’t see a solution. Letting kids go through the airport security system unscathed isn’t the best idea, either. Regardless of explosives, it wouldn’t be hard to hide a handgun in their pants, either.[/quote]
Thank God nobody ever thought of a better way to handle these matters.
I guess asking the Israelis how to handle these things would be out of the question?
Jewbacca actually had a really good post about this a while back. I wish I could remember what thread it was in, though.
What the fuck happened to the 4th amendment?
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
What the fuck happened to the 4th amendment?[/quote]
You’re submitting to the search voluntarily; it’s a condition of flying. You don’t have an inalienable “right” to fly.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
http://news.travel.aol.com/2011/04/13/tsa-gives-pat-down-to-six-year-old-girl-in-new-orleans/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl12|sec1_lnk3|55728
Discuss.
I have mixed emotions. On the one hand, I think it’s excessive. On the other, as the father of a 5-year old, I’m having a hard time getting worked up over it and feel like the parents just want to get attention and that their reaction might have been the reason for the girl to cry later. Forgetting for a moment the necessity of the pat down, the agent conducted it with sensitivity and the child was clearly not traumatized - I think listening to her parent’s comments and reactions traumatized the child. [/quote]
You have ‘mixed emotions’? You have a ‘hard time getting worked up over it’? Perhaps if we had racial profiling(based on trend analysis i.e. which group of people are most likely to try to blow up our commercial airliners and crash them into buildings) we wouldn’t have this problem. But liberals would prefer that old ladies from Florida and six-year-old girls go through the same security checks as Muhammad al-Loonie from Saudi Arabia.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
http://news.travel.aol.com/2011/04/13/tsa-gives-pat-down-to-six-year-old-girl-in-new-orleans/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl12|sec1_lnk3|55728
Discuss.
I have mixed emotions. On the one hand, I think it’s excessive. On the other, as the father of a 5-year old, I’m having a hard time getting worked up over it and feel like the parents just want to get attention and that their reaction might have been the reason for the girl to cry later. Forgetting for a moment the necessity of the pat down, the agent conducted it with sensitivity and the child was clearly not traumatized - I think listening to her parent’s comments and reactions traumatized the child. [/quote]
You have ‘mixed emotions’? You have a ‘hard time getting worked up over it’? Perhaps if we had racial profiling(based on trend analysis i.e. which group of people are most likely to try to blow up our commercial airliners and crash them into buildings) we wouldn’t have this problem. But liberals would prefer that old ladies from Florida and six-year-old girls go through the same security checks as Muhammad al-Loonie from Saudi Arabia.[/quote]
If you read my continued posts, and my original post (in context), you would understand that I support profiling and, that the context of my post was such that I was not troubled by the manner in which the search was conducted and, that I did not think it was “traumatizing” whatsoever but for the reaction of the parents. Are we clear?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
http://news.travel.aol.com/2011/04/13/tsa-gives-pat-down-to-six-year-old-girl-in-new-orleans/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl12|sec1_lnk3|55728
Discuss.
I have mixed emotions. On the one hand, I think it’s excessive. On the other, as the father of a 5-year old, I’m having a hard time getting worked up over it and feel like the parents just want to get attention and that their reaction might have been the reason for the girl to cry later. Forgetting for a moment the necessity of the pat down, the agent conducted it with sensitivity and the child was clearly not traumatized - I think listening to her parent’s comments and reactions traumatized the child. [/quote]
You have ‘mixed emotions’? You have a ‘hard time getting worked up over it’? Perhaps if we had racial profiling(based on trend analysis i.e. which group of people are most likely to try to blow up our commercial airliners and crash them into buildings) we wouldn’t have this problem. But liberals would prefer that old ladies from Florida and six-year-old girls go through the same security checks as Muhammad al-Loonie from Saudi Arabia.[/quote]
If you read my continued posts, and my original post (in context), you would understand that I support profiling and, that the context of my post was such that I was not troubled by the manner in which the search was conducted and, that I did not think it was “traumatizing” whatsoever but for the reaction of the parents. Are we clear?[/quote]
No, not clear. You mention that you are in favour of ‘profiling’ but also claim ‘given that planes are not dropping from the skies and that we are not finding potential terrorists left and right, that maybe they are doing a decent job.’
You mention that you think the pat down was ‘excessive’ then go on to suggest it wasn’t in the same paragraph. Perhaps the fact that we ‘aren’t finding potential terrorists left and right’ is an indication that we are doing a BAD job and should stop patting down 6 year olds and grandmothers. No need for hostility BTW. I just don’t agree with you.
I think this situation and the stink the parents are making is a good way of letting would be terrorist and smugglers know that everybody is being searched, even children.
The lady doing the search was nice, I saw nothing wrong. I could not play the second clip in the article though, it wont stream outside US.
We can’t really know how many smugglers and terrorist are being deterred because they will be searched. I work in security and I’ve seen many contracts get cancelled because the client thinks they don’t need security because nothing happens anymore lol.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
What the fuck happened to the 4th amendment?[/quote]
You’re submitting to the search voluntarily; it’s a condition of flying. You don’t have an inalienable “right” to fly.[/quote]
I dont think “inalienable” means what you think it means.
It’s complete bullshit, and the TSA is nothing but theater that apparently most of the herd is buying into.
I travel, extensively, internationally. Only in the US does this kind of excessive, unessecary, and fruitless type of crap occur. Ex: Europe. No one feels you up, or even makes you remove your shoes outside of the UK. Are their planes falling out of the sky? Nope.
I stopped flying domestically years ago. When I fly overseas, I drive to across the border and then fly. But hey, you guys keep playing bitch to a bunch of high school dropouts.
Would suck to be one of your kids.
[quote]Lowe-1 wrote:
It’s complete bullshit, and the TSA is nothing but theater that apparently most of the herd is buying into.
I travel, extensively, internationally. Only in the US does this kind of excessive, unessecary, and fruitless type of crap occur. Ex: Europe. No one feels you up, or even makes you remove your shoes outside of the UK. Are their planes falling out of the sky? Nope.
I stopped flying domestically years ago. When I fly overseas, I drive to across the border and then fly. But hey, you guys keep playing bitch to a bunch of high school dropouts.
Would suck to be one of your kids.[/quote]
Yup. See my earlier posts. 100% agreement here.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
http://news.travel.aol.com/2011/04/13/tsa-gives-pat-down-to-six-year-old-girl-in-new-orleans/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl12|sec1_lnk3|55728
Discuss.
I have mixed emotions. On the one hand, I think it’s excessive. On the other, as the father of a 5-year old, I’m having a hard time getting worked up over it and feel like the parents just want to get attention and that their reaction might have been the reason for the girl to cry later. Forgetting for a moment the necessity of the pat down, the agent conducted it with sensitivity and the child was clearly not traumatized - I think listening to her parent’s comments and reactions traumatized the child. [/quote]
You have ‘mixed emotions’? You have a ‘hard time getting worked up over it’? Perhaps if we had racial profiling(based on trend analysis i.e. which group of people are most likely to try to blow up our commercial airliners and crash them into buildings) we wouldn’t have this problem. But liberals would prefer that old ladies from Florida and six-year-old girls go through the same security checks as Muhammad al-Loonie from Saudi Arabia.[/quote]
If you read my continued posts, and my original post (in context), you would understand that I support profiling and, that the context of my post was such that I was not troubled by the manner in which the search was conducted and, that I did not think it was “traumatizing” whatsoever but for the reaction of the parents. Are we clear?[/quote]
No, not clear. You mention that you are in favour of ‘profiling’ but also claim ‘given that planes are not dropping from the skies and that we are not finding potential terrorists left and right, that maybe they are doing a decent job.’
You mention that you think the pat down was ‘excessive’ then go on to suggest it wasn’t in the same paragraph. Perhaps the fact that we ‘aren’t finding potential terrorists left and right’ is an indication that we are doing a BAD job and should stop patting down 6 year olds and grandmothers. No need for hostility BTW. I just don’t agree with you.[/quote]
Well then stop cherry picking things out of context and building a strawman out of it. No hostility here. I just don’t agree with your representation of my opinion.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Perhaps the fact that we ‘aren’t finding potential terrorists left and right’ is an indication that we are doing a BAD job and should stop patting down 6 year olds and grandmothers. [/quote]
And if the above were true, planes would be falling from the sky left and right. Since they are not, we can assume that those terrorists do not exist (but of course they do), or that the collective security efforts have thwarted them.
[quote]Lowe-1 wrote:
It’s complete bullshit, and the TSA is nothing but theater that apparently most of the herd is buying into.
I travel, extensively, internationally. Only in the US does this kind of excessive, unessecary, and fruitless type of crap occur. Ex: Europe. No one feels you up, or even makes you remove your shoes outside of the UK. Are their planes falling out of the sky? Nope.
I stopped flying domestically years ago. When I fly overseas, I drive to across the border and then fly. But hey, you guys keep playing bitch to a bunch of high school dropouts.
Would suck to be one of your kids.[/quote]
I’d like some clarification here.
Does any other country present the terrorist target that the United States does? If so, I’m willing to wager that they infringe upon your rights as a traveler in different ways that would be a culture shock to Americans and likely against our present laws.
How is anyone here a bitch to a bunch of high school drop outs? If I’m flying NJ to TX, what exactly is my alternative? And do you suggest I drive from NJ to Mexico just to avoid the TSA? That’s fucking irrational. Or should I make the trek to Canada?
Why would it suck to be one of my kids? Should I jump up and down in histrionics and cause panic to my child? Or explain what is occurring so we can be on our fucking way? Perhaps we should just not travel? Or maybe I should rant and rave to a 5 year old about the inefficiencies of the TSA?
I’d like to hear your view point on the above.
We all agree that their apparent inability or unwillingness to profile is troubling and irrational, but that’s a reflection of our PC society. No one here agrees with it that has posted an opinion.
I’m not sure what your response will be, but I’ll offer it would suck to be a kid whose parent felt he had to drive 2000 miles to the Mexican or Canandian borders to take a flight in order to avoid the inconvenience - yes, INCONVENIENCE of the local TSA. It would also suck to the be the 5 year old who is unaware of any apparent harm being alarmed by his father or mother’s histrionics in response to a gentle pat down. In fact, I’d hate to be the child of parent’s that were always shaking their inappropriate fist at “city hall”. There are constructive means to handle something, and then there is just a bunch of ranting, raving and fist shaking.
[quote]Lowe-1 wrote:
It’s complete bullshit, and the TSA is nothing but theater that apparently most of the herd is buying into.
I travel, extensively, internationally. Only in the US does this kind of excessive, unessecary, and fruitless type of crap occur. Ex: Europe. No one feels you up, or even makes you remove your shoes outside of the UK. Are their planes falling out of the sky? Nope.
I stopped flying domestically years ago. When I fly overseas, I drive to across the border and then fly. But hey, you guys keep playing bitch to a bunch of high school dropouts.
Would suck to be one of your kids.[/quote]
In further reply, here are the security procedures for Ben Gurion International Airport, considered one of the most secure airports in the world. It should be noted, that BGI handles about 12 million passengers a year. Contrast that to Philadelphia, which handles about 30 million passengers per year which does not even rank it top 30 in the US, with Atlanta moving in the area of 90 million passengers per year.
So, security measures need be sensitive to air traffic and passenger volume to keep air travel moving in some fashion. What you an do with 12 million passengers per year, you cannot do with 90 million.
But here is a summary of their procedures from WIKI:
Security procedures
Ben Gurion International Airport is one of the world’s most secured airports.[39] Security operates on several levels.[40]
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.[41] 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 a minute, 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. Occasionally, if security have assessed a person as a low risk, they will pass them straight through to the check-in desks, bypassing the main x-ray machines.
Until August 2007 there was a system of color codes on checked luggage but the practice was discontinued after complaints of discrimination.[42]
[edit] Baggage screening
Luggage carousel at BG airport
The IAA is planning a major upgrade of checked baggage screening process in late 2011 whereby the screening of checked baggage will be performed “behind the scenes” after passenger baggage has been checked in (as is the practice in most airports). To that end, the IAA selected French company Safran to supply the most advanced x-ray/CT scanning machines currently available. The fully automatic system, together with an upgrade of the baggage handling system will cost NIS 375 million (appx. US$105 million) and will be fully installed by 2014.[29] The current pre-check in baggage screening processes is at times a source of complaints from travelers, particularly foreigners and minorities who are often subjected to more stringent screenings; the envisioned process aims to make the check-in process quicker and more passenger-friendly as well as more secure since 100% of checked baggage will undergo screening, including baggage from passengers deemed to be low-risk who are currently sometimes allowed to proceed to check in without having their baggage x-rayed.
After check-in, checked baggage is put in a pressure chamber to trigger any possible explosive devices. Passengers continue through to personal security and passport control, as in other airports. Before passing through the metal detectors and placing carry-on baggage through the X-ray machine at the security checkpoint, passports and boarding passes are re-inspected and additional questions may be asked. Before boarding the aircraft, passports and boarding passes are verified once again. Security procedures for incoming flights are not as stringent, but passengers may be questioned by passport control depending on country of origin, or countries visited prior to arrival in Israel. Passengers who have recently visited countries at war with Israel (all Arab countries except Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Mauritania and Qatar) may be subject to further questioning.[43]
In summary, we basically have the following:
An initial vehicle check point / screening similar to that of crossing the Mexican border. I don’t see any problems there, other than requisite earlier arrival times to make a flight. It describes “looking into cars” and I’m not sure what their search thresholds are, but be assured they are less than the standards in place in the US against unreasonable search and seizure. I’m pretty sure they go just go in your shit should they choose. In the US, they cannot. Until that law changed, or was amended for airport property, one could argue that the foregoing procedure is window dressing or “theater” as you call it, because no terrorist is going to leave the tools of terrorism in open view.
Armed security personnel at terminal entrances. Apparently, they do more proactive engagement with passengers and even profile. We have guards at the terminal entrances too. I haven’t flown in a few years but I don’t believe they engage you. I think such informal engagement leading to a more formal interview if necessary is a good idea. However, it smacks of profiling and you’re going to have to change some US laws and that has nothing to do with the dreaded TSA. In addition, it’s going to further delay making a flight in an airport system that is much busier than BGI.
Hidden and obvious surveillance cameras. I’m sure we have both.
Additional screening in the way of interviews at before you reach check-in. Again, undoubtedly profiling occurs in this process and it would further delay making a flight. Does it make sense? Yes. Would the American public tolerate it? Unknown. Could our busy airports still function efficiently? Unknown. But again, there need be a element of profiling to make it work and we’d have to change some laws. Therefore, it’s not a TSA issue, it’s an American law issue.
LUGGAGE AND BODY SEARCHES MAY BE CONDUCTED. Hmm, it seems we’re right back to a dreaded “pat down” but I’m suspect a body search there could be quite different than what is customary here.
What follows is additional screening points (further delay - great for 12m passengers a year, but does it work for 90m?) and some complaints and potentially easing some restrictions (further profiling).
The point to illustrate all the above is that other countries apparently are quite comfortable with profiling. I clearly stated I was in favor of it. I echoed the sentiment that “profiling is policing”. However, US law does not permit it.
Now the other point is can such security measures like those at GBI be implemented in airports that handled 30 to 90 million passengers a year? Contact when driving, contact when entering, contact on the way to the terminal, contact upon entrance to the terminal, contact at check, contact prior to boarding. It’s a GREAT system and apparently it works, but can it work with our volume and can it be applied (as it is there) within our laws? Also, and here’s the big thing, they do conduct body searches. So for all those that recoiled in horror at the simple and gentle pat down given this young girl, are you prepare to trade that for potential body searches?
It’s pretty easy to bitch about our current system (I’m not a fan). However, the fixes would require a change in US law to allow profiling, a change to our search and seizure laws (at least on airport property), and a change in the way we travel because our airports handle far more volume and air traffic. Far more. International travel is often for pleasure (vacationers) and if you delay them big deal. Domestic travel if often for business too and it’s heavily predicated upon being able to reach a destination in a time efficient and cost effective manner.
My point is not to support the current procedures or even the TSA, but to illustrate some of the differences and hurdles we face here in America.
1)Does any other nation present a security target (sic)… Yes. Many as a matter of fact. Their response isn’t the panicky faggots approach the US is taking though.
2)All your other “stuff” can be summed up in this… If you are willing to swap liberties for security, well…you know what the man said about that. Nevermind all of this shit is playing right into the terrorists hands. Every fucking move we’ve made since 9/11 has been EXACTLY the goal they hoped to achieve that day. Instill fear, paranoia and overreaction into the populace. Classic, textbook case.
And fwiw…I’m not just some dude pontificating about shit I have no clue about. That’s all I’m going to say about that.
[quote]Lowe-1 wrote:
1)Does any other nation present a security target (sic)… Yes. Many as a matter of fact. Their response isn’t the panicky faggots approach the US is taking though.
2)All your other “stuff” can be summed up in this… If you are willing to swap liberties for security, well…you know what the man said about that. Nevermind all of this shit is playing right into the terrorists hands. Every fucking move we’ve made since 9/11 has been EXACTLY the goal they hoped to achieve that day. Instill fear, paranoia and overreaction into the populace. Classic, textbook case.
And fwiw…I’m not just some dude pontificating about shit I have no clue about. That’s all I’m going to say about that.[/quote]
So you agree it’s an issue of swapping liberty for security?