long ass read :p. so look at the link. guys account of him saying no to the tsa. or watch the vids
http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010...ly-between.html
The TSA should be disbanded.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/the-things-he-carried/7057/
Read the whole thing and they are both in the wrong. Give me a break with his crap abt "what your doing is sexual harrassment" and "the government took my rights away after September 11th." People like this make me so angry its ridiculous. Just walk through the xray or submit to the damn pat down.
However, once his ticket was refunded the nonsense the TSA pulled is also nonsense. They should have just let him leave without trying to exercise futher authority.
Up until that point they were in the right.
TSA is more like show security to fool the dumb ass masses, pretty useless as a organazation and a huge waste of money.
TSA is more like show security to fool the dumb ass masses, pretty useless as a organazation and a huge waste of money.
100000% accurate.
Boygabriel wrote:
TSA is more like show security to fool the dumb ass masses, pretty useless as a organazation and a huge waste of money.
100000% accurate.
I like to think of it as sort of like the WPA: It is the same in the it employs lots of people, it is different in that doesn't build anything.
Right, it's a waste of money that achieves nothing for our country.
I hate people like this who disrespect security. People need to realize that 9/11 was carried out with boxcutters, which could easily be stashed under one's "junk." All people need to be screened in order to fly, bottom line, no matter if it's the traditional method or the other one.
Complaining about rights being taken away is asinine, as is saying he'll have the security officer arrested. What is more important, the right not to be "molested" or the right not to fly on a secure flight?
Actually, the right not to be molested is just as important as the right to fly (or not to fly) on a secure flight.
The path on which we are traveling leads to a complete loss of personal privacy at the hands of an all-powerful government... as in Orwell's 1984.
Today the government can confiscate your laptop and read its contents when you enter the country; tomorrow, if this continues, TSA will break down the doors of your home and cart away your computers, all without any probable cause to suspect terrorism or disloyalty... they'll say that random searches are necessary to prevent terrorists from researching and planning bombings.
Soon the TSA, ever anxious to increase its scope, will monitor your emails, texts, and phone calls. God help you if you write or say "bomb" (e.g. "that comedian really bombed last night"), "fuse" (e.g. "my wife has a really short fuse") or any other term which the TSA, in its idiocy, deems unsafe.
There are lots and lots of excuses for taking away our liberties... and relatively few people worrying about protecting them.
Beware complacency!
Putting Orwellian fears aside for the moment, at a minimum the TSA will destroy what is left of the air travel industry.
So you'd rather get on a plane without any security in place at all? 9/11 was less than ten years ago. What would happen if another attack occurred? Would you blame the government for not stopping it? Or would you be just fine with it because your liberties remained intact?
Read this article before you claim that current airport security makes us any safer.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/the-things-he-carried/7057/
Airport security could be important, and the TSA could use their money effeciently.
But they don't.
Quick drug store analogy:
One should hire security guards and implement protection methods only to the degree that they prevent likely theft.
In other words, make your drug store secure enough that most shop lifters go somewhere else, but realize that you will always be vulnerable to the theiving professionals. There will always be crime.
Likewise, there will always be people who try to blow up airplanes and they will find a way to do it. Try to reduce the risk of the average idiot doing it, but accept the risk of the dedicated suicide bomber.
Air travel remains very safe. ....but, yes, some people like to see things "go boom", and they will always be with us.
....others will choose means of travel far riskier than flying: like driving a car, or riding a motorcycle. These activites (like all activites) are filled with risk.
For now, the train may be safest and best. The TSA hasn't destroyed it yet. However, it isn't very quick. Let people live their lives.
....but I'm not mean: I don't want the TSA people to be unemployed. If we are going to create make-work programs, we should have them work in the parks, or something.
Keep Fear Alive!
Rather than depending primarily on unskilled TSA employees and potentially unsafe high technology detectors at airports, we should increase the number of highly trained and experienced air marshals to ride the planes.
Return to the old fashioned metal detectors. Let us wear our shoes.
Put overhead mirrors on all planes, similar to those in clothing stores, so that the marshals can see suspicious behaviors by passengers ahead of them.
Let the marshals carry both tasers and .22 pistols.
invest part of what the government what is presently spending on the TSA in high speed trains.
....so we could have infrastructure similar to the rest of the world.
Spend more money on Arabic translators in CIA field offices and less on sexy x-ray machines
Sources say Negrin stepped into the machine during the training session and became embarrassed and angry when a supervisor started cracking jokes about his manhood, made visible by the new machine.
According to the police report, Negron confronted one of his co-workers in an employee parking lot, where he hit him with a police baton on the arm and back.
"[Negron] then told victim to kneel down and say 'your sorry,'" the report reads. "Victim stated he was in fear and complied with [Negron]."
Negron was arrested the next day when he arrived for work. He told police he had been made fun of by coworkers on a daily basis.
"[Negron] stated he could not take the jokes anymore and lost his mind," the report reads.
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/TSA-Fracas-After-Body-Scanner-Reveals-TMI-92971929.html
Some people don't think before they post on here and it amazes me. The TSA didn't wake up one morning and say, "You know what, lets touch some people's junk before they get on the plane, you know bc we have nothing better to do."
A man got a bomb on a plane by putting it in his underwear. And the bomb ignited! Are we missing that fact? If not for shoddy work, it would have exploded and killed everyone on the plane.
You people need to get over yourselves and your issues with body image and dick size and whatever else is causing you to hide behind "the right to privacy." You seem to forget that the laws of this country contain the word "unreasonable."
Searching people in all areas and putting them through full body scanners is pretty reasonable considering the current events.
It's not a slippery slope, that argument has no merit. If you don't like the policies, don't fly! Boarding an airplane is not an inalienable right.
Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness....and the right to do whatever the hell you want and wine about it if it isn't perfect? I missed that clause.
Couldn't agree more with the above reply. There are actual reasons behind these policies - very serious and valid reasons for everything the TSA does.
I love how the supposed "slippery slope" we're on leads to something that only exists in a fictional novel (see comment above about George Orwell's 1984). Also find it ironic that people complain about losing freedom due to five minutes of inconvenience as they are about to board aircraft bound for destinations of their choice. How dare the government want them to arrive safely? Such nerve!
People like to say we should do what Israel does too - much tighter, interview every passenger, profile, etc. This would never work in the US. People would be up in arms the second they get detained for more than a few minutes. The difference between the 2 countries is that Israel experiences disaster on a much more regular basis, whereas it's been 9 years since 9/11. People can't handle five minute delay here, so 9/11 seems like a lifetime ago. Security hold Americans back from posting their TSA videos online and standing up for their rights to be on less secure planes!
You guys are arguing from a false premise, which is that the TSA's methods are actually the most effective way to prevent terrorism on planes. They are not. Nor are they cost effective in any way whatsoever. Billions of tax dollars are being misspent. Billions.
You can still get liquids on the plane. If you wanted to get an underwear bomb on the plane, it wouldn't be that hard.
As various TSA observers have said, the best defense is stopping terrorists before they get to the airport. Any terrorist with half a brain can get by the current TSA screening methods.
A terrorist doesn't even need to get on the plane. They could just blow up a bomb in the security line and it would have achieve the same ends.
Read the Atlantic article if you don't believe what a joke the TSA is.
The TSA COULD be effective. It COULD be a good use of money if it did things differently.
But it doesn't.
Thanks for bringing that up.
Israel flies only a few flights per day in and out of the country so they have the time and the personal to have extensive checks on everyone.
Imagine the uproar if an U.S. airline adopted that policy and if people didn't get one of the tickets they were out of luck.
People would start to complain about that. Can't win.
It is a sad irony that in the TSA’s efforts to protect individuals from potential harm caused by terrorists, we are potentially going to give people cancer.
TSA Scanners: Increasing Our Cancer Risk to Protect Us from Harm
By: Jon Walker Thursday November 18, 2010 10:31 amBeyond the invasion of privacy problems caused by these x-ray-based airport security “porno scanners,” there are real health concerns. According to Dr. Michael Love, these scanners are going to give some people cancer. From Alternet.org:
“They say the risk is minimal, but statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays,” Dr Michael Love, who runs an X-ray lab at the department of biophysics and biophysical chemistry at Johns Hopkins University school of medicine, told AFP.
“No exposure to X-ray is considered beneficial. We know X-rays are hazardous but we have a situation at the airports where people are so eager to fly that they will risk their lives in this manner,” he said.
The level of X-ray exposure from a single use of the machine is small, but if they are the primary screening technology at the airport, we are talking about millions of individuals exposed multiple times a year.
With the X-rays concentrated at the skin, it is statistically likely that some of these millions of people who travel through the machines will develop cancer. Individuals who are predisposed to cancer would be at increased risk.
It is a sad irony that in the TSA’s efforts to protect individuals from potential harm caused by terrorists, we are potentially going to give people cancer.
Since 9/11, we have had no Americans die as a result of weapons smuggled on to an airplane through an American airport using our previous screening system. The risk of dying that way is very small. Even if these backscatter x-ray scanners cause skin cancer in as few as one out of every 500,000 people, they still, in a safety cost-benefit analysis, do more harm to Americans than good.
Welcome to the warped world of security theater, where the treatment is even more dangerous to you than the disease.
If I can think of getting explosives AROUND a check point this quickly:
1. Have them shipped to a Burger King in the gate area, inside a package of frozen burgers.
2. Proceed thru security as passenger.
3. Use a Burger King uniform I bought on ebay to retrieve the stuff from their walk in freezer.
4. Board plane.
Can't more committed terrorist?
Note: I just defeated the aforementioned system several billion dollar system by using only myself + $15 uniform + plane ticket + explosives.
Let's assume my act then caused 300 people to die, and the loss of an aircraft.....
....my point is that flying can't be made safe. Let's realize what things we can stop, and what things we can't.
....then let's either stop flying or accept the risk.
If we need a WPA for marginally employable people, let's create one!
....we could put little WPA badges on their shirts, give them walkie talkies and everything. It would be like their current jobs, only make more sense.
[note to FBI: I have no intent to blow up a plane. Please arrest someone with actual explosives and motive]
booklaw wrote:
Actually, the right not to be molested is just as important as the right to fly (or not to fly) on a secure flight.
The path on which we are traveling leads to a complete loss of personal privacy at the hands of an all-powerful government... as in Orwell's 1984.
Today the government can confiscate your laptop and read its contents when you enter the country; tomorrow, if this continues, TSA will break down the doors of your home and cart away your computers, all without any probable cause to suspect terrorism or disloyalty... they'll say that random searches are necessary to prevent terrorists from researching and planning bombings.
Soon the TSA, ever anxious to increase its scope, will monitor your emails, texts, and phone calls. God help you if you write or say "bomb" (e.g. "that comedian really bombed last night"), "fuse" (e.g. "my wife has a really short fuse") or any other term which the TSA, in its idiocy, deems unsafe.
There are lots and lots of excuses for taking away our liberties... and relatively few people worrying about protecting them.
Beware complacency!
yeah apparently two business men met at the airport on their way to a meeting in chicago and the first one said "Hi Bill!" the second said "hi Jack!" and the TSA violated/interrogated them for hours
I wouldn't be at all surprised, especially if Bill or Jack's last name were Mohammed.
That Burger King example has got to be the STUPIDEST idea I have ever heard. That added absolutely nothing to the conversation. It should you have an obsession with fatty foods and nothing more. Seriously, I'm kind of offended someone patted themselves on the back with that post and the self-rightous, cringe inducing comment "now if I can bypass security with a $15 uniform....." I'd love for that poster to try it. In fact, I'll drive you to the airport to execute your "fool proof plan." (fool created plan?) Either way, the simple fact you wrote that is so frustrating when people are discussing a serious topic...the idiocy of that idea is only surpassed by the fact that when you finished writing it....you looked at it and thought it was a good idea!
And look, I completely understand that there is a mod rule on this sight regarding insulting others. So I want to make it clear I know nothing about this Whynot poster and I dont want you to think its a personal attack. But that idea is monumentally dumb and it deserves to be labeled as such.
Additionally, when groups of people with the last names that indicate they are black, irish, jewish, italian, polish russian, etc initiate repeated attempts to attack this country and are wildly successful in one of those attempts - then all people with those last names deserve to be given additional attention. It should be executed with dignity and respect - but they need the extra scrutiny. In the meantime, as long as the people in the aforementioned group have last names like Mohammed - people should continue to be wary. Its not racism or profiling - its common sense.
Personally, I worry about people named McVeigh.
....and I'll believe that the TSA can make flying "safer" through additional methods when similar organizations can can keep drugs out of prison.
A little story:
I used to work at inpatient drug rehab in the Adirondacks that served people upon release from prison. ...Lots of heroin addicts were unsure where they get their supply upon release and decided to try to quit as they began their new, post prison life.
My favorite story involved a guy who was in prison so long he was trusted (albeit under the watch of armed guards) to work on the crew that tended the lawn around the prison entrance. On occasion, he would leave a garden hose behind in the parking lot. Then, someone would stuff it with drugs and he would bring it inside.... even the brightest guards didn't think to check the inside of a hose....
Relevance:
I'm sure that airport security has lots of holes, and that it may be constructive for the US to realize that flying is inherently dangerous, and that determined terrorists will always find a way to make things "go boom".
Are you disturbed that a plan similar to my Burger King one may work?
You can live in fear if you wish.
....I (and others) will try to point out that the TSA is mainly a dog and pony show to keep those who don't really think about such issues calm.
Life is full of risks, and even the best (and most invasive) security protocols can be avoided. ....at some point the public will say "enough is enough", but until then, is looks like the new fangled x-ray technology will keep folks calm.
But what is the point of such technology and all of the cost and inconvenience it causes when one can simply go around it with my Burger King example, or the less clever shoulder fired missle from the Long Meadow at Prospect Park?
We seem to have 4 choices:
1. We can never leave the house, and chew our finger nails until they bleed.
2. We can try to protect ourselves against risks beyond the point of diminishing returns (such as TSA is doing now)
3. We can erroneously convince ourselves that the risks do not exist, or are eliminated by our seemingly clueless TSA.
4. We can minimize the risks from attacks by non-professionals, and then continue to live our lives knowing that professionals can and will kill us anytime they choose.
I choose #4.
Sorry, 1980. That's just wrong! Some creep named Smith tries to set off a bomb and every Smith, Jones and other WASP in the country is considered guilty until proven innocent?
How about Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber? Or Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber? Shall we profile all Americans and non-Americans with Irish or Polish names?
Should we go after people like me who point out how such systems can be easily thwarted, under the false belief that I am aiding and abetting terrorists?
...that somehow such thoughts don't enter their minds absent my bored whimsies?
Look, the Buy It Now price is $14.98
P.S. My last name is Irish
Wondering if most people know the underwear bomber boarded a plane in Amsterdam. And that Dutch airports aren't controlled by the TSA.
What your describing is NOT a bad thing. Somehow profiling became a dirty word. Its not.
Its gotten to the point that you can't even describe the race or ethnicity of an individual without someone saying, "oh, why do you have to refer to him/her in that manner." Because thats what they are! They are white or black or muslim or a WASP or whatever the hell else a person is.
We are not just faceless droids without characteristics. Those characteristics makes us who we are and define us for better or for worse.
Booklaw, its not wrong. If someone with the last named McVeigh walked into a government building in Oklahoma or someone with the last name Kaczynki sent you a package in the mail - you wouldn't be a wonderfully liberal free thinking, non profiling individual for not doing a double take, you would be a moron.
As far as Whynot's post goes. I mean really whatever, people also have these convenient little anonymous stories that exactly prove their point beyond a shadow of a doubt. Well, you must be correct because your completely one sided story that involves you as a source is clearly evidence enough this could happen.
And I choose #2. Frankly, I think people who have a problem with TSA guidelines and other situations like this are selfish, self centered brats. And they hide behind phrases such as "rights", "individuality" or "privacy." They cloak themselves in these words when they really don't believe in them and hide behind them to make a "look at me" point about how the big bad government is infringing on their life. Its complete nonsense. Those words actually MEAN something to a lot of people. They mean something in the larger scheme of the social contract between a government and its people and the steps needed to be taken to ensure future generations get an opportunity to contemplate what those words mean.
(I dont know how the mods will take this answer but here it goes.)
Since you asked the question, in my opinion, I will respect you and others on this site and give my honest opinion even if some may feel its a personal attack:
No, I do not live in fear. Certainly not fear of terrorists or anything of that nature. And what I am describing is not living in fear. Its living with the common sense and respect for a system attempting to adjust to ever changing times and willing to allow that system to try new things to keep me safe. I live no part of my life in fear of anything really bc I feel its ok to sacrifice a little of my personal time to make sure that body as a whole is safe. That word sacrifice is something that I do not think people like you know anything about. In addition, I do not hate your Burger King Idea because I am afraid it might work. I hate your Burger King Idea for the same reason that this is a beautiful, wonderful country. That a mind that has created such a stupid example and continue to defend it - is granted the same opportunities as I am. That your vote means the same as mine, that you could rise to the same level in any given area or be granted the same responsibility that I could is what disturbs me about your idea. Its the wonderful and dangerous thing about America, fools are protected too.
Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984):
They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Despite 1980's dislike of my post, we haven't answered how additional sacrifice by 1980, Booklaw (or myself) will prevent someone from pursuing something similar (and as simple as....) my Burger King idea.
...much less my more classic, less clever, Prospect Park idea.
I'm pretty sure I (a very unskilled welder) could build such a device in less than a week. If I used a little math, it would not even need a guidance system: A simple mortar/howitzer device would likely do the trick.
Note: I have made no argument that I have an inherent right to board a plane without being felt up. [Booklaw is the one who is arguing that angle, and the slippery slope that ensues].
...I simply take the perspective that a little wine, some mood lighting and jazz music would be nice before the TSA representative gets to put his/her hand down there.
As a #4 person, I'll adjust what I believe are my rights and continue to fly. I simply argue that the government's methods serve very little purpose, and can be easily circumvented. ...and are foolish as a result.
I'd even go so far to say that I would be willing to give some flyers more scrutiny IF IT WORKED. But, it wouldn't. The "professional terrorist" would find a way to create a new identity, or just decide not to fly and built that mortar tube.
http://www.docsmachine.com/nonPB/mortar.html
It doesn't look real difficult.
I'm sorry 1980 doesn't like it.
Fair enough whynot. I guess my argument is that your Burger King idea will not work in the current system. I think its one of those things were we can hypothetically argue forever about it and both of us hope that we will never have the to find out who is right. I think we could respectfully disagree and move on and in some way I guess I can appreciate that you stick to your opinion.
But booklaw, ugh!! I mean really, come on man thats disappointing on so many levels.
Fisrt off, really, did you think posting that cute little limerick was productive. Like you actually thought to yourself, "hmmm I'll put this post up and it will make my point and people will see how clever I am, win!!"
Look, i realize I am making a huge generalization here but people who do that make me so unbelievably angry. I group you with the people who make their voting decisions based on the best selling t-shirts from Urban Outfitters. (again I know I am generalizing but that post was a travesty!)
Secondly, you are thinking black and white in a grey world. No one is saying "kick out the ____" or "dont let ___ fly." One of the things I have been most proud of in post 9/11 America is everytime some nut case has attempted to single out all muslims or make racist comments or actions against innocent people, the rest of Americans point out how wrong that is and how stupid those actions are. I am not advocating anything that you are saying.
All I am saying is that extra scrutiny of an individual who fits the exact physical profile of someone who may want to kill Americas is not a bad thing. And I truly believe that anyone who is has to endure that should be mad at the people who put them in that position and not the government agency trying to adapt.
Read the mortar link.
How bright does someone have to be to weld TIG and MIG?
I can do it, and you think I'm dumb.
...the Burger King idea might need some work. For example, I'd have to be sure it wasn't a Wendy's inside the gate area. Are you really convinced someone couldn't get a package in this way?
I'm not.
P.S. The heroin guy was brighter than me. If I remember correctly, he max'd out (was not released on parole), after something like 12 years in one of NY's most secure facilities.
As a non-hospital based program, we first had to transfer him to a medical detox before we could serve him.
http://www.sjrcrehab.org/about.html
....but folks should continue to do their patriotic duty and believe the present TSA system is completely secure, or that additional measures would make it secure. We can make it so no one could defeat it! (um......)
I never said you were dumb. I think your idea is dumb.
I am as convinced that it will not work as you are that it will.
I haven't researched the Burger King idea enough to know whether it would work. It might not.
....but I believe with very little work, I (or basically anyone) could do the research necessary to create such a plan to circumvent the present system, and all the present xray-ing and groping would be shown to be the waste of money that I believe it is...
Until then, we will have a defacto WPA in place. Perhaps as unemployment grows, the TSA will employ more people.
P.S. Cool Mortar, huh?
Note to Mougar-
You still got those math skills? They might come in handy. I know a place on Ocean Ave that will rent me an OxyAct set-up. I've also had good luck getting to use equip at the body shop on Pacific Ave. and Grand Ave.
Note to the TSA and Port Authority-
Mougar and I will use our math skills and canon to protect planes from an very real threat to safe aviation travel.
Yes, we will destroy the enemy the we can readily identify and have fun in the process: Those Prospect Park geese.
They better get back to Canada where they belong. We will check our math to make sure we don't hit planes.
BTW, do we all realize that the risk of arrest really is not a deterrent to someone who is willing to give their life for a cause?
....given enough beer, many men might risk arrest just to see a bowling ball fly across a field.....
...given addiction, boredom, and the promise of financial gain, men will figure out way to sneak heroin into secure prisons.
...with enough ideology some are willing to die for a cause. No matter how much we invest in our silly TSA system, it doesn't stand a chance at being effective against them, and we may (very unnecessarily...) end up on the road Booklaw discusses.
---- Can I sue 1980 now that I am craving Burger King? It is bad for me, afterall ----
The "cute little limerick", as you put it, illustrates the end result of people failing to act when their civil liberties are stolen from them, one ethnic group at a time (exactly as you have proposed).
You were not talking about an "exact physical profile"... you said:
"when groups of people with the last names that indicate they are black, irish, jewish, italian, polish russian, etc initiate repeated attempts to attack this country and are wildly successful in one of those attempts - then all people with those last names deserve to be given additional attention."
I have no problem with "exact physical descriptions", i.e. looking for the very same individuals who were believed to be responsible for planning or executing criminal activities. But that is hugely different, just hugely different, from scrutinizing all of their countrymen, or worse, Americans who happen to have names indicating similar ethnic heritage... and that is exactly what your post suggested.
"when groups of people with the last names that indicate they are black, irish, jewish, italian, polish russian, etc initiate repeated attempts to attack this country and are wildly successful in one of those attempts - then all people with those last names deserve to be given additional attention."
Indeed, this suggestion by 1980 would represent a huge expansion off the present system, and be similar to an unacceptably large net for a few fish.
Civil liberty concerns aside, (after all, who needs 'em? - sarcasm) such an expansion would be even less efficient than our present Homeland Security "terrorist watch list".
I have read that this present list names so common that anyone with a similar name is already subject to extra scrutiny.
...until we are able to identify people by a means that can not YET be faked (such as iris scans), this seems like a tremendous waste of resources. I'm sure everyone, especially those who want to do us harm, we make sure their iris scans are accurately in the system (sarcasm).....
Give these concerns and the fact there is no need to actually be a passenger on a plane in order to take it out of the sky, why would we expand such a system?
Couldn't the folks at Homeland Security just calm down and give the savings the good folks in national park service?
Damn!
Look at all those places that say location "After Security"
http://www.ifly.com/john-f-kennedy-international-airport/shops-stores
sweet, Burger King is still there!
....c'mon, 1980, how hard could such a plan be to pull off?
I wonder what my heroin addict client is up to these days.
I'm sure he could help someone who actually had such evil intentions create a solid plan. ....I'm sure he is one of hundreds of thousands of people with his skill set.
My concern is that the TSA is focused on things like feeling up passengers and is not stopping things like this http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-14/justice/new.york.airport.cocaine_1_baggage-handlers-airline-employees-airline-workers?_s=PM:CRIME
Those same methods could easily be exploited by someone who was up to no good. As you can see from that article the entire enterprise was in operation post-9/11.
And this is by no means an isolated incident. If you google drug smuggling and any major airport you'll see the same thing, including cases where TSA employees are involved
http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/press/OIGpr_061808.pdf
So, rather than putting kids under twelve on the no-fly list because they share the same last name as someone who may be wanted for suspicion of terrorism, why not focus on making the process harder for people to take advantage of?
yes, as homeowner points out, we can't even stop drugs from entering via planes. The arrests she cites likely represent only a tiny percentage of the traffic ...the pros don't get caught.
Yes, let's use our heads.
...let's accept that we will never get rid of all the geese. Get rid of the ones near the the airstrip, but leave the others alone.
...let's accept that we will never get rid of the professionals who want to kill us, but have security in place to catch those acting on impulse.
While the pros can devise plans far wiser than my Burger King plan, I am still not certain with a little tweaking it would not work.
1980, in light of homeowner's drug posts, why are you so sure my Burger King idea would not work? Don't the airports look for drugs at the same time they look for bombs? ....isn't it obvious that they have found ways to repeatedly go around security screens? After all, a terrorist does not need to feed a constant demand like a drug smuggler ....he just needs to get his product into to our porous system once.
Over and over I type: No matter how much security we put in place, the pro terrorists will find a way to do their job.
Let's accept and understand risk, and enjoy our lives.
a. When the costs of preventing something exceeds the potential cost of the prevented action, it is time to stop preventing.
b. When the method used to prevent something is not effective (i.e. there are other ways to make planes "go boom"), it is time to spread your resources to the other threats.
If TSA is ever going to accomplish its ultimate goal [tricking Americans into feeling safe], it should pursue "a" and "b".
Although I feel like I am falling into the "arguing with fools to the point that from a distance we look similar", I will say this:
No, booklaw your cute little condescending poem is a gross exaggeration over what I was talking about. There you go again, cloaking yourself in a term like "civil liberties" when all your really concerned with is your time and your convenience. Me, me, me, me should be the title of your posts.
And I beginning to think my original assumptions if you cannot differentiate between getting drugs and bombs into the country.
Help us .... What is the difference?
Other than the fact that bombs are cheaper, and can be made using common chemicals that are harder for a dog to detect?
Slope, you're still ignoring how ineffective the TSA itself is.
I am not against security measures. I am against wasteful government spending on an inefficient and somewhat ineffective govt department.
Actually, I don't fly frequently... it makes little difference to me with respect to either time or convenience... it is mainly a matter of principle, and a concern for the future of our liberties.
You apparently don't think so, but civil liberties actually matter.
Booklaw-
I love the idea that flying can be made safe from terrorists, and that when the next attack happens the security folks can blame two groups:
A. The civil libertarians who would not let them implement more security or give them more resources.
B. Terrorists.
....it is a lot like talking with someone who believes Vietnam could have been won. They blame the protesters for losing the war. The logic was that by sympathizing with the dead civilians and the sovereignty of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, the protesters tied the hands of the military and allowed the enemy to win.
As a result of believing that life (especially flying) has inherent risks, I've always believed that one should pick their battles very carefully, and weigh the result of your possible choices:
1. Don't fight.
2. Fight with realistic goals.
3. Fight to win, using whatever means necessary. Never change course.
I kinda like #2.
....until then I would like at least a bottle of wine before they feel me up.
The same methods for bringing in drugs can be exploited by those wishing to do far more sinister things, which is why drug smuggling on commercial airlines should be an issue for all of us.
If you are saying that we should rely on the criminals who ship drugs to not get into bed with "terrorists", you've got a serious flaw in your own logic.
Howmeowner-
Are you stating that people who are willing to flood the country with drugs that destroy families, communities and lives aren't especially patriotic?! (sarcastic gasp)
You mean I could just tell the present guys who are looking the other way when cocaine is being shipped, that I am simply a new exporter and that would like the same service as his existing customers?
....hell, before the airport, I could just substitute a brick of cocaine for a brick of explosives, and not even have the conversation with the folks at the airport. Yes, I could just put it in the drug supply chain.
...I especially like that I would not even have to buy a shirt and then die like in the Burger King scenario. Brilliant.
boom.
Headline: Thinking the package was a drug shipment, the package was diverted around customs and directly on to the plane.
Welcome! Please log in to post, or register a new account!
now : threecee, naturegurl, yuppie_scum, housebroken
most recent : threecee, naturegurl, yuppie_scum, housebroken, oscarin0, notsayin, faithful, mishaps, crownheightster, epiclylaterd, limestonekid, bkchickie, dac545, reader, nothinlikeabklyngirl, tsarina, newguy88, terekete, opossumqueen, brooklynmuskateer, stewart, judy giordano banjany, pragmaticguy, bkjones, kc7179, vick5y, patsy miele kirk, admin, god, dannydih, eastbloc, ronjohnjunior, artistkaren, joshb, brownie, the collection next door
Get Brooklynian.com by Email! 
Grab the Feed (RSS)
